Forked Thread: gimme some narration

[Cadfan]

Honestly, I don't worry much about role playing as it relates to describing combat. My players are a bit new, and mostly female, and don't get into that much. They just say "I use [attack X]." and we're all happy. I describe their attacks and the results for them if or when they don't, if or when I feel its needed.

Meanwhile, they role play just fine when it comes to interacting with each other, NPCs, and talking about the session afterwords (a big part of our group's role playing, actually). And they all have fun.

Some people just don't get off on describing exactly how they chop up orcs.

 

[Ktulu]

I haven't had an issue like this with my group, but we all love narrating our attacks. Often, the name of the power doesn't get mentioned until the descriptive attack has been explained. The name of the power is just the qualifier for me to know what the player is using.

I NEVER use power names when I run a game, as it breaks the 4th wall, imo. I think that helps when I describe an attack lashing out against the player entangling him with energy, rather than, "the guy uses restraining strike" or what have you.

Because of that they make the return arguments for how they break free or how they use a power.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Rewarding people with numerical bonuses for roleplaying seems counter-productive to me. The problem is that the players are focused on number-crunching and tactics to the exclusion of the storytelling aspects you enjoy. Rewarding them with tactical, number-crunching rewards doesn't shift that focus.

You can get around that by finding ways to make good roleplaying its own reward. Think of all of the really epic moments of roleplay from your gaming career. If you're like me, they were moments that the game went "off book", away from the storyline the DM set up, making new and interesting situations that no one at the table had thought of five minutes prior. The player who roleplays well can bypass challenges, get a retinue of attendents and mercenaries to do his bidding, launch an orc from a trebuchet in order to strike fear in the hearts of the castle's defenders, etc. That's where tabletop gaming really shines. That's where it offers an experience you can't get anywhere else. When the players surprise the DM, it's a glorious thing, and it doesn't happen without roleplaying.

So here's what you do: present the PCs with challenges that can't be solved with 3[W]+INT damage. Give them a situation that they can't roll their way out of--a scenario in which they can't just pick a skill, roll it, and move on. Get them thinking about what their characters would do, and how they want to solve the problem. All of roleplaying evolves from this. The epic descriptions, the surprising results, the moments you'll be talking about four years from now, all come from these kinds of situations. You need to give your players a chance to build up this creative part of their brains.

 

[pukunui]

I think playstyles are much obvious during combat since most of the rules usage are in combat. I roleplay the same way when i go into an inn and order a jug of ale from the dwarf, but i play differently in combat in 3.5 compared to exalted.

Yeah, I can see that.

Some people just don't get off on describing exactly how they chop up orcs.

That's not really what I'm getting at though. As the DM, I know it's next to impossible (and not necessarily beneficial) to elaborately narrate every action in combat, especially when a given character is doing the same thing repeatedly or you have a group of monsters who all do the same thing. In those cases, it's usually enough to just describe it the first time and then say "I do it again" or whatever on subsequent occasions (perhaps punctuated by a slight variation now and again just to keep things from getting too boring and repetitive). It's also easier to give flashy descriptions for flashy things - such as most magic spells - than it is to give flashy descriptions for more "mundane" actions, like shooting an arrow at someone.

I don't expect people to say "I bring my sword around in a wide arc, slashing deeply into the orc's mid-section, causing its blood to spray all over my blade and its guts to spill out onto its armor ..." all the time.

But I don't think it's too much to expect people to use an in-character description, even if it's simply "I swing my axe at the goblin, trading power for precision" instead of "I use sure strike" or "I fire two arrows at the target in quick succession" instead of "I use twin strike".

I'm happy to narrate the resolution of actions in combat myself. But I would like people to describe their actions "in-character" rather than simply stating what mechanics they are using. It doesn't have to be fancy or elaborate. It just has to be "in-character".

Does that make sense?

I haven't had an issue like this with my group, but we all love narrating our attacks. Often, the name of the power doesn't get mentioned until the descriptive attack has been explained. The name of the power is just the qualifier for me to know what the player is using.

Can I join your group please?

I NEVER use power names when I run a game, as it breaks the 4th wall, imo. I think that helps when I describe an attack lashing out against the player entangling him with energy, rather than, "the guy uses restraining strike" or what have you.

This is how I DM too. But it doesn't seem to work when I lead by example.

Rewarding people with numerical bonuses for roleplaying seems counter-productive to me. The problem is that the players are focused on number-crunching and tactics to the exclusion of the storytelling aspects you enjoy. Rewarding them with tactical, number-crunching rewards doesn't shift that focus.

Good point.

So here's what you do: present the PCs with challenges that can't be solved with 3[W]+INT damage. Give them a situation that they can't roll their way out of--a scenario in which they can't just pick a skill, roll it, and move on.

I don't suppose you could give me an example?

 

[Cadfan]

But I don't think it's too much to expect people to use an in-character description, even if it's simply "I swing my axe at the goblin, trading power for precision" instead of "I use sure strike" or "I fire two arrows at the target in quick succession" instead of "I use twin strike".

I'm happy to narrate the resolution of actions in combat myself. But I would like people to describe their actions "in-character" rather than simply stating what mechanics they are using. It doesn't have to be fancy or elaborate. It just has to be "in-character".

Does that make sense?

That's fine and all. I'm just saying that its a complete non priority for a lot of people.

For my friends, even when we're being descriptive, its a mixed bag of in and out of character speech.

I think my players would be surprised if I told them that having their pc act in character also required them to stay in character.

 

[pukunui]

That's fine and all. I'm just saying that its a complete non priority for a lot of people.

For my friends, even when we're being descriptive, its a mixed bag of in and out of character speech.

I think my players would be surprised if I told them that having their pc act in character also required them to stay in character.

OK, maybe "in-character" isn't the right term. What I want is for them to describe an action rather than just say "I use x power" or "I roll Diplomacy to persuade the duke to help us". Sometimes that's ok. I don't need a description of someone climbing a ladder, for instance. Just saying, "I climb the ladder. Athletics check ..." is fine. But where a description - whether it's "I do ..." or "My character does ..." or whatever - can add to the game and make the players feel like they're in their characters' shoes instead of just playing a glorified boardgame, I would vastly prefer that to using purely gamist/mechanical terms.

The thing is that while my players might be fine with that, I am not ... and it is impacting negatively on my gaming experience. It is making me not want to DM anymore because I'm not enjoying it. I suppose the only real solution is to give up and try to find players who do play according to my style.

 

[Lacyon]

The thing is that while my players might be fine with that, I am not ... and it is impacting negatively on my gaming experience. It is making me not want to DM anymore because I'm not enjoying it. I suppose the only real solution is to give up and try to find players who do play according to my style.

Maybe you could find at least one new player that you can trust to narrate the way you like, and add that person to the group. Even if he doesn't get the others to follow his example, that one guy might at least make the difference between game sessions feeling fun and feeling like a chore.

It also means you don't have to give up on your current group of friends and try to find a whole new group all at once.

 

[Cadfan]

OK, maybe "in-character" isn't the right term. What I want is for them to describe an action rather than just say "I use x power" or "I roll Diplomacy to persuade the duke to help us".

There's a pretty big gap between "I use X power" and "I roll Diplomacy to persuade the Duke to help us." The former is a useful shorthand in a game where there are a lot of powers and where how you describe it has no effect on the outcome. The latter has none of these attributes.

Are your players actually saying "I roll diplomacy" without telling you what their characters say? Or are they restricting that sort of behavior to things where there is no dialogue, like attacks or athletics checks to climb a rope?

Sometimes that's ok. I don't need a description of someone climbing a ladder, for instance. Just saying, "I climb the ladder. Athletics check ..." is fine. But where a description - whether it's "I do ..." or "My character does ..." or whatever - can add to the game and make the players feel like they're in their characters' shoes instead of just playing a glorified boardgame, I would vastly prefer that to using purely gamist/mechanical terms.

D&D isn't a glorified board game. If D&D were a board game, it would be vastly sub par by modern board game standards. That's how you can tell its an RPG.

Just figured that I'd pipe up to explain that the snobbery is supposed to go the other direction.

People who play go, then people who play chess, then people who play eurogames, then people who play amerigames, then RPGers. Then people who play CCGs and LARP.

Miniature gamers and people who play cardboard counter wargames are off on their own scale somewhere.

 

[pukunui]

Just a quick note to say that I will respond in more detail but I'm at work and I'm already spending too much time on this as it is, so it'll have to wait until I get home this evening. I do want to address some of the points raised since I last posted, though.

Cheers.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I haven't had an issue like this with my group, but we all love narrating our attacks. Often, the name of the power doesn't get mentioned until the descriptive attack has been explained. The name of the power is just the qualifier for me to know what the player is using.

All my 4E at the moment is in Play-By-Post format, which works really well for this.

The cinematic narration makes no reference to game mechanics... and then all the mechanical behind-the-scenes information is appended in an sblock.

Regdar storms across the field, brushing the orc's hastily-leveled spear aside with his shield, and smashes the pommel of his longsword into the brutish creature's face. The orc stumbles back a pace, blinking away stars, then brings his spear up to a guard position once more...

[sblock]Move action to move three squares to K2, then standard action for Tide of Iron on the orc in K3. A 22 hits his AC, right? 11 damage, and push one square to K4. Plus he's marked.[/sblock]

-Hyp.