Narration back into the system

[Tymophil]

I have to say that I am not satisfied with D&D4 as it is. It is, in my opinion, the best incarnation of D&D so far... But it suffers from some serious flaws.
During any encounter, I have the feeling I am playing a badly designed wargame, as a player or a Dungeon master, I cannot give a narration of the fight. Still, I want combats to be another roleplay experience. It seems possible, but rather difficult.

Let's begin with hit points. Here what I have in mind to roleplay them.

In my mind, before you get bloodied, each hp lost represents, depending on the form of attack, a loss of stamina, confidence, situational awareness, etc. When you get bloodied you think you have been wounded wounded. Then every loss of hp can be seen as another loss of stamina, confidence, etc. Or, could represent a larger splash of blood on you.
When you spend a healing surge or receive some healing during a fight, then it means that you somehow gather your thoughts and regain some confidence, balance, breath, etc. If you're still bloodied after the healing, you still believe that you're wounded, but gather some new confidence, stamina, etc.
If you are no more bloodied, you have now a better evaluation of the situation. You find out that the blood splat is from a superficial scratch, it's only sweat after all, it's in fact your opponent's blood, etc.
When you spend healing surges after the fight, and had been bloodied, it simply portrays the fact that you thoroughly scan your body discovering that your supposed wounds were not that serious after all. If your still bloodied, then you were actually wounded...

Did some of you come up with similar “fluff” to instil some roleplay into the D&D4 system ?

 

[SkidAce]

I haven't gotten that detailed or specific.

But I understand your concerns. For me, all I need is that idea or a similar one in my head that allows me to frame the actions during the combat.

Once the players "bloodied" a hobgoblin lurker that they had to keep chasing around the destroyed fort, I described him as winded and easier to "hit" cause his dodges were slowing down.

The players can help too. One rogue has a tendency when he thinks he will finish off the critter with his next attack to get real descriptive as he rolls the dice. If he hit's I roll with it. (pun intended)

"Yes, your dagger does indeed decapitate the unholy knight, and his head falls to the ground next to your feet"

If he misses, or rolls lower damage and does not kill it as he expected "The unholy knight suffers a horrendous gash next to his neck and shoulder" or if he was WAY off with his calculations on the knight's hp "Metal screams as your blade catches the knights cold iron collar, and he sneers at you"

It's just a way of thinking that applies to any role playing game we interact with.

 

[the Jester]

Hit points have always been hellaciously abstract. 4e isn't new in that regard, nor is it new that many people seem to overlook or disregard that and then wonder why there's some cognitive dissonance in the way they look at damage.

I just keep it abstract enough that it passes my "believability sniff test." Your scheme here seems fine; but I prefer to think that hit points mean different things to different people. Maybe all the wounds before he's bloodied are flesh wounds on the barbarian, while they're exhaustion and fatigue build up for the fighter.

 

[Barastrondo]

I don't have the same trouble with my group of instilling fluff into the system, but yeah, we use similar descriptive tactics. Not all the time -- sometimes it's sufficient for our friend to say "He bleeds his own blood," a fun little code-word of ours, but yes. A critter reels back, a boar-man seeps blood and begins to frenzy, things like that.

Another thing that seems to keep everyone on the same page is heavily reskinning players' powers. The warforged fighter's "Come and Get It" is a series of hooks launched on chains that drag enemies to him, and his Sweeping Blow involves unlatching at the waist and doing a quick 360-degree sweep. My "feylock" calls himself a Penumbral Adept, with his "curse" being a symbiotic link placed on an opponent's shadow and several powers being reskinned to involve dagger and shadow motifs.

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

If the narration is missing it is because you and your group are not doing it, it has nothing to do with the system.

 

[Neverfate]

If the narration is missing it is because you and your group are not doing it, it has nothing to do with the system.

But the book doesn't tell me HOW to do it. System's broken.

 

[Lostdwarf]

But the book doesn't tell me HOW to do it. System's broken.

My sarcasim detector is a bit spotty today. Is this serious or a shot at people who don't like the system? I honestly can't tell.

 

[Neverfate]

My sarcasim detector is a bit spotty today. Is this serious or a shot at people who don't like the system? I honestly can't tell.

I know a few people who just get so hung up on the little details of combat. I do too. But there's a limit to "this is what the rules say to do" I can stand to hear about. Sometimes you as a player or a DM have to make something happen that's not in the books. So yeah. Sarcasm.

 

[Lostdwarf]

This goes back to an issue that has been with Dnd since the very first days, namely, what the heck is a hit point?

Hit points are very, very abstract. You can have a human with 80 hit points, a magical beast with 80 hit points, and a barrier with 80 hit points. In the case of the barrier, you have to pound, hack, smash, shock, burn, and othewise abuse the barrier that much before it breaks.

But the human would be long dead taking the same abuse. His 80 hit points represent his ability to dodge, block, roll with blows, duck, and generally avoid letting what should have been a lethat attack kill him. Being "bloodied" is an abstract as well. You might be bleeding after taking 1 hp of damage depending on the source, or you might not actually show any blood until the final blow that takes you negative. Its an abstract way of saying "getting in bad shape".

The magical beast with 80 hp is probably somewhere in between the two examples. It is physically more robust than the human, but not as tough as the barrier. It's hitpoints represent a combination of being able to avoid/mitigate damage and being able to absorb it.

I agree with those in this thread that say if you are unable to narrate combat its becuase you are not trying. There is not a forced, mechanical description of what a "hit" in dnd combat does, but that is because dnd is not and does not try to be a simulation. If you are looking for a "realistic" simulation of combat you will never like this game. Dnd combat is a cinimatic abstraction, and you and the DM fill in the details of what is going on. If you expect it to be a blow by blow "I swing my sword, lets see if he can get the shield in the way, nope he failed, ok lets see how much of the blow the armor absorbs" kind of game you are soooo playing the wrong system.

 

[Neverfate]

Personally, as a player and DM, I fall in-between (though, I've developed a bad habit of rushing combats due to the LFR format) of just attacking/mechanics and actually describing what's going on with the characters/creatures during that attack.

4E's combat system can be daunting at times. I don't think the DMGs and Kits explained well enough how you can abstract from the basic "delve"/combat format. That combat can roll into a skill challenge or pop out of one. I think the books offer the rules and don't offer enough advice how to use them dynamically or theatrically and know when to stop saying "these are the strict guidelines".

4E easily lends itself to being a well-crafted tactical combat game, but doesn't HAVE to be that. I think that's what the books don't exploit enough. Either because WotC has to sell minis or player-power-source books or are looking to nab the WoW crowd (or a million other reasons). They just too often stick to the script and don't show us alternative methods so we, regardless of who we are, sometimes don't realize it.