D&D 5E Narrative combat - can anyone share practical experience?

[robus]

So it seems this is not something that is at all common? Ok I'll tread carefully and probably fail spectacularly

 

[Satyrn]

you're tussling with a giant steam-clank on an ocean liner in the middle of a thunderstorm.

Added to my notes.

 

[BoldItalic]

In the later parts of the "So long and thanks for all the fish" thread, which transmogrified after you last posted in it, [MENTION=6801558]robus[/MENTION], there are now lots of examples of narrative combat with no dice-rolling at all and initiative is, well, not taken seriously, to say the least. But they definitely shouldn't be taken as examples of "how to play D&D" unless you want the joke kind of game where anything can happen (and probably will). On the contrary, it's an awful warning of the chaos that can result if you don't regulate combat and just narrate the results ad lib. It's crazy fun, though; it's now the #2 funniest thread ever.

But to answer your question, I think the best advice I could give, is, yes, use narrative to short-circuit the game mechanics if that helps with the pacing, or if the outcome is practically a foregone conclusion, but be careful to narrate outcomes that could legitimately have occurred if they had been laboriously played out between DM and PCs. Don't deny the PCs the opportunity to do creative stuff that makes the session memorable, but equally don't let them pronounce outcomes that bend the plot too much in their favour. Perhaps use it sparingly, until you and your players are comfortable with it.

Come back and tell us what happens

 

[robus]

But to answer your question, I think the best advice I could give, is, yes, use narrative to short-circuit the game mechanics if that helps with the pacing, or if the outcome is practically a foregone conclusion, but be careful to narrate outcomes that could legitimately have occurred if they had been laboriously played out between DM and PCs. Don't deny the PCs the opportunity to do creative stuff that makes the session memorable, but equally don't let them pronounce outcomes that bend the plot too much in their favour. Perhaps use it sparingly, until you and your players are comfortable with it.

Come back and tell us what happens

I'm not saying I want to switch to it full time but just for those crazy moments that should be epic but that the combat rules don't really support.

 

[Satyrn]

I'm not saying I want to switch to it full time but just for those crazy moments that should be epic but that the combat rules don't really support.

Oh. I guess I actually do what you're asking about.

Yeah, it's really just a matter of not using the combat rules.

Just go back to the player declaring his action and goal, and you narrating the result describing the effect and what the NPC does in response, calling for dice rolls as necessary. These dice rolls will mostly just be whatever ability check seems appropriate versus a reasonable DC (using 10 or 15 works for everything) or opposed check. You just continue on until the narration gets to the point where victory/defeat is evident, similar to how you know that a scene of tough negotiation has reached the end in a social encounter.


You could add some rules structure to determining victory or defeat by treating it a bit like a 4e skill challenge - once the players get enough successes the narration turns to victory.

 

[robus]

I guess it is just as simple as that. Just don't switch into combat rules. Just the standard conversation and don't push the monsters hard. The PCs are gnats that a monster swats at until they find its Achilles heel or whatever.

 

[the Jester]

I'm not saying I want to switch to it full time but just for those crazy moments that should be epic but that the combat rules don't really support.

I'm not sure where the combat rules don't really support those crazy moments, though.

The examples in this thread that I've read certainly are. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but more and more, "narrative combat" sounds to me more and more like... somewhere between laziness and slavish adherence to a desired outcome: "Eh, there are too many things to keep track of, let's skip initiative." "Eh, I made this combat too hard, let's not actually roll attacks and stuff against the party, because I really want them to be able to win."

Can you give me a good example of a situation that the combat rules don't support?

 

[Satyrn]

. . . "narrative combat" sounds to me more and more like... somewhere between laziness and slavish adherence to a desired outcome . . .

 

[the Jester]

Like I said, I'm not sure how else to interpret this, but I'd love to get a clearer picture. I'm not trying to be insulting to anyone, just trying to get a better idea of what we're actually discussing.

EDIT: Again, I'd love some actual concrete examples.

 

[Ratskinner]

Ahh, I was thinking it was combat between narratives - two DMs battling to assert their own realities upon the gameworld, with the players caught in between. One moment you're battling a dragon on the lip of a volcano, the next you're tussling with a giant steam-clank on an ocean liner in the middle of a thunderstorm.

I've actually played games where the players are almost doing just that. The mechanics are all about fighting over control of the narrative. It actually worked quite well as a game, depending on your tastes. The weirdest part was that strategy happened in the player space more than the narrative space. Everything, including combat, was handled quasi-abstractly.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using EN World mobile app