Where does one draw the line between narrative description and actual game mechanics?
A battle against a flail wielding Tzitzimitl might go something like this...
There is a fat, blurry line between creatively describing ordinary actions and trying to game the system with words, between granting narrative control to your players and crushing creativity with an overabundance of never-likely-to-succeed checks and rules.
Where do you fall? How would you handle the above schism, as the player or as the GM? How might you go about resolving such clear differences in gaming expectations?
Just to be clear, the above is merely an example of play meant to generate discussion and to promote good advice on the topic, it hasn't actually occurred in our games.
I think it depends on the game. By the time you encountered the cr 19 creature you have likely got all the kins out as far as the narrative paradigm.
One day a week I play with a group where there is not slot of narration. On the other hand my other gsme the class is very narrative focused and the climb up the flail this g is the stuff he wants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm unaccustomed to such narration as well. As long as the description did not violate what could actual be done by the rules, or provide a bonus that would not otherwise be given, I would continue on and allow it as though the character had simply moved.
In essence, he describes it as clinging to the weapon and attacking the neck. But the AC isn't lower, he will still take AoO as normal for a the movement, it doesn't cause more damage, etc. Mechanically as long is it's something the character could regularly do, I don't care how flowery he gets.
Now, if he wants bonus damage for striking a specific part of the body and to have some mechanical benefit from being on the shoulder...well thats where things will get dicey.
First, I'd probably make him use the called shot rules. So -10 to hit. If he actually manages to get onto the giant's shoulders by performing a series of jumps/climbs I would negate the penalty. Not sure exactly what bonus I would give. After watching a lot of Attack on Titan, I might let you kill it outright.
But...honestly it wouldn't be easy to accomplish. And I would let the player know that in advance, so they choose whether they want to do it the normal way, or if they really want to go after the advantage.
|
We try to run combat as quick as possible. While fun, combat is adventure/role play relief for us. The above player would probably find our combat sessions very boring. Its typically "I move here and let loose an arrow" or " I move into flanking and sneak attack". Our taste tends towards gritty lethal and realistic as opposed to larger than life heroics making player in above example even more bored.
If the above case is the player looking for bonuses or called shots Id probably crush his creativity with an overabundance with rules...etc. If the player just wanted to move and attack but add flair Id be like sure roll your to hit you miss/hit, ok next on the initative is...
I prefer to leave the game jargon out of the narrative. Instead of "using Power Attack", I might say "ferociously". Instead of "using Vital Strike", I might say "takes one mighty swing."
After I do the narrative, I say the crunch. "The undead monstrosity ferociously takes one mighty swing and attempts to crush you like a bug under his massive, house-sized flail. 32 to hit." Similarly, if they actually want to make a grapple check, they'd end with "30 vs CMD" or if they just want to attack they'd say "30 to hit".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Mechanicspeak" is all shorthand for very necessary purposes.
"Antonio 5-foot steps in and thrusts...17 hit?" Is much easier for the GM to parse than "Antonio twists his way towards the ghast and swats the fiend with his shortsword!" (Which still needs the 'immersion breaking' die roll and obligatory "I hit Armor Class 17.")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All that matters to me is what they are mechanically trying to do. I just look at it as miscommunication. The player was being descriptive, and the GM took it literally.
Now if the player says they really want to do something like that I would just let them know I dont use the called shots subsystem, and that would be the end of it.
I try and encourage narration in my game as i find it helps make for more memorable games i also give a bonus for really good narration and not just in combat but also when using skills
|
I find newer players lean more towards narrative, and frankly, I find its something I miss as they get more experienced.
I fall prey to it too though, probably from the fact combat in some cases becomes somewhat routine.
Instead of describing how I use my gribbly implements, I tend to just say 'I attempt to end his life. Power attacking!' or 'I attempt to end his life, cautiously..so I'm using combat expertise.'
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I think that is too much description. Yeah, it sounds cool and all, until you think about everyone in the party telling a story for each swing, and realize how long it will take about to get through a combat.
A tiny bit of verbalizing and describing your characters actions goes a long way, let the rest play out in your head.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer the players to include a narrative description, as in the example. However my experience with PF is that it tend to end up in mechanics-speak.
Perhaps I am just bitter (or presently enamoured in other systems), but to me PF-combat is so mechanics heavy, that you - as a player - loose interest in contributing to the narration. Especially since your narrative creativity does not affect the mechanical system. At the end of the day the fighter in the example is not going to do anything else the shave off X hit points from the monster, no matter how cool the describtion.
So when you end up at combat that is taking one or several hours, and you are only going to use the couple of actions that are viable choices, just stating your actions mechanically is a lot faster and easier.
While other systems implement the narrative control into the mechanics (for both GM and players), or incorporate the narrative development in every aspect of the game, I've yet to see flavor trumph mechanics in a PF game.
This is not to rant against PF, or to suggest that flavor doesn't have its place in the game, but while the system has a lot of strengths, this, IMO, is not one of them.
This not the kind of question that you can give a nice pat, simplistic universal answer, but a case by case issue. Your narrative moves are going to be limited by system mechanics. Since there are no such things as called shots, you can't say "I pluck out his eye" save under very special circumstances.
I would like to point out that's not entirely correct.
There are called shot rules provided in Pathfinder, as an optional rule system.
If the player in question were hoping to get a mechanical benefit out of his description, I'm sure he would have asked the GM about it.
Thats a good question.
I think if the combat went the way you beautifully described it I would let it fly simply because it essentially was just moving up and attacking, but with narrative flair. He wasn't getting any extra mechanical advantage without actually rolling appropriate checks or anything.
EDIT: How long does it take a 50' tall creature to eat a sun? Based on your title and creature I had assume that is where this was going.
Most players I know that get this eloquent, myself included, usually wait for the results of their action before they get flowery and descriptive about the resulting splash of viscera. That way, if it botches, you can end it on a terrible joke instead of breaking up what sounded like an amazing performance of prowess with sudden failure.
Flavor is a good way for the players to feel like they're doing more than just "Ug walk up and hit with sword." The OP's example of a player's narrative attack is a great example of this, as long as the player understands that just because they're hacking at the monster's neck, they're not going to cause it any additional detriment. Imagine that instead of a CR 19 undead, it's a CR 10 Huge-sized Giant of some sort (I'd look up something specific, but I'm being lazy). If the player hits, you might have a hard time explaining to a more narrative-centric Player that the giant isn't dead/in shock/bleeding out horrifically after sustaining 39 damage to the side of its neck with a power attack from a battle axe.
One thing to keep in mind is that in D&D/PF is that HP and indeed most parts of combat are an abstraction. HP tend to be more of one's ability to avoid harm than sustain it without dying. 3.5 had a great section about HP's that talked about this abstraction that said that said HP's can represent anything from ability to avoid harm to physical combat fatigue to dumb luck to divine providence (Example given being a Paladin being unfazed after soaking a fireball). Only the last few hits should do any real harm to a person as humans are actually really very fragile creatures. Alas, Pathfinder Core lacks this section.
I recently played in a game where the GM and another player didn't quite understand that. We were about 5th level, and a party member got shot in the lower back by an enemy archer for about 6 points of damage. After we sought cover, she started working to deal with the arrow, she examined it and the GM (being a logical fellow) said it was a man killer so it was very barbed, making pulling it out unviable. It was suggested to push it through, cut off the head and pull it back out (as you should normally do with most arrows), the GM stated that because of its placement that would kill or almost kill her because it would go through a lot of organs on the way through. (We eventually dealt with it using the clever method of randomly forgetting its existence and getting on with our lives.)
That's one example of adding fluff to an attack that actually wound up making what should be the most minor inconvenience in the game at that level a massive hindrance that nearly killed a PC. I personally try not to describe the damage dealt or attacks because they invariably wind up being too lethal-sounding for someone, or making a player feel disgruntled when they describe a huge amazing attack that hits and does damage only to have the GM describe its resolution as "The monster just barely manages to get out of the way in time, avoiding harm." I did have an idea recently which was to not describe attacks except for particularly epic circumstances or if they will hint at some defense the monsder has, like DR. But then when a player kills something, before letting them know that it's dead, tell them "Describe your attack," followed by whatever they say going off perfectly. This gives the player a feeling of being a super badass while avoiding "But I hit Mister Wizard-McBadguy in the neck with my axe!"
Wow.....that dragged on a bit... <.< >.>
Now let's throw a wrench into the works.
Replace the fighter with a rogue, who is moving into a legal flanking position with an ally (using the exact same narrative description shown in the opening post).
Normally, a rogue moving up and attacking such a large creature would NOT get sneak attack, since they can't reach any vital areas.
As you can see, it is hard to get a sneak attack on a giant's vital organs if all you can reach is his big toe--even while flanking. You'd have to be standing on a balcony, able to leap up high enough to reach a tendon, or some other vulnerable point.
Would you allow said rogue to essentially use narrative flair to get sneak attack? If so, is that not a mechanical advantage that breaks the rules? After all, a normal rogue moving up and attacking wouldn't qualify. Why should this one?
Discuss.
Well, in this case it is explicitly stated in the rules that in order to gain the benefit of the ability, you much be able to reach a vital spot. So, in this case if a rogue wishes to gain the benefits of sneak attack, then they would have to actually roll on skills - for instance, acrobatics to swing up and latch onto the giant's belt.
|
|
I'd default to flanking position since its yes or no and not worry too much about "vital spot". If the rogue is by rules flanking, sure he can make up whatever narrative he wants in how he sneak attacks the giant. Though, if the rogue was not flanking and tried to narrate a sneak attack I wouldnt allow it.
I'm pretty certain, RAW, you need to be able to find and reach a vital spot AND need to qualify for sneak attack (such as by flanking).
One or the other won't cut it I believe.
Now let's throw a wrench into the works.
Replace the fighter with a rogue, who is moving into a legal flanking position with an ally (using the exact same narrative description shown in the opening post).
Normally, a rogue moving up and attacking such a large creature would NOT get sneak attack, since they can't reach any vital areas.
** spoiler omitted **
As you can see, it is hard to get a sneak attack on a giant's vital organs if all you can reach is his big toe--even while flanking. You'd have to be standing on a balcony, able to leap up high enough to reach a tendon, or some other vulnerable point.
Would you allow said rogue to essentially use narrative flair to get sneak attack? If so, is that not a mechanical advantage that breaks the rules? After all, a normal rogue moving up and attacking wouldn't qualify. Why should this one?
Discuss.
Vital areas are in the thighs and lower legs also. If the creature has a non-humanoid shape then I guess it is GM's discretion to determine the anatomy.
From the post I have read nobody has agree to give the fighter a mechanical advantage based on the narrative.
Unless someone uses mechanics, they don't gain a mechanical benefit in combat. I'm all for granting circumstantial bonuses in RP situations outside of combat, though
|
|
I'm pretty certain, RAW, you need to be able to find and reach a vital spot AND need to qualify for sneak attack (such as by flanking).
One or the other won't cut it I believe.
Perhaps but there isnt anything substantial in the rules to dictate a vital spot or not. I am sure as hell not going to let combat bog down in arguing about vital spots on mythical monsters that dont even exist. My GM executive decision is to forget the vital spot as just flavoring on the rogue ability and trump it with flank or FF. Rogue is bent enough by the system no need to scare your players from even attempting to play them.
|
My group has stopped describing the attack in such manners. My DM looks at combat like this:
Each round is 6 seconds.
He expects that the attack roll is part of your fighting style and a offensive move during that 6 seconds. Maybe our blades crossed 2-3 times before I find that right spot where it lands...if I missed the attack it just looks like 2 fighters blocking, dodging, and parrying the blows.
Perhaps you only caught the creature in the arm...it is still up but looking worst then the prior round...
The creature dying is the deadly stroke to the vital part and is described by the dm. "Your Sword finds his Neck and severs his throat. He drops to the ground dead."
Also when we have to think of every attack to describe it slows down game play. So we sort of skip over a lot of detail on how your sword swing landed this time verses the last time.
|
|
I'm pretty certain, RAW, you need to be able to find and reach a vital spot AND need to qualify for sneak attack (such as by flanking).
One or the other won't cut it I believe.
I believe that you are wrong.
You can sneak attack undead and constructs. What vital spots do they have?
This was one of the significant changes in pathfinder, sneak attacks are far more common.
Part of why rogues are so overpowered :-) :-) :-) :-)
|
|
Perhaps but there isnt anything substantial in the rules to dictate a vital spot or not. I am sure as hell not going to let combat bog down in arguing about vital spots on mythical monsters that dont even exist. My GM executive decision is to forget the vital spot as just flavoring on the rogue ability and trump it with flank or FF. Rogue is bent enough by the system no need to scare your players from even attempting to play them.
Knowing vital spots on all sorts of creatures is deffinatly difficult to do. Take a human for instance:
Eyes, Neck, Heart, Lungs, spine and brain are considered Vital points
Kidneys are less vital in the moment of combat but you will still die without them...just a painful day or so later depending on if you can stop the bleeding.
The Femeral Artery is an extreme Vital spot on a human that most people don't know about...inner thigh 2 inchs above the knee...a good deep slice there will bleed you out in about 1-2 minutes if it happens mid fight with your blood pumping from the physical toll combat takes on a body. That's faster then any ambulance can get to you.
Finding more rare knowledge of anatomy comes from Knowing each creature...
The fighter is just trying to get as much of the blade into them as possible and without the proper Know of every creature the player is stuck on the same...going for the throat mindset. known vital targets for humanoid shaped creatures...
Honestly all this should be left up to the DM to describe the devastating blow to the creature. Having the players do it is kind of a time waste when they can be figuring out there next turn as opposed to thinking about where they want to attack next and some descriptive way that sounds plausible.
@ the OP: if my player took the time to craft such an awesome description I'd probably let them. I would however follow with (if the creature doesn't die) some equally cool riposte where the thing's eyes being so close blind the PC momentarily whereupon he swats you away; slam attack plus damage hitting the wall AND damage from the uncontrolled fall into the crater in the floor.
I'm with Pan though. Most of my combats are: move here; attack; repeat.
@ the OP: if my player took the time to craft such an awesome description I'd probably let them. I would however follow with (if the creature doesn't die) some equally cool riposte where the thing's eyes being so close blind the PC momentarily whereupon he swats you away; slam attack plus damage hitting the wall AND damage from the uncontrolled fall into the crater in the floor.
I'm with Pan though. Most of my combats are: move here; attack; repeat.
Do you mean slam damage + additional damage from hitting a wall + additional damage from falling?
Or do you mean simple slam damage, which is described as being the accumulation of those three things?
This is why I dont like using minis and maps. I tend use theater of the mind and it elicits these kinds of narratives much more frequently. When I get something like this, now we aren't thinkifng in terms of which square is who occupying and is there flanking, instead we let the narrative dictate that. Example: "I'll skirt around the enemies between me and the fighter to get in flanking position and stab it in the back." With the exposition mentioned by the OP, if the character mentioned a desire for flanking bonuses, I would just ask for a single roll, acrobatics or grappling. Whenever my players ask for any kind of mechanical bonus, I just break it down into 1 check per bonus if they're trying any sort of stunt. I had a very acrobatic rogue in one of my parties who loves using his hand crossbow mid-flip for a bonus to the attack roll, saying its a distraction. If he fails he falls to the ground. I feel its important to keep up the pace in combat and maintain an engaging narrative if that is what you are interested in.
I'm pretty certain, RAW, you need to be able to find and reach a vital spot AND need to qualify for sneak attack (such as by flanking).
One or the other won't cut it I believe.
Hamstringing someone's legs is pretty fair game for a rogue.
In our games, we have two or three players that like to get creative. When they do, Combat Maneuver Checks always come into play. If it turns out to be something flashy that gets the character into trouble or kills the monster or wins the day, then all too often that player is awarded extra XP.
Where do you fall? How would you handle the above schism, as the player or as the GM? How might you go about resolving such clear differences in gaming expectations?
If I'm honest, this is why I prefer far, far simpler combat resolution that doesn't have convoluted maneuver rules in. I prefer systems that keep it all as abstract as possible with mechanics (roll to hit, roll to damage, done) and leave maneuvers to narrative or GM spot rulings.
Yeah, I'm pretty much with everyone else.
If they're doing it just to sound cool, go for it.
If they want a mechanical benefit, I'll come up with a DC and a relevant check for it (assuming it's something they can do with the actions they have).
How might Organized Society play impact any of your answers?
I would let it fly but i wouldntgive any bonuses. I wouldnt ask for a climb or acrobatics check either. Now if he missed i would have simply stated that the monster rolled his shoulder as the player was taking a swing and he missed due to that. IF the player them wanted to do an acrobatics check to stay on, then i would bring out all the mechanical rolls he missed to get in that position.
How might Organized Society play impact any of your answers?
It doesn't, because I think that OS is the worst thing to happen to this hobby and I never play :D
How might Organized Society play impact any of your answers?
I wouldn't play PFS, much less RUN it.
But I don't think there's anything in the Big Book of Stuff that says a PFS GM has to shut down a player creatively describing things.
How might Organized Society play impact any of your answers?I wouldn't play PFS, much less RUN it.
But I don't think there's anything in the Big Book of Stuff that says a PFS GM has to shut down a player creatively describing things.
Given what I recall from PFS, the GM doesn't really have much say in running at all.
@ the OP: if my player took the time to craft such an awesome description I'd probably let them. I would however follow with (if the creature doesn't die) some equally cool riposte where the thing's eyes being so close blind the PC momentarily whereupon he swats you away; slam attack plus damage hitting the wall AND damage from the uncontrolled fall into the crater in the floor.
I'm with Pan though. Most of my combats are: move here; attack; repeat.
Do you mean slam damage + additional damage from hitting a wall + additional damage from falling?
Or do you mean simple slam damage, which is described as being the accumulation of those three things?
Does it matter? It's all fluff anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't always play PFS, but when I do, I play epic level. Stay epic, my friends.
Seriously I don't think there's any specific rules that would disallow fluff for fluff's sake but I think (as people have mentioned) if the PCs want a mechanical benefit (such as a bonus to attack from being on the shoulder = higher ground or some such) then there'd have to be rolls made and you'd have to drill down into things like AoO's for occupying the same space as your enemy, etc.
Roll on!
This is a fundamental issue I have with games like Pathfinder.
In PF, how you do something is highly defined. The game doesn't dictate the direction of sword swings, but the purpose and effect of your sword swing are highly dictated by the type of action you are invoking.
Pro: This allows players to specialize in areas of different mechanics, creating rewarding mechanical differences between PC's. For the GM, it allows them to use monsters that behave very differently, not just in fluff, but mechanically as well. Thematic elements of both PC's and enemies is very clear and highly defined. These mechanical differences also serve as a guidepost for creativity, creating boundaries that help define what is possible and improving creative focus.
Con: The rules create clearly defined boxes. If you want to have access to something in a box you need to take a feat/class/spell/etc to gain access to it. Otherwise that box is off-limits to you. This can hinder in the moment creativity that doesn't fall into those mechanical boxes, but might seem fitting for the fiction.
I personally have a hard time narrating combat in Pathfinder, both as player and GM. I've just done so much of it, that it feels highly repetitive, particularly when you're trying to narrate 50-100 rolls in one combat (we have 2 DM's and 6-8 players at my table lately, that's a lot of participants even in a short combat). I tend to save my creativity for NPC interactions/descriptions and setting narration.