As it says on the tin. Each player and monster's turn takes 6 seconds. I'd never do this with standard combat rules, but what if we dispense with the combat rules, and the DM adjudicates the outcome, much in the same way as they would adjudicate a social encounter. The players describe their actions in combat. Without so many game mechanics to navigate, they might get more into the role play side of combat. The DM grants success for engaging role play as much as for devastating damage.
You might not want to play this way every combat, but it could be a way to punch up a first, final, or critical round of a major boss battle.
Are you suggesting that each player gets 6 seconds to say what they are doing? That sounds like it would be pretty tough to play - can you elaborate more on the desired result?
I have used this sort of thing (throw away the rolls and just describe things) when the fight is incredibly one-sided or already concluded. This also works for making someone/something which is so powerful you needn't roll, your attack is narrated to have failed.
Yes, each player gets 6 seconds to decide their action. But make it more about describing an exciting six seconds of battle than declaring targets for your attack, extra attack, and off-hand attack. Like
"I duck the orc's warhammer and roll to the right, drawing my dagger and slashing his Achilles' tendon in one smooth motion."
or
"I manifest a glowing orb between my hands and lock eyes with the ravenous wolves, daring them to come in closer."
I'm thinking about using it not only for scenarios where the outcome is inevitable. I mean, for most combats, the players winning is all but inevitable, but we play through them nonetheless. Same here. The DM will narrate the players to a victory, but probably with some satisfying ups and downs and some moments of doubt. For a talented narrator, it's probably easier to describe the turning point of a battle from losing to winning than it is to make players nervous by dropping their hit points to single digits.
Yes, each player gets 6 seconds to decide their action. But make it more about describing an exciting six seconds of battle than declaring targets for your attack, extra attack, and off-hand attack. Like
"I duck the orc's warhammer and roll to the right, drawing my dagger and slashing his Achilles' tendon in one smooth motion."
or
"I manifest a glowing orb between my hands and lock eyes with the ravenous wolves, daring them to come in closer."
I'm thinking about using it not only for scenarios where the outcome is inevitable. I mean, for most combats, the players winning is all but inevitable, but we play through them nonetheless. Same here. The DM will narrate the players to a victory, but probably with some satisfying ups and downs and some moments of doubt. For a talented narrator, it's probably easier to describe the turning point of a battle from losing to winning than it is to make players nervous by dropping their hit points to single digits.
I understand what you think you're doing, but I don't like it.
I can't say either of those examples at talking to myself candence inside 6 seconds, let alone making sure at a pace where I was sure I was being heard across a table or video chat feed. More over, if you read say any use of force report or military after action report, it takes a lot more than six seconds of language to actually and accurately describe six seconds of violent action from a single point of view. I get the inspiration for the idea, but it's been done and just puts a blunt pressure on the game that might be fine for some sort of auteur drama where you're trying to get performers really engaged in the moment ... but a lot of those directorial techniques from back in the day are looked at as abusive.
Your narration is getting the resolution of combat in D&D wrong. First example is a called shot. Mechanically D&D doesn't allow that. Rather, based on the results of the dice rolled the DM or player, pending how much freedom the DM gives the players over the narrative, then narrates the result. Players declare "I'm going to cut that dude's head off!" to be told by the DM "well, let's resolve your attack and then figure out what happens" all the time, the way the game is supposed to be played.
It sounds like you're designing your encounters with too much guarantee and haven't figured out how to use CR or other encounter design system to include an element of risk or challenge in your encounters. Experimenting with the CR system and encounter design would benefit your Dungeons and Dragons game more than replacing combat with a DM arbitrated narrational system that I guess eyeballs probability off stat blocks and character sheets. If you want to do the latter, pick a rules system that guides you how to actually do that, without putting so much into the hands of the DM, there are diceless game systems.
A talented narrator and DM can certainly talk about the swings of battle based on the mechanical results.
There are plenty of games that are more narrational (but even those usually assert some sort of mechanic other than players says and DMs agrees or challenges intent). The dice in D&D level the playing table among the self styled "talented narrators" and those who are deciding actions based on the narratives the mechanics allow for. Like earlier editions, and probably 5e explicitly explain that the dice are there to give something other than '"I said so." "No, I said so"' the arbiter of the game's conflict outcomes.
MidnightPlat is right. Throw in that the only way for the DM ever to kill a PC in this system is to simply declare that the PC has been killed, and it's not workable.
The idea behind using dice to decide the outcome is to be objective as a DM and Player. The dice are the arbiters of uncertainty and for the players to be able to wield absolute certainty in their narration removes the game aspect for me. The inverse of the scenario is also true, if the DM can weild absolute certainty, this isn't a game anymore, but an audiobook.
I don't like the idea that you're proposing for the simple premise that whoever speaks first, wins. There is no uncertainty in any of it and it fails to be a game any longer.
I do understand that you intend to use this only when the party is going to become the victor by default. If that's the case, then don't bother with running a combat encounter, just narrate the outcome. But when you find yourself narrating more things and the players have less opportunity to interact with the game world, it seems to be nearing a novel, and moving further from being a game.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As it says on the tin. Each player and monster's turn takes 6 seconds. I'd never do this with standard combat rules, but what if we dispense with the combat rules, and the DM adjudicates the outcome, much in the same way as they would adjudicate a social encounter. The players describe their actions in combat. Without so many game mechanics to navigate, they might get more into the role play side of combat. The DM grants success for engaging role play as much as for devastating damage.
You might not want to play this way every combat, but it could be a way to punch up a first, final, or critical round of a major boss battle.
Are you suggesting that each player gets 6 seconds to say what they are doing? That sounds like it would be pretty tough to play - can you elaborate more on the desired result?
I have used this sort of thing (throw away the rolls and just describe things) when the fight is incredibly one-sided or already concluded. This also works for making someone/something which is so powerful you needn't roll, your attack is narrated to have failed.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Yes, each player gets 6 seconds to decide their action. But make it more about describing an exciting six seconds of battle than declaring targets for your attack, extra attack, and off-hand attack. Like
"I duck the orc's warhammer and roll to the right, drawing my dagger and slashing his Achilles' tendon in one smooth motion."
or
"I manifest a glowing orb between my hands and lock eyes with the ravenous wolves, daring them to come in closer."
I'm thinking about using it not only for scenarios where the outcome is inevitable. I mean, for most combats, the players winning is all but inevitable, but we play through them nonetheless. Same here. The DM will narrate the players to a victory, but probably with some satisfying ups and downs and some moments of doubt. For a talented narrator, it's probably easier to describe the turning point of a battle from losing to winning than it is to make players nervous by dropping their hit points to single digits.
I understand what you think you're doing, but I don't like it.
I can't say either of those examples at talking to myself candence inside 6 seconds, let alone making sure at a pace where I was sure I was being heard across a table or video chat feed. More over, if you read say any use of force report or military after action report, it takes a lot more than six seconds of language to actually and accurately describe six seconds of violent action from a single point of view. I get the inspiration for the idea, but it's been done and just puts a blunt pressure on the game that might be fine for some sort of auteur drama where you're trying to get performers really engaged in the moment ... but a lot of those directorial techniques from back in the day are looked at as abusive.
Your narration is getting the resolution of combat in D&D wrong. First example is a called shot. Mechanically D&D doesn't allow that. Rather, based on the results of the dice rolled the DM or player, pending how much freedom the DM gives the players over the narrative, then narrates the result. Players declare "I'm going to cut that dude's head off!" to be told by the DM "well, let's resolve your attack and then figure out what happens" all the time, the way the game is supposed to be played.
It sounds like you're designing your encounters with too much guarantee and haven't figured out how to use CR or other encounter design system to include an element of risk or challenge in your encounters. Experimenting with the CR system and encounter design would benefit your Dungeons and Dragons game more than replacing combat with a DM arbitrated narrational system that I guess eyeballs probability off stat blocks and character sheets. If you want to do the latter, pick a rules system that guides you how to actually do that, without putting so much into the hands of the DM, there are diceless game systems.
A talented narrator and DM can certainly talk about the swings of battle based on the mechanical results.
There are plenty of games that are more narrational (but even those usually assert some sort of mechanic other than players says and DMs agrees or challenges intent). The dice in D&D level the playing table among the self styled "talented narrators" and those who are deciding actions based on the narratives the mechanics allow for. Like earlier editions, and probably 5e explicitly explain that the dice are there to give something other than '"I said so." "No, I said so"' the arbiter of the game's conflict outcomes.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
MidnightPlat is right. Throw in that the only way for the DM ever to kill a PC in this system is to simply declare that the PC has been killed, and it's not workable.
The idea behind using dice to decide the outcome is to be objective as a DM and Player. The dice are the arbiters of uncertainty and for the players to be able to wield absolute certainty in their narration removes the game aspect for me. The inverse of the scenario is also true, if the DM can weild absolute certainty, this isn't a game anymore, but an audiobook.
I don't like the idea that you're proposing for the simple premise that whoever speaks first, wins. There is no uncertainty in any of it and it fails to be a game any longer.
I do understand that you intend to use this only when the party is going to become the victor by default. If that's the case, then don't bother with running a combat encounter, just narrate the outcome. But when you find yourself narrating more things and the players have less opportunity to interact with the game world, it seems to be nearing a novel, and moving further from being a game.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad