I’ve seen and used two different approaches to describing PC actions, most often in combat or when using skills. One approach is for the player to describe how they perform the action, the other is for the GM to describe it. (Which approach you use can even be a social contract issue.)
They generally have similar end results: It doesn’t matter who says “Swinging his axe overhand, Aragos lops off the barbarian’s head,” the barbarian is still dead.
Or does it matter? Are some GMs worried that players will make their PC sound “too cool,” or otherwise muck things up? Or do some players not put the same effort into those kinds of descriptions as GMs tend to?
(I’m back from GenCon, but I gave myself a day to recover before doing an after-action report. Stay tuned!)
I generally leave it up to the players to describe their actions, but for me to describe the results. They say the “I swing my axe from the side making a swipe along the ground” and roll whatever damage resolution rolls then depending on the results and my knowledge about the npc I try to give it that little bit of spice without being overwhelming to other players.
Some players also just do the “I swing” etc which is fine for them. I tend to like combat systems that encourage more description in them. The one we’re working on now has the basic battle rules for just assigning damage, but then we’ve built a list of techniques that give small bonuses. So while you can have I just swing, you can also have “I make a two handed overhand swing on the orc” which is supported and encouraged by the system and gives you a little bit of combat bonus.
It depends on the game, and what the players want out of it. Straight-up D&D (in my groups, anyway), description is rarely more than “I take three attacks.” *roll* “Two hit, one bounces off armor. Roll damage.” Though at higher power levels, players tend to get a bit more descriptive as complex feats and tactical maneouvers get involved.
On the other hand, games like Exalted that have system bonuses for cool descriptions are all about player narration. And since each player only has to worry about narrating their own character, they tend to have an easier time coming up with neat stunts then the GM, who might have a whole stable of NPCs to keep thinking up descriptions for.
I’m in favor of letting whoever’s interested add the colorful descriptions. The player can describe his PC’s windup in great detail… or, just, “I swing”. The GM then works from the description– specific follow through if the player description was specific or if they’re inspired, “he takes 7 damage” if it’s the 23rd of 47 swings in a combat.
Narration rights of course is one of those areas that have been somewhat fuzzy, and many of them new fangled Forge games have been addressing that issue.
For me and my games though, mostly I leave it up to players to narrate their intent, and mostly I narrate results. It seems that people actually are pretty good at conforming to reasonable bounds (i.e. players don’t tend to yell “I send his head flying!” or even “I chop his head off!”).
Since I play combat heavy games, much of the combat is resolved pretty mechanically, though I do like to throw in some color (I do this a lot in Cold Iron, narrating color on very high or very low rolls, which if players clue into, they can get a feel for what my rolls for opposition attacks are like).
Frank
I feel that most players are looking for wish fulfillment and “cool stuff” happening *to* them (their characters), rather than *by* them. That is to say, it’s often more interesting to have the GM tell you (and the group) of the cool things you do rather than you performing for the group.
The GM, as the moderator, also can exert some level of control. So if Bob describes things much better than shy, new-to-role-playing Sally, the GM negates that by providing a commonality between the experience; the narration has a common voice and a consistency that’s important in a game. Plus Bob isn’t constantly one-upping Sally by virtue of the fact that he’s a braggart at heart (even though his character may not be). 😉
Having written this post shortly before GenCon, I was thinking about it while I was there. In my favorite event (Hollow Earth Expedition), the GM mixed it up: He rewarded the players for good narration, and sometimes he narrated our actions. More of the former, less of the latter — but it worked both ways, and as far as I could tell the whole group had fun.
Part of why this worked so well was that the system (which is excellent) supported strong player narration, just like John Vogel mentioned with regard to Exalted. (Good point, John!)
I really like John’s and Frank’s idea of players narrating intent and the GM narrating results, but I’ve definitely had players who enjoy narrating results. (I like to do that myself, as a player.)
ScottM’s approach — letting whoever’s interested handle it — is the closest to what I tend to do in my games. Especially when I’ve been gaming with the same friends for years, I usually have a decent idea who enjoys narrating their actions and who doesn’t.
Thanks for the link, Chris — I’ll take a look at Ron’s post.
Abulia, your point about one-upsmanship is well taken. I don’t think I’ve ever run into that particular flavor of it in my games, but I can see how it would be a problem.
Scott – yup, IIEE is definitely important.
Abulia – I’m not quite sure what you mean by “I feel that most players are looking for wish fulfillment and “cool stuff†happening *to* them (their characters), rather than *by* them.”
It sounds like a sad state of affairs to me, where the players are just there to watch the GM.
But that certainly isn’t my experience. My experience is that players do indeed want to make their characters do cool things. What they expect the GM to do is make their coolness matter. For example, when they roll well for an attack, and do massive damage and kill an opponent, they want that head to roll. And they want it to matter. And they want to be able to claim: “I killed that monster.” or “Ragnar killed that monster.”
Frank
Frank, sorry that I wasn’t clear; I think we’re on the same page. I’m only speaking about the “hows” rather than the end-result.
Providing my input, being part of the game, and stating what my character does is fairly self-evident to me. It’s then turning it over to the GM to adjucate the results that I think is “cool” for players. I get a massive kick when the GM describes a scene, using the input that I provided for my player and the other players, and then describes the results (as determined by the rules) and shows the cool things that I did. I’m a partcipant to be sure, but I’m also an observer in the drama, seeing the reveal at the same time as everyone else. (“I lopped his head off? Cool!”)
This is, versus, my singularly taking over and narrating the outcome — with the GM’s permission, of course — and telling everyone at the table all the cool things my character just did. I’m also not part of the reveal, so the thrill is gone; the outcome has been predetermined by me.
Hope that clears it up!
Ok, that makes sense. If you haven’t had a chance to try out Dogs in the Vinyard, you might be interested in how it still achieves coolness with more control by the players. But in a more traditional game, it definitely almost always works out that the player does the setup, and the GM spikes the ball.
Frank
I’m with ScottM. In fact, sometimes we have the results description part handled by another player. The player of the character describes what he wants to do, we work through the results, I say what happened (usually in rather plain terms). Then anyone can chime in with the cool description.
I played in a game in college where one of the players was so good at this, he usually took on that role even when he wasn’t the GM. It worked out well, since we had a group of 5-6 very different personalities and gaming strengths, but everyone was cool with letting someone just rip if the scene was right.
Giving different swings of the axe/sword/dagger/other different descriptions and various bonuses is not a new concept. IIRC, there were old computer games that you could swing your weapon in different ways (Eamon Adventures, I think) each way gives out +/- to various aspects.
I was a bit surprised about the post, since it’s been sometime now, that I’ve been thinking of implementing such a thing in my D&D campaign.
Usually I narrate the sequences of battle, since most of my players just do the “I Swing” routine, but that’s just one of the jobs being a DM.
As a player, I loved describing the actions of my character, cause I think it shows your familiarity of the character you play.
DM T., this is where I differ than you and probably many others.
Rather than have a system that gives “bonus X” for evocative descriptions, leaving those out who won’t or can’t adapt to that play style, why not just give everyone “bonus X” and let the evocative descriptions come out through play on their own?
For example, if the game has the mechanic built-in already, where the chances of doing gobs of damage already exists, then wouldn’t that be more likely to subconsciously promote a play style where the players rise to the output of the game, rather than dragging the players along by using a stick and carrot?
Adding rules like “bonus X for description Y” just add another layer of complexity, IMO.
Abulia – I tend to agree with you, giving bonuses for narration isn’t ideal, though done carefully it can be good (Ron Edward’s Sorceror does give an extra die for narration). The problem is when the system encourages players to beg for bonuses.
But it’s totally cool to narrate the results. Did lots of damage? Narrate it. Missed wildly? Narrate it.
Frank