|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 4:33PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2008
|
I really dont see the difference between maps and narrative. I typically roleplay to the max, and describe every action my character takes, as if I were writing it down for a story, beheading on killing blows and all. I like the maps because I'm a visual person and they help me keep track of where everything is. If you mean narrative by just...describing combat without a map, then I guess do it? But I see no real benefit to that..the maps don't hurt my RP at all. They either dont effect, or enhance it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 5:02PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
So, I have decided I absolutely hate map-heavy rule sets. I REALLY prefer more narrative approaches. Unfortunately 4e is a very map heavy rule set. Other than this one feature, for the most part, I really like 4e. I am wondering if anyone knows of a decent set of house rules designed to transform 4e into a game that makes use of narrative combat instead of map-heavy, board-gamey combat.
I can't say this has been a problem since I've used maps for every edition of D&D. However, for the handful of times that I chose not to use a map, I did it the same way I always have, rolling for attacks, narrating effects, and glossing over any details that relied too heavily on mapping (so instead of counting how many squares someone got pushed, just make a not that person must take a move action before making any melee attacks).
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 5:12PM
#13
|
|
|
I am wondering if anyone knows of a decent set of house rules designed to transform 4e into a game that makes use of narrative combat instead of map-heavy, board-gamey combat.
I recommend Wrecan's SARN-FU homebrew.
When I first started with 4e, I simply couldn't adjust to the 'chess-like' nature of the game. I quickly gave up on battle grids but it wasn't til Sarn-Fu that I had something that really helped me keep all the action in my head (as it were  ).
Back when I started DMing in 2nd edition, we almost never used maps or minis. I don't DM much anymore though. My DM style is better suited to mapless games I think. As a player, I'm fine with the idea of a map.
= = =
That all said, battle grids did eventually grow on me. It's all in how I visualize the action in my mind. For non-combat encounters, such as NPC conversations, I see things face-to-face (first-person view). For combat encounters, my mind's eye pulls back, for a more tactical view (third-person). I've seen this approach in video games. It took me a while to get my head around the battle grid but now I honestly enjoy the system.
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 6:33PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Learn SARN-FU
Thank you. I think I can make that work...
To those asking what the benefits of a more narrativist approach are: personal pleasure and taste. To me, RPGs are all about storytelling. I care more about the storytelling aspect of such games than I do anything else. I like to run games that really feel like a group is sitting around the table telling a communal story. The rules of the game are just a means to that end; they serve as little more than a system of mediation. I prefer when benefits such as cover, flanking, or the like are gained via player and GM discussion surrounding description, not square-counting. I prefer when a scene is described. The process is its own benefit. That approach is one of the reasons I prefer WFRPG 3e to D&D 4e. However, it would simply take too many house rules to run many D&D settings using the WFRPG rule-set. Wrecan’s SARN-FU might make it possible for me to capture the more narrative approach of such games in a 4e game. That would make me happy. That is all. To those saying that maps don’t hurt your roleplaying, awesome! I have no interest in telling you that maps will empirically do anything. All I know is how I feel about maps. They make the game feel very board-gamey to me. I have watched narration go out the window due to the maps with the groups I have played with. I have watched as all the things that make the game feel like a process in storytelling go out the window during combat because the game does not require that process in any shape or form during combat. Before someone responds by saying, “You can still describe if you want to!”, I am aware. You can do that while playing monopoly if you want to as well. I prefer RPG systems that require it. Before someone says, "maybe your group doesn't want to narrate," I should note that the same groups that ended up not describing much of combat because there was no requirement to, and freeform description tended to get tedious, got burnt out on 4e due to the fact that "it felt too much like a boardgame after a few years of playing it." That same group got really into the swing of WFRPG 3e due to its more narrative approach. Please note, I am not saying that 4e is not an RPG. I am not saying that 4e is like monopoly. I am not saying 4e is a bad game. I just prefer narrative heavy approaches. That is what I like. I still really like 4e. I am trying to marry 4e with a more narrative approach. That is all. End of story.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 6:55PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
Learn SARN-FU
Thank you. I think I can make that work...
To those saying asking what the benefits of a more narrativist approach are: personal pleasure and taste. To me, RPGs are all about storytelling. I care more about the storytelling aspect of such games than I do anything else. I like to run games that really feel like a group is sitting around the table telling a communal story. The rules of the game are just a means to that end; they serve as little more than a system of mediation. I prefer when benefits such as cover, flanking, or the like are gained via player and GM discussion surrounding description, not square-counting. I prefer when a scene is described. The process is its own benefit. That approach is one of the reasons I prefer WFRPG 3e to D&D 4e. However, it would simply take too many house rules to run many D&D settings using the WFRPG rule-set. Wrecan’s SARN-FU might make it possible for me to capture the more narrative approach of such games in a 4e game. That would make me happy. That is all.
To those saying that maps don’t hurt your roleplaying, awesome! I have no interest in telling you that maps will empirically do anything. All I know is how I feel about maps. They make the game feel very board-gamey to me. I have watched role-playing go out the window due to the maps with the groups I have played with. I have watched as all the things that make the game feel like a process in storytelling go out the window during combat because the game does not require that process in any shape or form during combat. Before someone responds by saying, “You can still describe if you want to!”, I am aware. You can do that while playing monopoly if you want to as well. I prefer RPG systems that require it. Before someone says, "maybe your group doesn't want to roleplay," I should note that the same groups that ended up not describing much of combat because there was no requirement to, and freeform description tended to get tedious, got burnt out on 4e due to the fact that "it felt too much like a boardgame after a few years of playing it." That same group got really into the swing of WFRPG 3e due to its more narrative approach.
Please note, I am not saying that 4e is not an RPG. I am not saying that 4e is like monopoly. I am not saying 4e is a bad game. I just prefer narrative heavy approaches. That is what I like. I still really like 4e. I am trying to marry 4e with a more narrative approach. That is all. End of story.
Good for you. Ignore the haters. Play your game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 7:11PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
fluid 4e
at-will.omnivangelist.net/2009/12/fluid-...
Thank you. That is an awsome ruleset! Minus the guard rule, that might be exactly what I am looking for.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 7:14PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Good for you. Ignore the haters. Play your game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 11:01PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
To those saying asking what the benefits of a more narrativist approach are: personal pleasure and taste.
Sure, I'm down with narrativism. I just don't see how having a map - whether a poster map or a simple grid like a battle mat - gets in the way of it. Well, unless you take it to the level of freestyle, in which case you hardly need rules, let alone maps.
All I know is how I feel about maps. They make the game feel very board-gamey to me.
Well, that's how you feel, then. Just be aware that your feeling is irrational and wrong.
Seriously, though, it helps to understand the problem when offering advice. And 'how do I get away from maps to make my game more narrative' is hard for me to grasp when maps make a fine narrative aid, IMX.
I have watched role-playing go out the window due to the maps with the groups I have played with.
I'd say it's due to the group, not the maps. But whatever, if your group can't handle the style of play you're after when using a map, that's a problem. How to deal with it without giving up the existing narrativist qualities of 4e is an interesting question... (see, I'm getting to it).
I have watched as all the things that make the game feel like a process in storytelling go out the window during combat because the game does not require that process in any shape or form during combat. Before someone responds by saying, “You can still describe if you want to!”, I am aware. I prefer RPG systems that require it.
Require RP? I've seen games do that and it's often quite forced and clumsy. But, I think what you mean isn't require RP so much as require a bit of player/GM negotiation or creativity in resolution. That sounds to me like an inadequate ruleset, but maybe that's just a glass-half-empty thing on my part. :shrug:
Really, then the solution is right in front of you: don't use the map. Without it, the mechanics of 4e positioning - movement, forced movement, reach, range, area, etc - become less functional, calling on the DM and players to resolve questions of positioning/range/movement through some more creative process. Not exactly what I'd call 'narrativist,' but if it's what you're going for, just abandoning the map without particularly changing the rules should get you there.
I am trying to marry 4e with a more narrative approach. That is all. End of story.
Your use of the word 'narrative' is confusing me, I guess. 4e has a number of strongly narrativist elements - indeed, it takes a lot of flack for them.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 11:10PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
I think he means abstract, not narrative.
A scene is divided into a few general locations, and everyone is in one of those locations ("on top of the guard tower", "in front of the gates", and so on), but positioning isn't tracked or relevant beyond that. Something like a melee attack would require you to be in the same general location as the target, but the system otherwise doesn't worry about your exact position relative to your target.
This would go well beyond Wrecan's proposal, but it would also require a major overhaul of the system - it isn't really something that can be made to work in 4E.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 29, 2011 - 11:34PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Even with map and grid, position is interconnected with time and umm that has been abstracted to the point that its pretty much a head exploder / Lets see all motion and activity are basically considered interleaved and turns are roughly simultaneous if you think about it your position is kind of quantum you cant be sure where you are at any given time. --- There is certainly abstraction going on.
|
|
|
