A few questions here about a short combat along with what the topic says. Do you have your players say what they are going to do(try to do) then roll and add narration - such as, "I will attack that guy with my axe." He rolls well and now decides, "I will step on his foot and when he bends over in pain I drive my axe into his upper back." Or have them narrate what they hope will happen then roll and change the narration if necessary?

As an example, I had a minion decide to run away after the wookie killed his two buddies with one attack each. As he was running to the door the wookie said he wanted to tackle him into the door. He ended up rolling 2 success, 3 advantage. After seeing his roll he decided he wanted to tackle him into the solid (non movable) wall instead, basically smashing him head first into the wall. I had him roll brawl (not sure if it should of been melee). What kind of damage should that have been (I said, "As you tackle him, he hits the wall head first with a loud thud, his body crumples to the floor dead.") for a tackle/ running someone head first into the wall? I was going to have it draw a crowd outside if he tackled him through the door but after rolling he changed his mind. First time GM and first time running a combat if it makes a difference.

Thanks,

J

Yeah, our group usually goes with the last option, "have them narrate what they hope will happen", then the GM will then modify/add to/whatever the PC's narration based on the roll.

Yeah, our group usually goes with the last option, "have them narrate what they hope will happen", then the GM will then modify/add to/whatever the PC's narration based on the roll.

This is largely how my co-GM and I and our group play. However, because this game is so flexible and so dependent on good roleplaying and cooperative narration of the dice results, both the GMs and players get into the narrative explanation of how their intent worked out.

It's not just up to the GM to interpret the dice results, though the GM does have final say so. That being said, our players do a great job interpreting the dice results of their characters' actions.

I think they shouldn't get to change their mind based on the roll. So far all my players just say what they're trying to do, and then narrate how that played out. Basic success means that's what happened. Success with advantage means they can twist it a bit. Success with threat means they did it, but something went wrong. For all cases, they pretty much stick with what they said they were going to do.

Just MHO, it seems a bit cheesy if they completely change what they're doing based on the dice roll. But in the case you described above, if they rolled significant advantage and wanted to spend it that way I'd let them.

Both. Often Narrate-roll-narrate.

Both. Often Narrate-roll-narrate.

Yes, though that last narrate should only apply as a result of advantage, threat, despair and/or triumph. Should not be a modified narration based on success alone.

Narration Sandwich!

The Core Rulebook seems to support the idea of changing the narration of events based on the results of the dice.

Under "Coordination (Agility)" on page 109:

Triumph on a Coordination check may be spent to accomplish the task with truly impressive results, either with narrative flair or granting additional benefits in the course of completing it. For example, instead of walking across a rope to get across a chasm, the character could cut the rope, swing across, and in doing so deny anyone the ability to follow him.

It seems like this would be a 'narrative sandwich'--

PC: "I walk across the rope."

GM: OK that will be an Average Difficulty Coordination check.

(PC rolls and succeeds with a Triumph)

PC: Great! Instead of just walking across the rope, I'm going to use this Triumph to cut the rope and swing across so the pursuers can't follow me.

This is just a thought, but it seems to be what the rulebook's implying.

Both. Often Narrate-roll-narrate.

The same here.

Basic narration for the what I'm trying to do, enough to get the idea across. Then roll the dice and expand the narration based upon the results of the dice.

The Core Rulebook seems to support the idea of changing the narration of events based on the results of the dice.

(snip)

PC: Great! Instead of just walking across the rope, I'm going to use this Triumph to cut the rope and swing across so the pursuers can't follow me.

I'd encourage a different narration, eg: "Instead of walking across the rope, I run across and shoot the rope as I make my last leap." The end result is similar, but the player still follows through with their original intent.

I would say do both.

Narrate what you WANT to do or BEGIN to do, then use the dice to narrate what actually happens.

Declare what you're trying to do. This is what determines the difficulty and the skill used. If the task succeeds, this is what happens. Narration comes after the roll to embelish with Advantage, Threat, Triumph, and Despair.

In a game with Jay Little (designer), he said that what he likes to do, is have players declare at least one plan for how they want to use advantage if possible in addition to their attack/skill/whatever. This is sort of like narrating beforehand. What it does, though, is provide more narrative options for not only advantage, but also threat (failure to achieve that secondary plan). The example he used was someone attacking, but also hoping to scramble to cover. So the success/advantage, you hit and make it to cover, failure threat, you miss, and get caught exposed in the open. Failure/advantage, you miss but make it to cover, and success/threat, you hit, but don't make it to cover. He left triumph and despair as something more to react to, and obviously, if there are bigger results like massive advantage or threat, he'd come up with things on the fly at that point.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, as a narrative game, you should be narration, roll, more narration. The first narration should be a declaration of what a player is TRYING to do, then the narration of what actually happens. Of course, the standard caveat of "do whatever you and your players find most fun" is in play here.

In a game with Jay Little (designer), he said that what he likes to do, is have players declare at least one plan for how they want to use advantage if possible in addition to their attack/skill/whatever. This is sort of like narrating beforehand. What it does, though, is provide more narrative options for not only advantage, but also threat (failure to achieve that secondary plan).

That kind of plays into my reason for wanting to keep the results somewhat consistent...as the GM I'm already thinking of ways to narrate that their plan failed or had problems, so if they shift things up it puts me on the spot. Totally selfish, I know

Thanks for the input everyone, it was very helpful. I think I prefer it if they say what they are going to do and add what they want to do with advantage if they roll it that way it is easier for me to start thinking of what happens if threat is rolled instead.

Thanks,

J