the Narrative Positioning System

[CatharzGodfoot]

The Narrative Positioning System has been discussed, but never fully fleshed out. The reasoning behind it is three-fold:

[*] Describing locations and positions as a narrative works better than mapping in chat/instant messaging.
[*] A narrative allows for a more dynamic way of modeling a character's movements, rather than the wargame miniatures method. This makes for more interesting combats and might improve (or allow) chase scenes.
[*] It's faster than mapping when coming up with locations on the fly.

---

Here is a classic toy example:
You open the door into a 10' x 10' room. Standing in the room is an orc. She appears to be guarding a treasure chest.

So let's break it down...
Size: 4 medium humanoids without squeezing.
Locations: doorway, treasure chest.
Choke point: doorway (1 medium humanoid).
Actors: orc.

So, how can players interact with this environment? They can engage the orc. They can move to the treasure chest. They can evade the orc. They can guard the door.

Engaging the orc will almost certainly succeed automatically. After all, the orc is guarding the chest. Similarly, evading the orc should work automatically, because the orc is concerned with guarding the treasure rather than following robbers. Moving to the treasure chest will be more difficult, because you have to get past the orc. Guarding the door doesn't require any checks until someone tries to get past you.

An example interaction might look like this:
Beowulf charges in to engage the orc. Zakalwe and Zelda attempt to get around the now distracted orc to grab the treasure chest. They then try to evade the orc (difficult because they're carrying a chest) while Beowulf tries to keep the orc engaged. Then they go out through the door, which Beowulf guards so that they can drag the chest down the hallway.

Of course, that's probably not a very good description because the orc can seriously touch either wall with her sword. Maybe I should have chosen a 20' x 20' room...

[PhoneLobster]

I've been thinking of doing something like this lately. For a light action horror rules set I want to whip up.

I think the important thing is that you provide a bunch of things to furnish areas with, and that those things... do things. So it's all about interacting with the scenery, a spiked pit isn't so much a surprise attack trap as it is something you leap across in a chase or throw someone in in a fight.

As I see it for some genres. Like say action/horror we all see in movies and stuff. The vast majority of the actions we see heroes take are not so much inherent attributes or skills of the heroes, who are largely inter changeable and bland, but rather actions that exploit items and furnishings of various sorts.

So I'm interested in the idea of a system where your character sheet consists mostly of a name and a background and almost all the rules and mechanics are basically about items you pick up to hit things with or swing off of.

PS...

So, how can players interact with this environment? They can engage the orc. They can move to the treasure chest. They can evade the orc. They can guard the door.

You want ways in which they can hit the orc with the environment (slam door into orc, throw chest at orc), or hit the environment with the orc (throw orc out door, stuff orc in chest).

[Heath Robinson]

I'm up for working on this since I'm going to need a variant on this kind of system for featureless (or near featureless) expanses. A game I'd be using it for has flight, so low-location things are kind of important.


The way I'm looking at working it is that you have a declared distance to a single object, location, or actor. That distance can be "near" or "far". "Near" is melee-range and "far" is not. You are also "near" to anything that is "near" to something that is "near" to you (and anything that manages to declare being "near" to you), and "far" to everything else. You can attempt to change this, wherein people can reflexively adjust their declared distances. If you are trying to switch to "near" on someone that declares an intent to be "far" from you, then you roll off and the winner's choice applies. In the case of objects and scenary they just have a fixed number that you need to beat.

If you've declared being "near" to something and it changes their distance to some object then you should have to make the same roll they do, with failure indicating that you switch to "far" from them, or you can reflexively redeclare to be "near" to something you were "near" to before.

You should also ignore the "reflective" "near" rule if that object has the Large tag - just because you're both "near" a Forest doesn't mean that you're "near" each other.


Okay, so it's not complete but perhaps it's a start on formalising everything. Certainly, there need to be rules about interrupting actions if you're "near" to them by using melee attacks.

[Username17]

No one complains about the lack of miniatures and board spaces during the talky bits, and I see no particular reason why the game should need minis for the stabby bits either. The fact is that a 10 by 10 room is pretty big, and is quite likely substantially larger than the room that the people are playing the game in.

When you're dealing in sub-skirmish combat, which for purposes of "a group of player characters fighting a monster or two" you certainly are, there just isn't much room for positioning to matter. If someone isn't chasing or stunting, imply letting everyone attack everyone else is totally reasonable.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Well, my livingroom is barely larger than 10x10, but substantially smaller than that with my bookcases.

-Crissa

[CatharzGodfoot]

PS...

So, how can players interact with this environment? They can engage the orc. They can move to the treasure chest. They can evade the orc. They can guard the door.

You want ways in which they can hit the orc with the environment (slam door into orc, throw chest at orc), or hit the environment with the orc (throw orc out door, stuff orc in chest).

That's a good point. The fact that there is a door in the frame should have been made explicit, along with how difficult the door would be to batter or tear off the hinges. The difficulty of lifting the chest and its base damage and accuracy are also relevant. I assume that the difficulty of grappling or bull-rushing the orc would be part of its stat block

I'm trying to put some effort into this system because a good friend just moved away and I'm interested in figuring out a way to continue our 3.F&K campaign. And because I think it would work better in general than the miniatures system for D&D. That's not saying that D&D should be the only focus; I'm just trying to make it clear where I'm coming from.

I'm up for working on this since I'm going to need a variant on this kind of system for featureless (or near featureless) expanses. A game I'd be using it for has flight, so low-location things are kind of important.


The way I'm looking at working it is that you have a declared distance to a single object, location, or actor. That distance can be "near" or "far". "Near" is melee-range and "far" is not. You are also "near" to anything that is "near" to something that is "near" to you (and anything that manages to declare being "near" to you), and "far" to everything else. You can attempt to change this, wherein people can reflexively adjust their declared distances. If you are trying to switch to "near" on someone that declares an intent to be "far" from you, then you roll off and the winner's choice applies. In the case of objects and scenary they just have a fixed number that you need to beat.

If you've declared being "near" to something and it changes their distance to some object then you should have to make the same roll they do, with failure indicating that you switch to "far" from them, or you can reflexively redeclare to be "near" to something you were "near" to before.

You should also ignore the "reflective" "near" rule if that object has the Large tag - just because you're both "near" a Forest doesn't mean that you're "near" each other.


Okay, so it's not complete but perhaps it's a start on formalising everything. Certainly, there need to be rules about interrupting actions if you're "near" to them by using melee attacks.

The problem with 'nearness' is how dependent it is on reach and speed, as well as size (and seriously, "large" might not be enough to cover the difference between a cat and a forest). It is a good idea, and might the the only tractable solution, but a lot of that might be best fleshed out first as a chase system. For close combat I like the more abstract terms of 'engaged', 'guarding', and so forth, because they don't imply any more that the basic required physical relationships.


I've also been thinking about so basic rules for defining the difficulty of maneuvering in a scene and describing usable objects of an incompletely instantiated environment . Rules for a fight through a marketplace (including how crowds react and how to to the Aladdin thing) aren't super-necessary if you're creative enough (I'm probably not), but they'd definitely be nice to have.

No one complains about the lack of miniatures and board spaces during the talky bits, and I see no particular reason why the game should need minis for the stabby bits either. The fact is that a 10 by 10 room is pretty big, and is quite likely substantially larger than the room that the people are playing the game in.

When you're dealing in sub-skirmish combat, which for purposes of "a group of player characters fighting a monster or two" you certainly are, there just isn't much room for positioning to matter. If someone isn't chasing or stunting, imply letting everyone attack everyone else is totally reasonable.

Well, my livingroom is barely larger than 10x10, but substantially smaller than that with my bookcases.

That's not saying much, considering that you live in California. My uncle who made bundles on Santa Cruz real estate lives with his family of four in a double-wide. Of course, the bundles on real estate were before the Loma Prieta quake, but I digress...

My living room/kitchen is about 10'x15', which feels quite roomy. However, it's barely enough space for two people to do yoga, and trying to spar with my fiancée can be downright dangerous (due to walls, couch, etc). I wouldn't even try to practice a bo taigi.

Five fully-armed people in here brawling would be very crowded.

[Kaelik]

I live in texas, so we have positively expansive rooms. I think our living room is about 25x30, and my room is bigger than 10x10 even if you don't count the part obstructed by my bed.

[Crissa]

As an aside, have I ever complained about how there are more bedrooms in Santa Clara County than people, and yet most people in the county live at numbers greater than two per room?

-Crissa

[Previn]

"How many can I get with the fireball?"
"Probably around 8, but you might hit the bard too, it's difficult to tell."

Exchanges like the above in my games has added enough uncertainty and excitement to combat that I find it much more engaging, and I've not had a complaint from my players.

I think that that's another point for a narrative approach, though it may not be for everyone.

[Kaelik]

That's pretty terrible.

If you can get the Bard too, you should know, if you can't, you should know.

[CatharzGodfoot]

That's pretty terrible.

If you can get the Bard too, you should know, if you can't, you should know.

It's a giant fucking explosion. You shouldn't be able to stand 'just outside the blast radius', confident that you'll be completely safe.

[Heath Robinson]

The problem with 'nearness' is how dependent it is on reach and speed, as well as size (and seriously, "large" might not be enough to cover the difference between a cat and a forest). It is a good idea, and might the the only tractable solution, but a lot of that might be best fleshed out first as a chase system. For close combat I like the more abstract terms of 'engaged', 'guarding', and so forth, because they don't imply any more that the basic required physical relationships.


I've also been thinking about so basic rules for defining the difficulty of maneuvering in a scene and describing usable objects of an incompletely instantiated environment . Rules for a fight through a marketplace (including how crowds react and how to to the Aladdin thing) aren't super-necessary if you're creative enough (I'm probably not), but they'd definitely be nice to have.

I used quotation marks around the terms to indicate that they were placeholders in search of an alternative. You can wordfilter the terms to whatever.

However, "near" just means "near enough to attack, interrupt anyone trying something, or interact with the object". I mainly chose the term because it reads better when you say things like 'you're also "near" anything that is "near" something you're "near"'. The unified vocabulary also minimises the amount of verbiage needed to describe the system. (Not that this is a good thing, it's just my programmer's ethic - laziness, in particular - showing through.)

Being "near" someone is just as arbitrary as being "engaged", and some kind of bonus or penalty to attack based on relative reach is certainly an important consideration (I come from Shadowrun, where reach is just considered a bonus).

AoE effects obviously hit you if you're "near" the stated target - in D&D there are enough Reflex saves for half/whatever that you don't need extra rules here. For other games you'll need to throw some test in.


Would you mind explaining the Aladdin thing for those of us who can't remember?

[Kaelik]

It's a giant fucking explosion. You shouldn't be able to stand 'just outside the blast radius', confident that you'll be completely safe.

No it's not. It's a wave of Fire that spreads out in a uniform matter to an exact radius before dispersing.

[Previn]

That's pretty terrible.

If you can get the Bard too, you should know, if you can't, you should know.

Why exactly?

You wouldn't toss a grenade at an opponent that an ally was engaged in melee with because you 'know' you wouldn't hit your ally (or you might, depends on how much you trust/value your ally I suppose). What if he moves forward into the area? What if you misjudged the distance?

This seems a case of expecting prefect accuracy because you have a grid that has always given you perfect accuracy and strict turn based combat. Indeed, even with a grid, players often need a minute or two to figure out optimum placement for area spells, much less having only 6 seconds in the heat of battle while injured or under other duress.

Narrative positioning opens up different options when playing. Obviously, it's not for you, but I already pointed out that it's not for everyone. Is it a terrible idea? Completely subjective.

[Kaelik]

Why exactly?

You wouldn't toss a grenade at an opponent that an ally was engaged in melee with because you 'know' you wouldn't hit your ally (or you might, depends on how much you trust/value your ally I suppose). What if he moves forward into the area? What if you misjudged the distance?

I wouldn't toss a grenade because a grenade is a fragmentary projectile. I would toss a grenade if some one were out of range of line of effect. I would toss a thermal detonator, because exactly like a fireball it has a sphere of effect and has no effect whatsoever outside that sphere.

[Psychic Robot]

You want ways in which they can hit the orc with the environment (slam door into orc, throw chest at orc), or hit the environment with the orc (throw orc out door, stuff orc in chest).

You should give the players "prop points." By expending them, they can create appropriate scenery props to use against the enemies.

[PhoneLobster]

You should give the players "prop points." By expending them, they can create appropriate scenery props to use against the enemies.

Or you could just create appropriate furniture in the first place.

How you allocate furniture resources (I love that first half of sentence) is not a big deal.

Having rules to resolve the use of furniture resources is what matters.

I don't care so much if the chest is there because the GM dropped it in the description or if "Big Chest Betty" bought it with her prop points so she could make double entendres like she does in EVERY fight. I care that when she starts ramming things repeatedly into her chest and yelling about busting their faces in she has a mechanic to resolve the action itself with.

[MartinHarper]

No it's not. It's a wave of Fire that spreads out in a uniform matter to an exact radius before dispersing.

Per the 3.5 rules, a fireball is an explosion of flame that largely fills a pixellated sphere (5ft x 5ft x 5ft pixels) with rogue-sized gaps scattered within and has no effect outside those pixels.

In other worlds, magical flaming explosions might not be quite that predictable.

[Previn]

Why exactly?

You wouldn't toss a grenade at an opponent that an ally was engaged in melee with because you 'know' you wouldn't hit your ally (or you might, depends on how much you trust/value your ally I suppose). What if he moves forward into the area? What if you misjudged the distance?

I wouldn't toss a grenade because a grenade is a fragmentary projectile. I would toss a grenade if some one were out of range of line of effect. I would toss a thermal detonator, because exactly like a fireball it has a sphere of effect and has no effect whatsoever outside that sphere.

What if your ally steps into the area just before it hits and explodes? What if you misjudged the distance? Neither of those has anything to with a random area of effect, hence why I used them.

You as a player have a bird's eye view of a perfectly measured grid, static movement most of the time, and no worries about the distractions of combat or being wounded and only having 6 seconds to get your action done on top of all that.

You as a player also get the bonus of getting to see what area would be covered before you do it, then changing your mind if you don't like what the results would be (oops, I would hit Bob the bard, let me rethink this...).

No it's not. It's a wave of Fire that spreads out in a uniform matter to an exact radius before dispersing.

Per the 3.5 rules, a fireball is an explosion of flame that largely fills a pixellated sphere (5ft x 5ft x 5ft pixels) with rogue-sized gaps scattered within and has no effect outside those pixels.

In other worlds, magical flaming explosions might not be quite that predictable.

Technically, a fireball fills a spherical radius, which if you use a grid is represented by 5'x'5 squares. This is more important from a narrative perspective since some of those 5'x5' 'squares' are partially in the area, and partially not.

The line attack picture in the 3.5 PHB (pg.176) helps demonstrate how haphazard and imprecise the grid can be compared to what we would expect. You could be closer to the line effect in a 5' square that isn't hit than you might be in a 5' square that is hit, which doesn't make much sense.

[Fuchs]

We usually solve the "can I place the fireball so it hits all enemies and no allies" by making a roll to see how good the PC judges the situation. The player then decides how to place the fireball, aka, what chances he'll take. If in doubt a random 50/50 roll is made to see if a character is affected, as in has to make a reflex save.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Reflex saves make much more sense when a moving character can find herself in or outside of the blast radius by luck or skill.

[Kaelik]

What if your ally steps into the area just before it hits and explodes? What if you misjudged the distance? Neither of those has anything to with a random area of effect, hence why I used them.

You as a player have a bird's eye view of a perfectly measured grid, static movement most of the time, and no worries about the distractions of combat or being wounded and only having 6 seconds to get your action done on top of all that.

You as a player also get the bonus of getting to see what area would be covered before you do it, then changing your mind if you don't like what the results would be (oops, I would hit Bob the bard, let me rethink this...)

1) I don't accidentally pick a spot that hits Bob the Bard and then change my mine, and neither does anyone else with half a brain.

2) Your character as a PC gets to see the area that would be enclosed by the spell before he casts it too. Your ally doesn't move just before you cast, and you don't misjudge the distance. You want a critical failure on a 1 for fireball mechanics, make one up, but I'm already pissed at high level fighters being incompetent all the time, Wizards also aren't incompetent, and don't misjudge the distance of a uniform effect they have used hundreds of times.

Is the bard adjacent to an enemy you want to include in the effect? No? You have a 0% chance of hitting him. Yes? You have a .02% chance of hitting him, unless the enemy is large or larger, in which case, back to 0.

3) Your character isn't wounded. Seriously, bullshit HP as morale + Wizards don't get hit means you aren't wounded.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Kaelic, it sounds like you're interested playing a miniatures wargame, not something which a narrative positioning system is at all useful for. I'm not even sure why you're posting in this thread.

[Kaelik]

Kaelic, it sounds like you're interested playing a miniatures wargame, not something which a narrative positioning system is at all useful for. I'm not even sure why you're posting in this thread.

It sounds like I'm interested in playing a roleplaying game, in which a narrative positioning system is fine, but not one where whether or not a uniform area spell includes a given target is questionable.

If I ask, "How many and which ones can I get in the area of the spell that doesn't include my party in it?" acceptable answers are:

1) 8
2) 7
3) this 6 or these 7
4) It's a 2e fireball and the doors are closed, therefore it hits everyone.
5) almost any sizeable grouping is going to include Fighter Bob who ran out in the middle of the opposition.

At no point is an acceptable answer: "You have no idea because you are an incompetent spellcaster who doesn't know the area of your own spells."

[CatharzGodfoot]

If I ask, "How many and which ones can I get in the area of the spell that doesn't include my party in it?" acceptable answers are:

1) 8
2) 7
3) this 6 or these 7
4) It's a 2e fireball and the doors are closed, therefore it hits everyone.
5) almost any sizeable grouping is going to include Fighter Bob who ran out in the middle of the opposition.

At no point is an acceptable answer: "You have no idea because you are an incompetent spellcaster who doesn't know the area of your own spells."

How about this: If you can convince all of your allies to stay put while you cast the spell, and you can make sure that none of your enemies move either (and you know where everyone is), you can be absolutely certain how many and which people your exploding ball of flame will hit.