Way back in the day we used declarations, but abandoned them mostly because far too often the declared action didn't make any sense by the time your init came up. Example: my declaration is that I attack the Orc I'm fighting but by the time my init comes up someone else has already killed it; my declaration has me committed so either I chop at a corpse or I do nothing, where it'd be far more logical and reasonable for me to move to another foe even if I lose my attack for the round. Unrealistic, and dropped.
Sometimes I'd love to reintroduce the concept just to speed up the on-my-turn decision-making from some players, but it would fail again for the same reason as before.
If you're casting a spell I allow you to target on resolution (we have casting times) rather than on commencement.
We declare actions, but only because I use simultaneous resolution rather than sequential turns.
I've got the opposite problem. Accomplishing nothing is too realistic!Wellll, yeah, it's 'unrealistic' if you imagine that the whole you do your entire round's worth of stuff, and then I do my entire round's worth of stuff and then the Orc does his entire round's worth of stuff is actually what is happening in the fiction, which is pretty, um, what's the word I want, oh, yeah --- unrealistic.
Problem is, starting with 3e that's how the game has worked by RAW: one person does their entire round's worth of stuff, then another, then another. Movement is almost like a mini-teleport, there's no consideration given for the time it takes and where you might be when something else happens (e.g. did you just run into that lightning bolt or not).Wellll, yeah, it's 'unrealistic' if you imagine that the whole you do your entire round's worth of stuff, and then I do my entire round's worth of stuff and then the Orc does his entire round's worth of stuff is actually what is happening in the fiction, which is pretty, um, what's the word I want, oh, yeah --- unrealistic.
No, unrealistic in that I can't change my action to reflect things that happen between the time I declared it and the time I would do it.Don't get me wrong, there are reasonable criticisms of using declarations with you-go-I go; it just doesn't seem to me that 'unrealistic' is one of them. (Unless you meant unrealistic that anyone would have fun doing it this way.)
I'm running a 1e variant, and 1e had casting times (which serve as a wonderful rein-in to casters, as it gives more of a chance for interruption). Movement can also take time depending how far you want to go, particularly in 5e where rounds are just a few seconds long.Two questions out of (sort of) idle curiosity:
So casting takes time, but physical attacks and movement are instantaneous? I'm just as much in favor of nerfing casters as anyone, but any particular reason besides that?
Segments, of which there's 6 to a round because we use d6 initiative. Were I running 5e there'd be 20 to a round (because init is rolled on a d20).What units are casting times measured in? That is, how does casting resolution mesh with the other things going on? (If the answer is measured in rounds, then it's reasonably clear, otherwise ?)
... but it avoids people constantly readjusting their action depending on what the previous player / monster just did.