D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I understand your problem, even though I don't share it. For me and my group the game goes from roleplaying to roleplaying+tactical gaming when combat starts. The fiction is there (if you want it and work for it), but there is also the gamey mechanical aspect.

And in my opinion that duality is built-in in D&D. Trying to tweak the system to be something else is trying to fit a square peg in the round D&D hole. As others have written, there are lots of system that may have a combat resolution that fits you better. But in my opinion, being able to apply a fictional roleplaying layer above the combat mechanics is kind of required if you want to have fun with D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe a good way of describing the issue.

Outside combat there is fiction -> the character reacts to that fiction and does fictional things -> the fictional state is updated -> repeat

Inside combat there is turn structure -> the character acts within that turn structure -> his opponents act within that turn structure -> a fictional narrative can be created afterward if desired but often never is -> however, even if the fictional narrative is created it doesn't impact anything because the players move back to engaging with the turn structure instead of the narrative -> repeat

 

[Lyxen]

The greatest obstacle for fiction are players and DM.
It start when both decide to use a grid, or when a player ask how exactly far away is the goblin? When a player is more satisfied about optimizing its action economy than making a cool move, or the DM say no to any fiction or cinematic move.

Now that I understand the "problem" a bit better I completely agree. If you provide your players all the means to play a technical game by using grids and "precise" movements and rounds, why be surprised that they play technical like this ? Just going to Theater of the Mind would solve a lot of the "issues" as I understand them.

 

[FrogReaver]

I understand your problem, even though I don't share it. For me and my group the game goes from roleplaying to roleplaying+tactical gaming when combat starts. The fiction is there (if you want it and work for it), but there is also the gamey mechanical aspect.

And in my opinion that duality is built-in in D&D. Trying to tweak the system to be something else is trying to fit a square peg in the round D&D hole. As others have written, there are lots of system that may have a combat resolution that fits you better. But in my opinion, being able to apply a fictional roleplaying layer above the combat mechanics is kind of required if you want to have fun with D&D.

But I think you are right, D&D functions best when it's just accepted that combat is going to be more tactical minigame with some roleplaying layered on top, and if desired a sensible enough fictional narrative can be created after each combat turn or after the combat - just not during the turns. And that's fine, the D&D formula is one I tend to like. It's just I hadn't realized till last night just how divorced from the fiction that tactical minigame tended to be. That realization hit me last night in a conversation about tactics and whether NPCs should ever use metagame knowledge and then I go and bring up the point that most tactical decisions you can make in a turn based system are tactics predicated upon the existence of that system instead of the existence of any fiction.

 

[FrogReaver]

Now that I understand the "problem" a bit better I completely agree. If you provide your players all the means to play a technical game by using grids and "precise" movements and rounds, why be surprised that they play technical like this ? Just going to Theater of the Mind would solve a lot of the "issues" as I understand them.

I play ToTM and it doesn't.

 

[Charlaquin]

Anyways, I don't think changing the goblins actions is a useful response.

You said the goblin could simply adjust his timing to your new pace. And I agree, he could. By changing his action in response to what he sees the fighter doing.

I have, there's no narrative that is matching up to what's happening on the turns.

There absolutely is, I just proposed one.

Saying, well you can mostly ignore what is happening on the turns and make up some fiction about the combat that makes sense on its own but doesn't really align to what's happening on the turns feels like a very unuseful response to this criticism.

In what way does the narrative I proposed not line up with what’s happening on the turns?

 

[Charlaquin]

So far the best narrative description we have is that I slow my movement a bit at an opportune time as a means of gaining an opening that will cause some real harm. But that still doesn't align, the fiction is about doing X to gain an opening. The turn based is about doing Y so I'll attack first.

These are synonymous.

 

[FrogReaver]

You said the goblin could simply adjust his timing to your new pace. And I agree, he could. By changing his action in response to what he sees the fighter doing.

I think you greatly misunderstand my point. I was talking about the fiction not the combat turn.

talking about changing the goblins actions within the combat turn changes the scenario and isn’t a useful response for how to handle this particular scenario.

 

[Voadam]

Is there a more common example of the problem than stopping 35 feet away?

Normally I run up and hit him and slide around to draw his attention away as my buddy comes up on the other side seems fine with the fiction.

Turn based takes away most simultaneous actions, the two running together and swinging at each at the same time, but usually this is taken care of by considering parrying part of AC in the narrative. I don't normally consider it a problem for the narrative. I have done B/X announce actions then roll initiative and things can go simultaneously, but I did not feel it was a better match for narrative, just more guessing and less control over your PC's actions in relation to what is going on.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you greatly misunderstand my point. I was talking about the fiction not the combat turn.

talking about changing the goblins actions within the combat turn changes the scenario and isn’t a useful response for how to handle this particular scenario.

The scenario you presented is that the fighter moves less than his full movement so the goblin will have to dash to reach him on the first turn. I proposed a narrative that matches this, which is that the fighter advances at less than full speed, hoping to lure the goblin in and get the first strike while the goblin is still running. You responded to this by asking, what if the goblin sees that and decides to slow his advance as well, to which I answered that he should not dash into the fighter’s range if he wants to do that. You’re the one who’s proposing a change to the scenario, I’m just saying how to execute that change.