D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[CleverNickName]

D&D Combat is fictionless. But Frogreaver, "What does that even mean?" It means that D&D combat is incapable of representing combat fiction the way we want to imagine it. The turn structure gets in the way. Instead of having the goblin and fighter charge each other and meet in the middle. Instead we have the fighter carefully plotting out his turn and being careful to only use enough movement so that the goblin in question will need to use it's action to dash to get to him. A wise tactical decision! But that tactical decision has no basis in the actual fiction. The fiction is just that the fighter and goblin charge each other and engage each other in melee combat - I mean no one imagines the fighter advances and then stops, and then the goblin advances and then stops... right? So this wise tactical decision is solely a reflection of 'metagaming the combat turns'. That bugs me. And it's probably going to continue to bug me as I don't really see a possible solution. But it would be really nice if for my combat decisions to be wise and tactical they could be based on the fiction instead of the turn structure.

This is my biggest complaint about the game for as long as I can remember.

We can spend an entire gaming session deeply immersed in the story and the setting, vibing off of each other in character, telling an awesome story of betrayal and revenge, dragons and sorcery...

...and all that carefully-crafted suspense and tension goes right out the window as soon as we roll for initiative. Now we hard-shift from storytelling to some weird board game, where everyone argues over minutiae, complains about (Dis)Advantage, and counts squares on a battle mat over and over again for a solid hour.

It's gotten better since 5th Edition came out (Pathfinder was the worst I'd seen), but it's still a bit too board-gamey for my tastes. I'm always on the hunt for ways to streamline the "combat mini-game" so that it doesn't pull so much focus.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is my biggest complaint about the game for as long as I can remember.

We can spend an entire gaming session deeply immersed in the story and the setting, vibing off of each other in character, telling an awesome story of betrayal and revenge, dragons and sorcery...

...and all that carefully-crafted suspense and tension goes right out the window as soon as we roll for initiative. Now we hard-shift from storytelling to some weird board game, where everyone argues over minutiae, complains about (Dis)Advantage, and counts squares on a battle mat over and over again for a solid hour.

It's gotten better since 5th Edition came out (Pathfinder was the worst I'd seen), but it's still a bit too board-gamey for my tastes. I'm always on the hunt for ways to streamline the "combat mini-game" so that it doesn't pull so much focus.

I very much like board games, turn based games, games in general. I find 5e combat fun and tactical enough for a cooperative games where you generally are meant to win. It would just be nice if tactical decision making was a little more grounded in fiction. Maybe it's that the game abstracts so much about the combat, while leaving spatial positioning to be one of the few concrete parts remaining.

 

[MGibster]

D&D Combat is fictionless. But Frogreaver, "What does that even mean?" It means that D&D combat is incapable of representing combat fiction the way we want to imagine it. The turn structure gets in the way. Instead of having the goblin and fighter charge each other and meet in the middle.

I tend to agree, but I don't expect D&D to represent combat fiction in the same way I imagine it. D&D is a game and I expect combat to feel like a game.

 

[clearstream]

This suggested interpretation of @Maxperson's example does open up another @FrogReaver-style pressure point: we are not positing that each round is not 6 seconds, but rather is in the neigh1bourhood of six seconds. This will bump into duration rules, like spell durations. (4e D&D avoids this issue by using non-real-world time durations for combat-relevant effects.)

It's interesting to ask what time represents in an RPG. Perhaps it best represents the relative number of other things that can happen while something is happening. A torch burns for 1 hour. How much can happen while it is burning? That varies from table to table - for @Jack Daniel each character will get six exploration actions. In WWON it can contain at least 4 scenes, or 6 turns of focused exploration, and the variability of those spans is called attention to.

RAW is clear that a light spell should last exactly as long as a torch... but does it really make sense that every natural torch in the world burns for precisely one hour? And if it doesn't, what does that say about a light spell? I find that time in fiction contracts and expands as to what it contains - to suit our narratives. What about you?

There are some other oddities too, like the fact that the fighter stumbling doesn't actually cost any actions in the action economy - so the stumble is real enough to permit the Orcs to swarm past the fighter to the door, but not s real that it actually impedes the fighter's actions for the round.

Two fighters set out on one turn of movement. One walks 30'. The other skips (but does not dash). How far many feet can the second go? Or are the barred from skipping unless they dash? The specifics of narration seem to me in good part up to what is accepted at each table. A group might feel that initiative represents an inner readiness - akin to zanshin - in which case they might say that even though the player aimed not to waffle, their character did indeed, internally, waffle.

The fictional reality of the stumble is suggested by the fact that as player I rolled a low initiative. If I wanted the die to narrate my preconceived narrative (that my character neither hesitated nor stumbled) I should have put it down with the number I wanted face up: rolling it was a noob error Alternatively, I could prefer to make initiative inexplicable: resisting any in-world explanation as to how my fighter happened to be slower. If I do, am I saying that all ability checks should be inexplicable? My rogue picks the lock... but not through doing anything observable in-fiction.

I think I'm just framing initiative as a Dexterity (Initiative) ability check, and narrating it along those lines.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

It seems to me that some people want the mechanics to create the fiction for them. And the only way to do that imho is to have really detailed simulationist mechanics, where the mechanics are simulationist in a sense that they simulate and create details for the games stated and explicit fiction. The result is most probably very long battles that are far away from the D&D tradition - hello old FGU games.

Or we can have what 5e gives us - way more rough non-detailed mechanics, made for both reasonably short battles and a moderate amount of tactical options, that gives us (imho) enough meat and potatoes to build our own combat fiction from.

Yes, there is no mechanical difference between a fighter that skips and a fighter that walks. But there sure is a roleplaying difference, if you want it to be.

Maybe I'm just blessed with players that don't have a problem to keep roleplaying in combat and create fiction out of die rolls and limited mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

It seems to me that some people want the mechanics to create the fiction for them. And the only way to do that imho is to have really detailed simulationist mechanics, where the mechanics are simulationist in a sense that they simulate and create details for the games stated and explicit fiction. The result is most probably very long battles that are far away from the D&D tradition - hello old FGU games.

Or we can have what 5e gives us - way more rough non-detailed mechanics, made for both reasonably short battles and a moderate amount of tactical options, that gives us (imho) enough meat and potatoes to build our own combat fiction from.

Those aren't the only two options.

 

[pemerton]

I think I'm just framing initiative as a Dexterity (Initiative) ability check, and narrating it along those lines.

I've got no problem with your narration. I just think that the natural extrapolation from being slower to react is being able to do less stuff per unit of time.

Whereas in cyclic initiative, the person who goes last still gets to do as much stuff as the person who went first and therefore - per your narration - had better reactions, didn't stumble etc.

Or to put it another way - why is "inner waffling" free, as far as the time it takes goes?

It's interesting to ask what time represents in an RPG. Perhaps it best represents the relative number of other things that can happen while something is happening. A torch burns for 1 hour. How much can happen while it is burning? That varies from table to table - for @Jack Daniel each character will get six exploration actions. In WWON it can contain at least 4 scenes, or 6 turns of focused exploration, and the variability of those spans is called attention to.

RAW is clear that a light spell should last exactly as long as a torch... but does it really make sense that every natural torch in the world burns for precisely one hour? And if it doesn't, what does that say about a light spell? I find that time in fiction contracts and expands as to what it contains - to suit our narratives. What about you?

In RM, the sort of issue @FrogReaver is describing could come up, as I've posted upthread.

Since my last RM session (in 2008) I don't think I've played a RPG that uses "real time" durations in a way that would generate these issues, except for a few classic D&D one-shots where it didn't really come up.

4e D&D, like 5e, does have the issue of you go last, but get a full suite of actions. It can be a bit weird sometimes!

 

[Scott Christian]

D&D Combat is fictionless. But Frogreaver, "What does that even mean?" It means that D&D combat is incapable of representing combat fiction the way we want to imagine it. The turn structure gets in the way. Instead of having the goblin and fighter charge each other and meet in the middle. Instead we have the fighter carefully plotting out his turn and being careful to only use enough movement so that the goblin in question will need to use it's action to dash to get to him. A wise tactical decision! But that tactical decision has no basis in the actual fiction. The fiction is just that the fighter and goblin charge each other and engage each other in melee combat - I mean no one imagines the fighter advances and then stops, and then the goblin advances and then stops... right? So this wise tactical decision is solely a reflection of 'metagaming the combat turns'. That bugs me. And it's probably going to continue to bug me as I don't really see a possible solution. But it would be really nice if for my combat decisions to be wise and tactical they could be based on the fiction instead of the turn structure.

I would point out a few things here, the first is an argument against your case. The fiction can be there, it is highly (maybe too much so) on the ability of the DM and/or player to narrate the actions. Your example of a fighter is fictional combat. The fighter, in his experience, knows a goblin's movement, and adjusts his accordingly. In fiction it would sound a bit like the passage when we first met Artemis Entreri in the Icewind Dale series. He was killing those dwarves, using their movement and heavy swings against them. There are DMs out there (and players) that can weave "right proper" fiction" with their abilities and choices in combat - even turn based. But, in my experience, it is very difficult to do, and even harder to make it sound as great as any book passage. (Where the author writes and writes and edits and edits).
An argument for you is definitely eliminating turn based combat. I have played around with it quite a bit. The main difficulty arises in movement, not actions. Movement on a board, and not being able to adjust movement based off others becomes even more fictionless. Always looking for ideas though.

 

[Scott Christian]

Hackmaster 5e has an interesting attempt to keep the tactical, miniatures style combat while getting rid of turns. Combat proceeds in seconds, and all characters act simultaneously each second. So rather than Dave moving 6 squares on his 6 second turn and the gibbon moving 6 squares on his, everyone moves one square on each second.

Actions have different lengths, so reloading your crossbow or casting a spell means you have to wait a few seconds before acting. Of course, though, if the situation changes you can quit reloading part way through and do something else.

Melee weapons all have a speed, representing how easy they are to use, so you make an attack against your opponent, then need to wait x many seconds to attack again depending on how heavy and awkward your weapon is.

I've never tried it out as there is far too much complexity in the rules, but I can't help but feel there's the germ of a great system in there.

And yes, I noticed that my phone changed 'goblin' to 'gibbon', but I've decided to leave it in there and stat up some dire gibbons for my next game

This seems interesting, but I can see with some players, it becoming a VERY slow game. Are the attacks more critical, thus causing death at a greater rate?

 

[Umbran]

Unless I misunderstood Maxperson’s example, I don’t believe their was a round before.

Which can become an issue in analysis, because if one ignores history, one can set up situations that are nonsensical or nigh impossible.

As an example, okay, so poof the fighter and orcs teleport in. Shouldn't there be a surprise check? What are the chances that resolves the issue before the move-issue comes up? More importantly, for the fiction, which is our ultimate point, even if he's not mechanically surprised, the fighter being just a bit slow on the uptake after suddenly appearing covers the problem that this "can't happen" in the scenario.

For the fiction, the history matters.