D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[Lyxen]

Well that's awfully presumptive of you.

Then don't present things as facts if it's not what you mean.

 

[Garthanos]

Not sure the mapping tools are really as relevant as the conversation has made them.

Reactive movement was I think suggested as a way to help the mechanics better reflect simultaneous game action. I think that had some potential.

4e sort of had this in a form as a function of specific powers. Various reactive defense powers that allowed movements or attack retaliations which could also be presented as simultaneous hits. A fighter class feature explicitly enabled movement in response to an enemy behavior as does a swordmage. Various warlord and bard powers enabled something like it.

 

[Lyxen]

The "Ready" rules are indeed an example of bringing a bit more cinematic (or even just simultaneity), even if not THAT MUCH cinematic... at least not spectacular. Even if they are minimally cinematic, they always give me a feeling that they are not that smooth in any edition, always somewhat clunky and more complicated that they should be. The reason is IMHO pretty much that even the designers are afraid of players exploiting them too much, so they overcomplicate the rule to make it safer. But then this is counterintuitive... something tells me that players who favor cinematics do not like complicated rules that slow down gameplay.

I agree that they felt complicated and artificial before 5e (at least to us), but in 5e, they seem fairly natural and are used reasonably often without bad consequences. It might be because they are really simple, or because the trigger description is simple as well, but they are indeed fairly cinematic in our games. Also, they don't bring a major advantage, but neither do they bring such a disadvantage in using them that they would be restricted to very specific cases.

 

[Garthanos]

I agree that they felt complicated and artificial before 5e (at least to us), but in 5e, they seem fairly natural and are used reasonably often without bad consequences. It might be because they are really simple, or because the trigger description is simple as well, but they are indeed fairly cinematic in our games. Also, they don't bring a major advantage, but neither do they bring such a disadvantage in using them that they would be restricted to very specific cases.

I always felt readying resulted in high chances of doing nothing at all... you are guessing what will happen? and it isn't clear you get much benefit when you are right? That could be just how my brain works though.

 

[Charlaquin]

To be fair, those are Moldvay Basic rules and this thread is about 5e D&D. Nobody uses torches in 5e.

Technically the thread tag does say D&D general. But yeah, if we’re going to be talking system specifics, we should pick one system so we’re all working with the same frame of reference.

 

[Voadam]

I always felt readying resulted in high chances of doing nothing at all... you are guessing what will happen? and it isn't clear you get much benefit when you are right? That could be just how my brain works though.

I generally only saw readied actions for things like attacking an enemy when they became targetable, usually in cases with monsters that can pop in and out like an incorporeal undead striking from in a wall then ducking back, blinking things, and things that can go ethereal quickly like phase spiders. The chance for wasted readied actions was there but usually the creatures showed up.

In 3e I expected to see people ready to interrupt spellcasting a lot more with either counterspells or arrows, but I never saw it happen in actual play. Full on normal attacks were usually more effective.

 

[Garthanos]

I generally only saw readied actions for things like attacking an enemy when they became targetable, usually in cases with monsters that can pop in and out like an incorporeal undead striking from in a wall then ducking back, blinking things, and things that can go ethereal quickly like phase spiders. The chance for wasted readied actions was there but usually the creatures showed up.

In 3e I expected to see people ready to interrupt spellcasting a lot more with either counterspells or arrows, but I never saw it happen in actual play. Full on normal attacks were usually more effective.

If there is something standard you can do... it seems likely to have that result. If you are frustrated for some reason as you say then why not?

 

[Jack Daniel]

Then don't present things as facts if it's not what you mean.

Let's be very clear here. I did assert an indisputable fact: that D&D combat is a skirmish "mini-game", in the sense that it's entirely possible to play out a D&D combat in isolation, without any dependency on fiction beyond the bare mechanics. It's just self-evidently true that you can do this — I would have supposed it entirely uncontroversial — and I was asking whether this was part of what @FrogReaver meant in claiming that D&D combat is "fictionless."

Then you jumped in with a twisted claim that (a) this was how I run all my D&D combats, and (b) that I was claiming it's the only way to run D&D combats. When I never said anything remotely akin to either (a) or (b). So… yeah, presumptive to the point of non sequitur.

This is a pointless tangent, I'm done talking about it, feel free to have the last word on the matter if you must.

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's be very clear here. I did assert an indisputable fact: that D&D combat is a skirmish "mini-game", in the sense that it's entirely possible to play out a D&D combat in isolation, without any dependency on fiction beyond the bare mechanics. It's just self-evidently true that you can do this — I would have supposed it entirely uncontroversial — and I was asking whether this was part of what @FrogReaver meant in claiming that D&D combat is "fictionless."

I'm making a more nuanced claim than that.

1. There inevitably arise situations with D&D combat such that the fiction established the previous round changes mid round and players base decisions off these changes. I think this is uncontroversial.

2. The existence of such decision points establishes either a) that D&D combat fiction is actually turn based (and there's a more in depth discussion we could have about how this ends up being fictionless as well) or b) the character and these decision points aren't based on any established fiction.

3. It's not actually possible to play a combat without such decision points arising, even if our brain processes a solid answer faster in most situations than we realize (best option here is to attack, dash, disengage, cast healing word, etc) which almost makes it seem as if there was no decision point at all.

 

[pemerton]

1. There inevitably arise situations with D&D combat such that the fiction established the previous round changes mid round and players base decisions off these changes. I think this is uncontroversial.

2. The existence of such decision points establishes either a) that D&D combat fiction is actually turn based (and there's a more in depth discussion we could have about how this ends up being fictionless as well) or b) the character and these decision points aren't based on any established fiction.

3. It's not actually possible to play a combat without such decision points arising, even if our brain processes a solid answer faster in most situations than we realize (best option here is to attack, dash, disengage, cast healing word, etc) which almost makes it seem as if there was no decision point at all.

Just to be clear that we're all on the same page here, I want to give an example that I believe illustrates your points 1 to 3:

[initiative]The initiative order is P1, N1, P2 - where the Ps are PCs and N is a NPC/creature.

P1 moves, then attacks N1. N1 survives the attack but triggers an ability that depends on being attacked/taking damage (eg in 4e, this might be a buff that is triggered when N1 is bloodied; it could be some form of rage; etc).

N1 attacks P1 with multiple, sequential attacks (eg multiple attacks with the same weapon/limb/whatever) that benefit from the triggered ability. The last of these renders P1 unconscious.

P2 casts a spell (eg Healing Word) to stabilise/revive P1, and then moves to stand over P1's prone form in order to defend P1 from N1.[/initiative]

This only makes sense if P1 first moves then fights N1 - triggering N1's special ability; and then N1, buffed by that ability, hits P1 and knocks them unconscious; and then P2 casts the spell that revives P1 before moving to where P1 has fallen.

Which means that the fiction of the combat is turn-based (your 2(b)) - which is weird at best!