D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[Garthanos]

Those are also fictional conditions. One doesn’t have to be under the fear condition to be frightened of the ancient dragon at level 5.

Character fear might also result in disadvantage... the mechanical condition described and the emotional cause are different.

 

[Maxperson]

More accurately, it can be confusing to use the condition keywords when not referring to the conditions. Nothing mandates that one cannot.

A party of heroic adventurers quaking in their boots since they lost initiative, recovering to attack on their, then quaking in their boots again, repeating every round since they lost initiative to 30 orcs and it takes a while to kill them, doesn't make for good fiction.

 

[FrogReaver]

A party of heroic adventurers quaking in their boots since they lost initiative, recovering to attack on their, then quaking in their boots again, repeating every round since they lost initiative to 30 orcs and it takes a while to kill them, doesn't make for good fiction.

Once the orcs are on top of them the need for a fictional reason for moving goes away. It’s only the first round they need frightened in.

 

[Maxperson]

Once the orcs are on top of them the need for a fictional reason for moving goes away. It’s only the first round they need frightened in.

You think so? Heroes will move for new tactical position(wizards getting distance from melee, etc.). Orcs will respond by moving(let's get the wizard!). And even if they don't move, every orc attacking before a hero can lift a finger is also bad.

 

[Krachek]

We are at a point where rules drive fiction!

 

[Maxperson]

We are at a point where rules drive fiction!

Neither should drive the other. It should be a mutual thing where the rules match the fiction and vice versa. That's not the case with D&D combat as written.

 

[Krachek]

Neither should drive the other. It should be a mutual thing where the rules match the fiction and vice versa. That's not the case with D&D combat as written.

Indeed, it’s a kind of tango.
Strict rules make a harsh fiction.
Pure fiction, is better at the theator.
DnD is definitively the place for compromise and cooperation.

 

[clearstream]

Neither should drive the other. It should be a mutual thing where the rules match the fiction and vice versa. That's not the case with D&D combat as written.

Is it more accurate to say that it doesn't drive the fiction in a way that you find satisfying?

As an example, you and I could agree that it is a poor or unrealisitc fiction, without our needing to also agree that it is fictionless. Your objections seem to be that you dislike the plausibility of an explanation. I don't think you deny the possibility of an explanation.

 

[Garthanos]

You think so? Heroes will move for new tactical position(wizards getting distance from melee, etc.). Orcs will respond by moving(let's get the wizard!). And even if they don't move, every orc attacking before a hero can lift a finger is also bad.

And there is only so much reactive out of turn actions (which improve the sense of interlaced simultaneity in my opinion) one can insert before things get cumbersome.

 

[Maxperson]

Is it more accurate to say that it doesn't drive the fiction in a way that you find satisfying?

Sure. I like my fiction to make sense whenever possible. D&D combat as written cannot supply a fiction that makes sense.

As an example, you and I could agree that it is a poor or unrealisitc fiction, without our needing to also agree that it is fictionless. Your objections seem to be that you dislike the plausibility of an explanation. I don't think you deny the possibility of an explanation.

Yeah. I don't think it's fictionless. It can't be with monsters, PCs and a game world present.