D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[pemerton]

I suppose when one thinks about generation of fiction that the whole scene doesn’t need generated all at once.

If so then it would make sense that the in turn mechanics function to create fiction even if it’s only a single detail about the fictional scene that they are establishing.

In this view what happens during the turns and rounds would be a very abstract scene where most details are yet to be fictionally established but a few are. Such a space is not totally devoid of all fiction but it’s missing the vast majority which makes interacting with it impossible other than by game mechanics. To me that’s why I call it fictionless. Because players cannot interact with it on the fictional level.

I've tried to state your position just upthread. I hope I've got it right because everything you've said about it makes sense to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

I've tried to state your position just upthread. I hope I've got it right because everything you've said about it makes sense to me.

It was a good summary

 

[Maxperson]

@clearstream, I will try and state @FrogReaver's concern, as I understand it:

During combat, participants make decisions for the characters they are controlling which matter to how things turn out (eg decisions to move, to cast healing spells, etc) and which are chosen based on knowledge of the mechanical state of the game (eg where another character is on the grid; what a character's current hit point total is; etc). But at least some of the fiction that corresponds to those mechanical states can't be known until after the decisions that matter have been taken and the actions resolved. Because only after the event do you get the sort of "emergent" fictions that you are putting forward.

This means that those decisions, and the knowledge they are based on, don't themselves correspond to decisions being made, and knowledge possessed, by the character whose action is being chosen by the participant. In that particular sense, D&D combat is fictionless - ie it involves purely mechanically-driven decision-making that (from FrogReaver's point of view) "masquerades" as in-character/in-fiction decision-making.

My position is in-between the two of them. Combat is not fictionless, because there is some fiction that does happen before the decisions are made and some decisions will be made in response to fiction and not mechanics.

Let's take a combat where 3 orcs enter a room with 1 fighter already inside. The orcs have entered the room(fiction), presumably along with a description of the three orcs(fiction) and their reaction to seeing the fighter(fiction). Initiative gets rolled(mechanic). The orcs win and move in for the kill(fiction and mechanics). One of the orcs insults the mother of the fighter(fiction). The fighter get angry with that orc and the player tells the DM he is going to attack that orc on his turn for it's temerity(fiction). The fighter's turn comes up and he shouts, "You're going to pay for that insult with your life!"(fiction). He then attacks the orc that insulted him(mechanic in response to the fiction).

Combat is not fictionless, but it is broken fiction in that the mechanics allow for situations that just could not and would not occur in any sort of even semi-realistic combat. Those mechanics establish fiction that is essentially impossible along side the fiction that is not impossible.

 

[FrogReaver]

My position is in-between the two of them. Combat is not fictionless, because there is some fiction that does happen before the decisions are made and some decisions will be made in response to fiction and not mechanics.

Let's take a combat where 3 orcs enter a room with 1 fighter already inside. The orcs have entered the room(fiction), presumably along with a description of the three orcs(fiction) and their reaction to seeing the fighter(fiction). Initiative gets rolled(mechanic). The orcs win and move in for the kill(fiction and mechanics). One of the orcs insults the mother of the fighter(fiction). The fighter get angry with that orc and the player tells the DM he is going to attack that orc on his turn for it's temerity(fiction). The fighter's turn comes up and he shouts, "You're going to pay for that insult with your life!"(fiction). He then attacks the orc that insulted him(mechanic in response to the fiction).

Combat is not fictionless, but it is broken fiction in that the mechanics allow for situations that just could not and would not occur in any sort of even semi-realistic combat. Those mechanics establish fiction that is essentially impossible along side the fiction that is not impossible.

Most of what you are describing here is conversation in combat and I previously described that as a fictional layer that’s being added on top of the fictionless combat.

To me all that shows is one can layer a level of fiction on top of anything.

 

[Maxperson]

Most of what you are describing here is conversation in combat and I previously described that as a fictional layer that’s being added on top of the fictionless combat.

To me all that shows is one can layer a level of fiction on top of anything.

Prior movement and actions also establish fiction for future rounds, and the initial entry/discovery of the enemy is also fiction that is established prior to the first round. There is always fiction present in combat in addition to the mechanics, but the fiction that is established BY the mechanics is usually borked in some way.

 

[FrogReaver]

Prior movement and actions also establish fiction for future rounds, and the initial entry/discovery of the enemy is also fiction that is established prior to the first round. There is always fiction present in combat in addition to the mechanics, but the fiction that is established BY the mechanics is usually borked in some way.

This is another moment I feel the need to point out that what I’m calling fictionless is not the utter lack of any fiction. I’ve said this countless times now. Instead, It’s the lack of a detailed enough fiction at the time a player decides their characters actions such that those decisions cannot be based on fiction but instead on mechanics.

 

[Lyxen]

Most of what you are describing here is conversation in combat and I previously described that as a fictional layer that’s being added on top of the fictionless combat.

And, once more, combat is only fictionless because you implement it that way in your games. If you want a technical combat following the holy RAW and grids (which seems to be the case), then you will have a fictionless technical combat.

If, on the other hand, you actually follow the (meta-)rules (which, in particular, use theater of the mind, no grids, and recommend using rulings rather than rules and ignoring the mechanics which don't suit you), you have combats which, although certainly not perfect in terms of fiction, are much more fiction-full.

It's D&D as well, and while not better or worse, it is still closer to the spirit of the rules as expressed by the devs in the books themselves. Also, watch a bit of critical role, for example (I'm not a huge fan and only seen the first 8 episodes or so but their play style is much closer to fiction, helped by great descriptions and acting).

Of course, if you have the right player for this and you let them create the fiction, you will have fiction in your combat, but if you direct their creativity to be mostly technical by following rules, guess what you will have ?

 

[FrogReaver]

And, once more, combat is only fictionless because you implement it that way in your games. If you want a technical combat following the holy RAW and grids (which seems to be the case), then you will have a fictionless technical combat.

If, on the other hand, you actually follow the (meta-)rules (which, in particular, use theater of the mind, no grids, and recommend using rulings rather than rules and ignoring the mechanics which don't suit you), you have combats which, although certainly not perfect in terms of fiction, are much more fiction-full.

It's D&D as well, and while not better or worse, it is still closer to the spirit of the rules as expressed by the devs in the books themselves. Also, watch a bit of critical role, for example (I'm not a huge fan and only seen the first 8 episodes or so but their play style is much closer to fiction, helped by great descriptions and acting).

Of course, if you have the right player for this and you let them create the fiction, you will have fiction in your combat, but if you direct their creativity to be mostly technical by following rules, guess what you will have ?

You keep talking about grids. I don’t play with grids. Why do you keep bringing that up after repeatedly being told it has no relevance here?

 

[Lyxen]

You keep talking about grids. I don’t play with grids. Why do you keep bringing that up after repeatedly being told it has no relevance here?

Fine, why do you focus on grids in my answer, then, it is much wider than this. Don't provide all the information to the players, even between themselves (at our tables, people don't know how many hit points the others have, heck, they don't even know the archetype of others in many cases). That way, they will base themselves on the fiction that is being told by others rather than on technical information.

 

[Voadam]

I am used to having at least some players who are very disassociated from the mechanics and as a DM asking what do you want to do, have them describe it narratively (I would consider this fiction), and then I translate that into mechanics for the system (mechanics), then translate that back to the characters narratively (fiction). 1e encouraged this style of interaction with having lots of game mechanics buried in the DMG and emphasizing the difference between DM and player knowledge of and access to the rules.

In this type of DM-player interaction setup players can engage completely in the mechanics (if they know them), completely narratively, or along a continuum between the two.