D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[Umbran]

FrogReaver is not expressing a concern about the medium of interaction: the concern is about the way mechanical states of affairs (eg position, hit point tallies, etc, all established on a turn-by-turn basis) form a basis for action declaration and for action resolution, although the fiction that follows from those mechanical states of affairs isn't yet known.

And fiction is not resolved sufficiently because of an insistence that the fiction reflect simultaneous action, when the mechanic does not enforce this.

 

[pemerton]

Thank you, that really helps! A view is taken of the flow of local macroscopic interactions and information that gamers experience in the real world - that we generally call "time" - and the game model is expected to comply with that flow. To expect that compliance is a simulationist-concern, even though it's not arising from simulationist-motives.

Re the bit that I've bolded: absolutely. Ron Edwards has a nice discussion of it in his "Right to Dream" essay. His discussion of initiative systems resonated strongly with me when I first read it, as that was a time when the main game I played was Rolemaster, in which getting initiative "right" has always been a big deal (I posted about that upthread).

Moving from background approach to mechanical specifics. The rules say that a round is 6-seconds, but I don't believe they say that actions in a round must take 6-seconds. Do you agree?

Informationally, when do you suppose is long-enough after P1 takes damage, for P2 to be aware of that damage and treat their wound? 1-second? 6-seconds? More?

On the first point, I agree. It does give rise to the question, what else are people doing? Are they just standing around? Taking in the action? (D&D doesn't use "orientation" rolls to the same extent as eg RM does.) Or should we just not worry about it?

On the second point I've got no real view. I would normally follow the logic of whatever system I'm playing.

To make the information constraints clear, picture two actors on an unbounded grid. They can each move 6 squares (30') in their turn. The time-simulationist expects that they move some of that over each second of the 6-second round. It could be as simple as expecting them to move 1 square a second. Supposing both start at rest, and actor 1 wants to catch actor 2. One can quibble with this example, but let's imagine that the actors must commit to their full movement in second 1, which might be something like what is thought to be happening when a cleric commits to a spell cast. There are well over 100 squares that actor 2 could possibly be found in by second 6 from the point of view of actor 2, who must decide at the start of second 1 what direction to move to intercept them. The problem is, how does actor 2 in second-1 have information about actor 1's position in second-6?

I'm not a 100% sure where you're going with this example. I think it shows that blind declaration in the context of grid movement can produce odd results - because in "real life" actor 1 can adjust their path based on what they perceive about actor 2's movement. Burning Wheel uses blind declaration, but no grid or minis - the actor 1/actor 2 scenario is resolved as an opposed Speed check.

I take a non-simulationist view of time in D&D combat. I suppose that all actors are continuously doing things, and the moments we see in a round are just highlights and points of interjection, in a scene too complex for a game to model. I do not assume any going back up the time stack to find out what N is doing while P2 treats P1's wound. It transpires that P1 is wounded, and P2 treats that; N might well do more, as we will discover in future rounds. That's sufficient for a coherent narrative.

The only time I've used WotC-style turn-by-turn resolution for a sustained period was 4e D&D. In general, it worked well. The issues that @FrogReaver has raised didn't bother us - in any event, because of the delay option in 4e most of our combats ended up as de facto "side" initiative, and so it becomes easier to imagine the cleric who acts after the fighter with a Healing Word as having deliberately waited to see if that was needed. The greater amount of off-turn action also reduced the freeze-frame vibe.

But there was one occasion, during a chase, when the players were able to exploit stop-motion action economy to their advantage, by taking their movement and thereby closing on a foe, and then flying their giant bird its movement rate to close the rest of the distance before the enemy got its action.

That produced a chuckle or two, I think, but no more than that - similarly to the "square" fireballs and the like. Most of the time it was easy to ignore it.

 

[Garthanos]

The only time I've used WotC-style turn-by-turn resolution for a sustained period was 4e D&D. In general, it worked well. The issues that @FrogReaver has raised didn't bother us - in any event, because of the delay option in 4e most of our combats ended up as de facto "side" initiative, and so it becomes easier to imagine the cleric who acts after the fighter with a Healing Word as having deliberately waited to see if that was needed. The greater amount of off-turn action also reduced the freeze-frame vibe.

I had forgotten the delay action I do not think I have seen it used much do your group delay to clump their actions together to create this side initiative? (what benefit are they getting)

 

[Umbran]

Most of the time it was easy to ignore it.

There is no accounting for what will get stuck in someone's craw in a game design. But we also have to question how huge a flaw this really is when millions of players over decades haven't had all that much of a problem with it.

It seems to me that games that take different approaches to time, conflict resolution mechanics, and the resulting fiction arise not from a real issue putting together a fiction off of a turn-based, round-by-round method, but from different overall approaches to conflict resolution that don't really call for that traditional style.

 

[pemerton]

There is no accounting for what will get stuck in someone's craw in a game design. But we also have to question how huge a flaw this really is when millions of players over decades haven't had all that much of a problem with it.

I don't think this is fair to @FrogReaver. The issue is a real one. Rolemaster and its various supplements/companions (and that's just to name one system) have devoted page after page to trying to resolve it within an overarching wargame-style framework.

I think it would bother me more in 5e than 4e D&D because 5e has fewer of the other 4e features (especially off-turn actions) that help create a feeling of fluidity/simultaneity,

 

[FrogReaver]

The only time I've used WotC-style turn-by-turn resolution for a sustained period was 4e D&D. In general, it worked well. The issues that @FrogReaver has raised didn't bother us - in any event, because of the delay option in 4e most of our combats ended up as de facto "side" initiative, and so it becomes easier to imagine the cleric who acts after the fighter with a Healing Word as having deliberately waited to see if that was needed. The greater amount of off-turn action also reduced the freeze-frame vibe.

But there was one occasion, during a chase, when the players were able to exploit stop-motion action economy to their advantage, by taking their movement and thereby closing on a foe, and then flying their giant bird its movement rate to close the rest of the distance before the enemy got its action.

That produced a chuckle or two, I think, but no more than that - similarly to the "square" fireballs and the like. Most of the time it was easy to ignore it.

You know - adding back in the delay action would probably help. It doesn't solve the problem but it would help minimize it i think.

 

[pemerton]

I had forgotten the delay action I do not think I have seen it used much do your group delay to clump their actions together to create this side initiative? (what benefit are they getting)

Delaying permits coordination - eg I'll clump them together [with CaGI, or some other forced movement effect] then you blast them!

The Rules Compendium gives the rule for Delaying on p 242, which include:

* Delay until Later Initiative: The creature delays its turn until it decides to act later in the initiative order. However, parts of the creature’s turn occur the moment the creature delays, as detailed below.​

* Returning to the Initiative Order: After any turn has been completed, the creature can step back into the initiative order and take its turn. The creature’s initiative changes to this new position in the initiative order.​

So the effect of this is that the delaying PC comes in just after the PC who they were wanting to respond to. So over a few turns, most if not all of the PCs end up clumped together, at which point delaying among them makes no more difference and it plays out much more like traditional "side" initiative.

I'm not going to say that every 4e combat we ran ended up like this. But it was a pretty common thing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Delaying permits coordination - eg I'll clump them together [with CaGI, or some other forced movement effect] then you blast them!

The Rules Compendium gives the rule for Delaying on p 242, which include:

* Delay until Later Initiative: The creature delays its turn until it decides to act later in the initiative order. However, parts of the creature’s turn occur the moment the creature delays, as detailed below.​

* Returning to the Initiative Order: After any turn has been completed, the creature can step back into the initiative order and take its turn. The creature’s initiative changes to this new position in the initiative order.​

So the effect of this is that the delaying PC comes in just after the PC who they were wanting to respond to. So over a few turns, most if not all of the PCs end up clumped together, at which point delaying among them makes no more difference and it plays out much more like traditional "side" initiative.

I'm not going to say that every 4e combat we ran ended up like this. But it was a pretty common thing.

Huh, I only ever saw delay used as a tactic to make more effective attacks. So, an enemy might be out of LoE/LoS and you could delay until they appeared, but MORE importantly, you might have a more effective shorter-ranged effect (like a melee attack) that you would rather unleash on them vs immediately using a less effective one. This can really work for a fighter who is actually DOING HIS JOB if the bad guy then declines to come near! (though you definitely lose out vs perhaps hitting him with some minor ranged attack and then an OA, but you don't always get those). It feels a lot like the old "set weapons to receive a charge" option of AD&D combat.

Anyway, 4e combat always seemed fairly dynamic to me, and fairly easy to narrate. However, it does share a feature with other D&Ds, which is that you don't HAVE to narrate! In contrast you literally don't fight if you don't narrate in Dungeon World! I mean, you could ignore some of the 'rules' and basically say "I take a swing at the orc" but you're going to be virtually forced to explain what your doing except in the most dull of situations, and GMs are not supposed to let things stand like that.

Likewise 4e is really good at action scenes. There's lots of options, the environment is rich and well defined, and it has things like terrain powers, traps, and just generally a lot of terrain and circumstance hooks you can use. Plus a lot of powers produce movement, which I find is not something 5e really is super good for. AD&D kind of sidewise forbade moving around, and 3.x literally made it cost you lots of your attacks. So, I found that a lot of narration happened in that game.

Anyway, my own game is evolving more in the DW direction with 'players roll for everything' and a requirement that you define the narrative side of your actions so that you can explain what defense you get to use. It is a little different from DW, and more structured like 4e, but also more demanding of some 'fleshing out' of the fiction.

 

[Umbran]

The issue is a real one.

An ironic turn of phrase in this context. It is a fantasy entertainment. There's very little "real" about it.

Rolemaster and its various supplements/companions (and that's just to name one system) have devoted page after page to trying to resolve it within an overarching wargame-style framework.

So, the system does create fiction the players can use to make decisions, if used as designed. It is hardly a "real issue" for the system if the player wants it to do so, but insists on not using it as designed.

It is fine if you want to view combat action as being simultaneous! I mean, when people put on armor and hit each other, their actions do not usually happen simultaneously. There generally ends up being a bit of time ordering in it all, but whatever - it is fine to want a system to do the thing you want it to do. But is not a "real issue" with any particular system if it does not... any more than it is a real issue with your dishwasher that it is not an oven.

Now, to really torture the heck out of that metaphor - you know, you can cook in a dishwasher. I've actually done it - some fish, lemon slices, dill, and a bit of salt, wrapped in tightly sealed foil, can actually work up well in a dishwasher. But you can't really blame the dishwasher if the process is kind of awkward or failure prone.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Now, to really torture the heck out of that metaphor - you know, you can cook in a dishwasher. I've actually done it - some fish, lemon slices, dill, and a bit of salt, wrapped in tightly sealed foil, can actually work up well in a dishwasher. But you can't really blame the dishwasher if the process is kind of awkward or failure prone.

You can cook steak sous vide in a dishwasher: