D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[pemerton]

@Umbran, I'm not really following your posts.

@FrogReaver has identified a phenomenon, that the fiction of what happened in the round can't be established until after actions are declared and resolved, although some of those actions only make sense (in the fiction) as responses to what is happening in the fiction.

There are no doubt many D&D players, perhaps a large majority, who aren't bothered by this. When I played 4e D&D it didn't bother me, as I've posted upthread. But I don't think it's fair to say that someone who is bothered by it is doing something wrong or outside the specs (as would be the case for cooking in a dishwasher).

 

[Fenris-77]

So this is a long thread, and I haven't read it, but the OP already presents me with a problem. 'Fictionless' as a term, does not even remotely mean 'not the fiction I want'. So there's that. I don't disagree that the story/narrative/whatever that the D&D combat system produces is unsatisfying though, That's true for a lot of people IMO.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Umbran, I'm not really following your posts.

@FrogReaver has identified a phenomenon, that the fiction of what happened in the round can't be established until after actions are declared and resolved, although some of those actions only make sense (in the fiction) as responses to what is happening in the fiction.

There are no doubt many D&D players, perhaps a large majority, who aren't bothered by this. When I played 4e D&D it didn't bother me, as I've posted upthread. But I don't think it's fair to say that someone who is bothered by it is doing something wrong or outside the specs (as would be the case for cooking in a dishwasher).

I think that often while at the table I and many other players don't have the mental capacity to really analyze what's going on while doing all the things required to play the game. We just tend to uncritically flow with it at the time.

 

[clearstream]

There will be some mechanic to determine the Lead team at the start of the combat. Every other round the Lead team will alternate.

The Lead team will declare all their actions first. The Follow team will hear those actions and be able to declare actions in response. Actions by both will be declared in more generic terms such as 'move to the cleric and attack'.

After everyones action is declared, Initiative will be rolled, but unlike traditional initiative the combatants don't take their turns in order. The initiative numbers instead will be used by the DM along with the declared actions to help establish precise PC and NPC positioning at the moment a creatures initiative comes up. The attack for that initiative goes off. The DM moves combat to the next initiative, establishing new PC and NPC positions as before. This initiative action/spell/whatever occurs.

To assess this, we need to look at more specifics, and at least two rounds.

Round 1 declarations (P leads)
P1 (Barbarian) has no information: they declare in the dark that they will move and attack N1
P2 (Warlock) knows what P1 declared: often dropping one foe is better than dividing attacks, so they declare move and attack N1
N1 (Goblin) knowing what P1 and P2 declared: they are going to dodge
N2 (Goblin) knows everyone's declarations: they are safe to move and attack P2

Round 1 initiative rolled
P1 = 20 --> they know they are safe to advance and use Reckless Attack, hitting and dealing damage to N1
P2 = 10 --> they cast EB at N1, missing, and then they move back and into total cover
N2 = 5 --> can't reach or see P2 to attack them, and isn't allowed to attack P1 though they'd have advantage doing so
N1 = 1 --> their dodge isn't in time to help this round, and they can't attack P1

Round 2 declarations (N leads)
N1 is dodging, and going last, so they will attack P1 (if they live that long), calling for N2 to help
N2 had closed on P2's position, but will help N1 (by attacking P1)
P1 will dodge seeing as they go first and know they are the target of attacks, they call for P2 to finish off N1
P2 will move and attack N1 who is wounded

Round 2 initiative carries forward (that's what you intend, right?)
P1 = 20 --> dodges and laughs at the foolish goblins
P2 = 10 --> they step out, cast EB at N1, missing, and then move back and into total cover
N2 = 5 --> misses P1 who is no longer vulnerable from Reckless and is dodging
N1 = 1 --> misses P1

I think this system solves all the issues raised in this thread and doesn't seem particularly more complex or time consuming than regular play.

For the sake of this design, are you thinking of the following problems

• a creature basing their action over a round on something known only at the end of the round
• a creature moving all of their movement before another creature moves any
• a creature lacking information during a round on something happening during that round
• being sure to be no worse than equal to 5th edition combat's complexity
• being sure to take no more time than 5th edition combats typically take

All 4 characters start charging each other. P1 starts the fastest and has a bit faster pace. He meets N1 after moving about 20ft. They begin attacking each other and P1 finds the first opportunity to really connect. He rolls his attack but misses - the opening closed too fast.

This "charging each other" doesn't seem fully explained. How does it work? Are they still moving in turn? Or is movement spaced out over the round (i.e. spanning multiple turns). If the former, doesn't it still fail the "meet in the middle" test? Are you going with "the middle is where we meet" that I proposed?

In this scenario all actions are being based on the fiction. Positioning is being based on the fiction + mechanics. Etc. Does anyone see any flaws with this methodology solving the issues I've been describing?

Dodge seems problematic, because it can be made irrelevant by the initiative roll. Likewise the Help action. Anything contingent like that, that could be invalidated by the initiative roll, is going to be problematic. On the other side, all-in features like Reckless Attack gain value if others have to commit to which creature they attack before you have to commit to using it.

The simplest fix could be to make the action declarations even more general so that they are unlikely to be invalidated. Nominating targets up front as implied by "move to the cleric and attack" can be foreseen to lead to unhappy players. It may be best to work out a set of standard declarations with your group, and agree on the scope of those declarations before play.

More general declarations could also solve the problem with Dodge. So the goblin declares they are "defending", allowing them to perhaps use their special feature to disengage or hide.

 

[pemerton]

So this is a long thread, and I haven't read it, but the OP already presents me with a problem. 'Fictionless' as a term, does not even remotely mean 'not the fiction I want'. So there's that. I don't disagree that the story/narrative/whatever that the D&D combat system produces is unsatisfying though, That's true for a lot of people IMO.

This is not the issue. The issue is that the fiction can't be established until after the event, which means that when players are making decisions about action declarations, they are making them based on the mechanics but not on the fiction (which hasn't been established yet). There are various illustrations of the point in the thread, including post 349.

 

[clearstream]

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?

I felt that having that in mind - that the highlighted act or moment of interjection could be much briefer than a full round - might smooth over participants' internal understanding of the combat. It could give just enough leeway to allow them to suppose that healing word really was cast just after the critical damage was dealt.

They might add to that ideas such as that the "middle is where we meet" - understood as the position 'negotiated' via the flow of events in this and previous rounds, minutes, whatever. In the abstract model, the fighter stayed in the square they started this 6-second slice in. In our narrative, they met the orcs at that square because (barring spherical fighters in perfect vacuums) all actors have been moving the whole time.

Adopting over all a strategy of glossing-over or eliding. Leaning into our suspension of disbelief. Or just use fewer rules, at least for combat, so there is less to disrupt what we want to imagine in the way we want to imagine it!

 

[clearstream]

This is not the issue. The issue is that the fiction can't be established until after the event, which means that when players are making decisions about action declarations, they are making them based on the mechanics but not on the fiction (which hasn't been established yet). There are various illustrations of the point in the thread, including post 349.

@Fenris-77 Where, concretely, "after the event" is intended to mean after the event would have happened were it an event in our real world given it happened in-game in as apparently sequential a time sequence as D&D combat initiative and turns can be taken (by some, e.g. the OP) to be. The "action declarations" concern being (in my view) a restatement of that same dissonance in terms of information.

 

[FrogReaver]

To assess this, we need to look at more specifics, and at least two rounds.

Round 1 declarations (P leads)
P1 (Barbarian) has no information: they declare in the dark that they will move and attack N1
P2 (Warlock) knows what P1 declared: often dropping one foe is better than dividing attacks, so they declare move and attack N1
N1 (Goblin) knowing what P1 and P2 declared: they are going to dodge
N2 (Goblin) knows everyone's declarations: they are safe to move and attack P2

*P1 has information - they know the basic distances of the goblins, the terrain, etc.

I would add that once P1 has declared that it's a noticeable part of the fiction. He's zeroed in on that 1 goblin, his allies and the goblins can both see it. That should turn the rest into fictional decisions rather than mechanical ones. In short, the declaration phase changes the fiction. Also, I think it's worth noting here that if another creature meets you in the middle - so to speak that you always have the option of attacking that creature instead.

For P2 their move is going to need a general direction. The idea isn't that they get to move wherever they want when their initiative comes up. The DM abjucates positioning based on your declaration. That detail is required. (For melee characters it's kind of built in if they are wanting to attack N1).

I like how the dodge action functions under this system better. It feels more dynamic and response. You see multiple enemies about to gang up on you and so you attempt to defend. Other interesting actions N1 could have attempted would be to fall back and shoot with his bow. P1 might not be able to reach him then.

N2 moving and attacking P2 is going to create is going to create an interesting situation regarding if he gets there before he shoots.

Round 1 initiative rolled
P1 = 20 --> they know they are safe to advance and use Reckless Attack, hitting and dealing damage to N1
P2 = 10 --> they cast EB at N1, missing, and then they move back and into total cover
N2 = 5 --> can't reach or see P2 to attack them, and isn't allowed to attack P1 though they'd have advantage doing so
N1 = 1 --> their dodge isn't in time to help this round, and they can't attack P1

So far this feels good to me.

I'd just add that N2 is eligible to dash toward his intended target if he can't reach them to attack. If he did so, he likely closes the distance but doesn't find a good opportunity to attack after doing so.

Round 2 declarations (N leads)
N1 is dodging, and going last, so they will attack P1 (if they live that long), calling for N2 to help
N2 had closed on P2's position, but will help N1 (by attacking P1)
P1 will dodge seeing as they go first and know they are the target of attacks, they call for P2 to finish off N1
P2 will move and attack N1 who is wounded

*Initiative is going to be rerolled. So P1 cannot assume he will go first again. I probably could have made this more clear

Round 2 initiative carries forward (that's what you intend, right?)
P1 = 20 --> dodges and laughs at the foolish goblins
P2 = 10 --> they step out, cast EB at N1, missing, and then move back and into total cover
N2 = 5 --> misses P1 who is no longer vulnerable from Reckless and is dodging
N1 = 1 --> misses P1

Sounds reasonable assuming that was the new initiative order.

For the sake of this design, are you thinking of the following problems

• a creature basing their action over a round on something known only at the end of the round
• a creature moving all of their movement before another creature moves any
• a creature lacking information during a round on something happening during that round

I think so?

• being sure to be no worse than equal to 5th edition combat's complexity
• being sure to take no more time than 5th edition combats typically take

I don't share these principles. I don't want something overly complex or overly long. But adding a little bit of complexity or combat time to reach the goals is acceptable.

This "charging each other" doesn't seem fully explained. How does it work? Are they still moving in turn? Or is movement spaced out over the round (i.e. spanning multiple turns). If the former, doesn't it still fail the "meet in the middle" test? Are you going with "the middle is where we meet" that I proposed?

I've no idea what you mean.

The DM adbjucates everyone's precise positions when it's the players turn in the initiative. That's how movement works in this system. So you always describe fictionally in your declaration where you want to move (or if on a grid you could point precisely) and that provides the DM the information to be able to abducate this.

Dodge seems problematic, because it can be made irrelevant by the initiative roll. Likewise the Help action. Anything contingent like that, that could be invalidated by the initiative roll, is going to be problematic. On the other side, all-in features like Reckless Attack gain value if others have to commit to which creature they attack before you have to commit to using it.

I actually had the opposite take away on dodge. It made dodge better because enemies couldn't just ignore you after you dodged as they can in current 5e. Yea, sometimes it will be ineffective, but you at least have more info on if enemies are going to focus fire you.

The simplest fix could be to make the action declarations even more general so that they are unlikely to be invalidated. Nominating targets up front as implied by "move to the cleric and attack" can be foreseen to lead to unhappy players. It may be best to work out a set of standard declarations with your group, and agree on the scope of those declarations before play.

The whole basis is that movement has to be fairly specific for abjucation. Actions on the other hand may could be more generic so that they aren't wasted. I'm not opposed to that change. I mean, the specific action may not even need to be specified for this to function. I'll have to think about that.

More general declarations could also solve the problem with Dodge. So the goblin declares they are "defending", allowing them to perhaps use their special feature to disengage or hide.

I assumed applicable bonus actions could be used at your initiative.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is not the issue. The issue is that the fiction can't be established until after the event, which means that when players are making decisions about action declarations, they are making them based on the mechanics but not on the fiction (which hasn't been established yet). There are various illustrations of the point in the thread, including post 349.

Yea, fictionless was probably not the best initial term, but it got the ball rolling. I still stand by it, but I can see how it causes confusion for some.

 

[clearstream]

So this is a long thread, and I haven't read it, but the OP already presents me with a problem. 'Fictionless' as a term, does not even remotely mean 'not the fiction I want'. So there's that. I don't disagree that the story/narrative/whatever that the D&D combat system produces is unsatisfying though, That's true for a lot of people IMO.

Following my last, I think the concern might be expressed as follows

1. Given I have a view of the flow of interactions and information in the real world, that I label "time"
2. Given that view is my local, macroscopic view, at modest relative velocities - i.e. a humanistic view of time
3. Given I assume each participant in each 6-second slice ("round") of D&D combat starts their interactions at the beginning of the round and carries them out over the round, with information about those interactions obeying that same procession
4. Given I expect fair fidelity from D&D combat as model of reality
5. Then various inexplicable and suspension-of-disbelief jarring dissonances can be observed
   1. Information can seem to be obtained in disobedience to the time sequence, so a participant's decision in second-1 can be informed by what another participant completed in second-6
   2. Interactions can seem to occur in disobedience to the time sequence, such as one participant waiting on another to finish their whole 6-seconds of actions, before they start even their first second of actions
   3. Velocities follow unnatural paths, where one participant can have effectively a velocity of zero over 6-seconds because another somehow 'already' enjoyed their full expected velocity

In background to this, it's worth considering what time is? One view is that the arrow of time is informed by the arrow of entropy, and underlining that perhaps the simplest thing to say about time is that it is the relative ordering of interactions and information whatever that ordering is from the point of view of an observer. Orderings in time are not the same for differing observers. Time and causality are often seen as connected, when they are more accurately described as related. An event can appear a-causal from the point of view of some observers (it might even be that some events are a-causal.) Whatever, I hold the view that there is no causality in fiction, albeit there can be causality (as we usually mean it) in what is going on in our brains with regard to that fiction... and that is something that can differ between brains.

Anyway, the concern at heart isn't fictionlessness. It is that realistic features we might naturally expect and desire our fiction to have, can't subsist on the D&D combat mechanism grasped plainly without glossing or eliding.