D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Lanefan]

And? Yes, individuals act on their initiative. I know how the process works, I just don't have an issue with it and there is no "going back in time". It's a simplified abstraction like everything else in the game. Don't like it? Play a different game.

This is one of those oh-so-very-rare instances where I find myself agreeing with @pemerton.

The way WotC-era initiative works is very much a stop-motion kind of thing; to the point where characters' movements in combat are much like mini-teleports rather than second-by-second motion.

Also, by strict RAW (in 3.xe anyway, not sure if it's been fixed since) two or more characters can't move as a unit in combat, e.g. they can't hold hands and run through a wall of fog or a darkness effect together, even if one delays its initiative until the other's initiative comes up. Why? Because by RAW, actions - even move actions - can't happen simultaneously. And that's just stupid.

And yes, initiative is a simplified abstraction, but it's one that flat-out doesn't do the job nearly as well as it could or should.

 

[pemerton]

To be clear: I am not complaining about turn-by-turn combat resolution. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't conform to forwards causality. People can have their characters do things now that affect what other characters can do in the past. And this is because we resolve a whole 6 seconds of action for one person, and then apply all the outcomes of all those actions to the person who goes next, even though that person did not stand motionless and inactive for 6 seconds.

And to link this back to @hawkeyefan's point about foraging for herbs:

There are reasons for using turn-by-turn combat; forwards-only causality is not the only consideration in game design.

There are reasons for using flashbacks and similar devices; forwards-only causality is not the only consideration in game design.

 

[The Firebird]

But then why is A frozen in inaction while B performs exactly the same amount of action as A performed?

They aren't. Everything is happening simultaneously, but in cases where the order matters A precedes B.

I don't think it is perfect but it doesn't break causality.

For an example that does--suppose B says "I cast teleport to escape", and A says "no wait, if I saw them do that I would have tried to grapple them instead".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Turn-based combat without allowance for tied initiatives is the problem here.

Well, relatively long turn based combat. Once you start getting to relatively short time frames and account for reaction time and the fact people in combat are doing a lot of things that don't immediately translate into an attack roll, its much less of an issue--this is why GURPS ended up going with 1 second rounds (though I think some of the side effects of that made it a cure worse than the disease). But it doesn't look nearly as bad or odd when you have rounds in the three second range or the like, its just that's never been D&D's gig.

 

[FrogReaver]

Huh? The whole of D&D combat resolution ignores forward-facing causality. Person A does their 6 seconds worth of stuff. Then we go back in time and Person B does their 6 seconds of stuff. And so on, until everyone has had a go.

Combat in d&d is an exception to the normal game loop and the combat loop is well known to produce implausible results. It’s a strong dislike of mine.

The issue is that sequential resolution imposes turns in a situation where there is otherwise not turns. This causes all the implausible results. The proper critique of sequential combat turns is what you described as stop motion and it’s a valid critique IMO.

I don’t understand how one gets to 6 second time rewinds, especially when that fails to explain killed enemies not getting a turn after death.

I’m also not sure why any of this would mean the normal non-combat d&d game loop ignores forward facing causality.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Interesting, and also very sad: the rules are actively encouraging the players to metagame.

Almost any abstraction can do this to some extent, depending on other system features.

 

[pemerton]

They aren't. Everything is happening simultaneously, but in cases where the order matters A precedes B.

I don't think it is perfect but it doesn't break causality.

For an example that does--suppose B says "I cast teleport to escape", and A says "no wait, if I saw them do that I would have tried to grapple them instead".

Causality gets broken routinely - as in my example, A gets to duck behind cover at the end of their 6 seconds of action, and that affects everything that B does from the beginning of their 6 seconds of action.

Or with your example: if A moves their full movement, and then shoots; while B is standing in a doorway or next to a tree: A gets to take the shot, and B is not able to duck for cover.

This only conforms to forwards causality if we assume that B is frozen, inactive, for all of A's activity.

If it all happened simultaneously, then B would be able to shoot before A takes cover; or would be able to take cover before A shoots.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then I’m not following at all why you have an issue with what we’re talking about. If there is a predefined time pressure… it could be your friend in danger or anything else… then why would a consequence of a failed roll being related to the time pressure seem unconnected to you?

Because the roll is about trying to climb a wall (presumably using a metric related to climbing), not why you're climbing a wall. That's a separate roll if it's a roll at all. If you make a roll to see if you successfully make a sword in your forge, what would your reason for making that sword have to do with that roll?

 

[pemerton]

Combat in d&d is an exception to the normal game loop and the combat loop is well known to produce implausible results. It’s a strong dislike of mine.

The issue is that sequential resolution imposes turns in a situation where there is otherwise not turns. This causes all the implausible results. The proper critique of sequential combat turns is what you described as stop motion and it’s a valid critique IMO.

I don’t understand how one gets to 6 second time rewinds, especially when that fails to explain killed enemies not getting a turn after death.

I’m also not sure why any of this would mean the normal non-combat d&d game loop ignores forward facing causality.

I didn't realise that combat - one of the most quintessential D&D-ish things, and the thing that I mostly see talked about whenever I open a random thread about D&D - counts as some exceptional departure from a general principle.

 

[pemerton]

If you make a roll to see if you successfully make a sword in your forge, what would your reason for making that sword have to do with that roll?

Why wouldn't it? Where is it laid up in RPG heaven that passion and motivation are things that don't matter in RPG action resolution?