D&D General Combat Against Player Engagement: A Systemic Challenge

[Jacob Lewis]

I'm a technical person. If the PC is given the opportunity to take an additional action beyond what the rules allow, it's a houserule, and one that potentially gives the PCs more power in the moment than the rules would normally allow. Looking at it differently doesn't change that.

I understand your point, but that’s not what I suggested or wrote. It isn’t an additional turn or action. The DM simply allows a player to take their existing turn out of sequence, responding directly to the situation that prompted it. Nothing new is granted — it’s just a matter of timing and flow within the same structure.

If you haven’t already, I’d encourage you to read through the broader discussion. I’ve already expanded on several of these points since the initial post. I don’t expect anyone to sift through a long thread, but if you do, it should be clear that what you’re describing isn’t quite what I’m talking about.

You can choose to move this conversation forward in good faith, or keep circling the same semantics on your own. I’m always open to thoughtful disagreement, but I have no interest in exchanges that go nowhere.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I understand your point, but that’s not what I suggested or wrote. It isn’t an additional turn or action. The DM simply allows a player to take their existing turn out of sequence, responding directly to the situation that prompted it. Nothing new is granted — it’s just a matter of timing and flow within the same structure.

If you haven’t already, I’d encourage you to read through the broader discussion. I’ve already expanded on several of these points since the initial post. I don’t expect anyone to sift through a long thread, but if you do, it should be clear that what you’re describing isn’t quite what I’m talking about.

You can choose to move this conversation forward in good faith, or keep circling the same semantics on your own. I’m always open to thoughtful disagreement, but I have no interest in exchanges that go nowhere.

Ok. I'll just ask one more question: does the PC taking the out of turn narrative-driven action lose their action when their initiative comes up?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I don't really enjoy dnd and don't play it much haha, basically only when one of my friends' campaigns is several players down and they need a ringer
But the situation where I don't really have anything worthwhile to do is a reasonably common scenario in all games, I just learned how to live with it and utilize such downtime effectively.

I would enjoy combat if it was more involved mechanically for martial characters, because as of now it mostly is just dice rolling. I zone out because "just walk towards nearest target and keep attacking it until it drops" encompasses the vast majority of cases in a combat scene. It can be done through sweeping mechanical changes, it can be done through troupe play and me having a whole squad to control, there are many options.

I, personally, am very much a G person. My rule of thumb for evaluating combat rules is "would I want to play it as a skirmish wargame, without any narrative context beyond orks vs elves?"

Thanks for sharing this! I see now that I have more in common with you than I thought. I’m also very much a G person — though equally drawn to RP. I loved 4E because it offered that sense of deliberate, tactical decision-making where every move mattered. It wasn’t a perfect system, but it knew what kind of game it wanted to be. I still think it’s unfortunate that it never had the chance to evolve or find new life through an SRD or OGL the way other editions did.

That, to me, ties into a broader tension with D&D itself. When a game tries to be a home for every playstyle, it stops signaling clearly what experience it’s designed to deliver. Games like this depend on some level of consensus among players — not just about the rules, but about what kind of play those rules are meant to facilitate. If everyone comes to the table expecting to play “their game, their way,” the session becomes a series of compromises rather than a shared rhythm. It’s even harder in open or public tables, where people meet for the first time and those assumptions never align.

Of course, finding compromise and agreement within a group isn’t always a struggle. Sometimes you find people you naturally click with despite differences; other times you mesh because your playstyles align. And occasionally, it just doesn’t work out — which is fine. We figure that out through experience and interaction. These games depend on a social contract, so it’s expected that we adjust to one another and negotiate that space together.

But that isn’t a systemic issue; it’s a social one. And I’d hesitate to even call it a problem, because the willingness to compromise, include, and adapt is part of being a decent person. It’s not always easy, though. We often turn to rules or systems for guidance — sometimes to provide structure, sometimes to remove the burden of making decisions that won’t satisfy everyone. That’s why so many people, like we’re doing now, discuss ways to make play smoother or more engaging. But just like finding the right people for the right table, these ideas aren’t universally applicable. They’re tools for those who find them useful, not standards for others to follow.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

One possible unintended side effect of this is that the DM is often running a bunch of somewhat-intelligent adversaries at once, and having to be aware of all these openings-to-act all the time will a) add to the DM's cognitive workload and b) threaten to slow things down while she processes her options.

That’s a fair point, and honestly one that doesn’t get mentioned enough. The GM’s cognitive load in these situations is already immense, and anything that adds to that can easily disrupt the rhythm of play. I’ve been there myself—when I tried running games on VTTs, the constant multitasking between normal duties and the interface was too much to manage. So I completely understand the concern. That’s part of why I emphasize these kinds of ideas as optional frameworks rather than formal mechanics—they work best only when the group’s comfort and capacity allow for them.

Another, and I think much more likely, unintended side effect of this idea is that adding more opportunities for more participants to respond to each action in combat is going to make combats take a lot longer to resolve. Just because a player is engaged doesn't mean he's decisive in what response he wants his character to make or even aware that his character can respond right now; meaning in aggregate that each round in each combat will take considerably longer to resolve at the table.

It seems this point has been misread a few times now, so I’ll see if I can offer more clarity. When I refer to “reactions” or “opportunities to act,” I’m not talking about adding new actions, modifiers, or resources into the combat economy. Nothing extra is being granted or layered on. What I’m describing is a way to let the flow of combat breathe — to shift focus when the fiction naturally moves, rather than waiting for the strict turn sequence to catch up. The goal isn’t to add complexity, but to maintain continuity in the shared narrative, where each exchange pushes the moment forward instead of pausing between rolls.

In all fairness, I didn’t provide a concrete example when presenting this idea as a hypothetical suggestion, but some people will continue to read more into it than I had intended. So let me expand on a previous illustration to show what I had in mind. Assume a “typical” D&D session using standard rules with a cooperative table. Anything outside of that is exceptional and brings its own considerations.

The players are fighting orcs—average strength, moderate numbers, reasonably challenging for the party. Early in the fight, an orc scores a critical hit on the fighter, leaving them at dangerously low hit points. The next few orcs in the initiative order could knock the fighter out before another player has a chance to act.

The GM sees the drama and realizes this moment has the players’ attention. Instead of strictly following turn order and allowing that moment of tension to subside, the GM offers the rogue an opportunity to act immediately. This isn’t a special ability, bonus round, or extra turn. The rogue keeps all their regular options; nothing is lost or gained mechanically. The “cost” is purely narrative: the rogue must respond directly to the circumstances that created the opening.

Possible actions might include:

• Attacking the orc who struck the fighter, exploiting a sudden flanking opportunity.
• Protecting the fighter, perhaps moving between them and other enemies or handing over a healing potion.
• Targeting an archer about to act, trying to prevent further harm, potentially fatal, to the wounded warrior.

The goal is to preserve the tension and narrative momentum from the critical hit. The only cost is a commitment from the player to invest in the story as it unfolds; for some, this isn’t a real cost, but it encourages a more immersive alternative to taking a standard turn, where players might act independently to claim as much spotlight as possible. This approach doesn’t provide mechanical advantage—it simply reshuffles the order of play to respond to the unfolding story. It’s an illustration of how a GM can intervene thoughtfully within the rules to make combat feel immediate and dynamic. It’s not prescriptive or all-encompassing, but demonstrates how narrative flow can coexist with standard turn-based structure.

But this isn’t really about the example itself, which is simply a demonstration of the type of thinking and approach one could take. There are other ways to work within the system that don’t compromise the integrity of the rules or structures in place. You don’t even need a problem with your system or table to gain value from this—what it requires is only a bit of collaboration and trust between players and the GM, which should go without saying. But as I’ve said, this isn’t a solution for anything, or for everyone; it’s just another tool some may find useful that they might not have considered before.

 

[Lanefan]

It seems this point has been misread a few times now, so I’ll see if I can offer more clarity. When I refer to “reactions” or “opportunities to act,” I’m not talking about adding new actions, modifiers, or resources into the combat economy. Nothing extra is being granted or layered on. What I’m describing is a way to let the flow of combat breathe — to shift focus when the fiction naturally moves, rather than waiting for the strict turn sequence to catch up. The goal isn’t to add complexity, but to maintain continuity in the shared narrative, where each exchange pushes the moment forward instead of pausing between rolls.

In all fairness, I didn’t provide a concrete example when presenting this idea as a hypothetical suggestion, but some people will continue to read more into it than I had intended. So let me expand on a previous illustration to show what I had in mind. Assume a “typical” D&D session using standard rules with a cooperative table. Anything outside of that is exceptional and brings its own considerations.

The players are fighting orcs—average strength, moderate numbers, reasonably challenging for the party. Early in the fight, an orc scores a critical hit on the fighter, leaving them at dangerously low hit points. The next few orcs in the initiative order could knock the fighter out before another player has a chance to act.

The GM sees the drama and realizes this moment has the players’ attention. Instead of strictly following turn order and allowing that moment of tension to subside, the GM offers the rogue an opportunity to act immediately. This isn’t a special ability, bonus round, or extra turn. The rogue keeps all their regular options; nothing is lost or gained mechanically. The “cost” is purely narrative: the rogue must respond directly to the circumstances that created the opening.

Possible actions might include:

• Attacking the orc who struck the fighter, exploiting a sudden flanking opportunity.
• Protecting the fighter, perhaps moving between them and other enemies or handing over a healing potion.
• Targeting an archer about to act, trying to prevent further harm, potentially fatal, to the wounded warrior.

The goal is to preserve the tension and narrative momentum from the critical hit. The only cost is a commitment from the player to invest in the story as it unfolds; for some, this isn’t a real cost, but it encourages a more immersive alternative to taking a standard turn, where players might act independently to claim as much spotlight as possible. This approach doesn’t provide mechanical advantage—it simply reshuffles the order of play to respond to the unfolding story. It’s an illustration of how a GM can intervene thoughtfully within the rules to make combat feel immediate and dynamic. It’s not prescriptive or all-encompassing, but demonstrates how narrative flow can coexist with standard turn-based structure.

This still raise more questions than it answers, though:

--- "the GM offers [someone the option to act immediately]". It's completely GM-controlled, then? I ask because active, engaged players will very quckly start jumping in and asking for - or outright claiming - the chance to react at every opportunity, particularly when it's to their benefit (and active, engaged players is the end-result goal of this exercise, isn't it?)
--- more broadly to the previous point, I think you're vastly over-relying on a co-operative and somewhat passive table here
--- do the foes get the same chance to react e.g. if a PC crits one of the Orcs can another Orc react to that?
--- when the GM offers the Rogue the chance to act now, the player gets to (and has to) has to choose between acting now or on the Rogue's usual initiative - correct?
--- how do you stop or shut down the player-side argument that says the reaction is a "free shot" and should be in addition to the character's usual turn?
--- if the Rogue chooses to "act now" how does this affect the turn order in subsequent rounds?

But this isn’t really about the example itself, which is simply a demonstration of the type of thinking and approach one could take. There are other ways to work within the system that don’t compromise the integrity of the rules or structures in place. You don’t even need a problem with your system or table to gain value from this—what it requires is only a bit of collaboration and trust between players and the GM, which should go without saying. But as I’ve said, this isn’t a solution for anything, or for everyone; it’s just another tool some may find useful that they might not have considered before.

Theories are only so much good until the practical questions they raise get answered.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

@Lanefan

I think this is where our views fundamentally diverge. The questions you’re raising all come from a procedural mindset—one that expects every option, outcome, and authority to be defined and contained within a formal structure. But that’s exactly what this idea isn’t about. It isn’t a rule, subsystem, or codified process to manage; it’s a way of thinking about pacing, tension, and responsiveness at the table.

If a group needs the comfort of strict procedure or clearly bounded rulings to maintain fairness and flow, this probably isn’t a good fit for them—and that’s completely fine. It’s not intended to solve anything or replace existing mechanics. It’s simply a tool for tables that already operate on mutual trust and are comfortable leaning into the narrative without needing the rules to referee every moment.

So in that sense, I don’t think there’s much more for us to unpack here. The approach you’re describing is built around regulation; the one I’m describing is built around discretion. They serve different tables, and there’s no reason one needs to validate the other.

 

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan

I think this is where our views fundamentally diverge. The questions you’re raising all come from a procedural mindset—one that expects every option, outcome, and authority to be defined and contained within a formal structure.

My concern is more one of preventing the loudest or most enthusiastic (or, at some tables, most competitive) player(s) from just taking over.

The flip side is that something like this, if uncodified, leaves the door wide open for DM favouritism. No DM will ever admit they play favourites. And yet every DM in the world does so, with or without knowing it; or would if the system didn't put some checks and balances on such things. We're all human, which means at some times we all like certain of our players and-or their characters more than we do others.

And so yes, all my questions are from a perspective of how to codify these ideas such that - if-when required - fairness in their use can be enforced.

But that’s exactly what this idea isn’t about. It isn’t a rule, subsystem, or codified process to manage; it’s a way of thinking about pacing, tension, and responsiveness at the table.

If a group needs the comfort of strict procedure or clearly bounded rulings to maintain fairness and flow, this probably isn’t a good fit for them—and that’s completely fine. It’s not intended to solve anything or replace existing mechanics. It’s simply a tool for tables that already operate on mutual trust and are comfortable leaning into the narrative without needing the rules to referee every moment.

So in that sense, I don’t think there’s much more for us to unpack here. The approach you’re describing is built around regulation; the one I’m describing is built around discretion. They serve different tables, and there’s no reason one needs to validate the other.

Discretion here sounds like consensus in other contexts: something that sounds great in theory and never works in practice.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

My concern is more one of preventing the loudest or most enthusiastic (or, at some tables, most competitive) player(s) from just taking over.

The flip side is that something like this, if uncodified, leaves the door wide open for DM favouritism. No DM will ever admit they play favourites. And yet every DM in the world does so, with or without knowing it; or would if the system didn't put some checks and balances on such things. We're all human, which means at some times we all like certain of our players and-or their characters more than we do others.

And so yes, all my questions are from a perspective of how to codify these ideas such that - if-when required - fairness in their use can be enforced.

Discretion here sounds like consensus in other contexts: something that sounds great in theory and never works in practice.

This is the same cycle of concern we saw around Daggerheart—long lists of hypothetical “what ifs” about players and behaviors because of a perceived lack of codification and structure. The reality is that most tables who actually played found the system worked just fine, largely because everyone understood what kind of game they were choosing to be part of.

The same applies here. If a group can’t trust their GM—or their fellow players—enough to engage in even small moments of narrative discretion, no amount of codified procedure will fix that. The solution isn’t more structure; it’s communication. As with anything else, it starts and ends with the expectations set at Session Zero. The only reinforcements required are honesty, trust, and cooperation.