Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 9778412" data-attributes="member: 6667921">[USER=2067]@I'm A Banana[/USER] Appreciate you taking the time to go through it so closely. I won’t reply point by point, but I think there are a few areas where our views intersect in useful ways.You’re right that disengagement isn’t automatically bad—attention will naturally ebb and flow. My focus was more on structural continuity than constant attention. The issue isn’t players taking breaks, but how the system itself encourages or discourages participation when someone isn’t in the spotlight.On the pacing side, I agree that excessive decision density can bog things down. But I think the core challenge isn’t just how long combat takes, it’s how participation is distributed within that time. Even fast combats can feel disconnected if only one person acts while everyone else watches.And I like your framing of variable combat modes. That fits the idea of building systems that flex around narrative momentum rather than locking into one pacing rhythm. It’s that adaptability—structural, not stylistic—that I think is where the biggest opportunity lies.That said, everything I wrote wasn’t meant as a complete or prescriptive solution. They’re more illustrative—examples of thinking outside the boundaries we tend to take for granted. None of these on their own “solve” engagement. They were written to prompt perspective shifts, not present full mechanics.Also, sharing narrative control isn’t necessarily a system mechanic. It’s a style of play, something that can exist as a social contract independent of what the rules formally support. Once a table codifies it as a rule or houserule, it becomes prescriptive—something expected to be followed. But in its purest form, it’s just a way of engaging with the story that sits closer to the players than to the game text.And to clarify—when I mentioned the idea of reacting to events outside your turn, I wasn’t implying “reactions” in the literal 5e sense. I played 4e; loved it. It’s my favorite edition. But I’m well aware that its proliferation of immediate interrupts and reactions, while exciting in concept, often slowed combat through decision overload. 5e pared that back to streamline flow. My example was simply illustrating the principle of responsive play—creating space for participation that doesn’t necessarily require additional mechanics or formal actions to function.Ultimately, I think we’re circling the same concern from different angles. The real question isn’t how to make combat faster or more reactive in isolation, but how to make the experience of combat feel connected—both to the story and to everyone at the table. Whether that’s done through system design, table norms, or social rhythm, the goal is the same: keeping everyone engaged not just by turn, but by presence. I could easily keep adding ideas to this thread for people to dissect and debate, but what I’d really like is to see others bring forward their own genuinely interesting approaches. That’s where the discussion starts to move somewhere new.</blockquote>

Verification