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: 9779973" data-attributes="member: 6667921">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.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:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Attacking the orc who struck the fighter, exploiting a sudden flanking opportunity.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Protecting the fighter, perhaps moving between them and other enemies or handing over a healing potion.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Targeting an archer about to act, trying to prevent further harm, potentially fatal, to the wounded warrior.</li> </ul>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.</blockquote>

Verification