D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[clearstream]

Combat in D&D hinges on some concrete parameters that players are going to base their next decisions on, and that fiction doesn't get generated till the end of the round in the best case.

In the worst case it's generated by turn, which I guess can preserve the presence of fiction and fictional decision points, but at this point we've just changed the fiction to be 'turn based fiction', which isn't really any better than fictionless IMO.

It sounds like we're united in desiring to emerge fiction from game, but with differing tolerances for how that works. In the past I have used 'everyone-declares, then everyone-acts' and it felt bad (to our group) to find player declarations stymied by game state on their turn. We kept having to allow corrections. Similarly, and responsive to @pemerton's point, I can see the justice of losing tempo with initiative, but have other motives - such as avoiding the possibly punitive feeling, 'go second and lose tempo' result.

I would dislike emerging our fiction on a per-turn basis if that shattered suspension of disbelief for me. My play would risk becoming 'fictionless' because sans suspension of disbelief my fiction is disrupted. Does that then capture the essence of your concern?

The first group will overrule things in the name of the fiction when the abstractions of the rules do not make sense.

The second group will ignore the fiction because the rules and the rules (and they like the minigame of combat for it's own sake, and possibly even the fact that is provides a break from thinking about the fiction)

A third group might choose not to over-think it. I guess you know about oddities such as that you cannot see colour at the edge of your vision. Your brain glosses over that with an impression of colour. It plays similar tricks with the timing of events. We can emerge our fiction on a per-turn basis and allow ourselves to gloss over oddities when they surface. Or to put it another way, a vast number of omissions, elisions, and quixotic events arise in RPG play. The question is not whether the rules make sense, but do they make sufficient sense for us to go along with them? I think you rightly imply with "when", that this isn't a binary - the rules might make sufficient sense most of the time. Meaning that the cost of patching over the cases where they don't isn't worth paying unless those cases are common and (to you) egregious.

For reasons, that fighter couldn't get to the door before the orcs. There isn't anything objectively fictionless about that. Yet it might not be the fiction we desire, and could jolt us out of disbelief. I can appreciate concerns like @FrogReaver's, which seem to essentially be saying that the rules do not make sufficient sense for him to go along with them. Assuming I have captured that correctly?

 

[Lyxen]

I would suggest a third line, which is how it works at my table: The players continue the roleplaying and fiction out of the premisses of D&D mechanics. The mechanics is part of the D&D fiction. Your example with the rogue doesn't break suspension of disbelief, since that is part of the premisses for how a story is told in D&D.

When my players talk about a session, they make no difference about non-combat and combat scenes. A fun dialogue with an interesting npc, exploring the creepy temple or that the rogue has just enough movement to get around that corner and hide are no different in a fictional sense - it is all part of the fiction or narrative that is specific to D&D.

Indeed, this is the way we've been doing it as well in general. We had a bit of a break with this with 3e and especially 4e because of the formality that combat imposed, requiring everyone to switch to a grid, but 5e is much more flexible, even though we had to adapt a bit the transition to combat (readied actions carrying over for example) to make it seamless, but it works really well and we would not go back to a formal system now that we have found back the flexibility that we had with AD&D/BECMI.

 

[Li Shenron]

D&D Combat is fictionless. But Frogreaver, "What does that even mean?" It means that D&D combat is incapable of representing combat fiction the way we want to imagine it. The turn structure gets in the way. Instead of having the goblin and fighter charge each other and meet in the middle. Instead we have the fighter carefully plotting out his turn and being careful to only use enough movement so that the goblin in question will need to use it's action to dash to get to him. A wise tactical decision! But that tactical decision has no basis in the actual fiction. The fiction is just that the fighter and goblin charge each other and engage each other in melee combat - I mean no one imagines the fighter advances and then stops, and then the goblin advances and then stops... right? So this wise tactical decision is solely a reflection of 'metagaming the combat turns'. That bugs me. And it's probably going to continue to bug me as I don't really see a possible solution. But it would be really nice if for my combat decisions to be wise and tactical they could be based on the fiction instead of the turn structure.

You are right, but let's also keep in mind that D&D combat (and everything else, really) is especially fiction-less because a large number of players are fiction-less, and they only play on the basis of "efficiency". The rules in many cases are made for them, or with them in mind.

It is unfair to blame a DM who says "no" to cinematic ideas, when in most cases a DM who does that is because they have seen too many players exploit also the cinematic ideas through the same efficiency mentality.

 

[Li Shenron]

Indeed, this is the way we've been doing it as well in general. We had a bit of a break with this with 3e and especially 4e because of the formality that combat imposed, requiring everyone to switch to a grid, but 5e is much more flexible, even though we had to adapt a bit the transition to combat (readied actions carrying over for example) to make it seamless, but it works really well and we would not go back to a formal system now that we have found back the flexibility that we had with AD&D/BECMI.

I think it is especially a good point to bring up readied actions!

The "Ready" rules are indeed an example of bringing a bit more cinematic (or even just simultaneity), even if not THAT MUCH cinematic... at least not spectacular. Even if they are minimally cinematic, they always give me a feeling that they are not that smooth in any edition, always somewhat clunky and more complicated that they should be. The reason is IMHO pretty much that even the designers are afraid of players exploiting them too much, so they overcomplicate the rule to make it safer. But then this is counterintuitive... something tells me that players who favor cinematics do not like complicated rules that slow down gameplay.

 

[Nefermandias]

AUGH! Can we stop with the thinly veiled elitism about people who use grids over the "Theatre of the Mind" (GAWD that term is so bloody pretentious! I swear! I only use it because people know about it). Some of us are just not as good as visual stuff as others okay! I like to know what the heck I'm supposed to be looking at, and I'm not my character!

Heck, some people are outright incapable of visualizing things even!

While I do agree that the term is pretentious as hell, I'd like to add that the whole point of Theater of the Mind is that you don't need to know the precise positions of everything in the fight. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

In my games, I have come to appreciate the fact that a DM doesn't really need to stick to grid or TotM exclusively. I'm working with a good mix of both, depending on the situation.

 

[Umbran]

I thought the point was that this was happening on round 1?

But then, how did they get to those positions? Do they teleport in? If they walk in, then there's actually a round of movement before our "round 1". Whatever way it happens may influence how round 1 actually starts. And, if the way to get to the stated situation has to be contrived, we might judge it to be an "edge case" and not a major issue.

And again, since this thread it about the fiction then we most certainly need the continuity of fiction from before scenario into the scenario, right? If the emphasis is on the fiction, then we should not use example setups devoid of fiction.

 

[Garthanos]

In my games, I have come to appreciate the fact that a DM doesn't really need to stick to grid or TotM exclusively. I'm working with a good mix of both, depending on the situation.

And anyone who played D&D on the road travelling would know that has been available since 1e till now you simply have to be willing to approximate... you did not need to get out your geometry book when the wizard of AD&D went to cast their flex shaped fire ball that conformed to the space. I did see people do that though it was a self limiting behavior.

 

[FrogReaver]

But then, how did they get to those positions? Do they teleport in? If they walk in, then there's actually a round of movement before our "round 1". Whatever way it happens may influence how round 1 actually starts. And, if the way to get to the stated situation has to be contrived, we might judge it to be an "edge case" and not a major issue.

And again, since this thread it about the fiction then we most certainly need the continuity of fiction from before scenario into the scenario, right?

You’ve played d&d before…

The orcs walk in the room, roll initiative.

 

[Charlaquin]

You think monsters that walk into a room with a fighter aren't aware of him and vice versa?

I don’t, but if they are aware of each other, then they shouldn’t be surprised.

No. No it doesn't require a hostile action. Just the threat of one. If it pans out, there's a fight. If they decide to talk through the threat, there might not be. But by RAW the only requirement is a threat, not a hostile action.

You don’t roll initiative until the start of combat. If there’s still an opportunity for a fight not to pan out, then it isn’t time to roll initiative yet.

 

[Charlaquin]

AUGH! Can we stop with the thinly veiled elitism about people who use grids over the "Theatre of the Mind" (GAWD that term is so bloody pretentious! I swear! I only use it because people know about it).

That’s why I think we should popularize the term “Tableau Vivant” for combat with a grid. At least then both approaches will be described by a pretentious name!