D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[generic]

I like it, but we're not using it for gridded combat. I am tired of hearing people debate between 'theater of the mind' and getting out the grid, as if these are the only options. I cannot be the only person in the world who owns a tape measure and is thus able to use miniatures without a grid.

This is what I shall pretentiously call tableau vivant.

You mean Tableau Vivant sans Grille, I assume.

 

[Lyxen]

Let's be very clear here. I did assert an indisputable fact: that D&D combat is a skirmish "mini-game"

And after that, I just hope that you see why I simply pointed out that some people have different opinions and ways of playing it, and even the right to dispute your "indisputable" fact, because it's not, certainly not in 5e (whereas, truly it was much more so in 4e).

 

[Lyxen]

I always felt readying resulted in high chances of doing nothing at all... you are guessing what will happen? and it isn't clear you get much benefit when you are right? That could be just how my brain works though.

I think it's highly dependent on the mindset of the players and the DM, and the circumstances of the fight as set-up. And it loops back to this thread and the level of fiction that you want compared to the level of gamism. I agree that if you play from a gamist perspective, readying actions, between the fact that they are technically less powerful (in particular no multi-attack) and as you point out the chance that the trigger will not happen, they might technically be a bad choice.

But not only are they a nice touch in terms of fiction / narrativism, but it's easy for the DM to make them technically valuable. "You wait patiently for the goblin to pop out from behind his cover as he's done twice already, and you lodge an arrow in his eye as he draws a bead on your comrade" or "You hold the line shoulder to shoulder with your comrades, waiting stoically for the orc charge, knowing that it will be rough to withstand but making sure that they will be perfectly aligned on your shield wall for the lightning bolt of your invisible wizard", etc.

This is where the DM's role is key, because he can set-up traps like this for the PCs as well, making them think more tactically as well, and inciting them to do it in turn to their enemies. And this can take the form of technical advantages as well, the goblin above does not have 3/4 cover when shooting, only 1/2 for example.

We see this a lot at our tables between the powergamers who really try to milk the technical system for what it's worth and the more story minded players who try to project themselves in the situation and imagine what would be cool there even if technically not as efficient. If the DM favors the second ones with circumstantial modifiers, which is his absolute right, you will have a more story/fiction orientated fight as even the powergamers will realise the benefit of thinking as their characters instead as like a player trying to technically win a fight. On the other hand, if you don't put these circumstantial modifiers because you think that they are not RAW (it's not the case) or because you think that they favor some style of play or some players too much and make your game harder to control (which I can understand), you will really discourage people from being inventive as their character (although I agree that you will probably encourage them to be technically more inventive).

Finally, I'm not saying that one style is superior to the other, just saying that if the preferences at your table run in a more story/fiction orientated direction, there are perfectly RAW/legal ways to make it happen and to encourage it from everyone at your table, and readied actions certainly contribute to that "projecting yourself in the fantasy world".

 

[Mirtek]

That fiction is pretty much impossible with 5e mechanics. You can imagine it that way if you like, but how combat actually plays out is not that way at all.

If the fighter was just slightly faster, then he could not reach the goblin before it can lift a toe like the mechanics allow. Instead they would meet somewhere close to the middle of where they both start their turns.

Yet it's the assumed fiction. Any difference that arise from how it works out at the table is due to us humans being unable to process it in any other way (that still is easy, fast and fun).

The old BG, IWD, NWN with their pauseable RL combat were actually more true to what the fiction of the tabletop rules are, but that's because a CPU was taking over the untold calculation needed in every second

 

[clearstream]

Just to be clear that we're all on the same page here, I want to give an example that I believe illustrates your points 1 to 3:

[initiative]The initiative order is P1, N1, P2 - where the Ps are PCs and N is a NPC/creature.

P1 moves, then attacks N1. N1 survives the attack but triggers an ability that depends on being attacked/taking damage (eg in 4e, this might be a buff that is triggered when N1 is bloodied; it could be some form of rage; etc).

N1 attacks P1 with multiple, sequential attacks (eg multiple attacks with the same weapon/limb/whatever) that benefit from the triggered ability. The last of these renders P1 unconscious.

P2 casts a spell (eg Healing Word) to stabilise/revive P1, and then moves to stand over P1's prone form in order to defend P1 from N1.[/initiative]

This only makes sense if P1 first moves then fights N1 - triggering N1's special ability; and then N1, buffed by that ability, hits P1 and knocks them unconscious; and then P2 casts the spell that revives P1 before moving to where P1 has fallen.

Which means that the fiction of the combat is turn-based (your 2(b)) - which is weird at best!

P1 moves marginally quicker than N1, attacking them in the square that just-sufficiently-accurately represents their position.

N1, acting just-sufficiently-slower than P1 that they will count as having taken damage, triggers their buff. The two are dueling, and the game mechanics represent the palpable hits, fatigue, sweat blurring eyes, luck running out, that come out of that exchange. Mostly likely, players and DM only narrate the highlights. N1 was bloodied somewhere in their rapid exchange of blows, so that they could benefit from the condition to land some hits that counted.

P2, conscious of their ability to heal quickly and from range, has acted just-sufficiently-after the others that it makes sense they can cast their spell to help P1. Perhaps the group envisions P2 having an ongoing awareness of their allies so that indeed their decision can and will be triggered by events. P1 collapses and P2's heal lands as they hit the floor, prone but thankfully coming conscious.

An alternative to consider is what narrative emerged if P2 rolled a higher initiative than P1, and didn't ready to cast healing word?

1. There inevitably arise situations with D&D combat such that the fiction established the previous round changes mid round and players base decisions off these changes. I think this is uncontroversial.

For me the question isn't whether it is uncontroversial, but whether you find that aspects of the game structure fail to support the kind of narratives you want to create. I can appreciate the problem you describe, but you'll have to take me on good faith when I say that it really doesn't arise at my table. We don't lose suspension of disbelief just because the game structure is turn-based. I'd say that large HP pools and whack-a-mole healing are what do our SoD the most harm, and those will remain even if it takes until the round following to cast the heal.

2. The existence of such decision points establishes either a) that D&D combat fiction is actually turn based (and there's a more in depth discussion we could have about how this ends up being fictionless as well) or b) the character and these decision points aren't based on any established fiction.

When we know the colour of an object at the edge of our vision, that isn't based on any actually perceived colour: we let our brains gloss over it. Another poster pointed out that in books we read words somewhat sequentially (cognitively, the scanning of words isn't a clean linear progression across the visible text), but from those static symbols we can accept into our imagination simultaneous events.

By analogy, I feel the issue is what we are able to gloss over. It's worth calling out lack of simultaneity as a thorn for your narrative. I just don't feel that what narrative is, can be limited as you describe. Games are systems of symbols, symbolic relationships, and dynamics. Our brains happily parse symbols and imagine what they represent. All we need do is change our mechanics just enough to dispel our SoD-break, and narrative will reform.

3. It's not actually possible to play a combat without such decision points arising, even if our brain processes a solid answer faster in most situations than we realize (best option here is to attack, dash, disengage, cast healing word, etc) which almost makes it seem as if there was no decision point at all.

The seeming is the same as the being, in this case. Or to put it another way, imagine that it seemed for you that a plausible narrative emerged from the combat mechanics. How would you tell the difference between that, and a plausible narrative?

 

[Maxperson]

Yet it's the assumed fiction. Any difference that arise from how it works out at the table is due to us humans being unable to process it in any other way (that still is easy, fast and fun).

And yet the fiction still does not assume it. The goblin will lie dead in the fiction where it started its turn, never having gotten its turn. In the fiction it will never have charged at the fighter by even a little bit. You're imaging a fiction that is different from the fiction that the combat creates. I mean, you might as well imagine that you killed 12 other goblins and gained a level while you are at it.

The old BG, IWD, NWN with their pauseable RL combat were actually more true to what the fiction of the tabletop rules are, but that's because a CPU was taking over the untold calculation needed in every second

Sure. Real time combat programs are more realistic and create a different fiction than the fiction created by tabletop rules.

 

[Nefermandias]

And after that, I just hope that you see why I simply pointed out that some people have different opinions and ways of playing it, and even the right to dispute your "indisputable" fact, because it's not, certainly not in 5e (whereas, truly it was much more so in 4e).

D&D combat can be completely stripped of it's narrative and be played as a skirmish mini game on it's own. That's what D&D miniatures was. You could go even further by replacing the minis with faceless, generic tokens.

 

[Undrave]

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.

It might be a feature but it really bugs me when there's too much ambiguity.

 

[Lyxen]

D&D combat can be completely stripped of it's narrative and be played as a skirmish mini game on it's own. That's what D&D miniatures was. You could go even further by replacing the minis with faceless, generic tokens.

Of course, it can be stripped completely of many things, and it can be played in many different ways, but it does not mean that, as it is, it is indisputably a skirmish "mini-game", and that only.

 

[Garthanos]

I think it's highly dependent on the mindset of the players and the DM, and the circumstances of the fight as set-up. And it loops back to this thread and the level of fiction that you want compared to the level of gamism. I agree that if you play from a gamist perspective, readying actions, between the fact that they are technically less powerful (in particular no multi-attack) and as you point out the chance that the trigger will not happen, they might technically be a bad choice.

But not only are they a nice touch in terms of fiction / narrativism, but it's easy for the DM to make them technically valuable.

I do not think it is as easy as you claim, Improvising a tactical benefit which balances is a tricky deal especially when elements the character gives up are level dependent and sometimes extraordinarily potent like multi-attacking. For instance going from 3/4 coverage to 1/2 might actually cover the chances to hit factor of a 2x multi (level 5 or 6 for those who have it) but not account for the likely increased damage...