D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[Neonchameleon]

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.

I've three points of disagreement, one of which is petty:

1. Just because it doesn't have the fiction you (or I or anyone else) wants it doesn't make it fictionless - just not the fiction you want
2. The OODA loop is a thing - as are movements and phrases (I don't have the technical vocabulary) in fight scene choreography and if D&D was trying for realism hit points wouldn't be a thing
3. 4e was an exception because it imagined one style of combat extremely well.

1 is, I accept petty. D&D combat isn't so much fictionless as awkward fiction. A big part of the problem is the mix of (a) a lot of hit points so combat takes a long time and (b) only the last hp really mattering.

2 on the other hand - depending on what type of combat you have there are near stop-motion phrases where the combatants break to reassess before the next exchange. It's not so common in one on one brawls which end up generally as rolling around on the floor. But it definitely is in cinematic combat, and in sport combat - and the only reason it isn't so common in real armed fights is because they tend to be fast and brutal as in war you don't have a pool of near-consequence-free hit points. Sure there's more flow in systems using real bodies - but if we look at a perfectly good fight scene from The Witcher there are pretty clear breaks in it.


3 is one of the many reasons I miss 4e. "Slow combat" was in part because there were a lot of opportunity and interrupt actions which had the effect of showing that everyone competent was continually moving in response to each other. And the other part is that the story of 4e combat frequently involves using the environment almost as much as any Jackie Chan film as well as teamwork and rescuing each other.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's not faster, but it has a longer reach, so it might come into play earlier. Runequest tracks things like this, as well as getting within someone's reach to offset the length advantage, but it's much more detailed tactically.

I mean, also that, but yes, faster - at least at the tip - because physics.

 

[Charlaquin]

From what I gather, I think the issue isn’t really that the rules don’t allow for any coherent narrative. The issue appears to be that they sometimes (often?) stand in the way of a narrative of simultaneous action that (for whatever reason) the OP desires.

And this is absolutely true, despite verbiage to the contrary in the rules. The rules divide a combat round into sequential multi-action (and movement) turns and treats these sequential turns as prescriptive for the starting states of future turns.

Per the rules, characters can and often do make full use of their movement and action economy in a way that prevents slower characters from using not just some of their movement or taking not just a single action, but absolutely all of it. Most commonly through death.

The point is, this conflicts with a narrative of simultaneous action because it isn’t even remotely simultaneous. It does create a narrative, but it is a different one, to be sure.

The example of two enemies meeting in center of the battlefield can make narrative sense. But if the rules require the narrative to be: one character waits for the other and then advances, then that seems to be an issue for the OP.

Why? Because that’s not the same narrative as: both characters charge each other at the same time. The RAW doesn’t allow for the latter narrative at all.

That won’t matter to a lot of people, but it seems to be an issue for the OP. And the OP isn’t wrong.

I agree and disagree. Certainly simultaneous action is not a narrative that follows naturally from the events that occur in D&D combat, because D&D combat is turn-based, not simultaneous. Of course, the turn-based structure of D&D combat is an abstraction, used to allow for simple, orderly action resolution, but meant to represent simultaneous action. And it is entirely possible to derive a narrative of simultaneous action from the events that occur in D&D combat, it just has to be done post-hoc. At the end of the round, you can look at everything that occurred during the round and construct a narrative wherein the combatants were acting simultaneously, which results in the same outcomes as occurred in the turn-based mechanical structure.

It seems to me that what @FrogReaver is after is a mechanical structure in which the players’ decision-making parameters more closely resemble those of combatants acting simultaneously. Which is a perfectly reasonable thing to want, but I don’t think it’s at all the same thing as D&D combat having no correlation to any narrative.

 

[Nefermandias]

And it is entirely possible to derive a narrative of simultaneous action from the events that occur in D&D combat, it just has to be done post-hoc. At the end of the round, you can look at everything that occurred during the round and construct a narrative wherein the combatants were acting simultaneously, which results in the same outcomes as occurred in the turn-based mechanical structure.

What you describe is what Angry GM calls "Managing combat like a motherf$@ing dolphin"

Good stuff.

How to Manage Combat Like a Motherf$&%ing Dolphin

Want to run a fast-paced, exciting combat? It comes down to two things. First, learn how to track initiative. Second, learn about dolphins. Yeah, you heard me.

theangrygm.com

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In ADnD announce first, roll initiative somehow was more cinematic...

 

[Campbell]

I would not say it's a problem, but the combat systems in most RPGs that have defined systems pretty much work like this:

System -> Fiction

Most play outside of combat in a typical RPG looks like this:
Fiction -> System ->Fiction

What I mean by this is that during normal play you say what you are going to do then we use the fiction as a guide to help resolve how difficult it will be and what success and failure means.

Combat in most mainstream games is different. You choose actions off a menu going in a specific turn order. We don't consult the fiction in the resolution process. What happens impacts the narrative, but is not really derived from it in the same way a typical ability check would be.

 

[Shiroiken]

Maybe, but I'm nearly absolutely positive such systems will just have different disconnects

I've played under the 2E combat system, which has very few disconnects, all of which are on the mechanical side. Basically everyone determines their action for the round in general terms (I move to attack in melee, I'm shooting my bow, I'm casting X). Ideally this should be done in secret to prevent meta shenanigans, but unless working on a VTT this really isn't feasible. After this is done initiative is rolled, and each action takes place to the best of its abilities. Although not official, a very common houserule was that targets are chosen at the time of the action, to prevent wasted turns.

The story flows very well with this system, as you direct the scene based on the actions and results. The downside is that mechanically it has a few disconnects. It REALLY sucks as a player to have your turn wasted, which some DMs made happen by requiring targets chosen in advance or if an action just cannot be completed. It's also possible for a chosen action to harm the party, such as casting fireball when the party runs into melee. I've considered using this in 5E, adding that bonus actions and other non-action abilities (e.g. action surge) are chosen during a character's turn. Reactions would just be once per round, regardless of when your turn is.

 

[Nefermandias]

I've played under the 2E combat system, which has very few disconnects, all of which are on the mechanical side. Basically everyone determines their action for the round in general terms (I move to attack in melee, I'm shooting my bow, I'm casting X). Ideally this should be done in secret to prevent meta shenanigans, but unless working on a VTT this really isn't feasible. After this is done initiative is rolled, and each action takes place to the best of its abilities. Although not official, a very common houserule was that targets are chosen at the time of the action, to prevent wasted turns.

The story flows very well with this system, as you direct the scene based on the actions and results. The downside is that mechanically it has a few disconnects. It REALLY sucks as a player to have your turn wasted, which some DMs made happen by requiring targets chosen in advance or if an action just cannot be completed. It's also possible for a chosen action to harm the party, such as casting fireball when the party runs into melee. I've considered using this in 5E, adding that bonus actions and other non-action abilities (e.g. action surge) are chosen during a character's turn. Reactions would just be once per round, regardless of when your turn is.

Have you checked the Speed Factor option in the DMG?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I would not say it's a problem, but the combat systems in most RPGs that have defined systems pretty much work like this:

System -> Fiction

Most play outside of combat in a typical RPG looks like this:
Fiction -> System ->Fiction

What I mean by this is that during normal play you say what you are going to do then we use the fiction as a guide to help resolve how difficult it will be and what success and failure means.

Combat in most mainstream games is different. You choose actions off a menu going in a specific turn order. We don't consult the fiction in the resolution process. What happens impacts the narrative, but is not really derived from it in the same way a typical ability check would be.

A part of this depends what you think "fiction" and "the system" are. For me, for example, the battlemap showing how things are laid out is a part of the fiction. And again I'm going to mention 4e here and how, thanks to how common forced movement is, it makes other versions of D&D feel like acting against a green screen rather than on location because you actively throw people into/onto/over/off the stuff. And how 5e feels less as if the fiction matters by deemphasising the minor bonuses you can get from the fiction such as flanking.

 

[Shiroiken]

Have you checked the Speed Factor option in the DMG?

I have, but wouldn't want to include the speed factor itself. It was clunky back in AD&D, and will be clunky now.