D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[Ancalagon]

So

I have the privilege of having had some training in sword fighting, and did a lot of sword and shield work and armored combat with padded weapons (that still hurt like the dickens, and no not the SCA, and unfortunately a repeat motion injury made me stop). It's not complete (it's not lethal combat!) but it helped me understand the tactics, the decisions, the movements, the limits, of melee combat.

So I'm a bit more "picking and demanding" when it comes to combat in my RPGs - not only I've done a reasonable amount of research on the topic, I have that bit of lived experience. And for a long time, I was a big proponent of more realistic combat systems - like warhammer frpg 2nd ed.

but.... at the end of the day, more realistic systems are not more fun. So what I do these days is use this knowledge to make rulings when something comes up, and just play 5e.

 

[Ancalagon]

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

And some of these speed factors are ... just wrong. Using a longsword 2-handed is way faster than one handed.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And some of these speed factors are ... just wrong. Using a longsword 2-handed is way faster than one handed.

I'd have said they were basically backward. You can hit someone with a pole arm long before they can hit you with a dagger, and the head can change targets much faster and more easily

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The thread is really about fiction, not friction.

In my experience they are the same thing!

 

[Steampunkette]

So... Just do the "Everyone goes at once" method.

Have everyone declare their intentions, roll any attack rolls, roll any damage rolls, ahead of time, then do all the combat description in one block.

It's -super- annoying when everyone has to wait for the DM to describe all the characters actions as happening at the same time 'cause it compresses all the combat into one "Turn" and everyone has to wait for the full thing... plus things sometimes get forgotten when the DM is doing the infodump which can be aggravating... still.

It'll help you get the fiction you want if you don't want to suspend disbelief on turn-based combat.

 

[FrogReaver]

So... Just do the "Everyone goes at once" method.

Have everyone declare their intentions, roll any attack rolls, roll any damage rolls, ahead of time, then do all the combat description in one block.

It's -super- annoying when everyone has to wait for the DM to describe all the characters actions as happening at the same time 'cause it compresses all the combat into one "Turn" and everyone has to wait for the full thing... plus things sometimes get forgotten when the DM is doing the infodump which can be aggravating... still.

It'll help you get the fiction you want if you don't want to suspend disbelief on turn-based combat.

I don't think such a system would work well for 5e mechanics. That kind of system using 5e mechanics (except cyclic turns) would poorly handle basic ranged kiting tactics. Melee Warrior, I'm 30ft from the archer, I'll move and attack him. Archer I'm 30ft from the melee warrior, i'll move 30ft back and attack him. Melee Warrior really needed to dash just in case the archer moved back - costing him a turn of attacks even if he didn't move back.

In such a system it seems pretty apparent that tactical decisions are still getting made based on the turn structure and not based on the fiction.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

This sounds really interesting (the houserule version). I think if the caveat was added that if you failed to have a valid target for your action that you could dash or dodge it could work really well for 5e.

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.

I think I like this the best out of the alternatives so far, trying to think of what else would need to happen to adapt it to 5e.

 

[Steampunkette]

I don't think such a system would work well for 5e mechanics. That kind of system using 5e mechanics (except cyclic turns) would poorly handle basic ranged kiting tactics. Melee Warrior, I'm 30ft from the archer, I'll move and attack him. Archer I'm 30ft from the melee warrior, i'll move 30ft back and attack him. Melee Warrior really needed to dash just in case the archer moved back - costing him a turn of attacks even if he didn't move back.

In such a system it seems pretty apparent that tactical decisions are still getting made based on the turn structure and not based on the fiction.

In such a system you don't say "I move 30 feet and attack the archer". You say "I'm going to attack the archer" and the DM describes you chasing that archer down and whether or not you get close enough to succeed.

The whole "Everyone goes at once" style essentially gets rid of gridded maps and movement rates except as a rough approximation or framework for the DM to base the description on.

 

[Garthanos]

In the protogame Arneson used Rock Paper Scissors and AD&D had simultaneous resolution but all the leg work was on the DMs head

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

We can quibble over what to precisely call it, but if the players are making tactical decisions based not on the fiction but instead on the turn structure, then combat lacks fictional grounding. That's not necessarily good or bad, it just is. And it's something I would prefer less of.

You seem to be really pushing the idea that we can take combat and imagine some fiction that corresponds or coorelates to what happened during the 6 second combat rounds. I've no doubt we can. But that's really not what I mean when I say combat is fictionless. It's not enough that some fiction can be established after a 6 second combat round, because if that's all that's happening then that means there's no fiction being established that a player can use to base his decisions on during the combat round. That's what I call fictionless.