D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[Nefermandias]

Then TTRPGS are always gonna disappoint a bit.

For instance, speed factors tend to treat a knife as faster than a longsword, which is simply not true.


We are all just hunting down the level and type of abstraction to works best for us.

Now I'm curious how attacking with a longsword (really a misnamed arming sword) could possibly be faster than a knife stab.

 

[Lyxen]

Now I'm curious how attacking with a longsword (really a misnamed arming sword) could possibly be faster than a knife stab.

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Now I'm curious how attacking with a longsword (really a misnamed arming sword) could possibly be faster than a knife stab.

Arming sword isn’t really the D&D longsword. I’m talking “bastard sword”, which is primarily used two handed, and is much faster than people think. Because the thing weighs next to nothing compared to the trained wielders strength (partly due to balance), and the way leverage works.

There is a reason that the quarter staff has always been an effective peasant weapon. Leverage based weapons are fast.

 

[Nefermandias]

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.

That's why in AD&D, weapon length comes into play when you are charging, but not after you are engaged in close quarters. But yeah, I see the point.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

FrogReaver, I've pondered a bit more on this. And I think that - at least as a long time player/DM when you have a good grasp of the rules so that you don't have to interpret how to handle stuff - the combat mechanics turns into a fiction in itself. The ebb and flow of rolls, consequences and tactical adaptions gets interpreted and transformed into a fictional layer that merges with the overall fiction. And then it's natural that the players keep on roleplaying, rather than see the combat mechanics as something that breaks suspension of disbelief.

At least that's the case for me and my table of old grogs, YMMV

 

[dave2008]

I think I have the start of a system in my mind that might could address this concern.

Basic Idea: At least for melee combat, you roll 'initiative' upon becoming engaged in melee to see who gets to act first. If the engager wins he attacks now, if his enemy wins then he may attacks immediately before you as if it was his turn.

I've not yet decided how to best extend that premise to ranged allies and groups of multiple PCs/NPCs

How is that different from regular D&D combat?

 

[dave2008]

Or use the Hackmaster combat order, it pretty much does what you want.

That's interesting. Though I think you still suffer from the same problem, it just happens at the distance 1 second away instead of 6 seconds away

I don't really understand your problem, but Hackmaster "initiative" is pretty fluid and simultaneous. You really need to try it and use it for a bit of time to see how different it can be.

It feels to me like it would solve your problem, but again I don't really understand your issue fully. I typically narrate the combat after the round.

 

[Rune]

Looking in more depth at the specific case of fighter and goblin... I'm with @Charlaquin and @Umbran, I don't see the problem. The fighter is stopping and bracing to receive the goblin's charge, timing his strike to take advantage of the enemy's recklessness. That's a perfectly coherent narrative. Timing your attack based on the enemy's movement is a real thing that real combatants do.

Are you just objecting to the fighter's precise knowledge of exactly how far away he needs to stop for this to work?

If the goblin were to advance cautiously, stopping and readying, and the fighter responded by doing the same, then you'd have different mechanical events which would produce a different narrative: The two combatants inch up to each other, each waiting for the other to make the fatal rush that will expose them to a strike. A tumbleweed blows past.

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.




* Or not. I can’t find any mention of it in either the PHB or the DMG. At least not in any appropriately related section. This assumption might just be a holdover from previous editions – in two of which it was also manifestly not true.

 

[Zaukrie]

Here are some other examples of why cyclic initiative hurts "fiction".....

You see goblins down the hall...and run at that them. They stand there and wait for you to come, because you rolled higher, even though one of them could go thru a door and get away and warn others.

You are chasing someone, and they just stand there and wait for you to move 60 feet before they run.

You are at a door, and plan your attack sequence for after you open it. You open it, there are enemies you want to attack, so you roll initiative. (note, some tables would give the players a round of action before the other side could act, some would not, but if you do roll, and it goes like this.....). You roll initiative, and instead of the fighter getting to go first to open the door so the wizard can cast a spell, the wizard rolls higher. Some tables would allow them to switch places, some would not.

I'm not a fan of cyclic.....and hope to someday release a massive (100+ pages) document with many options for initiative. NONE of which I would use in every situation.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Well said

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.

Again, well said. I’d just add that what bugs me isn’t so much the lack of the simultaneous narrative, it’s more that how I’m interacting with the turn system to produce combat advantages doesn’t correlate to any fictional interactions to produce those advantages. Instead I plot out my turn absent any fictional basis (as the fiction hasn’t been established yet) and then in the best case a dm comes in and spins up a narrative that maybe is consistent with what happened - but that is then immediately dropped to interact with the narrativeless turn system system again to gain combat advantages absent any fictional basis (as the fiction hasn’t been established yet)

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.

we part here a bit. I can view the rules allowing that simultaneous meeting in the middle, but it’s the guaranteed tactical advantage of doing so on your turn instead of the opponents turn that is the problem. And that advantage comes about solely because the turn system and not the fiction (as the fictional narrative for that simultaneous 6 second turn isn’t even created yet)