D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[Undrave]

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!

applauds

 

[Garthanos]

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

There was a card game called highlander ... you only ever react to another's action or initiate actions on your turn. In effect an action does not establish new story till other agents are allowed to react to it.

 

[Mirtek]

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.

But the fiction of a D&D combat round is that it happens simultaneously. The fighter and the goblin are charging each other at the same time, the fighter is just slightly faster and lands the first blow after their meeting

 

[Charlaquin]

applauds

Credit where it’s due, I got the term from @iserith . Not sure if they coined it or got it from someone else.

 

[Maxperson]

In 3e I expected to see people ready to interrupt spellcasting a lot more with either counterspells or arrows, but I never saw it happen in actual play. Full on normal attacks were usually more effective.

Counterspells were not worth the effort in 3e. Either you used Dispel Magic, in which case you had to roll and could end up wasting your turn for nothing, or you saved your action and prayed that the caster used one of the few spells you actually knew, which wasted your turn for nothing much more often. Better not to bother and just use a spell of your own, which were generally much more reliable in combat.

 

[Mirtek]

I've never tried it out as there is far too much complexity in the rules, but I can't help but feel there's the germ of a great system in there.

I actually doubt that. Because frankly systems like that never turn out as great in reality of play as they sound in the theory of the rules.

I shudder when I think back at the Waffenvergleichswert in DSA. Back then you had an attack countered by a parry and the WV told you how to modify the parry roll beyond your characters base value with his weapon based on his opponents weapon.

Sure, totally realistic and simulationist, but nothing but a major headache on the table.

 

[pemerton]

But the fiction of a D&D combat round is that it happens simultaneously. The fighter and the goblin are charging each other at the same time, the fighter is just slightly faster and lands the first blow after their meeting

Have a look at my post 230, for a pretty unremarkable combat scenario that make the idea of simultaneity pretty implausible.

 

[Maxperson]

But the fiction of a D&D combat round is that it happens simultaneously. The fighter and the goblin are charging each other at the same time, the fighter is just slightly faster and lands the first blow after their meeting

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.

 

[turnip_farmer]

I actually doubt that. Because frankly systems like that never turn out as great in reality of play as they sound in the theory of the rules.

I shudder when I think back at the Waffenvergleichswert in DSA. Back then you had an attack countered by a parry and the WV told you how to modify the parry roll beyond your characters base value with his weapon based on his opponents weapon.

Sure, totally realistic and simulationist, but nothing but a major headache on the table.

Hackmaster as a whole is full of overly complex, simulationist rules, yes. But the basic component I'm talking about here, of using simultaneous, second-by-second actions instead of taking turns, does not need to be very complex at all.

If I roll an attack on second 7, and my weapon has an attack speed of three seconds, I can roll another attack on second 10 if I don't do anything else in between.

If I start casting a spell which takes 5 seconds on second 11, it goes off on second 16 if nothing interrupts.

You can layer a lot of complexity on that (and Hackmaster does) but the basic concept is extremely straightforward.

 

[turnip_farmer]

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!

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.