D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[Lyxen]

Ultimately, it's a game, not a narrative.

Nope, "The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery."

So when the aim of the game is storytelling, it can certainly be a narrative.

If you want to give freedom to act to your players you will have to accept them taking actions they benefit from (whether these benefits are like "I don't die" or "this makes my character's personality richer").

And first, not all actions need to be that outrageous ("I don't die", come on...) but second, the game explicitely tells the game master that he has the total freedom that he needs so that his player have fun, so there is nothing in the game preventing the above.

If you want characters to act more like "in the movies" you need a ruleset that rewards such behavior.

And it does. amongst the tools that the DM has (and in addition to being able to do exactly what he wants with any rule of ruling), he can grant advantage or disadvantage at any time, for example if the player is really creative: "Consider granting advantage when … A player shows exceptional creativity or cunning in attempting or describing a task."

So the ruleset is there, ignoring this is shows a very biased reading of the rules.

I mean, it's not strictly the only solution and therefore saying "you need this" isn't strictly true.

But trying to make players act in ways that aren't in their characters' best interest is imo never gonna work out in the end.

As long as we are talking about the character's interest, it is normal that it happens that way, but you are not talking about this, you are talking about the player's best interest in using the game system to his advantage.

The only real way is to make the game allow and reward actions you want to see.

And the problem, as usual on the internet, is that you want so much to make a point that you paint things in black and white.

That is actually my whole issue with this thread. @FrogReaver not only makes an outrageous statement in the title of the thread and sets up his games so that they are deliberately fictionless. It's perfectly his rights toy do so, but it is still totally incorrect, as proven above, that the game is designed exclusively with this in mind.

Rather the contrary, the game is designed with roleplaying and storytelling in mind. If you read the books cover to cover, you will see many words from the authors that sustain this, and not one word saying that you have to play fictionless, but of course people who are only interested in the rules (despite, once more, the fact that the authors have specifically written many times that the game is NOT about the rules themselves) do not read these words.

But this means that, if you don't take as a basic principle the fact that the game has to be fictionless and deliberately make it so, it is actually exactly the contrary that happens, it is very much about fiction and it works really well because the ruleset is deliberately fuzzy and at the hand of the DM and the players to create the fiction that they collectively want.

And then, there are all the intermediate cases of tables who fall in the middle, who make their game more or less fictionfull depending on the phase of play, the situation, what the players and the DM wants. There is not a single way of playing, there is no superior way of playing the game, but there is certainly NOTHING in the game itself that makes it deliberately fictionless, whether in combat or outside of it except for the deliberate choice of some players to make it so.

 

[Garthanos]

Delaying permits coordination - eg I'll clump them together [with CaGI, or some other forced movement effect] then you blast them!

I should have remembered that.This is a good reminder of how coordinating between players initiative can be a very tactical choice.

Various classes also have powers that modify initiative. (rangers/fighters/avengers and others but especially warlords).

A warlord is particularly nice at that. And could even be seen as battle coordinator LOL. For instance a Warlord Utility Decisive Timing lets you swap around initiative of allies in a burst.

The Warlord also has what after a certain point may become a "we go first ability" hence creating a team side initiative too.

 

[Lyxen]

I should have remembered that.This is a good reminder of how coordinating between players initiative can be a very tactical choice.

It is, but you do not need the "delay" action, which is extremely artificial as it only manipulates the initiative framework, the "ready" action makes much more sense when coordinating, as you are waiting for an actual in game event rather than a technical framework one.

This is why I'm happy that the 5e designers recognised this, dumped the delay action and reinforced the role of the ready one.

A warlord is particularly nice at that. And could even be seen as battle coordinator LOL. For instance a Warlord Utility Decisive Timing lets you swap around initiative of allies in a burst.

Believe it or not, the Warlord is one of my regrets from 4e (the other one being the swordmage), as a concept it's cool and I'd really like to play one again. But my main problem and I think the reason it did not make it into 5e is that most of its powers felt artificial, again manipulating the game framework rather than manipulating the fantasy world itself in a consistent manner.

But give me a warlord battle coordinator in 5e for whom the powers make sense in the fantasy universe and I will play that tomorrow.

 

[Garthanos]

But give me a warlord battle coordinator in 5e for whom the powers make sense in the fantasy universe and I will play that tomorrow.

I think you are choosing things to not make sense... exactly like you say Frogreaver does. Delay action to me makes no less sense than ready.

 

[Garthanos]

But my main problem and I think the reason it did not make it into 5e is that most of its powers felt artificial, again manipulating the game framework

Anything giving tactical effects not heavily reliant on DM rulings seems to be your idea of artificial.

 

[Garthanos]

Believe it or not, the Warlord is one of my regrets from 4e (the other one being the swordmage), as a concept it's cool and I'd really like to play one again.

I am surprised you didnt find Eldritch Knight and Battlemaster fit your fancy. I understand why I consider them innadequate.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't understand the initial point because I took fictionless literally. And (taken literally) that criticism makes zero sense.

Not the fiction one prefers, okay. Not the fiction that matches the world as you know it, and that disrupts your SoD, easily understood. But fictionless! That would be frankly baloney.

My OP said

...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.

And while I admit that neither it nor my thought process was as codified as it could have been as it wasn't really till the back and forths on this thread that I was able to dig in and clarify things for myself, I think my OP was fairly clear that at least part of my issue was about D&D combat producing 'fictionless decisions'. I do understand the confusion though - as I really was talking about 2 different phenomenon in my OP.

The other issue my OP touched on was the aspect of D&D combat where it's not able to produce common fictional tropes in many situations like the fighter and orc charging each other at the same time and meeting in the middle (this is the concept of 'fiction that we want' that keeps getting thrown up). And while that's said as a criticism, really why the heck wouldn't we want that to be possible? Ultimately though, I think the conversation has really moved past this point and really has been focused around 'fictionless decisions' for quite some time.

 

[Krachek]

A good trick that help fiction, is to ask regularly players to summarize or describe the round they just play In a fictional way.

The DM can also at the end of the round, take time to make a global description of the combat in a fictional way.

For silly and unusual situation Dm may ask a check or opposed check to simply resolve the situation in favor of one side. I read the case here of the PC standing in front of thirty orcs,
roll 31 initiative checks seem the rigid RAW application. But a more fictional way to resolve the interaction can begin by using a single opposed check base on charisma-intimidation to see which side take the lead of the encounter.

Making more system, rolls, declaration of intent may look more realistic but may not produce a more fiction wise feeling.

 

[Garthanos]

The other issue my OP touched on was the aspect of D&D combat where it's not able to produce common fictional tropes in many situations like the fighter and orc charging each other at the same time and meeting in the middle (this is the concept of 'fiction that we want' that keeps getting thrown up). .

And to me one of your important points. It shouldn't be so hard to achieve.

 

[Garthanos]

But a more fictional way to resolve the interaction can begin by using a single opposed check base on charisma-intimidation to see which side take the lead of the encounter.

That could be one representation of a leadership benefit to initiative... flavorfully fitting of an Orcish Warlords techniques.