D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[clearstream]

My OP said

Over the course of the thread I went back and reread your OP a couple of times to get it clearer in my mind. I suspect "fictionless" just jumped out at me because it is such a strong claim (were that indeed what you were claiming, which of course we got clearer about later on) and of course, it's in the title. One thing I do like about "fictionless" is that it got my attention

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.

Possibly we'll have to just mark our differences and move on. I don't find that D&D combat produces "fictionless" decisions, but I can see that those decisions aren't produced by the fiction in the way you to want to cast it. If it helps to understand my position, for me all-declare-then-all-act is more fiction-disrupting than each-act-in-turn. I'm not looking for D&D combat to be anything more than representative.

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.

I think they do meet in the middle, just the "middle" isn't the square-mid-point-from-their-start-positions-this-round. As you say, we've gotten a good way on from the OP anyway. So far as I can see, some concrete mechanical concerns are - with givens as noted up thread -

1. a creature basing their action over a round on something known only at the end of the round
2. a creature moving all of their movement before another creature moves any
3. a creature lacking information during a round on something happening during that round

My 'solution' to these is to gloss-over them, with ideas like

1. the start time and duration of highlighted interactions is imprecise, but ordinarily less than a full round
2. movement is a fair-approximation of how things stand, so it was fair that the orcs got between the fighter and the door; movement isn't really stop-start, i.e. it's not contained within the round
3. creatures in-world do and notice things that we don't narrate, and there is enough space in each round for there to be a sequence of highlighted interactions

I look for combat to be a fair representation, offering opportunities for characters to exert influence over the fiction.

 

[CapnZapp]

Nope

Sorry, just because the publisher says the game is something, doesn't mean it actually is.

No matter how you turn, the fact remains:

The game offers you actions that reward acting game-like ("I stop just short of the goblin forcing it to move on its turn").

Not fiction-like ("I rush the goblin"). By that I mean saying that might be its own reward, but the game does not reward you for it.

Now let's stop debating exactly what he means by fictionless. Let's instead discuss this statement of mine:

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

 

[Garthanos]

Why not also have DM adjudicate initiative. Something like

It and the DM adjudicating the results of all movement attempts both sound like a lot of work in the DMs side and hard to make consistent or fair, felt that way in AD&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

It and the DM adjudicating the results of all movement attempts both sound like a lot of work in the DMs side and hard to make consistent or fair, felt that way in AD&D.

I don't think the movement stuff is really that hard. (though it might bloat up that way once you get a battle with 10+ combatants).

 

[Lyxen]

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.

Well, for me there is a difference in saying "As a player, I'm choosing not to take my turn as ordered by the game system" and "my character, expecting reinforcement to come since we've been making quite a bit of noise, hides in this corner and will attack the first person that comes through the door".

One is pure technical gaming, the other one is projecting your character in the world. Exactly the same distinction as fictionless and fiction gaming, actually.

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

Simply no, where did I speak about DM rulings when speaking about delay/ready actions ? In these cases, I'm just applying the rules, actually.

What I call artificial, are powers like the Warlord's commanding presence which, for some reason that is never explained and has nothing to do with presence, heals characters that us action points. Why ? It's purely technical, and there is no description of what happens in the game world, it corresponds to nothing in fiction. Or using simple words to heal someone, no spell, no magic, nothing. Nothing in actual fiction (books, movies of the genre) looks like this, so how can you expect anything else than fictionless combat when you have powers that make absolutely no sense and are just there for technical effect ?

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

It's not that they are globally inadequate, they correspond to some fantasy fiction characters. But other fantasy fictions I like are commanders, and neither of these classes display anything that matches what a commander would do.

 

[Lyxen]

Sorry, just because the publisher says the game is something, doesn't mean it actually is.

Sorry, but when the actual game design matches the intent, I tend to believe it more than your denial which is supported by nothing.

No matter how you turn, the fact remains:
The game offers you actions that reward acting game-like ("I stop just short of the goblin forcing it to move on its turn").
Not fiction-like ("I rush the goblin"). By that I mean saying that might be its own reward, but the game does not reward you for it.

And, once more, you are only reading PART of the game, ignoring everything which is not purely technical rules, but also some actual rules like the ones I gave to you.

And if someone does something stupid like just above, the goblin will just step back and his comrades will pepper the stupid fighter with arrows.

The game rewards nothing for following rules when, above this, the game allows DMs to apply or modify rules on the fly, and allow DMs to provide advantage to whoever is playing his character cleverly and in the spirit of the game.

Now let's stop debating exactly what he means by fictionless. Let's instead discuss this statement of mine:

And my point of view is that the system already does this, but for that, you need to read ALL of it, and understand other potential ways of playing it.

 

[Garthanos]

One is pure technical gaming, the other one is projecting your character in the world. Exactly the same distinction as fictionless and fiction gaming, actually.

Yeah no, I time the my actions so my ally can bring the enemy into position so I can exploit it yup delay action does that just fine but you the player can decide the fiction.

Simply no, where did I speak about DM rulings when speaking about delay/ready actions ? In these cases, I'm just applying the rules, actually.

You drip with it all over the place in this thread and others, they are the only tactics you consider valid just noting a pattern

What I call artificial, are powers like the Warlord's commanding presence which, for some reason that is never explained and has nothing to do with presence, heals characters that us action points. Why ? It's purely technical, and there is no description of what happens in the game world, it corresponds to nothing in fiction.

You choose inspiration to be nothing with hit points defined the way they are that is just you being stubborn about hit point recovery being glowy glowy magic and bones knitting and scratches stitching up and that is your choice as I said earlier it is your active choice to deprive the effect already given in story by for instance the description of what hit points are and what spending a surge means.

Or using simple words to heal someone, no spell, no magic, nothing.

Yup you just did that choice right here "simple words" same as all the other times using your own choices to strip the story.

It's not that they are globally inadequate, they correspond to some fantasy fiction characters. But other fantasy fictions I like are commanders, and neither of these classes display anything that matches what a commander would do.

They are too narrow and miss a lot of factors that made the SM and Warlord work for me and not allowed to focus on what they are able to do either its a half job and subtype that cannot even cover what they were before very well.

 

[Lyxen]

Yeah no, I time the my actions so my ally can bring the enemy into position so I can exploit it yup delay action does that just fine but you the player can decide the fiction.

Only you are doing it using purely technical means rather than finding the story and the fiction around it.

You drip with it all over the place in this thread and others, they are the only tactics you consider valid just noting a pattern

The only thing I'm saying that the game provides everything you need to have the story define the rules rather than the other way around. But in this case, you can do it exactly within the scope of the 5e rules, so I'm just happy.

You choose inspiration to be nothing with hit points defined the way they are that is just you being stubborn about hit point recovery being glowy glowy magic and bones knitting and scratches stitching up and that is your choice as I said earlier it is your active choice to deprive the effect already given in story by for instance the description of what hit points are and what spending a surge means.

While I agree that hit points can represent many things, in that case no explanation is provided and it does not match anything in fiction, which makes it look really technical.

Yup you just did that right here same as all the other times your own choices to strip the story.

I'm sorry, I just can't make any sense out of this sentence.

They are too narrow and not allowed to focus on what they are able to do its a half job.

The EK is indeed a hybrid class, and why not, some people like them, while at the same time wanting them to be as strong as the two parts of the hybrid. As for the BM, I think it's fine technically, but it's really focussed only on its own swordplay, not really a battlefield commander.

 

[Garthanos]

The EK is indeed a hybrid class, and why not, some people like them, while at the same time wanting them to be as strong as the two parts of the hybrid.

The idea isn't for me how strong it is, its missing elements like teleporting mobility, flavorful magical defender ability (that isnt just taking the feat Sentinel)

As for the BM, I think it's fine technically, but it's really focussed only on its own swordplay, not really a battlefield

Well I think its technically OK, but its nailed down too much and think the fighter itself is a bit of lost opportunity to build a truly flexible archetype that I would consider "best at fighting" ie its not that you are striker awesome but that you can do all of the stuff flexibly as an on the fly choice.

Note I also liked hybrid Warlord/Fighters (or many of the hybrids possible) BUT I like the straight Warlord/Marshal too,
The Marshal/Warlord did not feel like a 2/3 overlap with a Striker fighter like the Battlemaster ends up feeling for me.

 

[Lyxen]

The idea isn't for me how strong it is, its missing elements like teleporting mobility, flavorful magical defender ability (that isnt just taking the feat Sentinel)

I have not studied the class in great detail, TBH, after that, if it is lacking things for your tastes, it's of course fine for you to disliking it.

Well I think its technically OK, but its nailed down too much and think the fighter itself is a bit of lost opportunity to build a truly flexible archetype that I would consider "best at fighting" ie its not that you are striker awesome but that you can do all of the stuff flexibly as an on the fly choice.

My main regret, honestly, is that there are few differences between tank and striker in 5e. As a side thinking, it's one thing that technically 4e did well, in 5e all fighters are a mix of capabilities. I guess it goes with the flexibility of the game, but I love tanks/defenders as a concept.

Note I also liked hybrid Warlord/Fighters (or many of the hybrids possible) BUT I like the straight Warlord/Marshal too,
The Marshal/Warlord did not feel like a 2/3 overlap with a Striker fighter like the Battlemaster ends up feeling for me.

I think we can agree on this, even if I am not as technically astute as you are on most of these points.