D&D 5E Hang Time - What if you jump farther than your speed?

[5ekyu]

I already knew that. I have no problem with you ruling however you wish and don’t need you to rule like me.



I agree with you about events in each round being roughly simultaneous. To me, turn-order is about the order in which actions are resolved, and really only when it matters. I think we’re on the same page here.



You don’t have to keep posting responses, you know.

"I agree with you about events in each round being roughly simultaneous."

Obviously each GM can rule their games how thry prefer, but for me this is just not a position i take up and not a position i use as a basis for rulings in dnd style games.

Why?

Well like 99% of the mechanics we use are clearly based on treating these as sequential events within a turn. Some dramatically so.

If i were to tell a player "events in each round being roughly simultaneous" and then go on to round after round turn after turn,move after move prove thats BS, then i would feel like an idjit.

In the game, the dwarf can stab a demon with a dagger, run over to the elf, hand them the same dagger, the elf stab another demon then throw the dagger at a third and then the a cultist pick up the dagger and throw it at the first dwarf.

If that sounds like simultaneous to you, go for it.

Key point being there are good systems out there which do try and represent much more simultaneous turns, iirc unisystem was one (or one of its variants) but there are others. The key to those systems was usually a unified declaration phase (either all at once reveal or initiative based lowest init declares first) and then a common resolution phase where every declared action went off regardless of order resolved. Two characters might very well KO each other.

So, if i am inclined to run a game where i tell players that combat is simultaneous, i am for sure going to choose a system which treats it as sequential every time it matters (and frankly almost all the other times as well.)

But thats me.

 

[Hriston]

"I agree with you about events in each round being roughly simultaneous."

Obviously each GM can rule their games how thry prefer, but for me this is just not a position i take up and not a position i use as a basis for rulings in dnd style games.

Why?

Well like 99% of the mechanics we use are clearly based on treating these as sequential events within a turn. Some dramatically so.

Events within a turn are sequential, yes, but all the turns within a round overlap and happen at roughly the same time. Or do you imagine that the participants in a combat are waiting around not moving or taking actions while each character takes its turn in order?

 

[5ekyu]

Events within a turn are sequential, yes, but all the turns within a round overlap and happen at roughly the same time. Or do you imagine that the participants in a combat are waiting around not moving or taking actions while each character takes its turn in order?

"Events within a turn are sequential, yes, but all the turns within a round overlap and happen at roughly the same time. "

I submit to you the vast vast majority of the mechanics in the game and how they actually play out in play to counter your claim that all the turns play out roughly the same time.

My dagger example is an example of 3-4 turns within a round that illustrate the failure of that perspective.

"Or do you imagine that the participants in a combat are waiting around not moving or taking actions while each character takes its turn in order?"

Yes, YES YESYESYES... since that's the only other possibility it must be true. Just like the fact that we rarely show on screen player characters taking a dump means Rangers don't poop.

Wait, maybe there is another posdibility.

What if, like ranger poop, things and activities exist in the game world that are not shown on screen?

What if the activities within a character's turn" are just say a highlight we show - like the most significant?

Now lets run with this radical heresy. Let's see where it leads.

That would mean folks are not standing around waiting their turn but are tied up with other stuff, even maybe deciding, maybe not getting hit etc. Yeah that plays out like a lot of action scenes we see and read. Each character gets a spotlight moment back and forth but you still see stuff in the background.

Also, look at AO, where an action on someone else's turn lowers their guard and you can land an extra blow. That seems to fit the model of "off screen activities" where the two are swinging, thrust parry etc in between their "turns" instead of your incitful "Or do you imagine that the participants in a combat are waiting around not moving or taking actions while each character takes its turn in order?" Idea.

So, in spite of how appealing your two possibilities AAndB are I think I will go with option O for Old we have been doing this for long long time...

Option O
The turns in a round are sequential, not simultaneous, so the mechanics and the narrative line up.
Off your turn, you like everybody else is tied up with non-highlight non-results-in-stuff-worth-screen-time activities. A lot of punches that dont matter for example.
Some exceptions like AO and other reactions spotlight some off-turn activities that produce results worthy of screen time.

Now let's test this theory.

Long corridor ending in T intersection.
Halfling will be crossing the t. Dwarf 90' down corridor.
Others involved in fights etc.

Round 1
Halfling walk out of left side of t, looks down corridor, firebolts the dwarf then finishes walking to right side of t out of sight.
Dwarf then wants to shoot crossbow at halfling but has no shot due to - you know - wall.

Does that fit simultaneous model? Well, no.
Does that fit sequential modrl where its assumed when the halfling walked past the dwarf was involved with or focused on other stuff? Where the dwarf did not have time to shoot until after the halfling moved out of sight?

Now, of course, the dwarf could now decide to ready action to shoot the halfling as he expects them to repeat the maneuver next time. It that shows spending an action to focus on the halfling while dealing with other stuff.

So, got a say, the flurry of activity and sequential screen times seems to me to be a much more appealing mesh of narrative and mechanics than either the "call it simultaneous but in name only" or your awesomely clever and tempting "the participants in a combat are waiting around not moving or taking actions while each character takes its turn in order?" Alternative.

So, of course each gm chooses their own.

 

[Hriston]

"Events within a turn are sequential, yes, but all the turns within a round overlap and happen at roughly the same time. "

I submit to you the vast vast majority of the mechanics in the game and how they actually play out in play to counter your claim that all the turns play out roughly the same time.

My dagger example is an example of 3-4 turns within a round that illustrate the failure of that perspective.

No, it isn't. Let's look at your example:

In the game, the dwarf can stab a demon with a dagger, run over to the elf, hand them the same dagger, the elf stab another demon then throw the dagger at a third and then the a cultist pick up the dagger and throw it at the first dwarf.

The problem with your example is that, by following the dagger, it makes it seem like other things aren't happening in the fiction. That's because you're presenting information selectively. The dwarf might use more movement or have another attack it can use after it hands the dagger to the elf. The elf might have already been using its movement before the hand-off. The hand-off itself reveals that the dwarf's and elf's turns are simultaneous because they're both using their free object interaction to pass the dagger between themselves. The elf and dwarf may continue moving while the cultist, who may have been moving during the dwarf's and elf's actions, picks up the dagger. Unless a precise order is necessary for resolution, all of these events can be considered to happen more or less simultaneously. Only when it matters, do we need to assume initiative order.

"Or do you imagine that the participants in a combat are waiting around not moving or taking actions while each character takes its turn in order?"

<snip>

The turns in a round are sequential, not simultaneous, so the mechanics and the narrative line up.
Off your turn, you like everybody else is tied up with non-highlight non-results-in-stuff-worth-screen-time activities. A lot of punches that dont matter for example.
Some exceptions like AO and other reactions spotlight some off-turn activities that produce results worthy of screen time.

From the Basic Rules:

A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world.​

Now, depending on the number of participants and turns in a round, those turns could end up being pretty short under the sequential model. The typical combat involving four PCs and a monster would have turns of 1.2 seconds each. A 30 foot move in such a turn would exceed even the running speeds of elite athletes.

I think each turn needs the full six seconds to make sense of the action economy, and the only way to fit multiple six-second turns into a six-second round is if they happen at the same time.

Now let's test this theory.

Long corridor ending in T intersection.
Halfling will be crossing the t. Dwarf 90' down corridor.
Others involved in fights etc.

Round 1
Halfling walk out of left side of t, looks down corridor, firebolts the dwarf then finishes walking to right side of t out of sight.
Dwarf then wants to shoot crossbow at halfling but has no shot due to - you know - wall.

Does that fit simultaneous model? Well, no.

Why not? It looks like the halfling had higher initiative, so by the time the dwarf was able to take aim, the halfling was behind the wall. I'm not seeing the problem.

 

[5ekyu]

No, it isn't. Let's look at your example:



The problem with your example is that, by following the dagger, it makes it seem like other things aren't happening in the fiction. That's because you're presenting information selectively. The dwarf might use more movement or have another attack it can use after it hands the dagger to the elf. The elf might have already been using its movement before the hand-off. The hand-off itself reveals that the dwarf's and elf's turns are simultaneous because they're both using their free object interaction to pass the dagger between themselves. The elf and dwarf may continue moving while the cultist, who may have been moving during the dwarf's and elf's actions, picks up the dagger. Unless a precise order is necessary for resolution, all of these events can be considered to happen more or less simultaneously. Only when it matters, do we need to assume initiative order.



From the Basic Rules:

A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world.​

Now, depending on the number of participants and turns in a round, those turns could end up being pretty short under the sequential model. The typical combat involving four PCs and a monster would have turns of 1.2 seconds each. A 30 foot move in such a turn would exceed even the running speeds of elite athletes.

I think each turn needs the full six seconds to make sense of the action economy, and the only way to fit multiple six-second turns into a six-second round is if they happen at the same time.



Why not? It looks like the halfling had higher initiative, so by the time the dwarf was able to take aim, the halfling was behind the wall. I'm not seeing the problem.

If you see the dagger stabbing from the dwarf the pass arpund and eventual stabbing back etc as simultaneous, great for you. Thats a suspension of disbelief i dont force on my players and my narrative

As for handoff showing elf and dwarf both active at same time, yes. As i said, non-critcal stuff happenibg all the time on other peoples turn is common. I dont assume the stsues except on turn model but a more always active but key screen time elements resolved sequentially.

If i wanted simultaneous, there are very good mechanics **easily** ported in to cover that.

Only thing i dont see is using one for narrative and the complete opposite for mechanics. Its just not necesssry to create that skew, in my experience.

But if its good for your games to get down to 1.2 secobds math or whatever, thats good for you. Really.

 

[Hriston]

If you see the dagger stabbing from the dwarf the pass arpund and eventual stabbing back etc as simultaneous, great for you. Thats a suspension of disbelief i dont force on my players and my narrative

What's not to believe? A lot can happen in six seconds.

You seem to be objecting to my use of the word simultaneous. I think it's clear that I don't mean that every event in the round is happening at exactly the same moment. What I mean is that each six-second round contains any number of six-second turns which overlap in time. Higher initiative moves and actions are resolved ahead of those with lower initiative to avoid conflicts between them.

As for handoff showing elf and dwarf both active at same time, yes. As i said, non-critcal stuff happenibg all the time on other peoples turn is common. I dont assume the stsues except on turn model but a more always active but key screen time elements resolved sequentially.

My point was that the single event, the hand-off, happens during both their turns, because in my games I would require each of them to use their object interaction which can be done during either their move or their action.

I think the screen-time issue is interesting. To me, shared screen-time is a table concern. We take turns to share the spotlight, but we don't feel that makes the turns part of the fiction.

If i wanted simultaneous, there are very good mechanics **easily** ported in to cover that.

Only thing i dont see is using one for narrative and the complete opposite for mechanics. Its just not necesssry to create that skew, in my experience.

D&D seems to have moved more towards establishing a clear order of resolution over the course of several editions. I suppose it makes the game easier to adjudicate.

But if its good for your games to get down to 1.2 secobds math or whatever, thats good for you. Really.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I've been clear that our turns represent about six seconds, just like our rounds. That works for us.