D&D 5E Improvised actions in combat

[JeffB]

What's the general consensus on improvised actions in combat?

I'll admit, I don't like them. I grew up playing tactical strategy games -- Shining Force, Fire Emblem, Risk, Final Fantasy Tactics, and SSI gold-box games, like Gateway to the Savage Frontier. When combat starts, I always feel a rush. I love the way the mechanics fit together to create a little war game, decided by dice and tactics. There's just something visceral about it.

Then, every now and then, you get a player who says, "Attack, Dodge, Ready, or Search? No thanks. I do something completely different." And just like that, all the air is sucked out of the room, and creativity pushes gaming out of the driver's seat yet again. It's a big let-down to me as a DM.

That's me, though. What about you? I especially want to hear from the people who like improvised actions. What's an example of a GOOD one, and how did it affect your game?

I am the complete opposite..The older I get, the more I dislike the "lets play a wargame" element of D&D. I prefer other "loose" or narrative based modern games, or the very early OD&D games where the action economy is not so well defined mechanically which helps more improv/loose/narrative style play.

If I want granularity and details, I really prefer 4e. 3/5e just kind of half-ass things, adding complication in varying amounts/areas with little added "fun" in the grand scheme of things. All the way strategy and tactics, or loosey goosey for me.

Mmv.

 

[LapBandit]

My players know that I award improvisation as it makes the game so much more fun and dynamic. Once they started, it was so much fun for my groups, they haven't stopped.

 

[Lanefan]

Allow me to add another vote for improvisation, making it 24-1 at current count.

Lan-"not sure I've ever seen such a lopsided poll in here"-efan

 

[hastur_nz]

The reason there's a human in the DM chair, is exactly so the players can have a go at trying whatever they want, then the DM can work out if it succeeds, fails, or someone needs to roll to see if it succeeds or fails. Whether you are in combat, or not, shouldn't make a difference - as DM, you need to be prepared to adjudicate whatever crazy stuff your players might come up with (hint: the rules in PHB and DMG provide a rough framework for that).

 

[Quickleaf]

To each their own, but I've been handling improved actions for years as a DM, dating back to when I cut my teeth DMing with 1e. Couldn't imagine a game of D&D without that kind of creativity!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'll admit, I don't like them. I grew up playing tactical strategy games -- Shining Force, Fire Emblem, Risk, Final Fantasy Tactics, and SSI gold-box games, like Gateway to the Savage Frontier. When combat starts, I always feel a rush. I love the way the mechanics fit together to create a little war game, decided by dice and tactics. There's just something visceral about it.

In Final Fantasy X, they included the combat option of environmental commands in certain boss fights, where you could do something unique that relied on the context of the battle - things like attacking a chain, or closing a gate, or swimming around to a different position. It was one of the worst things about the game, in my opinion, because it reinforced the idea that you were just playing a game; there's no reason to question why you aren't allowed to drop the ceiling on your enemies, until you have one fight where it is explicitly enabled. There are system limitations for why you can't improvise actions, and trying to work in weird exceptions only serves to highlight those limitations.

D&D isn't just a game, and your character isn't just a pawn or token. D&D is another world, and your character is someone who you are. And since there's a real, live DM capable of adjudicating things, there's no system limitation which would prevent you from improvising actions, and treating it like a real world.

When you ignore the possibility of improvised actions, you're treating a tabletop RPG like it's a video game, or a board game. You're selling it far short of its potential, and removing the main reason why I would care about it at all.

 

[happyhermit]

For me personally as a player, improvised actions being available are essential to my enjoyment of a game like D&D. I still like mini's games and there are some GREAT tactical board games these days, but if I can't attempt to do something my character could obviously attempt to do it just sucks all the immersion/suspension of disbelief/RP, whatever out of the game for me. If the actions are still possible but obviously less effective than they "realistically" should be I can still have fun, though I prefer a bit if they are relatively painless.

I have found adv/dis and a few things in 5e to work excellent for the purpose which has been great.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Improvised actions are great as long as they don't overshadow the actual abilities. Pushing someone into the firepit can be easily modeled by the rules in the phb. If they are not enough the dmg has guidelines for most other actions.
Improvissing is a great way to work together with your DM to bring the game to life.
It usually works by asking if something is possible and if it is, how to make it improve the game experience on both sides.

Sent from my GT-I9506 using EN World mobile app

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Improvisation to me is the best part of the game. It's nice to have a structure with the rules so that things don't go off the rails, but it's kind of like the Pirate Code from Pirates of the Caribbean, in that the rules are more like guidelines. I prefer to let the story, narrative, and fun drive things rather than rules.

 

[CheezyRamen]

Sounds like you'd be happier playing 4E


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not that anything is wrong with 4e, personally I loooooove 4e. But they sound right.