D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[JiffyPopTart]

OK, so I used the wrong terminology.

Got it. My point is around situations where a string of reactions are triggered by one action and-or other reactions to that one action. That string of reactions doesn't use initiative sequencing to determine order of resolution, it uses a LIFO structure (cynic not at all coincidentally /cynic) very similar to a M:tG "stack".

I've been trying to put forward the idea that better design for this string-of-reactions scenario would be FIFO.

How? Any way you like, and I'd be interested in hearing what you think might be wrong with it. It's not perfect by any means, and I'm open to ideas as to how it can be improved.

Not present, or handwaved away? If your players approach it as a game and just accept the rules as being what they are, that kinda handwaves away any problems or issues. But if you've got players who want to dig deeper into the rules and-or realism of it all (which is what I'm used to), then issues like this will inevitably rear their heads.

I can't answer the questions you asked for another person, but answering for myself...

I don't have an issue with your houseruled initiative system. I also don't have an issue with the stock 5e initiative system.

I have no interest in revamping or replacing a 5e system I don't have any problems with.

I don't agree with you that your way is objectively better because I (and my table) aren't trying to make rules better fit reality as some sort of overarching group goal with 5e.

This brings me back to my example of tiny creature using shields much earlier in the thread. If I were to rank situations in order of how hard I have to suspend my disbelief to imagine rules matching narrative "Tiny shield deflects huge sledgehammer" is much higher on the list than "person counters a counterspell".

Neither situation reaches the level of "I can't run my game like this".

 

[Bill Zebub]

This brings me back to my example of tiny creature using shields much earlier in the thread. If I were to rank situations in order of how hard I have to suspend my disbelief to imagine rules matching narrative "Tiny shield deflects huge sledgehammer" is much higher on the list than "person counters a counterspell".

I missed that example. It's a good one.

If somebody at a Con said, "The shield thing just drives me crazy. I had to houserule it." My response would be, "I don't feel the same way about that particular thing, but I feel ya. I have my own pet peeves."

If that same person said, "D&D implemented this badly and the rest of you must not be interrogating the fiction if you are able to tolerate it" I would be backing slowly away.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If that same person said, "D&D implemented this badly and the rest of you must not be interrogating the fiction if you are able to tolerate it" I would be backing slowly away.

I wouldn't be able to because I'd be laughing like so hard at the idea of 'interrogating' D&D's fiction.

 

[Lanefan]

But inside the sequence, a reaction to a reaction is still LIFO. There's not really any place in sequence where FIFO would apply.

Currently, no there isn't. I'm lobbying to change that.

 

[Lanefan]

This brings me back to my example of tiny creature using shields much earlier in the thread. If I were to rank situations in order of how hard I have to suspend my disbelief to imagine rules matching narrative "Tiny shield deflects huge sledgehammer" is much higher on the list than "person counters a counterspell".

I must have missed that one. Agreed, it beggars belief; which tells me there's a rule there somewhere that needs to be fixed.

Neither situation reaches the level of "I can't run my game like this".

For me it almost immediately reaches the level of "Why would I run a game this way when it's so easy to fix it to run that way?".

 

[Clint_L]

I must have missed that one. Agreed, it beggars belief; which tells me there's a rule there somewhere that needs to be fixed.

But this is an impossible standard to consistently maintain. There is so much complexity in any given game that the rules can only vaguely approximate almost anything that happens. It's job of the shared narrative to keep us in the story; the rules are only there to add some structure to the proceedings, along with the necessary element of chance.

Like, how can a Halfing reasonably hold their own against an ogre, ever? Or a human, for that matter? It would be like fighting a toddler. Maybe a skilled toddler, but there's only so much you can accomplish with 30 pounds of mass behind you. Or how do the various destructive spells not absolutely wreak havoc on everything around them? How exactly does a successful insight check show that someone is lying? All of these things work only by virtue of us collectively agreeing to make them work through the story.

I'm going to suggest that you seem much more focused on the rules needing to reflect your subjective reality than most folks are. Which is fine, but it doesn't mean that everyone else is doing it wrong. You have made your position clear, and folks are telling you that we understand, we just have a different perspective. There's no winning the argument, because there is no objective truth to how magic works or how a dice roll must be interpreted into a story. It's art, not science. All you can do is gracefully accept that different people are different, and all that matters is what feels good at your table, with your group of players.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But this is an impossible standard to consistently maintain. There is so much complexity in any given game that the rules can only vaguely approximate almost anything that happens. It's job of the shared narrative to keep us in the story; the rules are only there to add some structure to the proceedings, along with the necessary element of chance.

Like, how can a Halfing reasonably hold their own against an ogre, ever? Or a human, for that matter? It would be like fighting a toddler. Maybe a skilled toddler, but there's only so much you can accomplish with 30 pounds of mass behind you. Or how do the various destructive spells not absolutely wreak havoc on everything around them? How exactly does a successful insight check show that someone is lying? All of these things work only by virtue of us collectively agreeing to make them work through the story.

I'm going to suggest that you seem much more focused on the rules needing to reflect your subjective reality than most folks are. Which is fine, but it doesn't mean that everyone else is doing it wrong. You have made your position clear, and folks are telling you that we understand, we just have a different perspective. There's no winning the argument, because there is no objective truth to how magic works or how a dice roll must be interpreted into a story. It's art, not science. All you can do is gracefully accept that different people are different, and all that matters is what feels good at your table, with your group of players.

For the record, while I mostly agree with you, I do not allow Insight to be used as a lie detector.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a thing that happens in the real world. In the fiction, they are occurring more-or-less simultaneously with everything else that is happening in the round.

That's the imaginary conceit, but if they were truly simultaneous in the fiction, combat would play out differently than D&D combat does. D&D combat doesn't allow for simultaneous combat to happen.

People on 15 move before the people on 14 which results in the movement by the people going on 15 being incorrect for simultaneous combat. If it were truly simultaneous in the fiction, the people on 15 would be adjusting how they move and what they do based on what the people on 14, 12, 8 and 5 are all doing, and all of those people would also be adjusting based on what the other initiatives are doing.

Instead, we can get a nonsensical situation where someone is 10 feet from the door, already moving in that direction, but because he lost initiative to goblins, 20 goblins can move from 50 feet behind him to 10 feet in front of him and cut off his exit. That's not simultaneous combat in the fiction.

 

[Lanefan]

But this is an impossible standard to consistently maintain. There is so much complexity in any given game that the rules can only vaguely approximate almost anything that happens.

Indeed, but where that approximation can easily be made less vague, why not do so?

It's job of the shared narrative to keep us in the story; the rules are only there to add some structure to the proceedings, along with the necessary element of chance.

Like, how can a Halfing reasonably hold their own against an ogre, ever? Or a human, for that matter? It would be like fighting a toddler. Maybe a skilled toddler, but there's only so much you can accomplish with 30 pounds of mass behind you.

My cat had a lot less mass than a Hobbit and he could hold his own against humans just fine, thank you very much.

Mass counts for something, sure, and I see your point; but skill counts for more. (never mind the accepted abstraction that is hit points, which here benefits the Hobbit considerably more than the Ogre)

Or how do the various destructive spells not absolutely wreak havoc on everything around them?

They do, in my game anyway.

How exactly does a successful insight check show that someone is lying?

Good question. Social interplay is something that IMO should as far as possible (which is pretty far) be left to roleplay to resolve, not the rules.

All of these things work only by virtue of us collectively agreeing to make them work through the story.

Indeed. My position is mostly that the less work that sentence actually has to do, the better.

 

[Gravenhurst48]

Oh wow, I jumped ahead and see 58 pages responding to this question? Bravo. I have not read all 58 pages but for me, it depends on logic. Most players, including myself, always think of clever ideas or solutions to outwit the DM, to save their character from oblivion (Gurps Fantasy Paladium is famous for all the min maxing involved) because anything is possible in a fantasy game. As a DM, I take this into consideration, even if the solution blows holes with my illusioned floor covering an acid pool trap. Anything is possible in a game where details are limited to your imagination and guidelines for you to figure out what truly is included, like a clothing kit including ear muffs and winter gloves, or a component bag including ear wax to block out those horrid harpies. I understand when a player suggests a solution to avoid gameplay encounters and try to be fair with a decision.
It's all in the roll baby! A random outcome for a random possibility. I use a d6 for all random or on the spot calls: 1-2 is negative action or bad result; 3-4 is neutral or a fair action result; 5-6 is positive solution.
So did the player pack gloves to give possible protection against contact poison?
First, what is the environment the PC'S are traveling through? If no winter scenario. No to gloves. Easy.
No climbing mountains or using rope? No gloves. Easy.
Second, any whining, I roll d6 for a final decision: 1-2 means no gloves; 3-4 means gloves with an average bonus on save vs poison because the felt still absorbs the poison or the PC wipes his face later and develops a swollen eye; 5-6 gives gloves were packed and no save is necessary and the accidental touch to oneself with minimal effect because it's comical, could still happen.
Third, what if the player has a PC sketch or miniature wearing gloves? I would roll d6 in the players favour and check gloves quality: 1-2 are threadbare linen, or cheap leather with loose seams, or fingers are cut off - like in the sketch - and give a light +2 bonus to save; 3-4 average quality full gloves with +4 save bonus; and 5-6 means top quality with automatic save. And with lower rolls the gloves are garbage.
This scenario happens more with characters wearing full sets of armour providing gauntlets, versus needles, acid, and creature bites.
I give possible chances within reason, and hold the players to it too with equipment encumbrance, because it all adds up eventually with a PC having everything purchased.
"Oh you just happen to have a fishing rod poking out of your backpack while running through dragons fire breath and now want to use the rod to snatch a key at the bottom of a pool?" First, did that rod survive the fire? D6 time peeps!