Quote from: Bren;1077792Yes, to an extent that is correct. But every roleplaying game has a certain amount of this. Its certainly not like levels and increasing hit point are intuitively obvious. They are just now so commonly known that gamers understand the mechanic (at least to an extent) even if they don't like the mechanic.

D&D is 40+ years old. People are still commonly handling the situation in D&D and other RPGs: "Roll for attack. Missed? Alright, your attack gets parried. Who's next?"

Quote from: Bren;1077792What I think you are proposing maintains the same level of abstraction it just divides a failed attack into "you didn't have an opportunity" and "you had an opportunity but you failed to hit for unspecified reasons." The reason why you didn't have an opportunity is still abstracted away and has no relation in the system to previous actions that the player chose.

Yes. But that is less abstraction. And more importantly: it's the kind of reduction in abstraction that prevents the above scenario.

Quote from: Bren;1077792It's the same level of abstraction. But instead of using one roll you are now using two rolls. It doesn't seem like you get much for the addition of the extra die roll. I think there is a better way to get the same information.

You admit that there is more information but you say that it's the same level of abstraction.

Quote from: Bren;1077792"Bob you failed " is the equivalent of the GM saying "Bob you missed" when an attack roll which simulates the back and forth, feints, and minor motions of a multi-second combat round fails to succeed. If GMs say that now. They will say something like "Bob you failed to get an attack this round" under your proposed system. Which will probably then evoke for the player, "your guy stood around doing nothing this round."

You'll have to excuse me if I don't just take your word on it and proceed to take it out to the world to see how people play it. Maybe you're right! Then this attempt would be a failure. But maybe you're not.

Quote from: Bren;1077792The number of attack rolls made isn't static. because some combatants will fail their opportunity to attack roll. The actual outcome of how many attacks actually succeed is the effectively the same, so that is static. All you are adding is a mechanical determination of when a failed attack is due to "you had no good chance to attack" or "you had a chance to attack but you failed."

Yes and you can then craft dynamic narration based on what the dice have been telling you.

Quote from: Bren;1077792As opposed to "You don't get to attack. Who's next?"

It's possible, we'll see. And if it occasionally happens it's no big deal. Every gamer can choose the imagery for why someone doesn't attack in their mind. We'll see if they default to "I stand around picking my nose."
A GM like Matt Mercer, on the other hand, might describe in flowery detail how the battle rages back and forth and who gets outmaneuvered (dynamic!) and who hesitates too long.

The thing is: we have experience with the old approach. So we can make somewhat definite statements about that. With the proposed approach here, time will tell.

Quote from: Bren;1077792That is true. But systems with active defenses are doing something different than single roll systems by including a defense roll. I'm really not seeing why knowing whether a failure to hit this round was due to a lost opportunity or some other unspecified reason is an improvement on knowing whether at failure to hit this round was due to a failure by the attacker for unspecified reasons or a success by the attacker due to a parry or dodge. But I guess you want what you want.

I want to avoid the mental image of the last enemy being surrounded by 4 PCs and hacked at from all sides each round. And, conversely, I want the mental imagery of a PC surrounded by mooks who attack in waves (changing patterns). And I want this to be dictated by the dice, instead of just making a single attack roll and then the GM making these details up by whatever he feels like. I am okay with him making up why someone does not get to attack because I don't want to add more complexity other than that. If I break up the static mental imagery and provide more dynamic imagery that is more in line with cinematic combat, I am fine with that. That's enough for me to solve this particular problem I have with other systems.

Quote from: Bren;1077792Yeah I guess I don't understand why knowing that is more important to you than knowing if the attack was parried or dodged by the defender. But I confess I'm partial to systems with active defense. It feels much more natural or evocative of a combat where both sides are doing something than single roll systems.

I didn't say that there is no active defense. I am saying that everyone who needs to roll for position to attack will not be opposed by an active defense. As a baseline scenario, the active defense of the lone fighter goes against the one attacker who doesn't have to roll to get close. So there is a main combat pair with all additional attackers having to roll to see if they can chime in this turn.

Quote from: Bren;1077792Be that as it may, you aren't me and I'm not you. So if what you want is the system to determine whether a combatant had an opportunity to attack. You can get that and also generate a reason why an attacker didn't get an opportunity to attack (i.e. player got to make an attack roll)you can do that with the existing attack roll. All you need to do is add on a table for misses to the existing single attack roll e.g.

Yes but if the active defense in a 1-on-1 works, the game rules don't tell me whether the attack was blocked, deflected or dodged either. That is the room for narration I give to the GM. And the other thing is that you're adding a table lookup to each such occasion, which is bound to come up a lot. It's much easier to add a roll (against courage or agility or fighting skill or whatever) to see if you can attack and leave the rest to narration. Rolling is easy, rolling is fast.
Or should I make an equivalent table for each time an active defense succeeds as well?

Quote from: amacris;1077799How does this play out in practice?
1) If mooks all swarm a hero at once

Non-mooks also can't attack every turn in One v Many. How does this system hold up when your Conan PC is faced with both Rexor and Thorgrim?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1077832You admit that there is more information but you say that it's the same level of abstraction.

Because it is the same level of abstraction. In the D&D single roll to hit model you find out if the target was hit or not hit. But you don't know why because it abstracts the details. In your one roll to get an opportunity and a second roll to hit if you make the first roll. You still don't know why there was no opportunity nor why, given an opportunity, an attack was unsuccessful because you have abstracted the details of the why. Same level of abstraction.

QuoteYou'll have to excuse me if I don't just take your word on it and proceed to take it out to the world to see how people play it. Maybe you're right! Then this attempt would be a failure. But maybe you're not.

By all means test your premise.

QuoteYes and you can then craft dynamic narration based on what the dice have been telling you.

The GM could do that already. Some do. Some don't. I'll be very surprised if adding one extra bit of information changes the some do, some don't dynamic.

QuoteI want to avoid the mental image of the last enemy being surrounded by 4 PCs and hacked at from all sides each round.

I know. You made that clear. I've tried to make my understanding of what you want equally clear. I've then used that understanding to suggest other ways to achieve what you want with only a single die roll instead of multiple rolls. Let me know if I have misunderstood what you want.

QuoteYes but if the active defense in a 1-on-1 works, the game rules don't tell me whether the attack was blocked, deflected or dodged either.

Well that depends on the game rules. Runequest and Honor + Intrigue do tell you whether the attack was parried or dodged because those are separate skills (in RQ) or different maneuvers (in H+I).

QuoteThat is the room for narration I give to the GM.

What you want to leave up to GM narration and what you don't strikes me as unusual. If I want the system to determine by one die roll whether the attacker gets a chance to make a second die roll to attack, I'd want more information output from the system rather than leaving all of the why up to GM fiat. If I'm OK with the GM deciding the why by fiat, then I'd be OK with leaving why the attack failed (blocked, no clear shot, etc.) up to GM narration rather than separating no clear shot out from all the other reasons. I guess we want different things from a game system.

QuoteAnd the other thing is that you're adding a table lookup to each such occasion, which is bound to come up a lot. It's much easier to add a roll (against courage or agility or fighting skill or whatever) to see if you can attack and leave the rest to narration. Rolling is easy, rolling is fast.

Which is easier and which is faster is debatable. We can measure speed in actual practice. Ease of use is more subjective.

As far as speed, I find that players tend to take significant time to pick up, shake, roll, and read the dice. And often they wait to see the first result before rolling the next result. Every additional die roll they need to make increasing the handling time in the round. In practice 2 die rolls isn't going to be faster. That's one reason some people dislike systems with active defenses. They take longer to resolve combat because more die rolling is required. What you propose (2 die rolls to attack) will be significantly slower than a single die roll to attack.

As far as ease of use and lookup tables, the to hit-table vs AC in D&D was a lookup table. But it's only a lookup table until the GM memorizes it. GM's memorized the table. What I proposed is an even simpler table. Memorizing it should take very little time.

But you don't even need a table. If you don't care at all about the reasons why the opportunity was lost you just need a single attack roll just like in D&D. All we need to do is look at the failed attack rolls. If the failed roll is odd, then the attacker didn't have an opportunity to strike. If it was even he did, but the target blocked or avoided the blow. No second die roll or lookup table needed and you get the same information as your new system.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1077833Non-mooks also can't attack every turn in One v Many. How does this system hold up when your Conan PC is faced with both Rexor and Thorgrim?

I didn't understand your comment "non-mooks can't attack every turn in One v. Many". In ACKS, at least, a fighter can attack every combat round. If Conan had to fight both Rexor and Thorgrim at the exact same time he would likely lose, based on them getting two attacks to his one (assuming they are competitively-leveled and statted). With good use of terrain and tactics, Rexor or Thorgrim might get a bonus for getting to Conan's flank or rear.

In GURPS (with one-second turns and maps that explicitly represent where people are standing and each attack & defense action etc) such scenes have pretty direct representations. All that's missing to limit how many foes attack at once is GM roleplaying the NPCs' moves, and/or a system like I use that limits what people do based on their combat sense and the situation. It doesn't limit playability at least with me as GM, and other GMs can do it by roleplaying the NPCs and limiting how concentratedly they attack.

I can do something similar in TFT with its 5-second turns, though it's a little rougher due to the larger time scale. But the combat example in TFT's RP book (In The Labyrinth) actually has an example of a PC doing this - on multiple turns he finds ways to not actually manage to engage, by taking off his pack first, standing just out of range like the adversaries in the samurai video, and even pretending to attack at a range that's actually too distant for his weapon.

I think it may get a bit harder with more abstract combat systems that lack explicit mechanics for limits on attacks by large numbers of foes. But that's likely just my inexpertise due to rarely playing such games - it sounds like others have their ways of handling or rationalizing things in more abstract game systems. (One of the reasons I avoid abstract combat systems though is that I like playing a tactical game about explicit tactical details, and so I tend to get frustrated and/or disinterested when combat is abstract.)

Quote from: amacris;1077904I didn't understand your comment "non-mooks can't attack every turn in One v. Many".

It's hard to see in the Palace Battle/Conan versus Thorgrim and Rexor. But even in a 2 versus 1 with named characters, it occasionally turns into 1-on-1 for a round or two before the 3rd guy rejoins. (If anyone has any good examples for 2 named characters taking on 1 named character in fantasy films/shows, please let me know.)

You can see that a bit here at 3:16:
https://www.nsfwyoutube.com/watch?v=AC30A6lmug0

(We haven't talked about the critical importance for the lone fighter to get some space by driving back, stunning or knocking down one of the attackers yet, making that attacker miss a round or two.]

Quote from: Bren;1077868Because it is the same level of abstraction. In the D&D single roll to hit model you find out if the target was hit or not hit. But you don't know why because it abstracts the details. In your one roll to get an opportunity and a second roll to hit if you make the first roll. You still don't know why there was no opportunity nor why, given an opportunity, an attack was unsuccessful because you have abstracted the details of the why. Same level of abstraction.

If I have under one system the additional information that attacker A didn't get into hitting range (for whatever reason) while attacker B did and his efforts were successfuly blocked/defended against, then this is less abstract than making only a single roll and the GM being able to freely decide at which point the attack failed (moving into range or the actual attack itself).

Quote from: Bren;1077868The GM could do that already. Some do. Some don't. I'll be very surprised if adding one extra bit of information changes the some do, some don't dynamic.

Well, the point of the mechanic is to enforce the "no attack this round" for some attackers. The GM (unless he misunderstands the system) can't narrate it as a missed attack. The mechanic accomplishes what it sets out to do: to break the metal imagery of everyone attacking every round.

You claim it causes another problem by evoking people standing around idly. It might but, you see, one reason why an attacker might not attack in a round is hesitation. So if occasional hesitation is cinematic than there is NO WAY you can circumvent the possibility of it being narrated or imagined as disinterested standing around. (Although even that is mitigated since the attacker can't do anything else so his attention is on the fight.)
If oen GM describes inactivity in a properly cinematic way and another doesn't - what you gonna do about it? Result 3 on your d10 table might be narrated/imagined the same way. It will be less frequent since it's only 1 chart result but it's still there.

The nice thing about the closing-in roll is that if you fail it, you don't get to roll for attack at all this round. So it feels like not being able to attack. This will put gamers who care less about the right cinematic feel off but I'm okay with that. I'm put off by everyone being able to roll for attack every round just the same after all.

Quote from: Bren;1077868Which is easier and which is faster is debatable. We can measure speed in actual practice. Ease of use is more subjective.

As far as speed, I find that players tend to take significant time to pick up, shake, roll, and read the dice. And often they wait to see the first result before rolling the next result. Every additional die roll they need to make increasing the handling time in the round. In practice 2 die rolls isn't going to be faster. That's one reason some people dislike systems with active defenses. They take longer to resolve combat because more die rolling is required. What you propose (2 die rolls to attack) will be significantly slower than a single die roll to attack.

Before I address this and the following, I would like to state this: I don't want to dive too deep into my own game system. This isn't supposed to be a shill thread, I don't think many people here would be interested in discussing specifically my game. If that was all, I don't think this thread would have gone beyond page 1. By keeping it generic enough and debating underlying principles instead, I can still get my ideas being poked at and I get to debate alternatives, like your d10 table. People can bring up their favorite system and we can look at how that game is doing it. This is far more valuable to me than talking specifically about my game. So, I'd like to keep the discussion of my particular implementation brief, if you don't mind.

I have studied Critical Role specifically to evaluate how long a test (not just for this specific application) takes from the moment it was announced to the moment the dice roll results are feed back to the GM. It's fast enough. However, if you're up for attack and you need to preface your attack roll with a closing-in roll, it's extra-fast. You're going to roll dice anyway, 2 successive d100 rolls are practically as speedy as a single roll. The only potentially time-consuming factor then left is interpreting the result of the first (closing-in) roll. I have chosen for that the one value almost every gamer knows from the top of their head about their character: the level of their relevant fighting skill, which is the basis value for the following attack roll anyway.
It's very fast.

Quote from: Bren;1077868As far as ease of use and lookup tables, the to hit-table vs AC in D&D was a lookup table. But it's only a lookup table until the GM memorizes it. GM's memorized the table. What I proposed is an even simpler table. Memorizing it should take very little time.

This is where it goes to deep into my system. In a vacuum, you're right. But I already have a very brief 5-entry lookup table to determine melee results (switch of initiative, counterattacks, attacker getting through, etc) and I don't want to add a second one nor expand it. So, that's the context. And, as mentioned, I like players feeling that their PCs didn't even get to attack - through not even being able to roll for attack. That's a feature for me.

Quote from: Bren;1077868But you don't even need a table. If you don't care at all about the reasons why the opportunity was lost you just need a single attack roll just like in D&D. All we need to do is look at the failed attack rolls. If the failed roll is odd, then the attacker didn't have an opportunity to strike. If it was even he did, but the target blocked or avoided the blow. No second die roll or lookup table needed and you get the same information as your new system.

That's easily ignored by GMs and players. Also, expert fighters are less likely to freeze or be outmaneuvered. See the video above.

Just a point worth mentioning about the one attacker at a time trope. That makes sense in a martial arts or action movie because in real life, when people are fighting in real time, they get swarmed and it is not visually entertaining. So there needs to be a visual excuse for why this isn't happening. Attackers taking turns is one approach (guy slicing through five men as they swarm with one stroke is another). But in a game there are already things baked into systems to make it entirely feasible for one person to take on multiple opponents. Most systems with mooks, makes them weak enough, and the PCs strong enough, that this isn't usually too big of an issue. I think if it is still a problem, throwing in a damage reduction against mooks would be an easier method than trying to emulate staggered real time fighting.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078013It's hard to see in the Palace Battle/Conan versus Thorgrim and Rexor. But even in a 2 versus 1 with named characters, it occasionally turns into 1-on-1 for a round or two before the 3rd guy rejoins. (If anyone has any good examples for 2 named characters taking on 1 named character in fantasy films/shows, please let me know.)

That's easily ignored by GMs and players. Also, expert fighters are less likely to freeze or be outmaneuvered. See the video above.

I snipped the rest of your post because I think this is the germane part that need to be answered. I'm going to stick with Savage Worlds for my example because you're looking for explicit mechanics that emulate this cinematic trope.

In Savage Worlds the Shaken rule does exactly this. You can do a variety of maneuvers (including just straight up attacking) that establishes the Shaken condition. You can do this through a skill-Test like a Intimidate, Feint, Taunt, or almost anything you can imagine applying a skill towards and opponent as an action, and force them to be Shaken. The Shaken target can take no action other than trying to shake off the Shaken condition (or spend a Benny to do it automatically).

Tactically in SW this does give your single combatant some breathing room if they use such tactics (and are good at them). Most players aren't this cagey. But it definitely works. If you use the old SW Deluxe Shaken rules, you can almost keep someone stun-locked for quite a while, so much so, they changed the rule in the new edition.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078013If I have under one system the additional information that attacker A didn't get into hitting range (for whatever reason) while attacker B did and his efforts were successfuly blocked/defended against, then this is less abstract than making only a single roll and the GM being able to freely decide at which point the attack failed (moving into range or the actual attack itself).

I'll agree it's more information. But that information seems trivial to me. It is essentially just vaguely defined color (the why they can't attack is indeterminate) and it has no impact in theater of the mind (TotM) combat other than no rolling for an attack this round. And the only practical effect of that is that the damage per round is less with your addition than without (all else being equal). But you can get the exact same effect by simply lower the chance for the attacker to hit. The outcome is the same with or without the determination. That's why I said it's the same level of abstraction, because you could do without the roll, tweak the attack chances and end up with the exact same outcome.

QuoteWell, the point of the mechanic is to enforce the "no attack this round" for some attackers. GM (unless he misunderstands the system) can't narrate it as a missed attack.

I wasn't suggesting the GM would do so. I suggest that GMs who choose not to add or are unable to add some color to their description beyond "you miss" for an attack roll will probably say something similarly bland under your system. It won't be the bland "you missed" it will be something like "you can't attack this round."  

QuoteThe mechanic accomplishes what it sets out to do: to break the metal imagery of everyone attacking every round.

Maybe the problem is the word choice you are making. I think of an attack roll as the character tries to hit this round. He may succeed. He may fail. Generally I don't think of an attack roll as the character making a single swing or attack with everyone in the round all swinging all the time like that frenetic clip of the guys in armor that you showed. Attack rolls seem to evoke something different for you than for me.

QuoteYou claim it causes another problem by evoking people standing around idly. It might but, you see, one reason why an attacker might not attack in a round is hesitation. So if occasional hesitation is cinematic than there is NO WAY you can circumvent the possibility of it being narrated or imagined as disinterested standing around.

The problem I see is not the narration. It's that the player will feel like his character is standing around dumbly. Narrating his character as hesitating is unlikely to make most players feel any better. Many will feel worse since the GM saying "you hesitate and can't attack this round" can sound like the GM has taken over choosing what actions the character attempts.

QuoteThe nice thing about the closing-in roll is that if you fail it, you don't get to roll for attack at all this round. So it feels like not being able to attack. This will put gamers who care less about the right cinematic feel off but I'm okay with that. I'm put off by everyone being able to roll for attack every round just the same after all.

I think it will put off a lot of gamers, especially those who are used to their character having a chance to try to do something useful every round in melee.  One or more PCs hesitating on the edges of a melee may be something you would enjoy (either as the GM or the player), but my guess is a lot of other players won't enjoy it.

QuoteI don't want to dive too deep into my own game system. This isn't supposed to be a shill thread, I don't think many people here would be interested in discussing specifically my game. If that was all, I don't think this thread would have gone beyond page 1. By keeping it generic enough and debating underlying principles instead, I can still get my ideas being poked at and I get to debate alternatives, like your d10 table. People can bring up their favorite system and we can look at how that game is doing it. This is far more valuable to me than talking specifically about my game. So, I'd like to keep the discussion of my particular implementation brief, if you don't mind.

Well the downside (for me) is that it took many pages for me to terase out and understand what you wanted the outcome of a different system to be. For quite awhile I thought you wanted to know the reason why someone didn't have an attack opportunity rather than just wanting a way to prevent having to roll an attack for everyone in a melee who is near an opponent.

QuoteI have studied Critical Role specifically to evaluate how long a test (not just for this specific application) takes from the moment it was announced to the moment the dice roll results are feed back to the GM.

I could not care less how long it takes the players on Critical Role to roll their dice. My concern is how long it will take players in general, but especially how long it would take my players and players like my players to make and assess the result of an additional roll in a combat round. I have a lot of experience with running players with one roll vs. two or more rolls in combat. Two rolls is not quite twice as time consuming for most players, but it's darn close. And while they could roll both dice at the same time and ignore that attack roll if the opportunity roll fails. Generally players don't like to do that, in part because they find it very unsatisfying when their attack roll is good while their opportunity roll is bad. So they tend to wait to see if they have an opportunity before they roll to see if they hit.

QuoteI like players feeling that their PCs didn't even get to attack - through not even being able to roll for attack. That's a feature for me.

And that is where we most differ, I suspect. I don't see missed opportunity rolls as adding anything I'm missing to an abstract, theater of the mind style of combat.

If I want that extra level of detail then I want actual tactical choices (like the various major and minor combat maneuvers in H+I) to accompany that detail. If I don't want extra tactical choices, then I don't need to differentiate "the character missed their attack roll" from the two equivalent outcomes in your system of "the character missed their opportunity roll" or "the character made their opportunity roll but they still failed their to hit roll." If there isn't a tactical, functional, systematic difference between the two outcomes I don't need the extra color. I can add (or not add) that easily on my own.

Quote from: Bren;1078093I think it will put off a lot of gamers, especially those who are used to their character having a chance to try to do something useful every round in melee.  One or more PCs hesitating on the edges of a melee may be something you would enjoy (either as the GM or the player), but my guess is a lot of other players won't enjoy it.

I don't know if I have ever met a player who would enjoy that.

Quote from: Bren;1078093And that is where we most differ, I suspect. I don't see missed opportunity rolls as adding anything I'm missing to an abstract, theater of the mind style of combat.

If I want that extra level of detail then I want actual tactical choices (like the various major and minor combat maneuvers in H+I) to accompany that detail. If I don't want extra tactical choices, then I don't need to differentiate "the character missed their attack roll" from the two equivalent outcomes in your system of "the character missed their opportunity roll" or "the character made their opportunity roll but they still failed their to hit roll." If there isn't a tactical, functional, systematic difference between the two outcomes I don't need the extra color. I can add (or not add) that easily on my own.

This (x1000)

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078013And, as mentioned, I like players feeling that their PCs didn't even get to attack - through not even being able to roll for attack. That's a feature for me.

Try it out with your players and see how they react.

...You do have players, right?

Yes, but they are gamists, just like you guys. At least to some degree. This thread, however, is about prioritizing simulation of cinematic combat, if necessary at the expense of gamism. So, I'm not afraid putting off those gamers who won't accept that they can't attack. They are outside of the target audience.

For some reason, I think this is remarkably easy to do with the Stormbringer 5 (or tweaked BRP) rules. For cinematic effects, use the major wound table whenever appropriate, make sure the villains are low in skill (but don't let the players know), while the fighter PCs are around 90% or above in weapon skills. Villains miss rounds simply because of the whiff factor, but occasionally they do get in a hit. We played a R.E.Howard-style swords and sorcery game doing this. It was awesome.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078112Yes, but they are gamists, just like you guys. At least to some degree. This thread, however, is about prioritizing simulation of cinematic combat, if necessary at the expense of gamism. So, I'm not afraid putting off those gamers who won't accept that they can't attack. They are outside of the target audience.

Who is your target audience?

Pedants.

But seriously... most of the alternatives suggested here break down unless you squint your eyes and don't look too closely. (The best imho being Savage Worlds - which also lacks detail in smaller combats but compensates for that with being able to run mass combat more efficiently.) It's the same with using D&D hitpoints for luck. The mechanics are generally of the "sorta, kinda, roughly, yeah"-type. Some of us can't keep our eyes squinted all the time and when they pop wide, some of us go "Hold on, this isn't right. That's not what I saw on TV or read in that book." Or: "Hold on, the GM is making the narration up entirely. The dice didn't tell him that is the case. All of this is just empty window dressing!"

That's why I cannot take up Bren's advice either, well intended as it may be. It's the same as telling Vincent Baker: "I like your Dogs in the Vinyard rules but can't you make it more like Deadlands?" Or: "I like Apocalypse World but you need a long list of futuristic weapons with unique stats. Gamers love this kind of shit." Doing so would be self-defeating; it would be missing the point of why these rulesets were created to begin with.

The split between gamism and narrativism is real. And so is the split between gamism and simulationism, even though it takes on a different form. A gamist gives preference to fun tactical options. A simulationist seeks fun tactical options within a framework that doesn't break his immersion (notice the order of priotities!) into whatever is being simulated. That thing is in this case: cinematic combat.

I am not doing a single thing to please gamers who'd think a game that doesn't allow for an attack roll every round sucks. Except maybe point out that it's easy to houserule: you just leave out the closing-in roll.
That's all you'll get.