D&D 5E Average damage or rolled damage?

[Maxperson]

Except that you only claim to allow what I say you disallow, and you then contradict that claim of allowance, and pretend that you have not, by insisting that a player has to explain their "in-character reason" for why they as a player did something that seemed cool based on the circumstances at hand - and the only reason why you demand the explanation that you have given? Because maybe they are cheating by having the wrong reason.

Still batting 0. I expect a rational in game explanation because my game is a living, breathing world where things have to make sense. All my players provide reasons for why they know what they know if it isn't immediately obvious. Not one of them would ever cheat.

If the thought behind it doesn't matter, you wouldn't be demanding an explanation of in game reasons. You'd just assume that because there are valid in game reasons for the character to do what it did, one of those must have been the reason. Since you don't assume that, and in fact try to catch out your player as giving the wrong reason, or not explaining it well enough, you are absolutely trying to police the player's thoughts.

Don't presume to tell me why I do things. You're so horrible at it that you should just give it up. You've not once come close to being correct when you try it.

 

[Maxperson]

...so they can deepen the background unless it is actually relevant?

Not all of us are power gamers who feel that relevant = mechanical gain. See, in my games roleplay is a perfectly valid and relevant reason to deepen backgrounds.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Not all of us are power gamers who feel that relevant = mechanical gain.

That you imply I am a power gamer is hilarious to me.

See, in my games roleplay is a perfectly valid and relevant reason to deepen backgrounds.

So long as that "role-play" a) happens well in advance of when it might be relevant and b) doesn't even hint at including anything that might end up being mechanically represented.

I mean, seriously Max, you've effectively just said that you consider me being able to have my character try some idea that just struck me as cool as a player and trying to jump through your hoop of having an in-game explanation of why the character is doing that thing by injecting some detail into my character's backstory is "power gaming."

 

[Maxperson]

That you imply I am a power gamer is hilarious to me.

You're the one who strongly implied that if isn't a mechanical advantage, it isn't relevant.

So long as that "role-play" a) happens well in advance of when it might be relevant

Why would you limit yourself like this? I sure wouldn't.

[quote[and b) doesn't even hint at including anything that might end up being mechanically represented.[/quote]

Not in my game. It's just cheating if you are bringing up in order to get mechanical advantage with something at hand. If you bring it up and it might or might not every have mechanical effect later on, that's fine. The mechanical aspect might never see the light of day.

I mean, seriously Max, you've effectively just said that you consider me being able to have my character try some idea that just struck me as cool as a player and trying to jump through your hoop of having an in-game explanation of why the character is doing that thing by injecting some detail into my character's backstory is "power gaming."

Yep! I said that just the same as you said you were a power gamer!

 

[Maxperson]

That you imply I am a power gamer is hilarious to me.

You're the one who strongly implied that if isn't a mechanical advantage, it isn't relevant.

So long as that "role-play" a) happens well in advance of when it might be relevant

Why would you limit yourself like this? I sure wouldn't.

and b) doesn't even hint at including anything that might end up being mechanically represented.

Not in my game. It's just cheating if you are bringing up in order to get mechanical advantage with something at hand. If you bring it up and it might or might not every have mechanical effect later on, that's fine. The mechanical aspect might never see the light of day.

I mean, seriously Max, you've effectively just said that you consider me being able to have my character try some idea that just struck me as cool as a player and trying to jump through your hoop of having an in-game explanation of why the character is doing that thing by injecting some detail into my character's backstory is "power gaming."

Yep! I said that just the same as you said you were a power gamer!

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Okay, cool... obviously I should have learned well before now... but I think I get it now. There is nothing more left to say besides this: No, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], you are wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, cool... obviously I should have learned well before now... but I think I get it now. There is nothing more left to say besides this: No, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], you are wrong.

Possibly, but not for anything that you've mentioned. You didn't get a single thing right about what I have been saying.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

No, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], you are wrong.

 

[Warbringer]

It comes back - to resurrect the original topic ever so briefly - to how much knowledge is too much; and fixed damage amounts are one example of too much.

Lan-"explanation for rolling '1' on underdark lore: 'well, I fell in a pit once, does that count?'"-efan

How dare you get us back on topic!

unsurprisingly, I have no problem using "mostly average"* but because I play an "active story" approach, where the players roll defensive checks against a static attack DC, I tell the players how much impact the attack will land ...

"The skeleton appears to have the upper hand and its cut to the left clearly looks like the attack will leave you unconscious doing x damage if not parried. "

The player can then decide if they want to boost their defensive check (eg take advantage in trade for disadvantage on next action)

*So mostly average - roll a d8 on 3-6 average damage, 1-2, 25% damage, 7-8, 75% damage... Legendary +25% damage for a damage boost (because I think the damage is too low) ... Not for everyone, but fast.

 

[Lanefan]

How dare you get us back on topic!

Yeah. Weird, huh?

unsurprisingly, I have no problem using "mostly average"* but because I play an "active story" approach, where the players roll defensive checks against a static attack DC, I tell the players how much impact the attack will land ...

"The skeleton appears to have the upper hand and its cut to the left clearly looks like the attack will leave you unconscious doing x damage if not parried. "

The player can then decide if they want to boost their defensive check (eg take advantage in trade for disadvantage on next action)

Interesting that you'd hint at the damage before the player decides the character's defensive action...I'd also put that well into the "too much information" category, if only because wouldn't it naturally be assumed each character is being as defensive as it reasonably can all the time anyway (unless otherwise stated)? Or, seen another way, is it just a part of the luck of the draw whether a character happens to go really defensive (as in your example above) just at the right moment when a big blow would otherwise land?

At best I don't think I'd ever mention a specific "x" damage amount; the closest I might get if using such a system might be something like "The skeleton appears to have the upper hand and unless you have a better defensive move this attack looks like it's gonna clean your clock."

*So mostly average - roll a d8 on 3-6 average damage, 1-2, 25% damage, 7-8, 75% damage... Legendary +25% damage for a damage boost (because I think the damage is too low) ... Not for everyone, but fast.

Do you use crits and-or fumbles?

Lan-"polishing timepieces since 1984"-efan