D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[Lanefan]

As a piece of analysis this is incoherent - the fiction doesn't cause tallies of numbers on bits of paper sitting on my kitchen table to change!

Yes it does. Where each arrow represents a causality step:

Change in fiction --> change in tracked mechanical info --> physical act by player (writing stats).

So ultimately the fiction does cause the physical change on a one-thing-leads-to-another basis.

I've played D&D combats twice in the past 8 days. What actually happens is that players roll dice, apply modifiers, compare the resulting values to target numbers, determine hits or misses, on hits (or if there is damage on a miss) roll damage dice, and then compute damage totals that are subtracted from targets' hit point totals.
That is a pretty complete description of the causal process,

Which conveniently completely ignores the shared fiction all this is supposed to be abstracting.

But if one takes the stance that everything flows from the fiction then one could argue that nearly all the above actions are ultimately caused by events in the fiction. In the fiction your PC decides to attack an Orc; this causes some dice to be rolled at the table. Etc.

In D&D combat there is no change in the shared imagining based on changing hit point totals.

That somewhat depends on whether one (or those at one's table) views hit points as being meat, fatigue/luck, or a bit of both; and that's a whole other debate...

 

[clearstream]

I find your reformulation of Lumpley to be a bit high level. I don't think the original was intended to capture things like WHY people are playing or what the goals are, specifically. It was about what play consists of, its nature. I think 'theme' as you are putting it, or maybe better 'objective' or 'goal' is a useful concept as well, but that can live beside Lumpley comfortably, they are not exclusive or contradictory.

I don't really want to reformulate Lumpley as I count it useful. More complement. Here is another take.

"A vital job of RPG systems is causing player fiction to progress in the designed direction."

So this is hopefully guiding to a few things

1. It's about systematically progressing the fiction
2. It's not enough to have consensus at the table: it's about causing players to play and imagine in the designed way
3. The fiction is unlimited so the system must do the work of limiting: our activity is not formless, differences between games as games matter
4. It holds RPG designers to account for the quality of their craftsmanship.
5. It's not the only job of the system.

Generally, it expands on the terms of success for the G in RPG. (There may be obscure texts that already make this point, but I want it in the light!)

 

[Lanefan]

My group played 4e D&D today - for the first time in about 5 years, picking up our 30th level game.

There was one episode of play that crisply illustrated the contrast between (i) boxes-to-boxes, perhaps with epiphenomenal leftward-pointing arrows, and (ii) rightward-pointing arrows.

The PCs were fighting, among other foes, Miska the Wolfspider, in a great temple located in Carceri. The temple is large enough for great Colossi to easily stride around in it. On part of its floor is a plinth that a Colossus can stand on, and that a human can move beneath.

The invoker/wizard was on one side of the plinth; Miska was on the other. Atop the plinth were two other PCs. The invoker/wizard wanted to blast Miska with a Gust of Wind. We looked at the map with the tokens laid out (cues/boxes). I observed that Gust of Wind targets all creatures in the burst, and that there were two PCs between the invoker/wizard and Miska. The invoker/wizard player thought about this for a moment, and then responded to the effect that They're standing on the plinth. I'm sending my wind gust under the plinth, so it won't hit them but will hit Miska on the other side.

That's a rightward-pointing arrow. The plinth was not just colour/flavour. It affected resolution.

(A parenthetical remark: for me, one strength of 4e as a version of D&D is that it encourages the use of rich fiction in combat which, due to the intricacy of the player resources suites and the resolution mechanics, can generate all these rightward pointing arrows which are easily incorporated into the overall resolution process. It doesn't depend upon leftward-pointing epiphenomenal arrows as AD&D can often tend to (I think AD&D struggles to handle a variety of rightward pointing arrows because its resolution processes are too fragile). I can't really comment on 5e in this respect, though my impression of it is that it is at least closer to AD&D than 4e is, and perhaps is closer to AD&D than it is to 4e.)

The situation you describe above involving the plinth could both a) happen and b) be handled much the same* in any edition of D&D; I'm not sure why you're specifically praising 4e here other than 4e happened to be the system you were using at the time.

Sounds like it was a cool battle.

* - in end-result effect; though the actual mechanics invoked might be a bit different in each edition.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So that is something I have been doing wrong. We took the basic outcomes to imply a soft move on 8-9 (complications or trouble.)

Your friend has it wrong though. 8-9 doesn't change the quality of the answer, but only the number of questions. From 3 to 1. The answer to that one question isn't worsened. I'd have expected your conference on one move in our play to have at least turned up an accurate ruling.

Oh, hey, my bad for admitting I had it wrong but not being 100% correct, especially to someone that was equally wrong at the time. Weird, though, that the response is to try to take the high ground on absolute correctness. You can have it, I was still less precise than possible in my voluntary admission of error. This is absolutely a good look to jump with both feet on!

As DM in our circumstances for my players I am confident I made the right call in the moment. I bet if I rake over your games second-guessing you I will find many calls that I can criticise. I have a less aggressive, more hesitant player, my soft moves are very soft. The +1 forward is going to feel good for her.

I'm not criticizing your call for there being a better call. I'm saying that the entire play doesn't align to how DW is intended to be played. It's like if, in 5e, someone tells you that they made one character roll a climb check to go up some normal stairs, and when they failed, you had their character trip and die, and that this is how 5e tells you it's supposed to work. Meanwhile, in a combat for 1st level characters against Orcus, you told the player to flip a coin, and they got heads, so that means Orcus got his head chopped off, just like the rules say!

You're describing perfectly fine play -- I've said the many times -- just not DW play as it's intended. You can 100% do this -- the call is just fine for your table and you had fun. But the entire scene is not how DW is intended to play.

[EDIT Please consider what you are doing here, as it feels very much like nitpicking to undermine my input to an ongoing debate.]

I'm not nitpicking, and, yes, I am absolutely trying to undermine your input into the ongoing debate! I disagree with your position, and I disagree with many of the assumptions and premises that undergird it. I am arguing against these with the intent to undermine them. This is normal for argument and discussion!

I mentioned that you're looking at play from a very narrow perspective, where the GM is the only source of story. You've countered, and part of that counter is calling on experience with DW as a story-game to show you have experience. I'm pointing out that the game you're playing isn't how DW plays, exactly for the intent to show that your claims using that as support are not well supported. This is, 100%, my intent here!

What isn't my intent is to suggest that you have to change how you play or suggest that it is wrong to play that way. It's not. Have fun! I will pushback when that kind of play is presented as intended by DW, because it isn't. Perfectly fine otherwise.

I will not be responding to any more nitpicking over one move in our ongoing DW game. The motives for that in this thread are suspect, and I complement my understanding with the designers' streamed sessions. I take them to have more authority than anyone here.

And I will also take high offense to the unfounded accusation that I have suspect motives. Or that whatever you've gleaned from streamed sessions (and I addressed this issue upthread to no remarks) marks your approach as intended. If you'd like to revisit why streamed story-now games are unlikely to be revelatory of play, I can do that. You can even ask some people that have been invited to watch some of the games I'm in -- when this happens, we take moments to stop and explain what's happening in play because it's otherwise not very obvious. If you're expecting prep, you'll imagine prep happens and that the GM is guiding the game along their prep. But that's not what's happening at all.

 

[pemerton]

I'm assuming your two views aren't intended to be contradictory, right?

Well, my views are meant to be self-consistent and consistent with Vincent Baker.

If "my character attacks yours" produces a rightwards arrow. Then so does "my character grapples yours".

Maybe, in both cases. It depends on whether the declaration is taken to refer to events in the fiction - which is clearly how Baker intends it, and was what I intended by my example of I grab the Orc - or is taken to be purely a move involving cues and game rules, analogously to I use Menacing Strike. This goes right back to the discussion, upthread, about the interplay between fiction and mechanical terminology in action declarations. It's an especially distinctive element of D&D, I think, which perhaps more than any other RPG has so many player moves and player resources bundled up into potential box-to-box processes (spells; class and racial abilities; tightly defined attack types; etc).

If "I move to higher ground" gives advantage (rightwards arrow). Then so may "and I pounce from higher ground".

Sure.

If the grapple succeeds your move is zero, with consequences for your possible fiction. Having grappled you, I can move us both half my speed. Are those leftwards arrows?

Here's an example of a rightward arrow from the 4e Rules Compendium (p 231, definition of the "Helpless" condition):

This condition is a precondition for certain things such as the coup de grace action. Normally, a creature is affected by this condition because it is unconscious, but the DM might rule that a creature is so firmly bound that itis effectively helpless.​

The posited DM's reasoning, there, is from the fiction - The creature is firmly bound - to the cue this creature is subject to the helpelss condition. A GM who reasoned from the same bit of fiction to the creature being subject to the restrained condition (which prevents all non-teleportation movement, penalises attacks and also grants combat advantage, and which is said (p 233) to "usually result[] from being held in place by something: vines, tentacles, manacles attached to a wall, strands of webbing" and the like).

Moving at half speed sounds like an operation performed on the "cue"/boxes side of the ledger, given that it is manipulation (halving) of a number (speed). That the resolved action means that both grappler and victim are at this place rather than this other place sounds like a change in the fiction generated by a leftward arrow, similar to step 6 of resolution process #1 ("if it's 8 or more hit points, your character knocks my character down").

 

[Manbearcat]

I think it isn't always THAT profitable to talk a lot about where a move is or is not to be evoked from the GM, because in essence the GM can make a move whenever they feel like, within reason. Certainly once the player is done with her DR question(s) she's going to want to start to act on the results, and whatever that action is, it will in due course evoke another move, often quite directly. A move might even follow simply because the players can't quite decide what approach to take, and the GM should drop a move on the party in that situation, albeit it may be a fairly gentle one in some cases. This is actually a bit like the old technique where the PCs start arguing about left or right in D&D and the DM rolls a wandering monster check, usually with great fanfare... lol.

Alright, poking my head back in here right quick just to comment on this.

I've seen this before and I want to push back a bit.

There is definitely not an anarchy of structured turns or a complete lack of "you go I go" in PBtA games. Here is my best list of "I (the GM) go" in Dungeon World.

* Situation Framing.

* All 6- moves.

* Obstacles/adversaries with dynamism/volition. For instance, I'm going after you go in social conflict and physical conflict where I have active adversaries "on the field." The "I go" here are soft moves that are cued by and informed by Instincts, Moves, and Special Qualities/Tags. If its Front related, I'm activating a Danger or a Doom.

* 7-9 moves that don't have encoded 7-9 soft moves and/or a player has to choose a cost/danger and I have to imbue that with gamestate-impact : fiction. These would be things like (a) all Defy Danger, (b) a player chooses danger or cost on a move or they pick a thing and I pick a thing (like Volley or Cast a Spell or Journey moves), (c) when one of the perception/memory/connection (et al) suite of moves requires me to render a vision/idea/person but make it conflicted/murky (in a way that complicates the players' decision-tree in an interesting and hopefully thematic way), (d) "swingback" (be it social or physical) and I have to choose the move that my NPC/Monster/Obstacle is making (and related tags).

* I've made a soft move and telegraphed that it will go off unless a PC intervenes (the hail of arrows from the archers will pincushion them if they don't find cover/bring their shield to bear...the avalanche will sweep them from the face if they don't get out of the zone...the cohort will fall in the crevasse if they don't get over there to grab them before their grip fails, etc), and they haven't sufficiently resolved the hazard/threat.

---

So, in actual play, there is a fairly heavily encoded "you go I go" aspect to play. Its just that it is contingent upon intersecting layers of structure each with multiple (again, intersecting) factors as to when and how "turn" is expressed around the table. I may not make a move at all when the players Undertake a Perilous Journey. However, if those players resolve their moves in such a way that I must go (in answer to their moves - see above), then I go. Further, if the players decide they want a Discovery on their Perilous Journey moves (I run with the Custom Moves from Perilous Wilds), then I'm framing a thematic scene around a Discovery (which could turn into danger, or even a Front Doom, dependent upon how the scene unfolds). But when it comes to social conflict with the Hedge Wizard of the town? Yeah, I'm attacking you socially and you're going to have to deal with it with a Defy Danger Charisma before you can go on the offense just like if my Hobgoblin is swinging their mace at you, you're going to need to Defy Danger/Defend (or something kindred) before you can go on offense (unless you just want to soak the damage!). You don't just get to say your piece and that is that. My Hedge Wizard has a dramatic need and its going to advocate for it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Looking at 5e, fiction to system arrows (rightward) can include

• Any time a player uses stealth to set up an action
• Ability checks generally, where approach typically comprises describing acts in fiction, so most skill and tool use
• Advantage/disadvantage
• Use of cover to hide or as a defense
• Starting a fight
• Most of the fighting actions and some spells (if "my character attacks yours" is upheld as a valid case, then these are)
• Starving, dehydrating, drowning, freezing, overheating
• Movement in many cases
• Overland movement
• Gaining non-monster XP
• Raging
• Bardic Inspiration
• Downtime activities

System to fiction (leftwards arrows)

• Many spell effects (teleport, charm, suggestion, fear, summons, polymorph, etc.)
• Movement improvement and impairment
• Dropping to zero
• Healing from zero
• Special senses like darkvision
• Turning Undead
• Wild Shape
• Curses
• Bonded and Pact weapons
• Found familiars? And steeds?
• Backgrounds and TIBFs
• Expenses
• Some Downtime activities
• Languages

Additionally there are a tonne of system to system, and an unlimited number of fiction to fiction (in both cases, loops)

This is an odd gish gallop. For reference a gallop is where you toss out a huge number of either somewhat related or even not related items to the point you're responding to either as if they answer the question or to insist that these be answered also. The effect is like that of chaff against radar -- you make so many targets that the original is lost.

Here, there's a clear line from the assertion and examples of combat -- specifically starting with hp, but then expanding to how attacks and grapples work in the system. The nature of play, and how the model accurately describes it, has been put forward by myself and @pemerton in a few posts. Yet my latest response, which was a clear statement about how fiction and mechanics interact with grapple isn't met with any list of items that actually address that case, or if my example of that case has any points for clarification/challenge, but rather a list of other things, not discussed until now, that have arrows (and I haven't reviewed the list for anything I might disagree with, I'm just acknowledging there's a list). Okay, so what? No one has argued that arrows don't exist in 5e. The examples have been how the model represents what's going on in play for a given moment and does so well for multiple games, including 5e. If you'd like to pick an example from this list and we can examine how the model does with that, cool. If you think there's an example that shows the model to be not useful, let's look at that. But let's skip responses that are essentially nothing but a list of new items, especially when that list seems to be targeting an argument no one has made.

Those are good insights into the contrasting structures.

 

[pemerton]

Baker thought my character attacks yours counted, so I don't see how wrestling or shoving gets excluded?

<snip>

Baker felt it counted but couldn't figures on a grid get to the same place?

<snip>

I don't think anyone is saying it isn't fuzzy, although obviously one might like to find some consistent test

I don't think Vincent Baker's analysis is very fuzzy. I think it's pretty clear.

I just played a little wargame with my daughter. Our formations "attacked" one another. I can't recall if we said the words My formation attacks yours but we could have. But that would all be cubes-to-cubes, because the wargame has no fiction beyond flavour text in the same fashion as M:tG, Monopoly, etc.

In D&D play, when a player says I attack X, is that a change to the fiction? Or just a manipulation of cues? There is no general answer. Sometimes it's one, sometimes another. You need to be in the room, at the table, looking at the play to see what was going on.

Baker, in his example (which is, after all, his stipulation), Baker is stipulating that a player has changed the fiction such that your character attacks mine (see step 2 of resolution system #1). But suppose at a table a player picks up their token and moves it on a battle map and knocks another token while saying "I attack!" That is a manipulation of the cues, which then generates a leftward arrow (in the fiction, the character has moved and attacked someone) which then in turn generates a rightward arrow.

There is no "test" here, consistent or otherwise, beyond examining what the participants actually do, and then seeing how the procedures/system they are using generate arrows between fiction and fiction, between fiction and cues (left or right), or between cues and cues.

 

[clearstream]

This is an odd gish gallop. For reference a gallop is where you toss out a huge number of either somewhat related or even not related items to the point you're responding to either as if they answer the question or to insist that these be answered also. The effect is like that of chaff against radar -- you make so many targets that the original is lost.

Here, there's a clear line from the assertion and examples of combat -- specifically starting with hp, but then expanding to how attacks and grapples work in the system. The nature of play, and how the model accurately describes it, has been put forward by myself and @pemerton in a few posts. Yet my latest response, which was a clear statement about how fiction and mechanics interact with grapple isn't met with any list of items that actually address that case, or if my example of that case has any points for clarification/challenge, but rather a list of other things, not discussed until now, that have arrows (and I haven't reviewed the list for anything I might disagree with, I'm just acknowledging there's a list). Okay, so what? No one has argued that arrows don't exist in 5e. The examples have been how the model represents what's going on in play for a given moment and does so well for multiple games, including 5e. If you'd like to pick an example from this list and we can examine how the model does with that, cool. If you think there's an example that shows the model to be not useful, let's look at that. But let's skip responses that are essentially nothing but a list of new items, especially when that list seems to be targeting an argument no one has made.

Increasing our stock of examples is not a gish gallop. That was my aim with that list: EDITED I had hoped it was clear I agreed with your general direction and wanted to expand on that by gathering cases.

I asked myself the question - what are examples of left, right and looping arrows in 5e?

 

[clearstream]

I don't really want to reformulate Lumpley as I count it useful. More complement. Here is another take.

"A vital job of RPG systems is causing player fiction to progress in the designed direction."

So this is hopefully guiding to a few things

1. It's about systematically progressing the fiction
2. It's not enough to have consensus at the table: it's about causing players to play and imagine in the designed way
3. The fiction is unlimited so the system must do the work of limiting: our activity is not formless, differences between games as games matter
4. It holds RPG designers to account for the quality of their craftsmanship.
5. It's not the only job of the system.

Generally, it expands on the terms of success for the G in RPG. (There may be obscure texts that already make this point, but I want it in the light!)

I think this can be refined to

"RPG systems enable player fiction to progress in the designed direction."

The Lumpley Principle on face value can be met by rules that are purely regulative. In game studies, rules are overwhelmingly assessed as constitutive. Seeing as regulative rules are of use in RPG, rules should be assessed in both lights.

@AbdulAlhazred and @pemerton for vis.