D&D 5E 5e* - D&D-now

[Krachek]

I agree here is my comment:
Trust challenge verisimilitude dice meaning narrative consequences flavor role play incentive creativity.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I swear, the hypervigilance to anything that could possibly be construed as telling DMs what to do is unreal around here.

Agreed. But telling players what to do (beyond, y'know, "play by the rules") is not merely par for the course, it's the only way to run a functional game.

 

[Hussar]

Did everyone miss the part where this is a purely hypothetical different ruleset? “The DM must” is laying out how this hypothetical different ruleset would work, not prescribing how people ought to run the existing ruleset.

I swear, the hypervigilance to anything that could possibly be construed as telling DMs what to do is unreal around here.

Not questioning the hypothetical - just not following it. Did I understand the point right?

 

[Krachek]

I think that DnD is close to what Marvel MCU propose with their multiverse.
Each words in the rules can be interpreted with many possibilities, time every single players and DM and we are close to a complex multiverse!

 

[Maxperson]

Another if you don't play it the way I say you're playing it wrong? Good grief.

It's explicitly NOT saying that. I'll quote the relevant portion.

"5e* is a fully consistent game system. I would say more consistent, but YMMV. [Or it may be better to say that 5e* is no less consistent than 5e ] You play 5e* with the same rules as you play 5e."

He's differentiating his homebrewed 5e* from normal 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

I want advocate an interpretation of 5e. Let's call the game played this way 5e*. To be playing 5e* a DM must ensure that "narrate" (PHB 6, How to Play) means "say something meaningful".

Page 6 doesn't say that. In fact, it implies very strongly that what you are saying there is incorrect.

"Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1."

"Often leads to" means that sometimes it doesn't, and a narration that doesn't lead to the players making any kind of decision isn't meaningful.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

 

[el-remmen]

I sometimes let the dice decide if a roll is meaningful, especially when improvising because PC action has gone beyond prep.

Also, in my experience - players love to roll their dice. So I let them.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not questioning the hypothetical - just not following it. Did I understand the point right?

I don’t know as I’m not the original poster, but, no, I don’t think you did.

What I took away from it was that the OP thinks the game would be better if there was a rule that the DM must always communicate something meaningful with their narration. They’re a bit vague on what constitutes “meaningful,” but I think that’s intentional. The point, as I understand it is mostly to encourage DMs to think more consciously about what meaning they are conveying with their narration and perhaps be a bit more intentional about it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Page 6 doesn't say that. In fact, it implies very strongly that what you are saying there is incorrect.

"Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1."

"Often leads to" means that sometimes it doesn't, and a narration that doesn't lead to the players making any kind of decision isn't meaningful.

Well, yeah. That’s the critical point of distinction between 5e and this 5e*, isn’t it? If I understood correctly, everything else about the two rule sets is hypothetically identical.