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

[Charlaquin]

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.

If I’ve understood correctly, this isn’t about the outcomes of dice rolls being meaningful, it’s about the content of the DM’s narration being meaningful.

 

[Raduin711]

I like the game where I roll dice and pretend to be a wizard.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Anyway, to the actual topic…


These two statements seem to me to be at odds with one another. By my reading of 5e, one would have to go outside the RAW to rule that the player decides whether or not the guard spots them, so I don’t see how both of these things can be true of 5e*

They described asking the player what their character does, so I don't think that's quite true. But even if we ignore that, I don't think the rules actually do contradict the spirit of what they propose.

Asking the players to decide some bits of what happens in the world isn't outside the RAW, as far as I can tell. It seems to all into the very broad category of things that are up to the DM.

However, even if it is outside the RAW, it is good for the game when played in the way that the OP describes.

I just can't figure out the benefit of saying that all fiction must be meaningful.

 

[Charlaquin]

They described asking the player what their character does, so I don't think that's quite true. But even if we ignore that, I don't think the rules actually do contradict the spirit of what they propose.

Asking the players to decide some bits of what happens in the world isn't outside the RAW, as far as I can tell. It seems to all into the very broad category of things that are up to the DM.

However, even if it is outside the RAW, it is good for the game when played in the way that the OP describes.

This is a reoccurring communication issue for me on these forums. When you read “outside the RAW,” you took it to mean “the RAW contradicts it,” where I had intended for it to mean “the RAW doesn’t directly support it.” Or, since a lot of folks seem to take issue with the way I use the word support in the context of discussing the RAW, perhaps “the RAW doesn’t directly instruct the DM to do it” would be more acceptable phrasing.

I just can't figure out the benefit of saying that all fiction must be meaningful.

Well, @clearstream pretty specifically says that the definition of “meaningful” should be left up to the group to decide. So, it seems to me like what they’re really trying to do is get DMs thinking more consciously about the meaning their narration communicates. What you consider meaningful may be different than what I consider meaningful, but both of our games might be improved by us being more intentional about conveying meaning (whatever we consider that to mean) through our narration.

 

[MNblockhead]

I'm all for continually working on my skills at narrating scenes and actions in a manner that is both flavorful or meaningful, but I'm stuck on this: "It should go without saying, but DM says when game mechanics are engaged."

I am just one player in the game. We are all playing a game with a set of rules we agreed on. I'm not only fine with this, I appreciate when players suggest applications of rules during gameplay. I know that this has been argued to death in many threads on things like perception checks and other ability checks, but I find player-initiated, mechanical rolling of dice can speed things along. This is especially true in the mega-dungeon campaign I'm running now. Having to narrate every detail on how you are checking a room, stealthing ahead, investigating something suspicious, etc. would be MORE of a slog than just rolling dice.

Also, through a session, the game play is not consistently the same. There are parts that are heavy on immersion and role play; parts that are very mechanical, tactical, and gamist; and other parts that are bear and pretzel silliness with lots of handwaving of rules. Works for us.

 

[TheSword]

I’m confused.

The OP is talking about narration needing to be meaningful. But could someone give me an example of narration that isn’t meaningful?

As a DM I describe scenes, events, npcs and action outcomes to create atmosphere, build verisimilitude, and represent the world’s reactions to the players choices.

I’m not sure what I could say that wouldn’t be meaningful.

 

[MNblockhead]

I’m confused.

The OP is talking about narration needing to be meaningful. But could someone give me an example of narration that isn’t meaningful?

As a DM I describe scenes, events, npcs and action outcomes to create atmosphere, build verisimilitude, and represent the world’s reactions to the players choices.

I’m not sure what I could say that wouldn’t be meaningful.

They way I read it, the OP is saying that the narration needs to be actionable. But I have a hard time thinking of narration that wouldn't be actionable. I mean, as DM I could just say "after you open the door, you can see beyond it. The players can then ask "what do I see beyond it." But the OP seems to be arguing that they shouldn't say "I roll perception to see what is beyond the now open door."

 

[TheSword]

They way I read it, the OP is saying that the narration needs to be actionable. But I have a hard time thinking of narration that wouldn't be actionable. I mean, as DM I could just say "after you open the door, you can see beyond it. The players can then ask "what do I see beyond it." But the OP seems to be arguing that they shouldn't say "I roll perception to see what is beyond the now open door."

Yeah, what could I narrate that isn’t actionable/meaningful? I’m struggling. Though it could just be a deeper conversation than I’m capable of understanding or much simpler and I’m taking it for granted.

 

[Mordhau]

I tend to feel with combat descriptions that they're inherently not meaningful.

The combat is run purely by mechanics. Description is optional.

It's only meaningful if it leads to an action that is not predetermined (i.e. a stunt).

My feeling as a player is if you want to know exactly how I use my sword to attack the zombie, then for god's sake run a game where that's something that matters.

 

[clearstream]

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

I've edited to remove words that I can see had the implication you drew. Words that said the opposite of what I believe.

I believe that "In addition to the formal rules of a game, there is a socially-determined interpretation of the rules, an ethos." I'm skeptical of there being one universal 5e.

That does not mean I am uncritical. System design and interpretation can be done with intent, and may be more or less successful in achieving that intent. Additionally, there are principles and design patterns that can span a family of games and reveal the nature of and solutions to common concerns.

In that light I retained wording about system consistency and grounding in a common RAW.