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

[Cadence]

I can't think of a single example where the DM's narration would be "meaningless." It feels like a reaction to a specific set of personal experiences we aren't privy to.

It's related to the conversation before and after this post. (I gave up trying to backtrack to where it first comes up. I think it has to do with whether 5e can be said to actually be making a story at a certain time according to a certain definition... but I lost the train of the thread quite some time ago).

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

Let's move away from combat for awhile. Would you agree that most 5e ability checks follow F-G-F? Per RAW that is. Well, 5e's issue here is mostly the lack of any knowable relation between action and result in the sense of attaining the character's desired goal. So, yes, I want to climb the...

www.enworld.org

 

[Charlaquin]

I can't think of a single example where the DM's narration would be "meaningless." It feels like a reaction to a specific set of personal experiences we aren't privy to.

Well, given that “meaningful” here is defined by the group, it would be a matter of the narration not meeting whatever definition the group decides on.

 

[Reynard]

Well, given that “meaningful” here is defined by the group, it would be a matter of the narration not meeting whatever definition the group decides on.

That strikes me evasive and vague. Unless it's a literal non sequitur, any "narration" the DM provides is going to mean something. Now, maybe OP means "sufficient" and that's a different think. Maybe they have experienced "pixel hunting" from some DMs before and want to avoid that. That's not a "rule" in any meaningful sense on the word, tho.

 

[clearstream]

Well, given that “meaningful” here is defined by the group, it would be a matter of the narration not meeting whatever definition the group decides on.

Do you feel that "meaningful" is too weak to do the needed work? (Of course, also putting in doubt DMG 237.)

 

[Charlaquin]

That strikes me evasive and vague. Unless it's a literal non sequitur, any "narration" the DM provides is going to mean something. Now, maybe OP means "sufficient" and that's a different think. Maybe they have experienced "pixel hunting" from some DMs before and want to avoid that. That's not a "rule" in any meaningful sense on the word, tho.

But it would be a rule in this hypothetical alternate rule set, that’s the point.

 

[LordEntrails]

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.

And it's the word 'must' that I find to be troublesome.

Those "must"s are necessary. They do not assert that there is one right way to play 5e. They tell you what you must do to play 5e*.

Since 5e* is yours to define, you can insist on must being necessary. But then it means that without a doubt 5e* is something that not only will I ever bother to read or play, it's something that truly misses what I feel to be the spirit of 5E. Rulings and not rules, that 5E is about each table making things their own, and that 5E is adaptable to the wants and needs of the players at the table.

As you define 5e*, it has nothing of that spirit. It has the spirit of something that tries to dictate a one-true way. And I've played enough of those in my youth to know they have no interest to me.

Enjoy 5e*, it's not for me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Do you feel that "meaningful" is too weak to do the needed work? (Of course, also putting in doubt DMG 237.)

Oh, no, I think meaningful is perfectly sufficient here, and I agree with you that it should be up to the group to decide what is meaningful to them. I just think it’s coming across as too weak to people who would define “meaningful” very broadly.

 

[Reynard]

But it would be a rule in this hypothetical alternate rule set, that’s the point.

Ok, but if "meaningful" is undefined (and leaving it up to the group is not a definition) then it is a meaningless rule.

I suppose you could write such a rule like so: When communicating with the players as to what their characters can perceive in the environment, the GM is required to include only information that the players can use to determine their next actions. Failure to do so results in...
...what, exactly. If there is a rule, it must be enforced somehow. But the GM is the enforcer and arbiter of rules, so isn't really in a position to censure themselves.

And while the rule says only meaningful information, it doesn't say anything about the quantity of meaningful information. Is the GM required to include ALL of the meaningful information? Even if we could define what that meant, is it desirable or even possible? What if some of that meaningful information is hidden (a secret door).

The more I think about it, this whole idea makes me think someone is trying to reign in crappy GMing and we have learned over long experience going all the way back to the origins of the hobby that you can't do that with rules.

 

[el-remmen]

Which @clearstream pointedly said in the opening post.

I didn't say they didn't! I wasn't refuting as much as exploring that difference.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok, but if "meaningful" is undefined (and leaving it up to the group is not a definition) then it is a meaningless rule.

The rule by definition requires the group to define it. Perhaps a more robust wording would be “the group must decide on a set of parameters that the DM’s narration must satisfy.”

I suppose you could write such a rule like so: When communicating with the players as to what their characters can perceive in the environment, the GM is required to include only information that the players can use to determine their next actions. Failure to do so results in...
...what, exactly.

It doesn’t need to result in anything. What results from moving a bishop orthogonally in chess? Nothing, it just isn’t allowed by the rules.

If there is a rule, it must be enforced somehow. But the GM is the enforcer and arbiter of rules, so isn't really in a position to censure themselves.

It would be enforced by the social contract. If the DM agreed to the parameters the group set for what constitutes meaningful narration, they should uphold that agreement.

And while the rule says only meaningful information, it doesn't say anything about the quantity of meaningful information. Is the GM required to include ALL of the meaningful information? Even if we could define what that meant, is it desirable or even possible? What if some of that meaningful information is hidden (a secret door).

Again, that’s something the group would need to decide.

The more I think about it, this whole idea makes me think someone is trying to reign in crappy GMing and we have learned over long experience going all the way back to the origins of the hobby that you can't do that with rules.

I think these conversations are more productive if we don’t try to speculate about people’s motivations for starting them. So what if @clearstream us trying to reign in crappy GMing? Would that make their proposal not worth discussing? Would it change the way you engage with the discussion? Personally, I would rather just discuss what they proposed on its own terms than argue about why they proposed it.