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

[Reynard]

.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.

I mean, I think I have made it clear it isn't a good idea for a rule, or even viable. The social contract of a group is not part of the "rules" and the "rules" don't have any control over that contract. The group can decide what rules to follow or not, so the rules are completely subservient to the social contract.

Now, is it worth discussing for a given group? Sure. It's part of the comparison of expectations that should happen between all members of the group, not just the GM and players. But if a player made that request I would really want to get to the bottom of the reason. What does that player mean? What experiences motivated them to ask that in particular? Because that stuff is totally relevant if I am going to try and make them comfortable at my table.

 

[Maxperson]

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

You pretend? I've been doing it wrong all these years!

 

[clearstream]

I mean, I think I have made it clear it isn't a good idea for a rule, or even viable. The social contract of a group is not part of the "rules" and the "rules" don't have any control over that contract. The group can decide what rules to follow or not, so the rules are completely subservient to the social contract.

Maybe we can say it that the rule is viable because rules are subject to the social contract.

 

[Reynard]

Maybe we can say it that the rule is viable because rules are subject to the social contract.

Even with that concession, it doesn't explain how such a rule would be successfully defined or implemented. And I am still curious as to what one would be expecting to get out of such a rule.

 

[clearstream]

Even with that concession, it doesn't explain how such a rule would be successfully defined or implemented. And I am still curious as to what one would be expecting to get out of such a rule.

I'll give a too-short overview and if it seems worth unpacking and maybe challenging then we can expand. F is fiction. S is system. E is establishing fiction. Game is the whole deal: the game in play.

Playing Chess is like this
S -> S -> S -> ...

5e How to Play says do this
E -> F -> S -> F

Narrating moves in Chess wouldn’t say more than the board represents. It wouldn’t matter to the game.

Narrating rolls in D&D per the basic pattern is supposed to end in F. And F is different from S. To get from S to F, we must say something meaningful. What we say has to matter to the game.

So that's why.

 

[Reynard]

I'll give a too-short overview and if it seems worth unpacking and maybe challenging then we can expand. F is fiction. S is system. E is establishing fiction. Game is the whole deal: the game in play.

Playing Chess is like this
S -> S -> S -> ...

5e How to Play says do this
E -> F -> S -> F

Narrating moves in Chess wouldn’t say more than the board represents. It wouldn’t matter to the game.

Narrating rolls in D&D per the basic pattern is supposed to end in F. And F is different from S. To get from S to F, we must say something meaningful. What we say has to matter to the game.

So that's why.

Thank you for the clear explanation.

Now can you give an example of a non meaningful narration in the context of a scenario that would actually happen at the table?

 

[clearstream]

Thank you for the clear explanation.

Now can you give an example of a non meaningful narration in the context of a scenario that would actually happen at the table?

5e* is all of its rules, don't lose sight of that. What do you want us to interrogate in answering that question? Can you make that plain?

[What thesis do you have in mind, that can be proved or disproved?]

 

[Reynard]

5e* is all of its rules, don't lose sight of that. What do you want us to interrogate in answering that question? Can you make that plain?

[What thesis do you have in mind, that can be proved or disproved?]

You answered a question with a question which feels evasive. I want an example of meaningless narration.

My thesis is that there isn't such a thing in the context of play that would actually occur.

 

[clearstream]

You answered a question with a question which feels evasive. I want an example of meaningless narration.

My thesis is that there isn't such a thing in the context of play that would actually occur.

It's best to be clear what's on our minds. Is your thesis modal (we are guaranteed not to find any examples) or probabilistic (we might find some, but they will be rare)? Suppose we find some, is there a qualitative aspect so that you want to reserve the right to discount some cases?

I'm not evading. From experience we can save ourselves dozens of posts back and forth by establishing this context up front.

 

[TheSword]

It's best to be clear what's on our minds. Is your thesis modal (we are guaranteed not to find any examples) or probabilistic (we might find some, but they will be rare)? Suppose we find some, is there a qualitative aspect so that you want to reserve the right to discount some cases?

I'm not evading. From experience we can save ourselves dozens of posts back and forth by establishing this context up front.

Expecting narration to be meaningful and selecting that as one of your core philosophies of this ‘version’ of the rules, makes little sense if there are no examples in play of narration that isn’t meaningful.

Instead saying ‘narration should be meaningful’ seems really just a truism, that doesn’t really distinguish 5e-now from 5e.

I’m hoping (as I think @Reynard is) that you can help me understand how narration can ever not be meaningful, to clarify why the opposite is relevant to your version.