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

[Oofta]

You are right that "holistic" shouldn't be camouflage for one-best-wayism. On the other hand, I feel we ideally take the whole RAW into account when forming rulings. If we pick and choose what to apply, we leave ourselves open to another's picking and choosing: we can't settle anything that way.

[This is something like Dworkin's principle of integrity, and I think many of his arguments are appealing in forming principles for interpreting game rules. Mutatis mutandis.]

So you think we should all choose to use your interpretation of RAW? Ignore the advice in the DMG that the rules aren't in charge the DM is?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Views seem divided. How about this example:

Characters are fighting a stone giant with 126 HP. A hit deals 1 HP. The DM narrates "Your hit barely scratches it. The giant laughs. 'You're no threat little elf, I'm going to be about hitting that one there.' (It points directly at the wizard)."

1) Is this case realistic? Could it come up in play?
2) How is the narration here meaningful?"

[EDITED Note extensive ninja edit to avoid proposing any theory.]

This narration is entirely valid for a range of hp loss! Simply put, if the damage is instead 2 hp, what change to narration is necessary?

 

[Reynard]

There's a concrete difference between doing 1 point of damage to a 7 hp goblin versus doing 1 point to a 126 hp stone giant. But there is no difference if the stone giant is injured and down to 7 hp, or if both creatures only have 1 hp left. Similarly there is no difference between doing 10 hp to a 7 hp goblin and 25 hp to an injured giant with 5 hp left. These are all functions of the abstract nature of D&D hit points (except 4e, I guess).

So I broadly agree with the idea that any narration around damage is meaningless as far as the system is concerned. However, it isn't meaningless to the players because D&D as an experience is not defined solely by its mechanical systems. The narrative elements of the game are inherently important and so are always meaningful.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There's a concrete difference between doing 1 point of damage to a 7 hp goblin versus doing 1 point to a 126 hp stone giant. But there is no difference if the stone giant is injured and down to 7 hp, or if both creatures only have 1 hp left. Similarly there is no difference between doing 10 hp to a 7 hp goblin and 25 hp to an injured giant with 5 hp left. These are all functions of the abstract nature of D&D hit points (except 4e, I guess).

So I broadly agree with the idea that any narration around damage is meaningless as far as the system is concerned. However, it isn't meaningless to the players because D&D as an experience is not defined solely by its mechanical systems. The narrative elements of the game are inherently important and so are always meaningful.

So you're defining meaningful as "has at least some entertainment value for the participants?"

ETA: not snark, genuine question. I think this could be a valid answer.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So you're defining meaningful as "has at least some entertainment value for the participants?"

I certainly do.

If you remove the narrative then you truly ARE just playing a board game. Which I know is what a lot of people are really only interested in... but for me and my players... the narrative matters just as much (if not more) than the mechanics.

Does it matter that mechanically a 125 HP giant that is down 5 hit points to to 120 HP and a 7 HP goblin that has lost almost of their hit points down to 1 HP have absolutely no difference in their actions compared to how they behave at full HP? Or comparatively to each other? No, not to me. I don't care at all, because that's just the way the game I'm playing has written their mechanical rules and I accept them as part and parcel for playing the game.

But that doesn't mean I can't narratively give those numbers a difference in meaning by the description I use for them. Does that description "matter" as far as the mechanics are concerned or impact those mechanics? Not at all. But does it "matter" as far as the totality of the game experience for everyone at the table? Absolutely 100%! Because half (if not more) of the game IS a narrative experience. And THAT makes narrative differences so important to the game on the whole that to ignore it is to ignore the whole point of playing an RPG instead of a board game in my opinion.

To me RPGs are half narrative and half mechanics. And if one half doesn't change for a particular event that occurs in the game, the other half absolutely can pick up the slack and make the event have meaning to the players involved.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I certainly do.

If you remove the narrative then you truly ARE just playing a board game. Which I know is what a lot of people are really only interested in... but for me and my players... the narrative matters just as much (if not more) than the mechanics.

Does it matter that mechanically a 125 HP giant that is down 5 hit points to to 120 HP and a 7 HP goblin that has lost almost of their hit points down to 1 HP have absolutely no difference in their actions compared to how they behave at full HP? Or comparatively to each other? No, not to me. I don't care at all, because that's just the way the game I'm playing has written their mechanical rules and I accept them as part and parcel for playing the game.

But that doesn't mean I can't narratively give those numbers a difference in meaning by the description I use for them. Does that description "matter" as far as the mechanics are concerned or impact those mechanics? Not at all. But does it "matter" as far as the totality of the game experience for everyone at the table? Absolutely 100%! Because half (if not more) of the game IS a narrative experience. And THAT makes narrative differences so important to the game on the whole that to ignore it is to ignore the whole point of playing an RPG instead of a board game.

RPGs are half narrative and half mechanics. And if one side doesn't change for a particular event, the other side absolutely can pick up the slack and make the event have meaning to the players involved.

I disagree with this framing. If some narration is valid because of it's entertainment value only, it doesn't follow that avoiding narration only for entertainment value means eliminating narration. If, instead, I value only narration that makes actionable changes to the fiction, then I'm not abandoning narration nor am I just playing a boardgame. Narration can have different purposes, and not using one doesn't discard all others.

My question was to identify if the poster felt that narration only for entertainment (ie, a fun description of damage that doesn't do any other work than being fun) was sufficient to be "meaningful." I think that's a valid thing to say, and it can be useful to examine play with that in place versus looking at play that doesn't consider that "meaningful" narration.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree with this framing. If some narration is valid because of it's entertainment value only, it doesn't follow that avoiding narration only for entertainment value means eliminating narration. If, instead, I value only narration that makes actionable changes to the fiction, then I'm not abandoning narration nor am I just playing a boardgame. Narration can have different purposes, and not using one doesn't discard all others.

My question was to identify if the poster felt that narration only for entertainment (ie, a fun description of damage that doesn't do any other work than being fun) was sufficient to be "meaningful." I think that's a valid thing to say, and it can be useful to examine play with that in place versus looking at play that doesn't consider that "meaningful" narration.

Yes, "just for fun" is meaningful enough in my opinion,but there is something more: because of the way play revolves around player agency, literally any narration by the GM is "actionable."

Remember the gameplay loop: GM established the situation, Players respond with action, GM establishes new situation, ad infinitum. The entire thing hinges on what the players choose to do (or at least attempt), which itself is a response to GM narration. Therefore, by definition, all GM narration is meaningful.

One thing I forgot about in my above discussion on damage is that those numbers do matter because the GM is also playing those monsters, not just pushing them around the board. When that goblin only has 1 hp left, they might be mechanically identical to when they had all 7, but now the goblin knows death is near and might run,surrender, kamikaze or any number of things based on the motivations and characterization of that goblin as defined by the GM.

 

[Blue]

You only gave one example that I saw.

Here's, I'll break it up for you:

EXAMPLE ONE: Sometimes the DM must narrate something that is not actionable.

Say a character was suspicious of someone they were talking to, the DM called for an insight check, which resulted in an 11.

"They aren't giving any indications they are lying."

This is valid information, but brings nothing new that is actionable.

EXAMPLE TWO: Sometimes the DM must narrate something that is not meaningful.

The DM is the window between the characters who live in the world and the players who are not. If a player wants additional information about what their character is experiencing, it is the DM's job to give that to them. Regardless if it's "meaningful".

When I said I did two examples and one wasn't actionable and one wasn't meaningful, I didn't expect that it still would be opaque what the two were. Hopefully now it's obvious.

 

[Krachek]

The bard player ask the DM, what is the color of the hair of the barmaid?
The DM answer : brunette.
Does he choose or roll? Is the answer meaningful?
it can be very meaningful knowing past adventure of the bard and the one about a brunette girl who been treacherous against the party.

 

[Oofta]

Is fluff meaningful? I'm talking describing the walls of the castle as shining white in the sun, surrounded by a sea of green grass and a patchwork of farm fields kind of things. No direct impact, just flavor.

Because if that's meaningful narration then I think the word "meaningful" loses any meaning. It becomes whatever the DM or players say. I think "don't bog down the game with too much fluff" may be good advice but to say don't use it at all? Nope.