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

[Crimson Longinus]

Yup, it was the actual impetus for this thread, really.

In combat, when you deal hp damage to a foe that is not sufficient to kill it, any description of said hp loss it ultimately meaningless -- it can be described in such myriad ways as to render any fictional value to it meaningless. The only value is the current number of hp remaining, which is not usually part of the "narration" of a result (I've argued it should be, but the OP disagreed that such mechanical information is sufficient to qualify as "narration" with regard to PHB pg 6 procedures).

To give an example, if you attack a goblin with a longsword and do 5 damage to it (goblins have an average of 7 hp, and this particular goblin is average), the required fiction for this event is none. There is no required fiction here. I can describe this event using the same fiction that I can describe a miss -- "the goblin throws themselves to the side at the last minute with a desperate dodge!" Because any narration is going to be totally arbitrary, there's no "meaningful" narration to be had here. The only value that can be given is the remaining hp level of the goblin, or fiction that has been indexed to that in a way agreed to by all players such that the narration is just coded game information, like say, "the goblin looks really bad." How? There's no requirement for this, it's an arbitrary description by the GM to pass coded game info instead of saying, "the goblin has 2 hp left." In the game, though, the goblin suffers absolutely no constraints based on any given narration. It doesn't affect what the goblin can do or how it's resolved.

For the above, there are absolutely mechanics that do requires constrained fiction and specific narration. The case provided does not, so let's not wander off the example by changing the particulars so it's an example of something else.

To make a different example of the above, let's say that the goblin, after taking the damage, is described by the GM as "reeling" from the blow. This is an attempt to code information about the hp, but it's also a great example of how this narration is meaningless in the actual fiction (ie, not just passing coded mechanic information). There's absolutely no action that the PCs can take to leverage the goblin reeling. If the goblin happens to be next in the initiative order, they instantly recover from this "reeling" for no cost. If someone else goes, there's no action declaration they can make that can leverage the "reeling" the goblin to doing for any advantage (mechanical or not) or action not available otherwise. The description of the goblin "reeling" is passing no fictional information or change other than if "reeling" is an established table code for "low on hp."

And to address why I say established table code, there's no narration defined for what low on hp looks like. Having 1 hp or 100 hp has no attached fictional meaning in the game. If my max hp is 1 and I have 1 hp, what does this look like (as in defined by the game)? If my max is 100 hp and I have 99, what does that look like? Any description here is arbitrary, and the description isn't doing any work in the game (outside of entertainment value for the table). The only work that can be done here is the work that is done by any shared coding for relative health. Look at the goblin example again. Max hp 7, current hp 2, so roughly that goblin is 3/4 of the way down from max hp. But look at a dragon, with 200 hp. The same fraction would be 50 hp left. The goblin is pretty much toast to any blow (the vast majority of which will carry at least a +1 damage bonus and so drop the hp total to 0), but is only 3/4 of the way down. No simple weapon blow will kill the dragon (maybe a paladin smite on a crit with good rolls, but that's a smite), but it's at the same percentage of health the goblin is. The descriptions of these states will often vary, but in doing so they're not being consistent. What they're doing here is passing that coded information that says what level of effort might be still left to reduce the hp total to 0.

What exactly you mean 'arbitrary' and 'meaningless' here? As @Charlaquin noted, there actually is some advice on how to narrate these things, so even by RAW it is not completely arbitrary. But if your point is that the rulebook leaves it mostly open and the GM has a lot of leeway how to describe these things, then sure.

Though personally I have a semi coherent interpretation, and I would for example never describe a hit that dealt damage in a manner that makes it sound like a miss. And if the GM is not transparent about system information (and many aren't) then these descriptions can be meaningful, even in tactical sense, not just as flavour. If the players don't know numerically how many HP the enemy has left, then the GM's narration of the events can give them a clue hoe close the defeat the enemy is. And in my opinion the GM should endeavour to narrate things in a manner that such conclusions are possible. Furthermore, I don't think that things like 'goblin is reeling' etc are necessarily unactionable, at least not by how I would run things. Improvised actions exists, and environmental and other factors can be used to gain advantage. So whilst it might not be particularly common, the players certainly have an option to leverage things present in the combat narration.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

The thing is that things that were intended as pure flavour, might become mechanically or tactically meaningful. So I don't think trying to make a clear distinction makes much sense.

 

[Krachek]

The thing is that things that were intended as pure flavour, might become mechanically or tactically meaningful. So I don't think trying to make a clear distinction makes much sense.

That can lead to the most advanced level of play for players!
ask something to the DM pretending to be on the fluff level and then wickedly use it on tactical level!

 

[Reynard]

I think the various perspectives in this thread make a strong case that while attempting to formalize this subject in the rules is probably not viable, taking the time to discuss the subject at the table is well worth it and maybe even essential.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

I guess then it comes down to what any of us would consider the definition of "actionable" then?

I mean for me... a description of an attack can be useful for players to then make choices to act on, just like a narration of game mechanics can. "The sword slides into the orc's abdomen and cause a huge gash, large amount of blood coming out" can tell the players their situation and how they want to take their next turn just as "The sword attack caused 7 hit points of damage, the orc now has 5 hit points left" can. To me, those are equally "actionable" narration. So if both of them are serving a purpose of passing on information to the players, the question then comes down to what would be the "better" way to do it? And for me... as the whole point of D&D and all RPGs is to contextualize a board game into a narrative and descriptive setting to create a story out of... the former is much more important and much more useful and much more fun to me.

Now admittedly this is my blind-spot-- the mechanics and the board game of Dungeons & Dragons to me are just so meh compared to the strategic and tactical assessments of other board games out there that I could be playing that I would never select the mechanics of D&D over another board game to play. And I don't think I'm alone in this, because all the times WotC has tried to make a "miniatures game" out of D&D (the 3E era Miniatures Handbook, Wrath of Ashardalon, Dungeon Command etc.)... they all have gotten barely any recognition or play or traction after the first several months of release grace period. Most people just don't find the game mechanics of D&D fun for long-term play in and of themselves. I think it is ONLY because we layer the fiction and the roleplaying and the story on top of that combat board game that D&D becomes something magical.

If we want to quibble as to what is MORE important, the fiction or the rules... that's something we will never be able to come to a consensus on, so I don't think it's worth even arguing. But I will say that just numbers-wise... there are millions of more people who have played traditional non-narrative board games who then made the move into adding the narrative and story aspects of RPGs into their board gaming by trying D&D... than there are traditional improv actors who have then added the game mechanic aspects of RPGs into their fully-narrative improvisation by trying D&D. So quantitatively you will find a lot more people who will say the added story and roleplaying of D&D makes the mechanics more fun than there are people who will say adding the game rules of D&D makes their improvisation more fun. Not that that fact necessarily means anything.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What exactly you mean 'arbitrary' and 'meaningless' here? As @Charlaquin noted, there actually is some advice on how to narrate these things, so even by RAW it is not completely arbitrary. But if your point is that the rulebook leaves it mostly open and the GM has a lot of leeway how to describe these things, then sure.

That advice is not really very good. I am not prohibited from describing cuts and bruises from damage prior to half down, which would utterly remove this clue once actually past half down. I'm also, according to the advice, allowed to narrate hp loss however I want by the first sentence. The rest is a general maybe "good practice" but it's not fully formed.

Though personally I have a semi coherent interpretation, and I would for example never describe a hit that dealt damage in a manner that makes it sound like a miss. And if the GM is not transparent about system information (and many aren't) then these descriptions can be meaningful, even in tactical sense, not just as flavour. If the players don't know numerically how many HP the enemy has left, then the GM's narration of the events can give them a clue hoe close the defeat the enemy is. And in my opinion the GM should endeavour to narrate things in a manner that such conclusions are possible. Furthermore, I don't think that things like 'goblin is reeling' etc are necessarily unactionable, at least not by how I would run things. Improvised actions exists, and environmental and other factors can be used to gain advantage. So whilst it might not be particularly common, the players certainly have an option to leverage things present in the combat narration.

Sure, you can do this, but it's your choice, not the system. The system has no such demands or cues here. There's no required narration for hit point loss -- I don't actually have to describe damage at all and it's 100% fine. Or I can describe it however I want. However I describe it, though, that description does no work outside of possibly encoding the mechanics -- the choice of fiction used to do so isn't available as an independent cue. More on this in my next reply.

 

[Malmuria]

Furthermore, I don't think that things like 'goblin is reeling' etc are necessarily unactionable, at least not by how I would run things. Improvised actions exists, and environmental and other factors can be used to gain advantage. So whilst it might not be particularly common, the players certainly have an option to leverage things present in the combat narration.

I think this sort of thing was the intent behind 5e's interpretation of "rulings not rules." That is, that it was sort of up to the player to make gm narration (even just of the physical environment) actionable, and the role of the gm to work with the player on a case by case basis. Basically, "the rule of cool." You can see this in the way Chris Perkins runs games. But that doesn't always sit well with the more defined mechanics, and can lead to very un-grounded seeming gameplay.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And it's the next reply!

guess then it comes down to what any of us would consider the definition of "actionable" then?

I mean for me... a description of an attack can be useful for players to then make choices to act on, just like a narration of game mechanics can. "The sword slides into the orc's abdomen and cause a huge gash, large amount of blood coming out" can tell the players their situation and how they want to take their next turn just as "The sword attack caused 7 hit points of damage, the orc now has 5 hit points left" can. To me, those are equally "actionable" narration. So if both of them are serving a purpose of passing on information to the players, the question then comes down to what would be the "better" way to do it? And for me... as the whole point of D&D and all RPGs is to contextualize a board game into a narrative and descriptive setting to create a story out of... the former is much more important and much more useful and much more fun to me.

Now admittedly this is my blind-spot-- the mechanics and the board game of Dungeons & Dragons to me are just so meh compared to the strategic and tactical assessments of other board games out there that I could be playing that I would never select the mechanics of D&D over another board game to play. And I don't think I'm alone in this, because all the times WotC has tried to make a "miniatures game" out of D&D (the 3E era Miniatures Handbook, Wrath of Ashardalon, Dungeon Command etc.)... they all have gotten barely any recognition or play or traction after the first several months of release grace period. Most people just don't find the game mechanics of D&D fun for long-term play in and of themselves. I think it is ONLY because we layer the fiction and the roleplaying and the story on top of that combat board game that D&D becomes something magical.

If we want to quibble as to what is MORE important, the fiction or the rules... that's something we will never be able to come to a consensus on, so I don't think it's worth even arguing. But I will say that just numbers-wise... there are millions of more people who have played traditional non-narrative board games who then made the move into adding the narrative and story aspects of RPGs into their board gaming by trying D&D... than there are traditional improv actors who have then added the game mechanic aspects of RPGs into their fully-narrative improvisation by trying D&D. So quantitatively you will find a lot more people who will say the added story and roleplaying of D&D makes the mechanics more fun than there are people who will say adding the game rules of D&D makes their improvisation more fun. Not that that fact necessarily means anything.

Actionable simply means I can take an action leveraging that fiction. Let's take your description of the orc: "The sword slides into the orc's abdomen and cause a huge gash, large amount of blood coming out." This isn't actionable fiction. The only thing this does is do the encoding of the hp status of the orc, but it does so in a way that isn't really tied to the status of the orc. This orc, without any treatment, will carry it's huge abdominal wound for the rest of the day, fighting a peak efficiency! There's no need to treat this orc's wounds. If the part fails to do anything else, this orc is untroubled by it's wound further. No party member can say, "Quick, Wizard, cast hold person on that orc, his wounds will kill him shortly!" The party can't choose to retreat, and wait out the orc to die from it's wound. The description of this wound is fatal -- orcs don't live with huge abdominal wounds, except perhaps as a great and notable exception due to precise luck.

No, this description really only works because it's 1) entertaining, 2) is an encoding of the relative state of the orc's hp, a mechanical concept that's not directly tethered to this outcome, and 3) because everyone at the table understands that this description is purely flavor. Because of 3), no one will declare actions to try to take advantage of this wound as a wound, they will instead take the description only in light of 2) and take actions that consider only that this orc is low on hitpoints and within how everyone understands the game to work mechanically.

You can contrast this with some other systems that don't use hitpoints and that do make such descriptions quite meaningful in the fiction as levers that can be used in future actions.

This thing that 5e does (and D&D in general) isn't at all bad, though! It's intentional, and has been from the beginning. The lack of required fiction for hitpoints means that the GM is free to provide fun flavor for the table and encode the mechanical information therein according to how a given table chooses to do so (@Crimson Longinus is clear he has such a code). It also means that the system isn't tied down to details that do require such specific fictions from the results. A number of games came about to address this non-specificity in results that D&D has, games like Rune Quest and Rolemaster, which have specific fictional outputs that matter from wounds. It's not a dig, it's just looking at how the D&D game works and noting that it doesn't really care for specific fictional outcomes from combat outside of a few special effects and what happens at 0 hp.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think this sort of thing was the intent behind 5e's interpretation of "rulings not rules." That is, that it was sort of up to the player to make gm narration (even just of the physical environment) actionable, and the role of the gm to work with the player on a case by case basis. Basically, "the rule of cool." You can see this in the way Chris Perkins runs games. But that doesn't always sit well with the more defined mechanics, and can lead to very un-grounded seeming gameplay.

It's left to individual GMs to come up with and implement on their own, with no help from 5e. I think it's fair when talking about 5e to note what 5e does, and not give 5e the credit for not stopping a table from coming up with their own things. They didn't need permission from 5e to do this.

 

[CleverNickName]

I ask the players to describe their actions, and then I ask them to make a roll to conclude that action.
It never matters whether there are consequences or not. For us it's about resolving the action described in a satisfying way...it's not about fishing for consequence.

One way to do it:
P: "I search for secret doors."
DM: "You don't find anything."
P: "How do you know? I didn't even get to roll!"
DM: "Don't bother, there's nothing to find anyway."

My way of doing it:
P: "Woo! A nat-20! I open the secret door!"
DM: "There's not a secret door. You did find a some faint graffiti, 'Ogg Was Here'."
P: "Why did you have me roll Perception if there wasn't a secret door there in the first place?"
DM: "Because you said you were searching for secret doors."

The player is always going to be disappointed that there wasn't a secret door. But I think my way at least gives the player the satisfaction of having tried.