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

[clearstream]

Let me expand on my hard disagree. This statement says that what authorizes narration to be meaningful is the direction that narration be meaningful, and that the result of this is that any narration is therefore meaningful. And, absent this, players are unsure if narration is meaningful at all. To rephrase this, we can say that what makes things tall is the requirement to pick only tall things, therefore anything picked is tall because it was picked. This is entirely circular.

Yes. The word blue has the meaning blue because it has the meaning blue.

You expressed a worry that players wouldn't be able to tell that the orc's gaping wound mattered. 5e* tells them that it matters and what they do in response, motivated by that narration, counts.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes. The word blue has the meaning blue because it has the meaning blue.

You expressed a worry that players wouldn't be able to tell that the orc's gaping wound mattered. 5e* tells them that it matters and what they do in response, motivated by that narration, counts.

So "meaningful" is just a statement that words have definitions. Again, I note the irony that to preserve the construction of "meaningful" you're busily diluting the concept to one that is largely meaningless. A blue cloak is meaningful because blue means blue. And things matter because if they are said then they matter. How do we know they matter? They were said, so they must. Again, circles.

 

[billd91]

Suppose [for the sake of argument] that there is no meaningful difference between hitting the stone giant for 1 hit point or for 2 hit points. In that case, such content alone cannot satisfy 5e*, but 5e* does not relax its requirements.

Does there need to be a discernable "meaningful" difference between doing 1 hp or 2 hp of damage to a 126 hp giant? Or is narration indicating that you did indeed injure the giant sufficient? Does every gradation in mechanical results need to have a discernable difference as feedback to the players?

 

[HammerMan]

The scenario you have constructed in your head bears little to no resemblance to what I am advocating or described, which I assume means I did not communicate it well. So to reiterate for better understanding:

yes and no... you want to talk only about when it works and not when it doesn't

The style of in play interaction I prefer, in order to promote immersion, is to have players tell me what their characters are doing in the fiction, and for me to respond also in the fiction unless some sort of die roll is needed. If we all do this, the game continues to flow easily and we get the benefits of an immersive experience.

okay, and you get to a point where a player says "Can I make a perception check?" and what do you do? It isn't your prefered way but the player said it... now what? do you translate in your mind what you know him/her to mean and go with it, or do you make them rephrase it?

I am not suggesting that you, personally, change the way you have been doing things with your group for the last 25 years. Nor am I suggesting that this is in any way the right way to play D&D. I was just expressing a preference for discussion, seeing as how we are on a discussion board.

where I agree that you can play as you want (and in my almost 30 years I have played like you are now...just not anymore) I take umbridge with the fact that you seem to not understand why someone can see a flaw in your method.

 

[Reynard]

yes and no... you want to talk only about when it works and not when it doesn't

Under what circumstances doesn't it work?

okay, and you get to a point where a player says "Can I make a perception check?" and what do you do? It isn't your prefered way but the player said it... now what? do you translate in your mind what you know him/her to mean and go with it, or do you make them rephrase it?

I ask for clarification, mostly as a prompt to get them to play in character rather than in character sheet.
"I* want to make a perception check."
"okay, what are you* doing?"
"Umm, listening? Shushing everyone else?"
"Good. You listen ::dice clatter behind my screen:: and hear only the strains and groans of the old structure."

where I agree that you can play as you want (and in my almost 30 years I have played like you are now...just not anymore) I take umbridge with the fact that you seem to not understand why someone can see a flaw in your method.

I haven't figured out where the flaw is other than you saying sometimes people don't want to play that way, which is just one of those table things you dealPRINGLE.

EDIT: *I don't care whether players speak in the 3rd person or 1st, or if they use funny voices or paraphrase.

 

[HammerMan]

Under what circumstances doesn't it work?

here we go: as below.

I ask for clarification, mostly as a prompt to get them to play in character rather than in character sheet.

so you stop game (immersion break 1) ask them to redeclair even though you understood (immersion break 2) then 'teach them' the right words to use at your table (immersion break 3)

"I* want to make a perception check."
"okay, what are you* doing?"

"um, use context, why are you asking?"

"Umm, listening? Shushing everyone else?"
"Good. You listen ::dice clatter behind my screen:: and hear only the strains and groans of the old structure."

I haven't figured out where the flaw is other than you saying sometimes people don't want to play that way, which is just one of those table things you deal with.

the problem isn't even if someone doesn't want to (I dont) the problem is when they miss speak. when 1 phrase comes out wrong, and even if you know what they mean, you have to stop to correct the wording.

I am not saying you never have to ask wht they mean or why they want to do something... it happens. But I would say 90+% of the time you can peace it togather quicker than you can stop game and ask. In those moments you have hit a snag... and if your players use your way 80% of the time (a low ball I am sure you will pretend it is 100%) and of that 20% that they down (high ball estimate) and 90% of that time you know what they mean but stop anyway... that leaves 2% of the time you have to stop to ask lke you are...

However instead of saying "My way works most times but when it doesn't we can breeze through it more often then not" when your way stops you stop game to play a word game where the player must redeclare even if you know what they want.

 

[HammerMan]

Under what circumstances doesn't it work?

I ask for clarification, mostly as a prompt to get them to play in character rather than in character sheet.
"I* want to make a perception check."
"okay, what are you* doing?"
"Umm, listening? Shushing everyone else?"
"Good. You listen ::dice clatter behind my screen:: and hear only the strains and groans of the old structure."

and if you are describing a room and know there is an odd sound, and the PC shushes everyone then looks at you and says "Can I make a Perception check?" then you know it is listening. You know what they want.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So "meaningful" is just a statement that words have definitions. Again, I note the irony that to preserve the construction of "meaningful" you're busily diluting the concept to one that is largely meaningless. A blue cloak is meaningful because blue means blue. And things matter because if they are said then they matter. How do we know they matter? They were said, so they must. Again, circles.

Again it seems that initial conception needs 'teeth'. 'meaningful' cannot simply be left as some nebulous concept that floats out there doing no work. It must produce some concrete effect in the process of play of the game, somehow. We need to be able to distinguish what is meaningful and non-meaningful, and we must have some instruction as to how to handle each one.

In the end I don't think this whole approach of the OP gets you anywhere. It was a reaction to the whole question in another thread about when checks should be called for in a game, and then the consequent follow-on debate about whether not it makes sense to make people roll dice when nothing, fictionally, is really at stake.

I don't even see how '5e*' resolves that at all, which probably means I'm agreeing with you, lol. Its hard to tell at this point, my mind has been fuddled with too much rhetoric.

So this is my contribution: If you want only 'meaningful' stuff happening, then define it. My personal definition is "things which address the dramatic considerations attendant on the player's depictions of their characters, and what follows from them." I haven't subjected this statement to any deep analysis, so I'm sure it can be picked apart, or refined. The point is, if no real substantive difference will exist in the fiction, and if nothing inherent to the action bears on characterization, then its not really meaningful.

The Rogue goes to the bar and plays cards with his buddies. Does it matter if he wins or loses? I don't think so. His buddies will still be his buddies tomorrow, even if he takes a bit of their coin. Now, if he has some sort of goal or plan, or there's some kind of fictional point hinging on what happens in this card game, OK, then play it out. More than that, if the PC risks some significant stakes, sure, dice for it! Significant in my mind is a bit more than "he might be broke tomorrow" though, unless that will produce some really different narrative. Even then, if its just set up for something, it doesn't really need to be played out in detail. "You diced with your buddies last night, and you lost your last 100gp. You're feeling a bit hungry now, and this guy is offering you some coin to do a job for him. He's an unsavory fellow and the work goes against your better instincts (describe it here) but you DO need the coin..."

 

[Ovinomancer]

Again it seems that initial conception needs 'teeth'. 'meaningful' cannot simply be left as some nebulous concept that floats out there doing no work. It must produce some concrete effect in the process of play of the game, somehow. We need to be able to distinguish what is meaningful and non-meaningful, and we must have some instruction as to how to handle each one.

In the end I don't think this whole approach of the OP gets you anywhere. It was a reaction to the whole question in another thread about when checks should be called for in a game, and then the consequent follow-on debate about whether not it makes sense to make people roll dice when nothing, fictionally, is really at stake.

I don't even see how '5e*' resolves that at all, which probably means I'm agreeing with you, lol. Its hard to tell at this point, my mind has been fuddled with too much rhetoric.

So this is my contribution: If you want only 'meaningful' stuff happening, then define it. My personal definition is "things which address the dramatic considerations attendant on the player's depictions of their characters, and what follows from them." I haven't subjected this statement to any deep analysis, so I'm sure it can be picked apart, or refined. The point is, if no real substantive difference will exist in the fiction, and if nothing inherent to the action bears on characterization, then its not really meaningful.

The Rogue goes to the bar and plays cards with his buddies. Does it matter if he wins or loses? I don't think so. His buddies will still be his buddies tomorrow, even if he takes a bit of their coin. Now, if he has some sort of goal or plan, or there's some kind of fictional point hinging on what happens in this card game, OK, then play it out. More than that, if the PC risks some significant stakes, sure, dice for it! Significant in my mind is a bit more than "he might be broke tomorrow" though, unless that will produce some really different narrative. Even then, if its just set up for something, it doesn't really need to be played out in detail. "You diced with your buddies last night, and you lost your last 100gp. You're feeling a bit hungry now, and this guy is offering you some coin to do a job for him. He's an unsavory fellow and the work goes against your better instincts (describe it here) but you DO need the coin..."

To clarify, it was a reaction to the statement that some mechanical resolutions in 5e (and, in fact, in almost all RPGs) do not create required fiction from those resolutions. The example that started this was hp loss in combat -- unless the hp drops to 0, there's no required fictional change by the resolution process. This then moved to looking at ability checks, and it was pointed out that "no progress" which is no change to the fictional state was available. This then grabbed the line in the DMG about only calling for check if there were meaningful consequences, so this paired with the basic play loop from pg 6 of the PHB actually requires that there be a fictional state change, a meaningful change to the fiction, as the outcome of any player/GM interaction but especially ability checks. Again, it was pointed out that no progress is a clearly intended outcome of a failed ability check (PHB pg 174) (note, not the only possible, but absolutely intended to be an outcome). This was then agreed to, and the muddying of what "meaningful" means started. Ultimately, if we trace the argument back to the initial disagreement, then we need to be evaluating 5e* in terms of whether or not it's creating fictional state changes as an output. The claim that it follow RAW while doing so needs a large grain of salt, but discarding that and looking at how it might do this state change then, sure, you can mandate that all GM narration must create state changes in the fiction. The problem here is that this is now unmoored from the resolution engine in 5e -- there are cases that the engine doesn't create any change to the fiction that's discernable but we're mandated to make such a change. This is why I've advanced that any such changes are arbitrary and only the GM's whim -- there's not constrain or guidance for these changes other than "thou shalt make changes."

 

[Reynard]

here we go: as below.

so you stop game (immersion break 1) ask them to redeclair even though you understood (immersion break 2) then 'teach them' the right words to use at your table (immersion break 3)

"um, use context, why are you asking?"

the problem isn't even if someone doesn't want to (I dont) the problem is when they miss speak. when 1 phrase comes out wrong, and even if you know what they mean, you have to stop to correct the wording.

I am not saying you never have to ask wht they mean or why they want to do something... it happens. But I would say 90+% of the time you can peace it togather quicker than you can stop game and ask. In those moments you have hit a snag... and if your players use your way 80% of the time (a low ball I am sure you will pretend it is 100%) and of that 20% that they down (high ball estimate) and 90% of that time you know what they mean but stop anyway... that leaves 2% of the time you have to stop to ask lke you are...

However instead of saying "My way works most times but when it doesn't we can breeze through it more often then not" when your way stops you stop game to play a word game where the player must redeclare even if you know what they want.

I am not sure what to say other than you are inventing a worst case scenario set of circumstances just so you can be mad about something that that has literally no effect on your game at all. You are offended on behalf of imaginary players under imaginary circumstances. It's baffling.