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

[HammerMan]

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.

except YOU asked when it would break down... don't ask then pretend my answer is me picking on you...

You like it fine, it has benefits, it has draw backs, I dislike the word games

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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."

Right, so overall we agree, and I accept your point that 5e* cannot really be considered RAW 5e. My recollection is that @clearstream's answer to that was at least partially that "well, sometimes 'no progress' can be fictionally signficant" didn't feel super compelling to me. It does give him some cover though, in that he could then argue that these are the ONLY cases where the examples are meant to apply. Frankly I don't buy this analysis of the 5e text myself, I think the game is just plain incoherent and isn't trying to be! The whole of '5e*' then feels much like an attempt to rehabilitate the text and give it some sort of post-hoc consistency that was, IMHO, never intended.

Honestly whether '5e*' is thus colorable as 'RAW' or not at that point is not really a point I'm interested in anymore. Thus I feel more like the only profit is in trying to decide what CAN be attained in real world play. Whether Mike Mearls thinks how I play is RAW or not is not even faintly interesting to me, or to him AFAICT!

So, I stick to my contention WRT @clearstream that you can't get where he's trying to go without really creating a system that includes a definition of roles and responsibilities, and an agenda and principles, and a play loop that are all working together to produce a result. At best lacking some of those you CAN wing it, and some people will do so successfully I suppose. IMHO 5e is not the best platform for that though. I'm always a bit befuddled as to why people so often insist in inserting the square peg in the round hole... lol.

 

[Reynard]

except YOU asked when it would break down... don't ask then pretend my answer is me picking on you...

You like it fine, it has benefits, it has draw backs, I dislike the word games

But it doesn't break down. You just don't like it. Which is fine. You do you. But when you use terms like "word games" you are making a value judgment that shows you aren't actually trying to engage in a good faith discussion. But, really, it doesn't matter so have a nice day.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right, so overall we agree, and I accept your point that 5e* cannot really be considered RAW 5e. My recollection is that @clearstream's answer to that was at least partially that "well, sometimes 'no progress' can be fictionally signficant" didn't feel super compelling to me. It does give him some cover though, in that he could then argue that these are the ONLY cases where the examples are meant to apply. Frankly I don't buy this analysis of the 5e text myself, I think the game is just plain incoherent and isn't trying to be! The whole of '5e*' then feels much like an attempt to rehabilitate the text and give it some sort of post-hoc consistency that was, IMHO, never intended.

Honestly whether '5e*' is thus colorable as 'RAW' or not at that point is not really a point I'm interested in anymore. Thus I feel more like the only profit is in trying to decide what CAN be attained in real world play. Whether Mike Mearls thinks how I play is RAW or not is not even faintly interesting to me, or to him AFAICT!

So, I stick to my contention WRT @clearstream that you can't get where he's trying to go without really creating a system that includes a definition of roles and responsibilities, and an agenda and principles, and a play loop that are all working together to produce a result. At best lacking some of those you CAN wing it, and some people will do so successfully I suppose. IMHO 5e is not the best platform for that though. I'm always a bit befuddled as to why people so often insist in inserting the square peg in the round hole... lol.

The only reason I care about RAW arguments is that it's often just using that to claim shelter from any other analysis. IE, to look at and justify what's happening. Claims of RAW are used as sovereign against this.

 

[HammerMan]

But it doesn't break down.

i showed otherwise... you have to stop game go back to teach them to use words

You just don't like it.

no I don't but I like plenty of flawed things too

Which is fine. You do you. But when you use terms like "word games" you are making a value judgment that shows you aren't actually trying to engage in a good faith discussion. But, really, it doesn't matter so have a nice day.

I tried to engage in good faith and you wont listen to the cons to go with the pros... in my mind that shows you are not engaged at all

 

[Ovinomancer]

But it doesn't break down. You just don't like it. Which is fine. You do you. But when you use terms like "word games" you are making a value judgment that shows you aren't actually trying to engage in a good faith discussion. But, really, it doesn't matter so have a nice day.

Again, the argument isn't coming from a bad faith place, although it certainly can feel this way. It's more coming from a place of comfort and long tradition and not looking at the game from any other direction that how you've played it. If I were to run a game how @HammerMan does, I absolutely would allow players to use button push declarations -- it fits the approach to play. Both the players and the GM are used to this an feed off of each other - the GM is presenting the game in such a way that this kind of button press declaration is expected and good play -- it discovers things in play reliably. If you start with this framework, and don't have experience outside of it, then a suggestion that players have to more fully describe actions so they can be resolved but where the expectation is that the GM is presenting the same game as what their used to does absolutely feel like it's just playing semantics and word games and being annoying. The error here is that the GM isn't presenting the same game -- both sides have changes how they engage the game. And when you do that, it works and makes sense. But it's hard to see if you don't really know what that looks like, especially when you already have a coherent and comfortable approach to the game.

It's really the same problem you see between people that have no experience with story now play trying to understand it but not making the necessary adjustments to do so.

 

[Ovinomancer]

i showed otherwise... you have to stop game go back to teach them to use words

no I don't but I like plenty of flawed things too

I tried to engage in good faith and you wont listen to the cons to go with the pros... in my mind that shows you are not engaged at all

You might want to consider that what you're calling a con is not a con. I don't have to remind my players to tell me what their PCs do because they just do that and if I think it's needed I'll ask for a roll. The con you're pointing out here -- that you have to go back for clarification -- only exists because we started with what you do and are directing back to what we do. Typically, we don't get PC action declarations like what you do, so this step doesn't exist. Insisting that it does, and further that it's a con for play, would be like saying that a con for your mode of play would be if players said they were making a look roll and picked up percentile dice and told you their look was a 78. You'd have to correct this, yes, so it's a con for your mode of play because having to correct this breaks immersion to make sure the right method is used.

In reality, this isn't a con at all. It's teaching the game. The only way to consider it a con is if you, the player, think that pressing the button should be sufficient. This is a play approach mismatch and is an out-of-game issue to be resolved, not a con to the approach used. You, quite literally, are not playing the same game and need to get better aligned so that you are (or can't resolve it and need to part ways).

 

[HammerMan]

You might want to consider that what you're calling a con is not a con.

okay so why would stopping game to make someone rephrase something that you understood NOT be a con?

I don't have to remind my players to tell me what their PCs do because they just do that and if I think it's needed I'll ask for a roll.

nobody ever mis speaks? no one ever uses more natural language or short hand for anything?

The con you're pointing out here -- that you have to go back for clarification -- only exists because we started with what you do and are directing back to what we do.

I have played both ways (both have pros on cons) I can't believe that you have NEVER had to go back to remind someone to phrase the action differently

Typically, we don't get PC action declarations like what you do, so this step doesn't exist.

so a PC want to use there supernaturally good elf senses to notice something (sound, smell, taste, touch, sight) and wants to use perception skill they trained and expertise in... so they have to phrase it the right way or else you will stop them (not for not understanding becuse remember this example is you understand what they want).

Insisting that it does, and further that it's a con for play, would be like saying that a con for your mode of play would be if players said they were making a look roll and picked up percentile dice and told you their look was a 78. You'd have to correct this, yes, so it's a con for your mode of play because having to correct this breaks immersion to make sure the right method is used.

well that is not a con when compaired to your way becuse it is the same break down.
the pro/con thing only works if it effects one but not the other.
both will have some small % time where the action will not make sense to the DM... even
both will have alot of times where the action will make perfect sense, but if in one you phrase it wrong it can trggure a replay were in the other you just keep going...

nothing stops someone in my games from giving descriptions (we often do) we just dont require it...

In reality, this isn't a con at all. It's teaching the game.

except it is teaching the word game within the game... Jeopardy saying "Phrase your answer in the form of a question"

The only way to consider it a con is if you, the player, think that pressing the button should be sufficient.

I still don't get the button thing really... I am declairing what I want and how I want to do it. I am communicating that desire to the DM in a way you don't like. In YOUR mind it would be a 'wrong'

This is a play approach mismatch and is an out-of-game issue to be resolved, not a con to the approach used. You, quite literally, are not playing the same game and need to get better aligned so that you are (or can't resolve it and need to part ways).

 

[Ovinomancer]

okay

is it? I'm not sure. I think that you need to provide a lot more context for this word it doesn't work here.

so

So? So what? I mean, so?

why

Because? Why what? Your using of these ideas doesn't make sense when broken down to their components.

w

Now you're just being silly!

o

This is one of my favorite vowels. The others being a, e, and i.

u

DOH! I forgot u. Another favorite vowel. Good call!

l

I'm not sure what I should do with this. It doesn't make a bit of sense to play D&D with 'l' alone.

d

Not a bad key, but you can play D&D in other keys as well.

stopping

Why are you stopping? This is an odd thing to do right in the middle of a good discussion! We're really breaking things down here!

game

Sure, I'll play, what game?

to

To where. Did you mean too? Or two?

make

I like to make things, like D&D games. I think we're in good agreement here.

someone

Or anyone, really. I don't see the need to be picky.

rephrase

Okay, I thought I did. Let's see, not someone, or anyone, maybe any person?

something

Or anything?

that

This, maybe? Not sure what that you're talking about.

you

Me. Me, me, me. I thought Hugo Weaving did a good job, but the movie was lacking.

understood

Yes.

NOT

Ooh, why so negative? Or is it why so negationitive? Not a word.

be

Or not to be, that is the question!

a

I also like the indefinite article, it's a good one.

con?

No thank you, I do not currently want a con.

Honestly, this is tiring, I might get back to the rest of your point later.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

okay so why would stopping game to make someone rephrase something that you understood NOT be a con?

Well, first of all, it happens rarely, so do we really need to dwell on it? And is it actually a negative? If you say "I make a perception check" when describing entering a room, is it a bad thing if the GM expands on that, and you start playing in a new way that might even be more enjoyable? I'm not saying you DO want to play that way of course, but it cannot hurt people to try it. Nor is it necessarily any more onerous than your way. That is, if I say "I smell the air and look around" and you say "make perception check" is it really more problematic than if YOU say "I make a perception check" and the GM asks "Are you sniffing the air?" I don't think there's much difference IME.

nobody ever mis speaks? no one ever uses more natural language or short hand for anything?

I have played both ways (both have pros on cons) I can't believe that you have NEVER had to go back to remind someone to phrase the action differently

so a PC want to use there supernaturally good elf senses to notice something (sound, smell, taste, touch, sight) and wants to use perception skill they trained and expertise in... so they have to phrase it the right way or else you will stop them (not for not understanding becuse remember this example is you understand what they want).

Frankly, since my approach to play is generally a story now kind of approach, at least in my case, the game won't even work unless they describe what they did, because they are going to TELL ME what transpired. I might add in my part or provide some initial framing that their answer is built in respect of, but I'm only one of the authors of fiction here, and there's no right or wrong answer to what they found, generally speaking.

well that is not a con when compaired to your way becuse it is the same break down.
the pro/con thing only works if it effects one but not the other.
both will have some small % time where the action will not make sense to the DM... even
both will have alot of times where the action will make perfect sense, but if in one you phrase it wrong it can trggure a replay were in the other you just keep going...

nothing stops someone in my games from giving descriptions (we often do) we just dont require it...

except it is teaching the word game within the game... Jeopardy saying "Phrase your answer in the form of a question"

I still don't get the button thing really... I am declairing what I want and how I want to do it. I am communicating that desire to the DM in a way you don't like. In YOUR mind it would be a 'wrong'

There's no accounting for taste, that is all. I mean, I'm not really at all opposed to players stating that they want to use a skill or whatever, though it might now and then turn out it isn't how things end up transpiring. Other people are bothered by it. Maybe I might hint as to what I think is the preferred approach, say if I'm playing with someone that I haven't played with before, especially if they are new to RPGs.

Frankly I doubt either you nor @Reynard are actually all that up tight about it in real world play.