D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[AbdulAlhazred]

Now this is the pure distilled essence of D&D, right here. Brilliant stuff!

Oh, I agree, dungeon crawl play is where D&D entirely clicks. It really lacks of nothing in that milieu and the process of play is quite effective! I think Dave and Gary were quite capable of delivering on that game. It might not be the best foundation for 2e-esque "lets have a story" but heck, they were in pretty much uncharted waters. It was a great game.

 

[pemerton]

one place where I run aground on the story-game concept: it's hard to have a mystery, or secrets in/about the setting, if there's little or no hidden fiction; and a large part of play often revolves around discovering secrets and-or solving mysteries.

Given that nearly every poster that you interact with, who plays "story now" RPGs, is able to talk about the mysteries that have been parts of their RPGing, on what basis do you make this claim? I mean, it's not based on your own play experience, is it?

 

[pemerton]

Do you mean that the GM must ensure that no one ever states any fiction that is not meaningful? So eg they must dissuade or forbid players from narrating aspects of their PC's behaviour which does not generate gameplay consequences, like (typically) the colour of their cloaks, the height of their PCs (at least where that is unremarkable) or the calling out of insults to their foes in combat?

Or are you talking only about the GM's narration?

If the latter, are you saying that the GM must never state fiction that is mere colour without rightward arrows (eg perhaps describing constellations in the sky, or the colour of a NPC's eyes)? Or are you talking about the narration of consequences? Or are you saying that each framed scene must include at least one meaningful - as in, gameplay-relevant - element?

@clearstream, I take it from your other thread that the answer to my question in the second paragraph I've quoted is Yes - you are only talking about the GM's narration.

I still don't have a clear sense of your response to my third paragraph. Is the GM allowed to narrate things that are mere colour (eg constellations in the night sky, the colour of a NPC's eyes) even though that is not meaningful?

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream, I take it from your other thread that the answer to my question in the second paragraph I've quoted is Yes - you are only talking about the GM's narration.

I still don't have a clear sense of your response to my third paragraph. Is the GM allowed to narrate things that are mere colour (eg constellations in the night sky, the colour of a NPC's eyes) even though that is not meaningful?

In your mind, can players respond to colour as if it were meaningful?

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream, I take it from your other thread that the answer to my question in the second paragraph I've quoted is Yes - you are only talking about the GM's narration.

Yes, especially of results. There are only three instances of narrates in the PHB. All three are in the context of restatements of the basic pattern, albeit the first instance seems broader (what they experience) while the second and third seem narrower (results). There are no cases of narrate or narration.

 

[pemerton]

In your mind, can players respond to colour as if it were meaningful?

Well if it's meaningful then probably it's not mere colour.

But while the responses of participants are often mercurial, they're not always unknowable. The number of times I've come across descriptions of a NPC's appearance (clothing, hair colour, etc) - typically in module descriptions intended to be conveyed by the GM to the players - far, far outstrips the number of times that has mattered, in the sense of actually serving as an input into action declaration.

It seems to me that that sort of colour has two main purposes, that I think are related: to reinforce the sense of "reality" or vibrancy of the shared fiction; and to give the players something relatively concrete to support their knowledge of the fiction and to remember who is who (eg "The guy in the cape" or "The tall one").

As well as the appearances of NPCs, I think at least some descriptions of geography and architecture and "scenery" generally serve the same purpose. Not in a relatively classic dungeon crawl, but in at least some contexts of the PCs travelling through the outdoors and/or urban areas. One town might be known as the one with a particularly distinctive tower on its wall; and inn becomes known for its striking name; etc.

To use Baker's terminology, this sort of fiction does not generate rightward arrows and is not the product of leftward arrows. In your framework, if I've understood it right, this sort of stuff is not a F that '>'s to a G. It's just for fun, and to facilitate one another talking about these different fictional elements.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, especially of results.

OK, that is one of the things I asked upthread.

There are only three instances of narrates in the PHB. All three are in the context of restatements of the basic pattern, albeit the first instance seems broader (what they experience) while the second and third seem narrower (results). There are no cases of narrate or narration.

Well, if the verb narrates occurs then can't we safely nominalise and refer to the narration being performed by the subject of that verb?

And we can move from "narrates" to "narrate" fairly easily, too, can't we? I mean, if the book, instead of saying the DM narrates said DM, at this phase of play you narrate we might judge it to be written better or worse, but the content of the instructions wouldn't change.

Anyway, on page 2 of the Basic PDF there is this:

The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore. The DM might describe the entrance to Castle Ravenloft, and the players decide what they want their adventurers to do. Will they walk across the dangerously weathered drawbridge? Tie themselves together with rope to minimize the chance that someone will fall if the drawbridge gives way? Or cast a spell to carry them over the chasm?​

​

Then the DM determines the results of the adventurers’ actions and narrates what they experience.​

Compare that to page 3:

The DM describes the environment. . . . The players describe what they want to do. . . . The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.​

To me, the most natural reading of those two passages together is that the page 2 the DM determines the results of the adventurers' actions corresponds to the page 3 the DM narrates the results of the adventurer's actions while the page 2 the DM . . . narrates what they experience corresponds to the page 3 bring[ing] the game right back to step 1 (ie a description of the new/changed/subsequent environment in which the PCs find themselves).

In other words, I don't think the rules text is hanging very much weight on the choice of the word narrate - just as on page 2 we are told the players decide what they want their PCs to do while on page 2 they describe that - where describe is basically a synonym for narrate!

I've got no objection to the idea that the GM should narrate meaningful consequences of action declarations much, perhaps most of the time. But I don't think that can be the sole narration the GM engages in, or even the bulk of it given the other demands on the GM to contribute to the shared fiction.

(And that's before we get to cubes-to-cubes stuff: if the GM narrates fiction to accompany the successful hit on the Orc, I don't think that is going to be meaningful to the players if they don't also know that hit point tallies are being properly maintained. You can't use the 5e D&D rules as written and declare combat actions for a PC with nothing but fictional accounts of Orcs reeling, parrying etc. The contrast with non-combat, which often can be engaged with fiction first, seems pretty stark to me.)

 

[clearstream]

Well if it's meaningful then probably it's not mere colour.

But while the responses of participants are often mercurial, they're not always unknowable. The number of times I've come across descriptions of a NPC's appearance (clothing, hair colour, etc) - typically in module descriptions intended to be conveyed by the GM to the players - far, far outstrips the number of times that has mattered, in the sense of actually serving as an input into action declaration.

I don't know that the module authors were playing 5e*.

It seems to me that that sort of colour has two main purposes, that I think are related: to reinforce the sense of "reality" or vibrancy of the shared fiction; and to give the players something relatively concrete to support their knowledge of the fiction and to remember who is who (eg "The guy in the cape" or "The tall one").

As well as the appearances of NPCs, I think at least some descriptions of geography and architecture and "scenery" generally serve the same purpose. Not in a relatively classic dungeon crawl, but in at least some contexts of the PCs travelling through the outdoors and/or urban areas. One town might be known as the one with a particularly distinctive tower on its wall; and inn becomes known for its striking name; etc.

I like "vibrancy" here. Bringing the world to life. Making here vividly different from there. The people in this forest distinguishable from the people in those mountains. Important work. For the sake of argument, let's suppose meaningful.

[Evoking feelings, too, I should have added!]

To use Baker's terminology, this sort of fiction does not generate rightward arrows and is not the product of leftward arrows. In your framework, if I've understood it right, this sort of stuff is not a F that '>'s to a G. It's just for fun, and to facilitate one another talking about these different fictional elements.

So meaningful can include in ways that form Baker arrows, and in ways that "reinforce the sense of 'reality' or vibrancy of the shared fiction; and to give the players something relatively concrete to support their knowledge of the fiction and to remember who is who."

I see that as being to do with how succesfully, well or powerfully we uphold the rule. When we best enforce the rule, in a strong way, we very often say things that map to Baker arrows. We can still uphold the rule in more modest ways, that bring the world to life etc. There is a rule in Chess (FIDE Laws of Chess) that the objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. One doesn't cease to be playing Chess, or fail to be doing ones best to follow that rule, just because one does so less successfully. The rule still has urgency and weight in generating and explaining the actions of Chess players.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In your mind, can players respond to colour as if it were meaningful?

I don't think it would be color in that case. However, I think there's such a thing as 'tone'. It has meaning to me. I would like to describe, in a general sense, the environment in a way that provides atmosphere. I mean, I suppose that could come from anyone at the table, in principle. I'd note that RPGs have always paid attention to it, more than probably people realize. Still, it isn't generally reflected in mechanics, because then it obviously becomes something more.

So, overall, I think it is more profitable to describe things in terms of AGENDA and PRINCIPLES than 'meaning'. If the fiction is in accord with the agenda of the participants, then the things in it will be appropriate, right? Who can say if something does or does not have meaning, that's a matter of interpretation.

 

[clearstream]

I don't think it would be color in that case. However, I think there's such a thing as 'tone'. It has meaning to me. I would like to describe, in a general sense, the environment in a way that provides atmosphere. I mean, I suppose that could come from anyone at the table, in principle. I'd note that RPGs have always paid attention to it, more than probably people realize. Still, it isn't generally reflected in mechanics, because then it obviously becomes something more.

So, overall, I think it is more profitable to describe things in terms of AGENDA and PRINCIPLES than 'meaning'. If the fiction is in accord with the agenda of the participants, then the things in it will be appropriate, right? Who can say if something does or does not have meaning, that's a matter of interpretation.

I'm starting to believe that meaning is best defined as something that is agreed to by the group, that is given form to in their conversation. What matters to them. I agree that agenda and principles are profitable (good word) in establishing and sustaining meaning.