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

[HammerMan]

"Word policing" suggests you don't think there is a functional difference, whereas I am sure there is. "I (the player) roll perception (a teait on my sheet)" is not the same as "I (the character) attempt to perceive." Just to be clear, I am not asserting superiority, just that there is a difference and I prefer the one that promotes immersion in the fiction (right now -- I have changed preferences in the past and will again).

there is no diffrence, it is table jargon.

back in 3e someone (I think Joe but I'm not even 100% sure who) started joking that having a high CHa high diplomacy skill was akin to magic... someone nick named it diplomancy. We all joked about it at and away from gaming table. If someone who was playing a high cha character said "diplomancy" and nothing else we all knew (we were in on the joke) even in the most tense serious moment what they meant was something akin to "I have a charismatic character can I smooth this over in game"

If I went to a store pick up game or a con I would expect "Diplomancy" would require some explanation... even now the joke rarely gets brought up at our tables.

At the table if tomorrow someone made up a new word or phrase "Goble Guble Gack" it would need us to stop and ask what they meant (maybe if they are having a stroke). However if over years of play "Goble Guble Gack" was always explained as "I cast magic missle" then yeah it may slow us a few times, but we would catch on... at which point "Goble Guble Gack" becomes a stated action...

I use that crazy becuse we also shorten "I cast fireball" or "Antra casts Fireball" often to "Fireball"
heck we just defualt to if the DM can see a way to cast it to catch no PCs we don't even ask for a placement, it is only when it looks hard or impossible to do that we go into where do you cast it....

this is why I call it word games. At the table that has been friends for years, in a campaign that has been going for X number of sessions, in a session that has lasted Y amount of time so far that night, there are lots of "It makes sense in context" that gets lost here.

 

[HammerMan]

Player, frustrated: "But I said Perception! I optimized this whole character build for Perception! Why can't you just let me roll for Perception!?"

DM, also frustrated: "Because your character is trying to climb a wall, Kevin."

We also joke about the time (I think 4e but maybe end of 3.5) that a player argued that studies show that exercise will increase blood flow and make you think clearer so he wanted to roll athletics to do push ups for insight...

 

[clearstream]

Where does arbitrary decision and creature design come in though? Some of the giants will knock people prone whether hit or not for example.

I wouldn't want to do it in a way that penalizes players, it just kind of depends on the style of game you play. If you have a game where the barbarian can shoulder tackle someone with sword out in front to combine a shove and attack with some sort of risk or penalty I could see it working. In a more RAW game, it's still just the DMs call to customize monsters as they see fit.

Both well-made points. In DMG 5 it provides this example to help guide DMs.

a player might want his or her character to hurl a brazier full of hot coals into a monster's face. How you determine the outcome of this action is up to you. You might tell the player to make a Strength check, while mentally setting the Difficulty Class (DC) at 15. If the Strength check is successful, you then determine how a face full of hot coals affects the monster. You might decide that it deals ld4 fire damage and imposes disadvantage on the monster's attack rolls until the end of its next turn.

On PHB 5, this guidance is offered.

Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected.

I weigh the words used here and elsewhere into my view that it 5e intends a DM to extemporise, including as to mechanical consequences.

 

[HammerMan]

I think for (a) and (b) in a lot of them I like some more specificity.

"That wall looks odd on the map I've been doing..."
"It feels like there should be someway to open the gate, maybe from the other side?..."
"I'm hoping the bags of flower could provide cover..."

and then either (a) or (b) sounds fine. Without them some of the (a)s and (b)s don't necessarily give me enough. And what they give me might change the DCs signficantly.

yeah again... at the table these things don't need to be spelled out most times (and if they do most times the players do) some times someone might be taken by such suprise that a DM can ask "Wait, why do you want to roll arcana?" but most times the context of the scene is enough.

 

[clearstream]

there is no diffrence, it is table jargon.

back in 3e someone (I think Joe but I'm not even 100% sure who) started joking that having a high CHa high diplomacy skill was akin to magic... someone nick named it diplomancy. We all joked about it at and away from gaming table. If someone who was playing a high cha character said "diplomancy" and nothing else we all knew (we were in on the joke) even in the most tense serious moment what they meant was something akin to "I have a charismatic character can I smooth this over in game"

If I went to a store pick up game or a con I would expect "Diplomancy" would require some explanation... even now the joke rarely gets brought up at our tables.

At the table if tomorrow someone made up a new word or phrase "Goble Guble Gack" it would need us to stop and ask what they meant (maybe if they are having a stroke). However if over years of play "Goble Guble Gack" was always explained as "I cast magic missle" then yeah it may slow us a few times, but we would catch on... at which point "Goble Guble Gack" becomes a stated action...

I use that crazy becuse we also shorten "I cast fireball" or "Antra casts Fireball" often to "Fireball"
heck we just defualt to if the DM can see a way to cast it to catch no PCs we don't even ask for a placement, it is only when it looks hard or impossible to do that we go into where do you cast it....

this is why I call it word games. At the table that has been friends for years, in a campaign that has been going for X number of sessions, in a session that has lasted Y amount of time so far that night, there are lots of "It makes sense in context" that gets lost here.

It could be put that 5e* is concerned for meaningful narrative, over the form it takes.

Relocating the dispute to one over goals, which each group decides for themselves. If it would break immersion to use jargon, then doing so is ruled out where the goal is immersion.

 

[HammerMan]

Relocating the dispute to one over goals, which each group decides for themselves. If it would break immersion to use jargon, then doing so is ruled out where the goal is immersion.

and if pretending you don't understand the jargon (assuming you understand it in context) just to get them to phrase the exact same thing another way IS immersion breaking and game stalling... or like I say "word games"

It's the Jeopardy answer word game.
If we are playing Jeopardy and you answer correctly but not in the form of a question you don't get the points, and someone else can buz in that didn't know, steal your correct answer and phrase it as a question, and get the points.

I don't want to word police like Jeopardy.

I get asking for a revised statement if you don't understand
I get asking for more information if you don't understand

I will never get that if you know what they want and how they want to do it why it matters how they say it.

 

[CleverNickName]

I always encourage my players to describe the action their characters wish to take, without using game mechanics. "Describe it in character," I will say. And for the most part, it goes well. But there is always that one player who tries to push his luck, carefully selecting his words in the hopes of guiding the mechanics to his favor.

DM: You stand before the cliff face, a rope ladder dangling from above.
Player: Huxley will grab the rope and start climbing up.
Player2: Clarion will wait until Huxley has reached the top, then start climbing as well.
That Guy: I will Perceive a path up the cliff face that doesn't require climbing!
DM: >_>
Player: <_<
Player2: <_<
That Guy: Ugh, fine, I guess I'll just fall to my death then! You guys know that I didn't optimize Athletics, why do you keep doing this to me!?

 

[clearstream]

Then 5e* is incoherent with the 5e system. 5e* demands meaningful narration where 5e generates none. This means that any meaningful narration is entirely arbitrary and based on the GM's whim. As such, it disrupts the players' ability to relate to the game in a coherent manner -- the players know 2 damage was applied, but they cannot guess what new outcome will result until the GM narrates it. As such, any attack (just to stick with this one thing) will always generate fiction that it unpredictable.

This gives weight to a view that the narration must be approached with in mind consistency. So we see that principles beyond what is only in RAW are being applied.

@pemerton said

I mean, there is so much narration in the typical back-and-forth of RPG play that I'm not sure how it could be required that it all be meaningful. The most tightly-focused RPG I know is Burning Wheel, and even it recognises that sometimes there will be narration that is not meaningful but is mere colour - hence why it deploys the principle of "say 'yes' or roll the dice",

This would relax the requirement of the rule, to something like - "wherever possible". Wherever possible, follow the rule. That would accord with a basic conception of rules, which is that a rule is anything that can be followed such that:

a) our having, grasp or use of it can play a role in generating and explaining our action.
b) our actions can accord or discord with it;

So to follow the rule - "narrate meaningfully" - wherever possible, would still be grasping and upholding the rule. It is not a rule that suggests it must be enforced in a way that is damaging to play. Drawing an analogy with say Stonetop, where a soft move is indicated without stating the exact contents of that move, enforcing the rule in some way that is damaging to the game - arbitrarily and whimsically - would not be following the rule. Even though it would be possible to enforce the rule in a way that was arbitrary and whimsical. Drawing attention again to principles beyond what is in each RAW.

as opposed to "never allow anything to be said that won't demand that the dice be rolled".

It's more, don't demand the dice be rolled unless there is something meaningful that might be said in consequence.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I had missed that, actually. That's reasonable. Is the intent when you described the wound to provide leverage for a possible interrogation attempt, or is this a post hoc rationalization of a possible chain of events that changes what's otherwise flavor into a useful bit of leverageable fiction? The problem in these discussions is quite often that an example is put forth with one intent, but when challenged a post hoc rationalization is applied to find a chain of events that might maintain it although not at all as it was originally presented.

Unlike the denoting of probable hit point totals by the description of the injuries the target is suffering (which you are correct, the description is usually purposeful coding in that regard)... other narration is not usually given with any purposeful indicators on my part of what the players could and should take from it and what they would then do with it. It's not my concern with what they do with the information given to them.

But that being said... we all work very well in standard improv technique-- the DM makes an Offer of information, the players listens to what was offered to them (either narratively or mechanically) and Accepts the information is true (the "Yes"), they process the offer of information and use it to create a new reaction and response (the "And..."), they Offer that response back to the DM, and hopefully the DM is listening too and Accepts or "Yes's" the returned offer and then "Ands..." it themselves.

And this all can happen organically without either side making Offers of information for which they already know or assume what the specific Accept is going to be. For the DM and hit points / saving throw responses it usually is... the DM makes an Offer of information that an attack barely hurt or hurt a lot, or that a wound started to burn with toxicity but the character was able to fight it off (a successful CON save versus poison for example)... but for other description there most likely isn't a specific assumption they expect the player to infer. It's just added flavor that the players can choose to Accept and run with, adding and offering back other flavor that might end up coloring the choices the DM makes on how to run any mechanics for the situation. It's really no different than the DM who has a negotiation scene with a player and decides in the moment that the player did a really good job in making their case and gives the player Advantage on their Persuasion check. The DM took the Offered information of the negotiation and Accepted it by formulating the response and giving a bonus to the connected mechanic.

 

[clearstream]

Unlike the denoting of probable hit point totals by the description of the injuries the target is suffering (which you are correct, the description is usually purposeful coding in that regard)... other narration is not usually given with any purposeful indicators on my part of what the players could and should take from it and what they would then do with it. It's not my concern with what they do with the information given to them.

But that being said... we all work very well in standard improv technique-- the DM makes an Offer of information, the players listens to what was offered to them (either narratively or mechanically) and Accepts the information is true (the "Yes"), they process the offer of information and us it to create a new reaction and response (the "And..."), they Offer that response back to the DM, and hopefully the DM is listening too and Accepts or "Yes's" the returned offer and then "Ands..." it themselves.

And this all can happen organically without either side making Offers of information for which they already know or assume what the specific Accept is going to be. For the DM and hit points / saving throw responses it usually is... the DM makes an Offer of information that an attack barely hurt or hurt a lot, or that a wound started to burn with toxicity but the character was able to fight it off (a successful CON save versus poison for example)... but for other description there most likely isn't a specific assumption they expect the player to infer. It's just added flavor that the players can choose to Accept and run with, adding and offering back other flavor that might end up coloring the choices the DM makes on how to run any mechanics for the situation. It's really no different than the DM who has a negotiation scene with a player and decides in the moment that the player did a really good job in making their case and gives the player Advantage on their Persuasion check. The DM took the Offered information of the negotiation and Accepted it by formulating the response and giving a bonus to the connected mechanic.

Building on what you say here, it seems tenuous or at least contingent to me to say that narrative that informs player actions, extends their concept of the world, or creates some feeling or other among them, is not meaningful. I don't see grounds for supposing that, that which matters can only be that which concretely or strictly delimits immediately subsequent actions. But something that I am puzzling over is this:

Game A. 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)."

Game B. Characters are fighting a stone giant with 126 HP. A hit deals 2 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)."

Is the possible meaning of A expunged because it is not differentiated on the matter of hit points from B, even if the rest of the narration follows and matters to subsequent fiction?