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

[clearstream]

...
Every time you use the word "must", you are saying that their is one and only one way something can or should be done. Also look at your use of the word "only" or "always". Start there.

Those "must"s are necessary. They do not assert that there is one right way to play 5e. They tell you what you must do to play 5e*.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Those "must"s are necessary. They do not assert that there is one right way to play 5e. They tell you what you must do to play 5e*.

But why would you play 5e* instead of 5e? It's not clear from the OP what the goal of this style of play is, if there is any.

 

[Cadence]

If this were raw/rai, I wonder if it would have made the original poster's life easier in another thread going on now, or if it.would have just forced them to deal with some other minutiae that would have been brought up in its place.

 

[Krachek]

This thread and the other are going on a hard debate on conceptual view of DnD.
The true meaning of meaningful.
The reality of the fiction in a fantasy game.
The impossible task of defining challenge in DnD.
The various levels of existence of a secret door.

 

[Oofta]

First, apologies if I misunderstood. I had brain fog all day yesterday, fortunately I'm feeling much better today.

I still have some thoughts on this (surprise, surprise). I think every DM, every group should find their own groove. That's why, to me, it came across as "this is the way to play", whether or not that was the intent. I mean, I get it. We all find a style that works for us, it works better then other group's we've been in for us and we want to share. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that too often it veers into "Thou Shalt" when it was just something that we personally were excited to share. Because we want everyone to enjoy the hobby, right?

So a bit more detail:

I want advocate an interpretation of 5e. Let's call the game played this way 5e*. To be playing 5e* a DM must ensure that "narrate" (PHB 6, How to Play) means "say something meaningful".

Usually true, but oftentimes meaningful is only a word or two. "Which way did the thief run?" Depending on the situation, it could be "left", in other cases it could be a more flowery description that helps set the mood and scene including the thief sliding under some horses pulling a carriage spooking them, the carriage smashing fruit stands chicken coops at the side of the street, general mayhem in the streets. Is one "better" than the other? Depends on the scenario.

Of course at my table you may also get some dumb sarcastic comment. But if anyone throws dice at me I get to keep them, so it's meaningful to me because, hey, free dice!

When it comes to ability checks they must prefer the plain rule about meaningful consequences (DMG 237 Using Ability Scores). When it comes to combat, they must narrate results in ways that are meaningful. They're expected to use their power as an author of fiction to achieve that ("Your blade barely scratches the orc... she winds her horn!")

First I disagree with the interpretation of meaningful consequences paragraph that people point to. Sometimes there's a meaningful meta game consequence of not calling for a roll. If a PC suspects an NPC is lying but doesn't get an insight check she'll know with absolute certainty that they are not lying. I think the text is misinterpreted. Even if it's not it's just one paragraph that IMHO is blown out of proportion.

Spoiler: The text in question

When a player wants to do something, it’s often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character’s ability scores. For example, a character doesn’t normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.​

​

When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:​

​

• Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
• Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?

People tend to skim over (or omit) the bolded part. I think it's obviously talking about how you don't want to bog the game down with simple things, not an edict on how to handle a situation where the player could reasonably expect a check.

Second, does the narration add value to the game. I had a fair amount of fluff and description to my combats, but there's a time and a place for it. Too much and it's just bogging down combat, too little and the combat may not be as engaging.

In a recent scenario the fighter was holding off an ogre and a warlord while everyone else was otherwise engaged. There was a decent amount of banter back and forth, with the Ogre being quite proud that he could count to 10 ("1, 2, more than 2, 10!") and the warlord offering the fighter a job because obviously he couldn't get good help while looking at the ogre. It was pretty touch and go for the fighter, I was rolling a lot of 20s. It was fun and engaging, but narrating every individual blow, or even most of them, would have been way too much.

It should go without saying, but DM says when game mechanics are engaged. DM sets up the scene - gets things rolling - and players say what their characters think, do and say (PHB 185 Roleplaying). DM says roll, or narrates what happens next. DM might turn it back on player - "That off-duty guard is totally on your side, do you want to let her spot you or just sneak past?"

This is simply a matter of expediency. I'm okay with a player saying "Insight check?" because in context I know what they're attempting. In the rare cases I don't I clarify. There's also some things like history checks that it would just be weird for me to ask someone how they're trying to remember something. A player saying "History check on [the McGuffin]" is just reminding me they're trained in history.

I'm even okay with the player saying "15 insight check?" because, again, it's just speeding up the game so we can get to the important stuff. It also depends on the player, I have a player that just has a really hard time expressing some actions, including things like diplomacy checks. I greatly prefer to act those things out, but sometimes they get frustrated and it's okay if they just describe how they're trying to convince the NPC in 3rd person. I'm not going to force my preference on a player.

5e* is a fully consistent game system. You play 5e* with the same rules as you play 5e. It's 100% RAI from RAW. None of the words are changed: only the interpretation of that one word - "narrate". It's always been on DM to make the game meaningful... make results matter: say something meaningful.

One impulse you might have to fight playing this way is to roll where there is uncertainty, even where it doesn't matter. Fight that impulse. If it doesn't matter, then if it's possible say "yes". If it's impossible - clarify. Only say "roll" when there are meaningful consequences.

Game consequences or meta game consequences? Again, I think the latter gets ignored or dismissed in these discussions. If the rogue is investigating the chest for a trap, it doesn't matter if there is a trap or not. In most cases an investigation check will be called for because until the PC find a trap or opens the chest it's Schrodinger's trap; there is both a trap and there is not a trap until proven otherwise.

Not bogging the game down with checks is important, but there are many ways of handling it.

It might be unclear what "meaningful" means. I think the term should be left vague. It's up to each group. I can say that it should mean something like "matters." In RPG, G is predefined and constrained. G can only go so far. RP is alive and limitless. Say something that follows from what players said, that matters to your shared fiction. Start and end with that fiction. The basic pattern - How to Play - is F --> G --> F. (Read PHB 6.) But 5e leaves it to you - the DM - to judge what follows, and what's meaningful.

You might hit points where your preestablished fiction (your NPCs and plots, your maps) doesn't do the work needed. Make up something meaningful that follows. Change stuff on the fly. The Middle Way is not the lukewarm way. It's the way of Ignoring the Dice when players get creative, and Rolling With It when you need "to improvise and react to a changing situation".

5e* isn't novel. Many are already playing something like it. If it makes a contribution, it might be that one word - "narrates". Don't say something meaningless.

There are many times when I open my mouth and meaningless babble comes out, whether I intend it or not, so "Don't say something meaningless" is a pretty tall order! But it also just depends on what I feel is meaningful. Was my ogre shouting "I count 10! I count 10!" as they rolled another critical hit meaningful? It got a laugh so I think it was. I can't imagine people purposely add unnecessary fluff.

So to me it just depends on the group, the DM, the encounter. Keep things moving, pacing and keeping the world fun and interactive is something we should all work at. Exactly how you do that at your table is going to vary.

 

[el-remmen]

Yeah, what is meaningful varies by group and by individual player/DM.

For example, I am the kind of DM that makes a point to describe the weather and the road conditions when traveling. I describe the landscape and give peeks at what can be seen in the distance as the party crests a hill or whatever. Some people find this stuff boring fluff I guess, but to me it is meaningful in terms of 1. immersion/verisimilitude, 2. giving the players a sense of the environment ("This hill gives a good view in all directions? Maybe we should camp here. . . "), and 3. potential tactical information/choices ("It has been raining all day? If I push this bandit can I get advantage because of the slick ground?" OR "We'd better avoid dashing down that hill, it might be very slick since it has been raining all day."

But of course, a hill can be just a hill, no combat may happen - I can't just narrate that stuff "when it matters" because despite being DM I can't necessarily know if it matters, and don't want narration to be a "tell."

Then again, I am the kind of DM who likes describing the food at feasts and the styles of clothes of fashionable nobles, which might have less actionable results, but still provides context for being in a world. And for me, "being in a world" is a higher priority in playing D&D than some kind of streamlined story.

Lastly, the players have nearly as much ability to make something meaningful in their reaction as I do as a DM describing it.

 

[Reynard]

They way I read it, the OP is saying that the narration needs to be actionable. But I have a hard time thinking of narration that wouldn't be actionable. I mean, as DM I could just say "after you open the door, you can see beyond it. The players can then ask "what do I see beyond it." But the OP seems to be arguing that they shouldn't say "I roll perception to see what is beyond the now open door."

I'm coming in late so maybe I missed it, but isn't this the way 5E runs anyway?
DM: Says what the players perceive.
Players: Say what they want to do.
DM: Tells them what happens OR asks for clarity OR asks for a die roll.
Repeat

What precisely is different with 5E*?

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, what is meaningful varies by group and by individual player/DM.

Which @clearstream pointedly said in the opening post.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm coming in late so maybe I missed it, but isn't this the way 5E runs anyway?
DM: Says what the players perceive.
Players: Say what they want to do.
DM: Tells them what happens OR asks for clarity OR asks for a die roll.
Repeat

What precisely is different with 5E*?

I believe the intent is that in 5e* the DM must make a conscious effort to insure that when they say what the players perceive and tell the players what happens, they say something meaningful (by whatever definition of “meaningful” the group decides), whereas in 5e the DM might or might not do so.

 

[Reynard]

I believe the intent is that in 5e* the DM must make a conscious effort to insure that when they say what the players perceive and tell the players what happens, they say something meaningful (by whatever definition of “meaningful” the group decides), whereas in 5e the DM might or might not do so.

I can't think of a single example where the DM's narration would be "meaningless." It feels like a reaction to a specific set of personal experiences we aren't privy to.