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

[TheSword]

You seem to have missed the point, The second example was the one that wasn't meaningful. The one you are referring to I never claimed wasn't meaningful, I claimed it wasn't actionable.

You only gave one example that I saw.

You can respond to partial information. Unless you are using ‘actionable’ to mean something different to ‘something you can respond to’ in which case you’ve totally lost me.

 

[TheSword]

A case based on one that was raised by another poster in a different thread, is this.

Characters are fighting a stone giant with 126 HP. A hit deals 1 HP. The DM narrates "Your hit deals 1 HP".

1) Is this case realistic? Could it come up in play?
2) How is the narration here meaningful?

1. It could come up in play, but usually as a result of unusual attacks - single dice cantrips, falling 10ft, ongoing fire damage etc. there aren’t many attacks in 5e that do a single dice roll without any modifier, and therefore have a chance to roll a 1.

2. It is meaningful in so far as it is telling the PC what has happened as a result of their action. It is a success, albeit a minor one, and should be reported as such. If you don’t tell the PC’s the result of their action either in mechanical or oblique then you’re not fulfilling your responsibility as DM. It’s like not telling them if their charm spell works, or if they successfully intimidate a foe. PCs should be able to know if what they do succeeds.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is a reoccurring communication issue for me on these forums. When you read “outside the RAW,” you took it to mean “the RAW contradicts it,” where I had intended for it to mean “the RAW doesn’t directly support it.” Or, since a lot of folks seem to take issue with the way I use the word support in the context of discussing the RAW, perhaps “the RAW doesn’t directly instruct the DM to do it” would be more acceptable phrasing.

I think in previous editions of D&D , from 2e to 4e at least, that usage of “the RAW” is perfectly in step with how the game views its own rules text. In 5e, though, I think it is perhaps more “accurate”, or maybe simply more easily understood, to use it as you’ve assigned to me.

Either way, I don’t think what he proposes goes against the spirit of the rules, which is surely more important?

Well, @clearstream pretty specifically says that the definition of “meaningful” should be left up to the group to decide. So, it seems to me like what they’re really trying to do is get DMs thinking more consciously about the meaning their narration communicates. What you consider meaningful may be different than what I consider meaningful, but both of our games might be improved by us being more intentional about conveying meaning (whatever we consider that to mean) through our narration.

In general perhaps, but as a rule? I think no. Unless we define “meaningful” to cover so much ground as to be meaningless, I don’t agree that DMs should feel compelled to make moments meaningful as an end in itself.

Is it meaningful when Samwise sings his silly song about a troll and a man named Tom? I can’t imagine any usual definition of the term that would lead us to conclude that this scene is meaningful, but would dearly miss such scenes, if they were removed. And if they were kept, but each made meaningful out of some sense that every scene should be so, I think the work would quickly become tiresome and dull.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Il even cast a wider net: can anyone participating in this thread provide an example of meaningless narration by the GM in a situation that would actually occur in play?

Yup, it was the actual impetus for this thread, really.

In combat, when you deal hp damage to a foe that is not sufficient to kill it, any description of said hp loss it ultimately meaningless -- it can be described in such myriad ways as to render any fictional value to it meaningless. The only value is the current number of hp remaining, which is not usually part of the "narration" of a result (I've argued it should be, but the OP disagreed that such mechanical information is sufficient to qualify as "narration" with regard to PHB pg 6 procedures).

To give an example, if you attack a goblin with a longsword and do 5 damage to it (goblins have an average of 7 hp, and this particular goblin is average), the required fiction for this event is none. There is no required fiction here. I can describe this event using the same fiction that I can describe a miss -- "the goblin throws themselves to the side at the last minute with a desperate dodge!" Because any narration is going to be totally arbitrary, there's no "meaningful" narration to be had here. The only value that can be given is the remaining hp level of the goblin, or fiction that has been indexed to that in a way agreed to by all players such that the narration is just coded game information, like say, "the goblin looks really bad." How? There's no requirement for this, it's an arbitrary description by the GM to pass coded game info instead of saying, "the goblin has 2 hp left." In the game, though, the goblin suffers absolutely no constraints based on any given narration. It doesn't affect what the goblin can do or how it's resolved.

For the above, there are absolutely mechanics that do requires constrained fiction and specific narration. The case provided does not, so let's not wander off the example by changing the particulars so it's an example of something else.

To make a different example of the above, let's say that the goblin, after taking the damage, is described by the GM as "reeling" from the blow. This is an attempt to code information about the hp, but it's also a great example of how this narration is meaningless in the actual fiction (ie, not just passing coded mechanic information). There's absolutely no action that the PCs can take to leverage the goblin reeling. If the goblin happens to be next in the initiative order, they instantly recover from this "reeling" for no cost. If someone else goes, there's no action declaration they can make that can leverage the "reeling" the goblin to doing for any advantage (mechanical or not) or action not available otherwise. The description of the goblin "reeling" is passing no fictional information or change other than if "reeling" is an established table code for "low on hp."

And to address why I say established table code, there's no narration defined for what low on hp looks like. Having 1 hp or 100 hp has no attached fictional meaning in the game. If my max hp is 1 and I have 1 hp, what does this look like (as in defined by the game)? If my max is 100 hp and I have 99, what does that look like? Any description here is arbitrary, and the description isn't doing any work in the game (outside of entertainment value for the table). The only work that can be done here is the work that is done by any shared coding for relative health. Look at the goblin example again. Max hp 7, current hp 2, so roughly that goblin is 3/4 of the way down from max hp. But look at a dragon, with 200 hp. The same fraction would be 50 hp left. The goblin is pretty much toast to any blow (the vast majority of which will carry at least a +1 damage bonus and so drop the hp total to 0), but is only 3/4 of the way down. No simple weapon blow will kill the dragon (maybe a paladin smite on a crit with good rolls, but that's a smite), but it's at the same percentage of health the goblin is. The descriptions of these states will often vary, but in doing so they're not being consistent. What they're doing here is passing that coded information that says what level of effort might be still left to reduce the hp total to 0.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That example is meaningful, it means with an average roll, there character cannot see signs of lying. That mean the player now knows the individual is either telling the truth or a better than average liar. That gives them additional information on which to decide how to interact with that NPC.

Okay, help me here. Prior to the roll, the PC/player is unsure if the NPC is telling the truth or lying. After the roll, the player the PC/player is unsure if the NPC is telling the truth or lying. The only information here is that gained not from the narration, but the mechanical result of the d20. If the GM makes the check behind the screen (something 5e allows as an option), then there's no information at all in this narration -- it's a null result.

 

[Reynard]

Yup, it was the actual impetus for this thread, really.

In combat, when you deal hp damage to a foe that is not sufficient to kill it, any description of said hp loss it ultimately meaningless -- it can be described in such myriad ways as to render any fictional value to it meaningless. The only value is the current number of hp remaining, which is not usually part of the "narration" of a result (I've argued it should be, but the OP disagreed that such mechanical information is sufficient to qualify as "narration" with regard to PHB pg 6 procedures).

To give an example, if you attack a goblin with a longsword and do 5 damage to it (goblins have an average of 7 hp, and this particular goblin is average), the required fiction for this event is none. There is no required fiction here. I can describe this event using the same fiction that I can describe a miss -- "the goblin throws themselves to the side at the last minute with a desperate dodge!" Because any narration is going to be totally arbitrary, there's no "meaningful" narration to be had here. The only value that can be given is the remaining hp level of the goblin, or fiction that has been indexed to that in a way agreed to by all players such that the narration is just coded game information, like say, "the goblin looks really bad." How? There's no requirement for this, it's an arbitrary description by the GM to pass coded game info instead of saying, "the goblin has 2 hp left." In the game, though, the goblin suffers absolutely no constraints based on any given narration. It doesn't affect what the goblin can do or how it's resolved.

For the above, there are absolutely mechanics that do requires constrained fiction and specific narration. The case provided does not, so let's not wander off the example by changing the particulars so it's an example of something else.

To make a different example of the above, let's say that the goblin, after taking the damage, is described by the GM as "reeling" from the blow. This is an attempt to code information about the hp, but it's also a great example of how this narration is meaningless in the actual fiction (ie, not just passing coded mechanic information). There's absolutely no action that the PCs can take to leverage the goblin reeling. If the goblin happens to be next in the initiative order, they instantly recover from this "reeling" for no cost. If someone else goes, there's no action declaration they can make that can leverage the "reeling" the goblin to doing for any advantage (mechanical or not) or action not available otherwise. The description of the goblin "reeling" is passing no fictional information or change other than if "reeling" is an established table code for "low on hp."

And to address why I say established table code, there's no narration defined for what low on hp looks like. Having 1 hp or 100 hp has no attached fictional meaning in the game. If my max hp is 1 and I have 1 hp, what does this look like (as in defined by the game)? If my max is 100 hp and I have 99, what does that look like? Any description here is arbitrary, and the description isn't doing any work in the game (outside of entertainment value for the table). The only work that can be done here is the work that is done by any shared coding for relative health. Look at the goblin example again. Max hp 7, current hp 2, so roughly that goblin is 3/4 of the way down from max hp. But look at a dragon, with 200 hp. The same fraction would be 50 hp left. The goblin is pretty much toast to any blow (the vast majority of which will carry at least a +1 damage bonus and so drop the hp total to 0), but is only 3/4 of the way down. No simple weapon blow will kill the dragon (maybe a paladin smite on a crit with good rolls, but that's a smite), but it's at the same percentage of health the goblin is. The descriptions of these states will often vary, but in doing so they're not being consistent. What they're doing here is passing that coded information that says what level of effort might be still left to reduce the hp total to 0.

Arbitrary isn't the same as meaningless. That said, I agree that the damage system for D&D does not code in a way that any particular amount matters. So in that sense I concede that "the goblin takes 3 points of damage" is meaningless. However, "the goblin takes 22 points of damage" is NOT meaningless because of the context of what the expectation of how much damage a goblin can take is. Similarly, if the PC hits the goblin for 22 points of damage and the DM narrates "you slice the goblin and it snarls and redoubled its attack" that is meaningful in the same way.

Moreover, isn't the definition of "meaningful" based on intent. If I am GMing and I use particular language to code for relative levels on injury, that is inherently meaningful even if the system doesn't give my statement inherent meaning AND even if the players don't recognize my intended meaning.

But for the sake of argument let's say I agree. Now what? Does the rule mean I don't proffer a description, or does it require me to tell the players how many hit points the goblin has (which I don't and won't do)?

Relatedly, I don't think reporting pure system information counts as narration in the first place.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Arbitrary isn't the same as meaningless. That said, I agree that the damage system for D&D does not code in a way that any particular amount matters. So in that sense I concede that "the goblin takes 3 points of damage" is meaningless. However, "the goblin takes 22 points of damage" is NOT meaningless because of the context of what the expectation of how much damage a goblin can take is. Similarly, if the PC hits the goblin for 22 points of damage and the DM narrates "you slice the goblin and it snarls and redoubled its attack" that is meaningful in the same way.

Moreover, isn't the definition of "meaningful" based on intent. If I am GMing and I use particular language to code for relative levels on injury, that is inherently meaningful even if the system doesn't give my statement inherent meaning AND even if the players don't recognize my intended meaning.

But for the sake of argument let's say I agree. Now what? Does the rule mean I don't proffer a description, or does it require me to tell the players how many hit points the goblin has (which I don't and won't do)?

Relatedly, I don't think reporting pure system information counts as narration in the first place.

You've changed the example.

I'm not advocating for the OP's position at all. In the other thread, I'm having a disagreement with the OP on how he applies this framework. I'm not at all convinced it's even a coherent approach to the rules (at least, some of their other responses don't seem to hold to the required thinking). The way that the OP says "meaningful" is to be defined by each table really robs this approach of any teeth, and seems more of a rhetorical tool to get the framework to be accepted because how the OP seems to be using "meaningful" is not generic at all. Personally, I have a great dislike of weasel words in things, and especially those that are intentionally meant that way, such as how "meaningful" is being used here. That's because the general result is that so much fits inside the box when the word is allowed to flop around, and this is claimed later as supportive of a more restrictive meaning. If you're going to present your own interpretation of the rules, why weasel? Say what you do!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

2. It is meaningful in so far as it is telling the PC what has happened as a result of their action. It is a success, albeit a minor one, and should be reported as such. If you don’t tell the PC’s the result of their action either in mechanical or oblique then you’re not fulfilling your responsibility as DM. It’s like not telling them if their charm spell works, or if they successfully intimidate a foe. PCs should be able to know if what they do succeeds.

“You do 1 damage.” is only meaningful in the broadest sense.

Perhaps the OP should clarify “meaningless in greater context than purely mechanical”?

 

[Hussar]

A case based on one that was raised by another poster in a different thread, is this.

Characters are fighting a stone giant with 126 HP. A hit deals 1 HP. The DM narrates "Your hit deals 1 HP".

1) Is this case realistic? Could it come up in play?
2) How is the narration here meaningful?

The narration here is immaterial. It's the whole "HP as Meat" argument with a funny pair of glasses. Nothing in D&D combat even remotely suggests any sort of narration other than living or dead.

I attack an opponent with a shield and miss by 1. Did I hit the shield or not? The rules are absolutely silent here and "you miss" is the only narration that is possible based on the facts.

And, frankly, this is true of virtually any rules interaction in the game. Unless the rules interaction comes with a direct narrative effect - you jump and jump forward 12 feet - virtually nothing in D&D actually even suggests a narration. I would argue that it's almost impossible to use the mechanics of D&D to come up with a coherent narration without bending over backwards to fill all the holes left by the mechanics.

Good grief, this was lauded as a feature of most editions of D&D because when the mechanics get directly tied to narrative, people lost their poop. Much of the hoopla and verbiage over 4e is a direct reaction to exactly what you are arguing for here. And because 5e has backed away so far from most of 4e's narrative approach, trying to leverage the DM to fill in the gaps is a fools errand.

In other words, if I can narrate some result in any fashion I see fit - such as a successful hit that does not drop an opponent, or a miss for that matter - and it makes absolutely no difference to the game, you cannot argue that narration is important.

 

[Charlaquin]

if you attack a goblin with a longsword and do 5 damage to it (goblins have an average of 7 hp, and this particular goblin is average), the required fiction for this event is none. There is no required fiction here.

Not quite correct. If you deal 5 damage to a 7 HP goblin, you have reduced the goblin below half its hit points, which according to the “describing the effects of damage” sidebar on PHB 197 means the goblin should be showing signs of wear such as cuts and bruises. If you had dealt 3 or fewer damage, the goblin would be showing no signs of injury. If you had done 7 or more damage, the goblin would be struck directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or simply knock the goblin unconscious.