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

[Ovinomancer]

Suppose [for the sake of argument] that there is no meaningful difference between hitting the stone giant for 1 hit point or for 2 hit points. In that case, such content alone cannot satisfy 5e*, but 5e* does not relax its requirements.

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.

For example, your stone giant example just above to @Oofta. The PC attacks and succeeds at their attack (I reiterate, the PC's action was successful) and yet the result because of the demand for a meaningful narration is that the player is disadvantaged by this success -- the stone giant is not acting outside the bounds of the understood game structure to push the PC because this is the arbitrary result the GM decided on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I actually find that word policing is MORE immersion breaking. We can stay in character more if we keep the flow.

I totally see this -- the way you approach play this is normal and works while trying to force a change on the players without a concurrent change to the GM is generally not going to work.

 

[Oofta]

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.

For example, your stone giant example just above to @Oofta. The PC attacks and succeeds at their attack (I reiterate, the PC's action was successful) and yet the result because of the demand for a meaningful narration is that the player is disadvantaged by this success -- the stone giant is not acting outside the bounds of the understood game structure to push the PC because this is the arbitrary result the GM decided on.

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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The only information here that the players can use is the coded passing of the relative state of the orc's hitpoint total. How that's described outside of passing that information is meaningless -- it does not create anything in the fiction the players can leverage.

So that whole bit about my passing on the idea of the gaping wound to the players which would then allow them to come up with the idea to use that narrative piece to drive how they might narratively interrogate the orc, and then I use their ideas of how the are interrogating the orc to determine whether the orc is more or less inclined to submit to them if/when I ask for an Intimidation roll (with or without any bonuses or Advantage/Disadvantage)... and then the orc's reaction and what he's willing to give up via the results of that die roll... none of that "counts" as "actionable" far as you are concerned?

Okay, well, you do you...

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Sure, this is an interesting question. Let's move it slightly and see what happens.

The player declares that their PCs is advancing on a foe. On the foe's turn, the foe successfully attacks the PC and inflicts damage, but only 2 hp. Does the player have an expectation that their declared fiction of "advancing" not means that the GM must narrate a benefit to the PC from this attack? Mind you, this benefit wouldn't be accounted for in the PC build options at all -- it's just the expectation that the prior narration and the fact that there's no required fiction from the damage result but 5e* requires meaningful description here?

Generally, when you make a modification to a monster using the 5e rules, it's 1) tied to existing mechanical structures such that it usually has some cost and 2) can adjust the CR of the creature, which feeds into encounter balance and design. As such, you can create a monster that pushes players after they take an action, but the only ways to do this via the rules are to institute an reaction ability or a legendary ability or a special feature of the monster. However, the moment we do this, we've decoupled the narration in the example from the "advancing" that was doing the work here, and we've made sure that the decision is planned as an intentional arrow -- now the mechanics are creating the narration, we aren't in the same spot of having to look for something to do because we can't make the hp loss difference meaningful.

 

[Reynard]

I actually find that word policing is MORE immersion breaking. We can stay in character more if we keep the flow.

"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).

 

[Ovinomancer]

So that whole bit about my passing on the idea of the gaping wound to the players which would then allow them to come up with the idea to use that narrative piece to drive how they might narratively interrogate the orc, and then I use their ideas of how the are interrogating the orc to determine whether the orc is more or less inclined to submit to them if/when I ask for an Intimidation roll (with or without any bonuses or Advantage/Disadvantage)... and then the orc's reaction and what he's willing to give up via the results of that die roll... none of that "counts" as "actionable" far as you are concerned?

Okay, well, you do you...

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.

 

[Ovinomancer]

"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).

No, he's right. In the style of play where players declare button press actions like "I rolled an X perception, what do I see," then forcing a change on the players for how they interact without any change in how the GM is running really is just word policing. The situation that's prompting the play isn't changing, expected the play to change absent that is just forcing things for no use.

 

[CleverNickName]

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."

 

[Cadence]

word games...

I am not interested in telling my friends (or my friends telling me) to use different words to relate the same ends.

a) Can I make a perception check
b) can I see anything

a) can I make an investigation check
b) can I search

a) can I hide
b) can I make a stealth check

all 3 have the same answers for A and B in my games...
Dm determines if they need to make a check or if they just give them the info... then relay the answer (and maybe result) to the player.

IF a DM regularly 'corrected' a player asking one way over the other I would get annoyed quickly and snap "You know what they mean"

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.