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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I didn't really get my point across well, and my apologies. If narration is made with the idea that it might be useful, then it's not meaningful in the moment -- I can only tell if the narration is meaningful after some duration has passed. Thus, in the context of the 5e* sense, I am not following the concept because I cannot tell if my narration is color or meaningful. In other words, if the meaningfulness of a given narration can only every be determined post hoc, then I cannot intentionally play with regards to the agenda of "meaningful narration." It's therefore not a guide to play, but rather a possible function of post play analysis.

 

[Reynard]

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"

The scenario you have constructed in your head bears little to no resemblance to what I am advocating or described, which I assume means I did not communicate it well. So to reiterate for better understanding:

The style of in play interaction I prefer, in order to promote immersion, is to have players tell me what their characters are doing in the fiction, and for me to respond also in the fiction unless some sort of die roll is needed. If we all do this, the game continues to flow easily and we get the benefits of an immersive experience.

I am not suggesting that you, personally, change the way you have been doing things with your group for the last 25 years. Nor am I suggesting that this is in any way the right way to play D&D. I was just expressing a preference for discussion, seeing as how we are on a discussion board.

 

[clearstream]

I didn't really get my point across well, and my apologies. If narration is made with the idea that it might be useful, then it's not meaningful in the moment -- I can only tell if the narration is meaningful after some duration has passed. Thus, in the context of the 5e* sense, I am not following the concept because I cannot tell if my narration is color or meaningful. In other words, if the meaningfulness of a given narration can only every be determined post hoc, then I cannot intentionally play with regards to the agenda of "meaningful narration." It's therefore not a guide to play, but rather a possible function of post play analysis.

Do you mean to rule out of meaningful, or mattering, any case where a DM provides information to a player-character that is not acted on straight away? Do you see what I mean? How do you exclude doing that? (Or do you need to exclude doing that?)

 

[Ovinomancer]

Additionally 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 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?

This, again, has a resolution point of being sufficiently meaningful for use so long as it is at least minorly entertaining. I'm not sure this is at all a useful concept to base an entire play approach upon. For example, in the other thread, you're arguing that no progress is not sufficient absent other consequences to be "meaningful." Yet, here, if I can say I'm entertained by no progress, it's sufficient. Ironically, "meaningful" has become rather meaningless.

 

[clearstream]

This, again, has a resolution point of being sufficiently meaningful for use so long as it is at least minorly entertaining. I'm not sure this is at all a useful concept to base an entire play approach upon. For example, in the other thread, you're arguing that no progress is not sufficient absent other consequences to be "meaningful." Yet, here, if I can say I'm entertained by no progress, it's sufficient. Ironically, "meaningful" has become rather meaningless.

A great many of your comments seem to locate your theory of meaning in immediate, strict limits on player-character action. Is that your intent?

When I think of entertained, ideas like feeling, anticipation, surprise, engagement, come to mind. Are those meaningless, in the paradigm you use for your assessment of what counts as meaningful?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Do you mean to rule out of meaningful, or mattering, any case where a DM provides information to a player-character that is not acted on straight away? Do you see what I mean? How do you exclude doing that? (Or do you need to exclude doing that?)

Nope.

Take the narration of the orc's gaping abdominal wound. We don't know, with just this, if this is color to telling PCs the relative health of the orc (ie, the specific narration is immaterial, it's the coded information that matters and it can be delivered in near infinite ways other than this, so the specific choice doesn't really matter to pass that coded information -- it's just color). We don't know if it's meaningful, in that it will have a future impact on play (the description of the wound, not the coded hp total information). We cannot tell at the moment of presentation. We can only tell if it's meaningful and not color if some later play, possibly much later play, makes it useful. I mean, we could have this orc escape this fight, and then indicate months later that it's the same orc by describing the scar (although, again, this may just be color). It's only in post hoc analysis that we can make the determination if a given narration is color or meaningful (ie, carries some meaning to the ongoing fiction past value as pure description).

If we cannot tell if the narration is meaningful or not at the time it is presented, and can only tell if it is such post hoc, then the 5e* direction to only provide meaningful narration is not met by this kind of narration -- it might fail to be meaningful and thus not meet the direction! Yet, you've presented the process as if it is an imperative direction to do this -- that this imperative direction is the main change and difference from normal 5e. Yet, we can't tell at the point of narration what might be meaningful, unless we intend it to be meaningful at that moment -- that an immediate use is present. Then it's meaningful because options are added that did not exist, even if they are not chosen. So, intent in the moment of narration seems to be a requirement for 5e* to be coherent with it's own agenda!

Alternatively, we can just assert that any narration may become meaningful in play given the correct chain of events and play. Describing a cloak as blue, intended as mere color, may become pivotal in later play if certain paths and events occur. The problem here is that there's never an inability to imagine a sequence of events that makes any given detail meaningful -- pick any example and I can come up with any number of ways play might make that important. And if we go with this, then there's no need for any specific change to include 5e* -- it's not doing any work because this is true of any narration at any time.

 

[Ovinomancer]

A great many of your comments seem to locate your theory of meaning in immediate, strict limits on player-character action. Is that your intent?

When I think of entertained, ideas like feeling, anticipation, surprise, engagement, come to mind. Are those meaningless, in the paradigm you use for your assessment of what counts as meaningful?

It's not my term, why are you asking me to define it?

 

[clearstream]

Take the narration of the orc's gaping abdominal wound. We don't know, with just this, if this is color to telling PCs the relative health of the orc (ie, the specific narration is immaterial, it's the coded information that matters and it can be delivered in near infinite ways other than this, so the specific choice doesn't really matter to pass that coded information -- it's just color). We don't know if it's meaningful, in that it will have a future impact on play (the description of the wound, not the coded hp total information). We cannot tell at the moment of presentation. We can only tell if it's meaningful and not color if some later play, possibly much later play, makes it useful. I mean, we could have this orc escape this fight, and then indicate months later that it's the same orc by describing the scar (although, again, this may just be color). It's only in post hoc analysis that we can make the determination if a given narration is color or meaningful (ie, carries some meaning to the ongoing fiction past value as pure description).

If we cannot tell if the narration is meaningful or not at the time it is presented, and can only tell if it is such post hoc, then the 5e* direction to only provide meaningful narration is not met by this kind of narration -- it might fail to be meaningful and thus not meet the direction! Yet, you've presented the process as if it is an imperative direction to do this -- that this imperative direction is the main change and difference from normal 5e. Yet, we can't tell at the point of narration what might be meaningful, unless we intend it to be meaningful at that moment -- that an immediate use is present. Then it's meaningful because options are added that did not exist, even if they are not chosen. So, intent in the moment of narration seems to be a requirement for 5e* to be coherent with it's own agenda!

If we are not in the mode 5e*, we might frequently doubt if what is narrated matters. We might only be able to tell post-hoc.

5e* banishes that. 5e* authorises players to react to what DM narrates, as if it matters (because it does.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

If we are not in the mode 5e*, we might frequently doubt if what is narrated matters. We might only be able to tell post-hoc.

5e* banishes that. 5e* authorises players to react to what DM narrates, as if it matters (because it does.)

Wait, you're now claiming that players in non-5e* are not authorized to act upon GM narration? Bold claim, hard disagree.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If we are not in the mode 5e*, we might frequently doubt if what is narrated matters. We might only be able to tell post-hoc.

5e* banishes that. 5e* authorises players to react to what DM narrates, as if it matters (because it does.)

Let me expand on my hard disagree. This statement says that what authorizes narration to be meaningful is the direction that narration be meaningful, and that the result of this is that any narration is therefore meaningful. And, absent this, players are unsure if narration is meaningful at all. To rephrase this, we can say that what makes things tall is the requirement to pick only tall things, therefore anything picked is tall because it was picked. This is entirely circular.