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

[clearstream]

So "meaningful" is just a statement that words have definitions.

No, but meaning is always contingent. It really can be the case that something has meaning because or arising out of our agreements that supply that meaning. [It's too deep a rabbit hole to get into the contingent nature of meaning here.]

Again, I note the irony that to preserve the construction of "meaningful" you're busily diluting the concept to one that is largely meaningless. A blue cloak is meaningful because blue means blue. And things matter because if they are said then they matter. How do we know they matter? They were said, so they must. Again, circles.

It's not circular. An imagined DM who is hostile to 5e* could exercise themselves to say things that they've decided are meaningless. That is going to create forseeable dissonances for their players.

The social contract between players and DM under 5e* is that whatever DM narrates, players may respond to as if it mattered. My imagined hostile DM sets out to break that contract.

DM The whole room is suddenly engulfed in blazing fire.
P Gods, I need to get out! Help me someone.
DM Nah, the fire doesn't matter. It's just colour.

[NOTE EDITS]

 

[clearstream]

Right, so overall we agree, and I accept your point that 5e* cannot really be considered RAW 5e. My recollection is that @clearstream's answer to that was at least partially that "well, sometimes 'no progress' can be fictionally signficant" didn't feel super compelling to me. It does give him some cover though, in that he could then argue that these are the ONLY cases where the examples are meant to apply. Frankly I don't buy this analysis of the 5e text myself, I think the game is just plain incoherent and isn't trying to be! The whole of '5e*' then feels much like an attempt to rehabilitate the text and give it some sort of post-hoc consistency that was, IMHO, never intended.

Starting with an assumption 5e is incoherent, you justify a view that any interpretation that might make is coherent is perforce mistaken.

I agree with you about no progress results, however.

So, I stick to my contention WRT @clearstream that you can't get where he's trying to go without really creating a system that includes a definition of roles and responsibilities, and an agenda and principles, and a play loop that are all working together to produce a result.

In 5e* DM retains their traditional centrality to D&D. Agenda and principles are antecedently occurring: they are described in other games, but those descriptions are not (or not exclusively) constitutive. I know that because many DMs were doing those things before those games existed (albeit with less rigour, structure, and awareness.) Our attitudes are informed by what exists elsewhere: we incorporate it into our ethos.

5e*-interpretation bestows [or expects] parts of 5e RAW with [or to have] great deontic power. DM is expected to bring the whole force of their role to the table.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

is it? I'm not sure. I think that you need to provide a lot more context for this word it doesn't work here.

So? So what? I mean, so?

Because? Why what? Your using of these ideas doesn't make sense when broken down to their components.

Now you're just being silly!

This is one of my favorite vowels. The others being a, e, and i.

DOH! I forgot u. Another favorite vowel. Good call!

I'm not sure what I should do with this. It doesn't make a bit of sense to play D&D with 'l' alone.

Not a bad key, but you can play D&D in other keys as well.

Why are you stopping? This is an odd thing to do right in the middle of a good discussion! We're really breaking things down here!

Sure, I'll play, what game?

To where. Did you mean too? Or two?

I like to make things, like D&D games. I think we're in good agreement here.

Or anyone, really. I don't see the need to be picky.

Okay, I thought I did. Let's see, not someone, or anyone, maybe any person?

Or anything?

This, maybe? Not sure what that you're talking about.

Me. Me, me, me. I thought Hugo Weaving did a good job, but the movie was lacking.

Yes.

Ooh, why so negative? Or is it why so negationitive? Not a word.

Or not to be, that is the question!

I also like the indefinite article, it's a good one.

No thank you, I do not currently want a con.

Honestly, this is tiring, I might get back to the rest of your point later.

Mod Note:

That’s an amazingly passive-aggressive, low-value post. Time to put Mr. Cranky-Pants in his crib.

 

[clearstream]

So this is my contribution: If you want only 'meaningful' stuff happening, then define it. My personal definition is "things which address the dramatic considerations attendant on the player's depictions of their characters, and what follows from them." I haven't subjected this statement to any deep analysis, so I'm sure it can be picked apart, or refined. The point is, if no real substantive difference will exist in the fiction, and if nothing inherent to the action bears on characterization, then its not really meaningful.

This is a great contribution! 5e* is intended to support such personal definitions. When you say substantive difference, this is found in the conversation. Have you ever had a time as DM when you added some colour, and a player grabbed it and ran with it? And you went with that! 5e* guarantees the validity of that sequence.

None of that is novel! Only that it can be reached via one fundamental step: interpret "narrates" (PHB 6, How to Play) as "say something meaningful"... say something that matters.

 

[HammerMan]

Well, first of all, it happens rarely, so do we really need to dwell on it?

only if you want to discus pros and cons... you know like why someone may not like something

And is it actually a negative? If you say "I make a perception check" when describing entering a room, is it a bad thing if the GM expands on that, and you start playing in a new way that might even be more enjoyable?

yes... that is what I keep calling word games. I want my time with my friends to include normal casual conversation. I do not want word police telling me they want me to say it "that way not this way". It is one thing if you are confused becuse you don't understand me... but that way of playing requires rewording even if you understand the intent...

All I ask is if you understand what I want to do and how I want to do it, you not stop me and make me rephrase the exact same request.

I'm not saying you DO want to play that way of course, but it cannot hurt people to try it.

yes, I have seen people get upset and leave gaming over it. at store games I have tried to smooth over when new players get frustrated over it.

Nor is it necessarily any more onerous than your way. That is, if I say "I smell the air and look around" and you say "make perception check" is it really more problematic than if YOU say "I make a perception check" and the GM asks "Are you sniffing the air?" I don't think there's much difference IME.

no.... and in mine BOTH ways are perfect. both ways happen in my games I DM, both could also be how I say things. When I come home from a hard day at work sometimes I want to really get into things and say "I smell the air and look around" but other times I just want to relax and play and I will say "Can I make a perception check"

my method is simple... if you and the person you are talking to understand the intent it doesn't matter what words you use.

Frankly, since my approach to play is generally a story now kind of approach, at least in my case, the game won't even work unless they describe what they did, because they are going to TELL ME what transpired.

and again CON!!!

it's like when my ex girlfriend who lived in Russia until she was a teenager miss used words. English was not her first OR second language. Sometimes people would look at her weird and ask what she meant... but like 9 out of 10 times they KNEW what she meant. They just HAD to call out the word choice being weird. One of the things she loved about me and my 2 best friends was that we would first finish the back and forth then tell her the word in english... we almost never corrected her throwwing off the flow of the conversation unless we didn't understand.

The same with some family members and friends that have developmental and language issues... the way to talk to to talk to them as long as you understand them

Frankly I doubt either you nor @Reynard are actually all that up tight about it in real world play.

how am I the uptight one? I say how every you communicate it as long as both you and I understand it, it is fine... there IS no right/wrong way to say it....

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Starting with an assumption 5e is incoherent, you justify a view that any interpretation that might make is coherent is perforce mistaken.

I agree with you about no progress results, however.

Well, I think I'm CONCLUDING that 5e is incoherent, not 'assuming' it. You've provided an interpretation that claims to show how it isn't incoherent, the gist of which I outlined in my post that you responded to. I also take it that the above highlighted part of your reply is agreement with my interpretation. I respond that this interpretation seems quite forced, as nothing in the actual 5e rules text seems to reinforce it in any way. I believe some of the text in the PHB that has been cited also seems to be hard to square with your interpretation. So, I don't think that 'assumption' is a good description, I think I've applied some logical analysis and that drives my conclusion. Now, I admit, you are free to interpret each phrase in very particular ways, but those readings feel quite unnatural to me. If the "no progress" statement were REALLY so qualified as that it should apply only when no progress produces 'interesting failure' why didn't the other just mention that, like add a 2 or 3 word clause to the end of the sentence referring back to the previous statement or reiterating it? That would be what I would expect from good quality rules text! Given the entire 'spin' that WotC has consistently put on 5e, that it is all 'DM interpretation' as to how things work, I find it rather more likely that this is simply another such case. One rule section claims that there must be 'interesting failure' but another ignores that admonition!

The upshot being, I think that calling 5e* a 'RAW' interpretation of 5e is a bit strained. I'd say I don't think it is really 'RAI', but I think that RAI cannot really even be applied to 5e, lol. At least not in this sort of way.

In 5e* DM retains their traditional centrality to D&D. Agenda and principles are antecedently occurring: they are described in other games, but those descriptions are not (or not exclusively) constitutive. I know that because many DMs were doing those things before those games existed (albeit with less rigour, structure, and awareness.) Our attitudes are informed by what exists elsewhere: we incorporate it into our ethos.

Right, but this inhibits our ability to say what is 'important', which you have certainly made a highly loaded feature of your interpretation! D&D traditionally doesn't do a particularly good job of defining important or even relevant, and a lot of debate on various points of procedure and agenda seem to hinge on that. In this case whether or not we engage stochastic resolution mechanisms and associated conventions hinges on it. This can be illustrated by imagining a 'DW-esque' set of agenda and principle statements. We can easily see how something along these lines would hugely clarify 'important' and 'meaningful'. I might even be willing to accede to the assertions about the 'no progress' statement were something like that present in the game which would tend to put a clear definition of 'progress' on the table.

Heck, I even think it might be possible to make these various bits fairly coherent if we put an OD&D-esque (implicit) agenda on things. I suspect the result would be kind of to 'null out' no progress, it just would never happen, lol.

5e*-interpretation bestows [or expects] parts of 5e RAW with [or to have] great deontic power. DM is expected to bring the whole force of their role to the table.

Well, in that case you are certainly playing VERY hard and fast in the realm of DM power, the players are virtually relegated to the most peripheral of roles in this case. That is, they don't even really have control over meaningful actions of their own characters, effectively, only over ones that "don't matter". At most they can REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is a great contribution! 5e* is intended to support such personal definitions. When you say substantive difference, this is found in the conversation. Have you ever had a time as DM when you added some colour, and a player grabbed it and ran with it? And you went with that! 5e* guarantees the validity of that sequence.

None of that is novel! Only that it can be reached via one fundamental step: interpret "narrates" (PHB 6, How to Play) as "say something meaningful"... say something that matters.

OK, and maybe this comment bears on my last one. That is to say, my proposed 'principle' "What matters are things which address the dramatic considerations attendant on the player's depictions of their characters, and what follows from them." is extremely PLAYER EMPOWERING in that it requires the GM to say things that matter to the players, not things that matter TO HIM ALONE (though certainly he can put some interpretation on the characters and still has a lot of options). With that agenda, then you maybe start to come close to where 'no progress' could be 'meaningful' and thus something that the GM is allowed to say. It has to put pressure on some dramatic consideration that the players have depicted. I am still rather of the opinion that I'd generally ignore the 'no progress on failure' option. I think it will rarely serve a GM very well with this agenda on the table, but it isn't literally ruled out. I suspect other elements of 5e(*) will tend to get in the way, or provide little material support for this kind of play, but it will be closer to workable perhaps.

 

[clearstream]

I imagine a DM – Jo DM – who reaches a system result in play that creates no change to the fiction that they can discern. It’s moot whether such a circumstance is possible in 5e*, because it comes about as a limit on Jo DM.

Jo DM has several Dungeon Masterly virtues. They know the 5e RAW and official RAI. They’re familiar with many contemporary RPGs. They’re an active member of several gaming communities. And they are conversant with RPG principles and theory. Jo has an excellent recollection of social contract, agreements, and conversation in play up to this point among their players. And sufficient preestablished fiction for their purposes.

Jo DM is bound to faithfully perform the task of reaching a meaningful narration of the said system result, that is moored in the system, and constrained or guided by relevant texts... ideally, by words in the 5e core books. Jo seeks a narrative that matters to their players.

Seeking to ensure their narration is moored, Jo thinks about the following.

1. What prompted the narration? Jo sees that the system result prompted it
2. Ought narration deny or falsify the result? Jo knows of text putting it within a DMs power to be able to overrule rolls, which Jo balances against a view that any narration will be better moored in a result if it does not do so
3. Is the admonishment to narrate meaningfully strong enough to include remote or deferred change that a result will lead to. If it is, Jo feels bound to reveal a truth about the world, or a probable or inevitable change, forecast by the result. However, Jo is incapable of discerning any change to the fiction from the said result, and that must include remote or deferred change as much as immediate.

Reflecting on constraints or guides as to narrated changes to the fiction, Jo considers the following.

1. Words throughout the text emphasising creating world that revolves around the characters, immersing them and empowering them to do awesome things
2. Words throughout the text authorising DM to change as they see fit, and modify as they explore the consequences of the players actions
3. In many places Jo is aware of, consistency is emphasised
4. Reaching further, Jo considers agreement at the table, good practices such as having an agenda, saying something that follows, and provoking action, and principles valued by their community
5. Finally, Jo returns to their preestablished fiction, which - following guidance in the text - is extensive, while always modifiable.

Jo decides that while there are a vast number of things they could say, any time, the fact of their narration at this moment is caused by the result, and it is possible for them to choose between things to say based on discarding those that don't at least uphold it, and immersing and empowering the characters, exploring the consequences of their actions, saying something consistent with world, conversation, contract and agreements, following Jo’s agenda, and other good practices and valued principles.

This fable has not included any definite example of a system result. Removing the limit on Jo DM, so that if a change to fiction is created, they will be capable of discerning it, can one find a realistic result - one that comes up in play - that leaves Jo unable to moor, and constrain and guide their narration? So that DM Jo's narration must be arbitrary and whimsical?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I imagine a DM – Jo DM – who reaches a system result in play that creates no change to the fiction that they can discern. It’s moot whether such a circumstance is possible in 5e*, because it comes about as a limit on Jo DM.

Jo DM has several Dungeon Masterly virtues. They know the 5e RAW and official RAI. They’re familiar with many contemporary RPGs. They’re an active member of several gaming communities. And they are conversant with RPG principles and theory. Jo has an excellent recollection of social contract, agreements, and conversation in play up to this point among their players. And sufficient preestablished fiction for their purposes.

Jo DM is bound to faithfully perform the task of reaching a meaningful narration of the said system result, that is moored in the system, and constrained or guided by relevant texts... ideally, by words in the 5e core books. Jo seeks a narrative that matters to their players.

Seeking to ensure their narration is moored, Jo thinks about the following.

1. What prompted the narration? Jo sees that the system result prompted it
2. Ought narration deny or falsify the result? Jo knows of text putting it within a DMs power to be able to overrule rolls, which Jo balances against a view that any narration will be better moored in a result if it does not do so
3. Is the admonishment to narrate meaningfully strong enough to include remote or deferred change that a result will lead to. If it is, Jo feels bound to reveal a truth about the world, or a probable or inevitable change, forecast by the result. However, Jo is incapable of discerning any change to the fiction from the said result, and that must include remote or deferred change as much as immediate.

Reflecting on constraints or guides as to narrated changes to the fiction, Jo considers the following.

1. Words throughout the text emphasising creating world that revolves around the characters, immersing them and empowering them to do awesome things
2. Words throughout the text authorising DM to change as they see fit, and modify as they explore the consequences of the players actions
3. In many places Jo is aware of, consistency is emphasised
4. Reaching further, Jo considers agreement at the table, good practices such as having an agenda, saying something that follows, and provoking action, and principles valued by their community
5. Finally, Jo returns to their preestablished fiction, which - following guidance in the text - is extensive, while always modifiable.

Jo decides that while there are a vast number of things they could say, any time, the fact of their narration at this moment is caused by the result, and it is possible for them to choose between things to say based on discarding those that don't at least uphold it, and immersing and empowering the characters, exploring the consequences of their actions, saying something consistent with world, conversation, contract and agreements, following Jo’s agenda, and other good practices and valued principles.

This fable has not included any definite example of a system result. Removing the limit on Jo DM, so that if a change to fiction is created, they will be capable of discerning it, can one find a realistic result - one that comes up in play - that leaves Jo unable to moor, and constrain and guide their narration? So that DM Jo's narration must be arbitrary and whimsical?

Arbitrary and whimsical? How about just kind of pointless? So, lets simply go with the good old "you attempt to climb the wall" and to comply with the stated parameters I would say that the situation is there isn't any time pressure on the PCs, the results of failure are simply no progress. As far as I can see the characters can try again, etc. This is clearly a situation which shouldn't come up in 5e* though, since you are bound by the "no meaningless results can be narrated" constraint.

I think, as long as you stick to that, and you have adopted principles which sufficiently describe 'meaningless', it should be a moot point. Clearly some no progress results CAN be meaningful (failure to climb the cliff on the first try results in Demogorgon being unleashed). I say the real work in these games is mostly done by the agenda. There are still some issues with 5e* and story gaming of course, but you are pretty close to a self-consistent approach at least on the points touched on here.

 

[clearstream]

Arbitrary and whimsical? How about just kind of pointless? So, lets simply go with the good old "you attempt to climb the wall" and to comply with the stated parameters I would say that the situation is there isn't any time pressure on the PCs, the results of failure are simply no progress. As far as I can see the characters can try again, etc. This is clearly a situation which shouldn't come up in 5e* though, since you are bound by the "no meaningless results can be narrated" constraint.

I think, as long as you stick to that, and you have adopted principles which sufficiently describe 'meaningless', it should be a moot point. Clearly some no progress results CAN be meaningful (failure to climb the cliff on the first try results in Demogorgon being unleashed). I say the real work in these games is mostly done by the agenda. There are still some issues with 5e* and story gaming of course, but you are pretty close to a self-consistent approach at least on the points touched on here.

I realised there is a possible correction or addition for me to make to 5e*. 5e* stipulates that no roll is made where consequences won't be meaningful. DM decides when to roll for combat. Don't roll for combat if that won’t be meaningful. (However, any roll on the way to a meaningful result can be meaningful in the sense of gaining or not gaining progress toward that end-result.)

DM The scouts draw their long knives, but they look nervous about dealing with you.
P We won’t hurt them if we don’t have to, but we have to pass. Initiative?
DM No need. You easily overcome the scouts and... what will you do with them?

Or, on an earlier occasion...
DM The dragon’s rises, it’s scales sure ward against your weapons. It has nothing to fear from you.
P I’m ready to fight regardless, I draw my longsword and attack!
DM The dragon tolerates a few meaningless blows then bounds over you, blocking your exit. It inhales... any last words?