D&D 5E Clouds, cubes, and "hitting"

[pemerton]

That's an example of player-as-resolution system, yes. Though it seems awfully close to cloud-to-cloud (lack of system scope), too. I mean, the sconce and the opening of the secret door aren't happening on the table in any sense, right?

I wondered if you'd pick up on that!

The cube in that case will be marking off a turn on the time chart, which triggers wandering monster checks et al. In some particular case there might also be (say) a trap which has some cub-ish elements.

In a game that isn't using these mechanical elements of dungeon crawling then yes, it's cloud to cloud.

 

[Harzel]

I think I must be confused about the model.

In the original DMG (p 61), Gygax says that

Envision, if you will, a fencing, boxing, or karate match. During the course of one minute of such competition there are numerous attacks which are unsuccessful, feints, maneuvering, and so forth. During a one minute melee round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the"to hit" number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful, but otherwise it too was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever. Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch until the lost handful of hit points are considered - it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections. . . .​

​

You do not think that these (bolded items) are in the cloud?

 

[pemerton]

You do not think that these (bolded items) are in the cloud?

I don't think so. (Or: not in a meaningful sense - to be explained below.)

A similar discussion came up on Vincent Baker's page - I'll paraphrase it here rather than cut-and-paste.

Baker contrasts A and B below:

A: The game gives me a mechanic whereby I can roll to inflict a penalty on someone else. I roll, succeed, inflict a -2, and narrate it as "oppressive heat wears you down". I could equally have narrated it as "a twisted ankle slows you down", or anything else vaguely genre-appropriate. Baker flags that as "cube to cube", with an incidental tangent into clouds.

B: At the start of the session we set the weather (maybe by random roll; maybe by GM stipulation - depends on the game). It's hot. Later on, someone tries to do something - the oppressive heat causes them to suffer a -2 penalty. That penalty is cloud-to-cube.​

When the hit wears down luck, endurance etc, that is like A above. The real action is cube-to-cube, and the leftward pointing arrow is mere colour or after-the-event narration. Nothing changes in the fiction that matters to resolution because a character's luck has been run down.

 

[corwyn77]

When I used to GM RM, one player would keep a track of the most penalties his PC had ever been under. I think at one time he was at -275 from some combination of injuries and still rolling attacks with his bow, hoping for double or triple open-ended!

I don't know. I generally draw that line somewhere short of "my chance of hitting is far less than my chance critical failing". My version of RM has a crit fumble if your first roll is 1-5. He would have to roll 96-100 3 consecutive times to do anything. Time to flee.

 

[pemerton]

My version of RM has a crit fumble if your first roll is 1-5. He would have to roll 96-100 3 consecutive times to do anything. Time to flee.

In RM fumble ranges are variable for weapons - it's been a while, but my guess for a longbow would be 1-4.

As far as fleeing - I've got no memory of what the situation was, but the other PCs will not have been so badly off.

I do have one memory of a near-TPK: a group of 3rd (? or thereabouts) level PCs in some sort of auto-crit firestorm, only one warrior monk standing and at serious penalties, rolling double-open ended to hit, then a 90-ish crit to save the day. It can happen!

 

[Harzel]

I don't think so. (Or: not in a meaningful sense - to be explained below.)

A similar discussion came up on Vincent Baker's page - I'll paraphrase it here rather than cut-and-paste.

Baker contrasts A and B below:

A: The game gives me a mechanic whereby I can roll to inflict a penalty on someone else. I roll, succeed, inflict a -2, and narrate it as "oppressive heat wears you down". I could equally have narrated it as "a twisted ankle slows you down", or anything else vaguely genre-appropriate. Baker flags that as "cube to cube", with an incidental tangent into clouds.

B: At the start of the session we set the weather (maybe by random roll; maybe by GM stipulation - depends on the game). It's hot. Later on, someone tries to do something - the oppressive heat causes them to suffer a -2 penalty. That penalty is cloud-to-cube.​

When the hit wears down luck, endurance etc, that is like A above. The real action is cube-to-cube, and the leftward pointing arrow is mere colour or after-the-event narration. Nothing changes in the fiction that matters to resolution because a character's luck has been run down.

Ok, I found and read through some of the thread on Baker's page. I think I understand a bit more broadly what is going on here (or at least I have an opinion ). First of all, here is a cut and paste of Baker's first (I think) description of the two part example you have cited.

Case 1:
1. When you want to describe the weather where the characters are, roll. On a success, say what the weather's like there. (On a failure, it's 76°, few clouds, with a pleasant little breeze.)
2. When your character's taking strenuous action, if it's oppressively hot where your character is, you get -2 to your roll.
That's boxes to cloud, then cloud to boxes.
Case 2:
1. When you want to give another player a die penalty, make a roll. On a success, a) say what's making life hard for their character, and b) give them a -2 to their roll.
That's a) boxes to cloud, with a simultaneous b) boxes to boxes.

Note that in his Case 2 (your A) he makes no distinction in significance between the two arrows ("boxes to cloud" and "boxes to boxes"), noting only that they are "simultaneous".

Later in the thread, there is this exchange.

I call on case 2, b). It's not boxes to boxes, it's boxes, to cloud, and quickly back to boxes again.

Rob: You seriously read that to mean that the (unmentioned) oppressive heat the character's suffering is responsible for the -2, not the successful give-a-penalty roll?How do you want me to write it so that it's rock-solid-clear that the successful give-a-penalty roll is responsible for the -2?
Maybe this: When you want to give another player a die penalty, make a roll. On a success, give them a -2 to their roll. (Also, incidentally, say what's making life hard for their character.)
An arrow cubes to cubes. (Also, incidentally, an arrow cubes to cloud.) Right?

I assume this is your source for characterizing the boxes to cloud arrow as an "incidental tangent". However, I think you have misconstrued this. The context here is a dispute over where the arrow representing the coming into being of "the -2" in the cubes should originate. He is using "incidentally" because the boxes to cloud arrow is incidental to the point he is trying to make, not because that arrow is "incidental" in some broader sense.

Second, I think I (finally) understand what you mean by "Nothing changes in the fiction that matters to the resolution." That way of describing the situation, certainly made me think I disagreed with you, when in fact I think that is not the case. (And the way in which several other posters have phrased their responses makes me think they are probably in the same boat. But whatever.) It appears to me that the difference in point of view hinges on a hard to describe, but very consequential distinction in the meaning of "the fiction". If by "the fiction" one means "the fictional universe that we are all imagining", then your statement is nonsense. To put what others have said in slightly different words, the cubes are an abstraction of part of the fiction so they are inextricably linked. If the cubes change, then the fiction must be changing and the resolution is an abstracted reflection of a process taking place in the fiction. The change in the cubes and the change in the fiction each matter in their own domain.

However, if by "the fiction" one means "our (very real) imagining of the fictional universe", that is, a portion of the state of our brains, then your statement makes perfectly good sense. The state change in our brains occurs after and is dependent on the change in the state of the cubes. And it is the state of the cubes, not the state of our imagination, that is input to further changes in HP, possibly ending in a creature reaching 0 HP. (*) Put slightly differently, despite containing the words "the fiction", it appears to me that your statement intends to describe a process totally contained in the real world. Now if that is correct, it is probably obvious to you and you are wondering why I am going on about it. Suffice it to say, it took a while to wrap my brain around it. On the other hand, if that is not correct, then I guess it was an interesting exercise, but I still have no idea what you mean. Oh well, tomorrow is another day.

*) Although the situation after a creature (particularly a PC) reaches 0 HP seems more complicated. Being at 0 HP (a cubes condition) drives further cubes activity such as death saving throws. However, an opponent noticing that the PC has slumped to the ground and taking some action based on that is not something that is modeled in cube land - it is going on in the DM's brain.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION] - yep, that's the exchange I was referencing.

Consider case A (where its boxes-to-boxes with an incidental leftward arrow to clouds).

If the oppressive heat that is narrated as a byproduct of the "give your opponent a penalty" roll then matters to something else down the track (eg the PCs food spoils) then it is meaningful in the sense I used in my post to which you replied.

If it never comes into play again, then it's not.

My reason for doubting that there are meaningful leftward arrows in the Gygaxian paradigm of hitting (as I presented it in the OP - I'm bracketing [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s thought that a hit is always in some sense a hit) is that nothing downstream follows from what is imagined (about luck, endurance etc being depleted). For instance, there is no penalty to future saves; no penalty to run or jump; etc.

Someone playing a board game could imagine stuff in the fiction as they make moves from boxes to boxes, but that wouldn't matter to resolution either.

It's only what I've labelled a meaningful leftward arrow if, downstream, some rightward arrow will follow from it. (I think this is one part of the debate over 4e and "dissociated" mechanics. I think 4e does have leftward-followed-by-rightward arrows, but - as I said in the OP - these are carried by conditions (and also keywords), not by the "to hit" mechanic per se.)

EDIT: Something quite banal that would make the leftward arrow "meaningful" in my sense would be if, after a fight in which "hits" occurred, it was accepted that the player had to knock of gold pieces so their PC can repair their torn doublets etc. This isn't part of the rules, but it could easily be a table convention that was adopted. You could also imagine other stuff, like a -5% to reactions with middle/upper class people while wearing torn cloths.

 

[GMMichael]

I'm interested in step 4: if the to hit roll succeeds, then - in the fiction - the attacking character hit the defending character. Is that right for D&D?

So how is the resolution of D&D combat linked to the fiction of the game? Or is it all just cube-to-cube - no different from boardgaming, really - until the last blow is struck and the hp reach zero and now we know what is happening in the fiction?...
What about 5e?

It is a little redundant to describe a miss as a blow deflected by armor, and a hit as a nick or scratch which presumably happens to anything exterior, including armor. Despite the Gygax reference being moot (just because it's still called "D&D" doesn't make it the same game), I'd say yes, it's appropriate for the right attack roll to impose a cloud-hit, for the simple reason that as the RPG standard-bearer (and setter), D&D has to keep it simple. Hasbro isn't interested in selling games to only those gamers who question step #4. EVERYONE needs their own copy of D&D, and that's not going to happen if someone can't say, "I rolled a 20, okay? I definitely hit the orc!"

I'd like to point out that while the D&D HP system is relatively cube to cube, this actually varies greatly from some boardgames. Being GM-less, the only way boardgames can create a cloud is to use step 4. For example, when you roll 5, you arrive at Ventnor Avenue.

 

[MarkB]

This suggests that, until the last few hp are worn away, a successful hit is really "cube-to-cube", like marking down reduced hp on a character sheet (step 5 in the diagram) - a mechanical thing, but not necessarily generating any particular "cloud" - any particular thing in the fiction.

In 4e, this sense that there is no particular connection between a successful hit and some definite thing in the fiction ("Agh! I'm hit!") is reinforced by the presence of inspirational/martial healing. In 5e, it is not quite so strongly reinforced as in 4e, but there is the fighter's Second Wind, the rather rapid healing default, and the discussion of hp loss (Basic PDF, sidebar on p 75): "When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury."

So how is the resolution of D&D combat linked to the fiction of the game? Or is it all just cube-to-cube - no different from boardgaming, really - until the last blow is struck and the hp reach zero and now we know what is happening in the fiction?

"Hit" and "HP loss" can be narrative and unspecified to some extent, but there are occasions where representing a 'hit' as something other than a physical injury doesn't make sense.

The classic example is poison. If a character coats his blade with poison, that poison's effect is delivered to the target upon a successful hit - even if it was a grazing 1-hit-point dagger thrust, and the first damage that target had taken. Narratively, it makes no sense to resolve that attack as anything other than a physical injury sufficient to draw blood and introduce the poison into the subject's bloodstream.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Hit" and "HP loss" can be narrative and unspecified to some extent, but there are occasions where representing a 'hit' as something other than a physical injury doesn't make sense.

Sure, thing is, there are even more (more pervasive in the D&D experience) where representing hp loss only as phsysical injury doesn't make sense. Like characters gaining HD as they level. Those were the sorts of criticisms EGG was answering, and they were effective answers, and remain relevant as long as D&D uses hps, and has characters gain hps from experience (rather than, say, from growing to enormous size or becoming increasingly dense (in the molecular sense).

The classic example is poison. If a character coats his blade with poison, that poison's effect is delivered to the target upon a successful hit - even if it was a grazing 1-hit-point dagger thrust, and the first damage that target had taken. Narratively, it makes no sense to resolve that attack as anything other than a physical injury sufficient to draw blood and introduce the poison into the subject's bloodstream.

Ironically, in AD&D a hit with a poisoned weapon called for a save, a successful save indicating that there was no injury sufficient to draw blood & introduce the poison.

But, yeah, it could be a contact poison...

Baker contrasts A and B below:

A: The game gives me a mechanic whereby I can roll to inflict a penalty on someone else. I roll, succeed, inflict a -2, and narrate it as "oppressive heat wears you down". I could equally have narrated it as "a twisted ankle slows you down", or anything else vaguely genre-appropriate. Baker flags that as "cube to cube", with an incidental tangent into clouds.

B: At the start of the session we set the weather (maybe by random roll; maybe by GM stipulation - depends on the game). It's hot. Later on, someone tries to do something - the oppressive heat causes them to suffer a -2 penalty. That penalty is cloud-to-cube.​

When the hit wears down luck, endurance etc, that is like A above. The real action is cube-to-cube, and the leftward pointing arrow is mere colour or after-the-event narration. Nothing changes in the fiction that matters to resolution because a character's luck has been run down.

I find that very un-convincing. In the second example, for instance, if the weather is determined by a random roll (cube) it's identical to A, being cube -> cloud -> cube.