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

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION], you're correct, the model in the OP is specifically called out as a "classic" RPG model, circa 1990, in other words, D&D 1e/2e.

Not just AD&D. Also RQ, Hero, RM, and many other games. All of which have slightly varying combat mechanics, and hence slightly different cube/cloud relationships.

Eg in RM every hit generates a leftward arrow, because it doesn't use an "abstract" hit point system. And may of the resulting clouds then generate rightward arrows (eg my ribs are bruised, so -10 to climb checks).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Eg in RM every hit generates a leftward arrow, because it doesn't use an "abstract" hit point system. And may of the resulting clouds then generate rightward arrows (eg my ribs are bruised, so -10 to climb checks).

Or to be pedantic, because that seems to be the way this thread is going, it does use an abstract HP system. It's just slightly less abstract than the HP system used in many editions of D&D. Your bruised rib that causes -10 to climb checks doesn't include any specifics about which rib is bruised, or where, as a real bruised rib would. I can guarantee that a -10 to climb checks is less likely to matter to further content resolution than the associated -10 HP that bring you closer to unconsciousness.

Abstraction isn't binary. Hit Points are never entirely abstract or concrete. They are only as abstract as you need them to be. If you want to say that your sword hit that took off twelve of my HP was actually a miss within the narrative, and I just got tired from dodging it so narrowly, then that's on you. You've abstracted it to the point that we can't even generate a leftward arrow to tell what happens. Personally, I'm taking my hits as slightly more definitive than that. I need to know that the hit within the cubes was definitively a hit within the cloud, or else I don't have enough information to tell what's going on.

Yes, I definitely got hit; and yes, that hit definitely matters for the purpose of resolving what happens next within the narrative (which is probably my casting a Cure spell).

 

[pemerton]

Or to be pedantic, because that seems to be the way this thread is going, it does use an abstract HP system. It's just slightly less abstract than the HP system used in many editions of D&D.

I don't know how familiar you are with RM. It's damage system is different in kind from D&D, not just degree.

It does not use hp, the loss of which can corresond to X, or Y, or Z, depending on the circumstances of the fiction and the mood of the participants.

It uses debuffs which are expressed in concrete terms ("bruised rib", "broken shield arm", "severed tendons", ect), and "concussion hits" which are a direct measure of pain, bruising and blood loss - these are acquired by developing a skill called "body development", and the typical fighter at mid-levels will have about twice as many as the typical magic-user, and - more significantly - will have proportionately lower penalty and unconsciousness thresholds and hence is not only physically bigger/tougher but is less likely to falter or collapse when hurt.

If the rules don't tell you which rib was bruised, or which arm broken, you can roll a die to determine - and sometime that will matter (eg whether a left or right arm is broken certainly matters for swordplay, unless the character is ambidextrous). In AD&D knowing the hit location etc is, as Gygax said, "not germane", because nothing would turn on it.

There's a reason the slogan for RM was "Get real, get Rolemaster!" It is expressly designed for those players - of whom there were many in the late 70s through mid-to-late 80s - who found D&D's comat system, saving throw system, class-and-XP system, and spell system, too "unrealistic". (It's no coincidence that these are the systems for which Gygax offered non-simulationist explanations in his DMG. He was articulating his game against alternatives, including - at that time - C&S and RQ, and later including also RM, Hero, DragonQuest and GURPS.)

I can guarantee that a -10 to climb checks is less likely to matter to further content resolution than the associated -10 HP that bring you closer to unconsciousness.

I'm not sure what the basis is for that guarantee. As a matter of practicality, most RM players that I've played with would prefer to lose 10 hp than take a -10 penalty, unless very close to being knocked unconscious.

Hit Points are never entirely abstract or concrete. They are only as abstract as you need them to be. If you want to say that your sword hit that took off twelve of my HP was actually a miss within the narrative, and I just got tired from dodging it so narrowly, then that's on you. You've abstracted it to the point that we can't even generate a leftward arrow to tell what happens. Personally, I'm taking my hits as slightly more definitive than that. I need to know that the hit within the cubes was definitively a hit within the cloud, or else I don't have enough information to tell what's going on.

<snip>

that hit definitely matters for the purpose of resolving what happens next within the narrative (which is probably my casting a Cure spell).

I think this is repeating something that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] said upthread, and my response is similar: if it makes no difference to the unfolding of the game whether I imagine the "hit" as inflicting a wound that needs healing in the literal sense, or as causing the character who is "hit" to dodge, thus using up "luck" or "divine favour" or some unspecified and otherwise irrelevant "reserves" (eg using up these reserves won't penalise saves or movement), then it is all epiphenomenal.

In RM, I know that my character needs healing with a spell cast from Bone Law rather than Blood Law because, in the fiction, I have a broken arm rather than a bleeding vein. In D&D, I know that my character needs Cure Light Wounds rather than Cure Serious Wounds because I look at my hp total. The fiction doesn't mediate between the hp depletion and the healing spell.

(Contrast, say, being struck by a Sword of Sharpness and needing a Regeneration spell; or being petrified by a basilisk and needing a Stone to Flesh spell. In these cases, there is mediation through the fiction - the successful attack brings about a known change in the fiction, that then determines how healing will take place.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If the rules don't tell you which rib was bruised, or which arm broken, you can roll a die to determine - and sometime that will matter (eg whether a left or right arm is broken certainly matters for swordplay, unless the character is ambidextrous). In AD&D knowing the hit location etc is, as Gygax said, "not germane", because nothing would turn on it.

But it's still abstract. Sure, knowing that it was your third rib on the left is slightly less abstract than knowing that it was just an undetermined rib that was bruised, but it's still abstract. Saying that you are somehow injured, with no further specification, is more abstract than saying that you have a bruised rib. It's a spectrum. You can't point at any one system and say that it is entirely definitive, or entirely abstract, because whether or not it's abstract enough for the purpose at hand will vary with the circumstances and what you want to get out of it.

I'm not sure what the basis is for that guarantee. As a matter of practicality, most RM players that I've played with would prefer to lose 10 hp than take a -10 penalty, unless very close to being knocked unconscious.

Unless RM is a vastly different experience from D&D, I don't imagine that mandatory climb checks show up that frequently. A penalty of -10 on a check that you aren't going to make is essentially no further causality within the game; it's not meaningful, according to your own terminology.

Or rather, it's meaningful in the same way that 10 damage is meaningful, because it might make a difference later on. From a cube->cloud->cube standpoint, taking ten damage in D&D creates a change in the narrative which might well alter the outcome of future mechanical interactions.

In RM, I know that my character needs healing with a spell cast from Bone Law rather than Blood Law because, in the fiction, I have a broken arm rather than a bleeding vein. In D&D, I know that my character needs Cure Light Wounds rather than Cure Serious Wounds because I look at my hp total. The fiction doesn't mediate between the hp depletion and the healing spell.

Does it matter to the game mechanics that one injury is associated with bone, and the other with blood? If I tell you that the ogre's attack did 12i damage to you, as compared to 12j damage, then all you need to know is that you need to cast Cure i Wounds rather than Cure j Wounds in order to fix it. It doesn't matter in the slightest to the game mechanics that type i wounds represent a broken bone and type j wounds represent bleeding or vice versa.

Just as RM doesn't bother to differentiate between a left tibia that's fractured two-thirds of the way toward the foot and one that's fractured three-quarters of the way toward the foot, D&D doesn't bother to differentiate between a wound to the arm and a wound to the leg. As far as the game mechanics are concerned, your movement speed is cut to half (or you're twelve points closer to falling unconscious), and you can fix it with a healing spell from Bone Law (or Cure Wounds).

(Likewise, if monster B inflicts status ailment P to you, you don't need to know whether P stands for Poison or Petrification or Apoplexy in order to know that it causes -3 to Agility checks and can be cured with a Restoration VII spell.)

In every case, you could skip the left-facing arrow that translates the mechanic back into narrative. The only reason you might need that arrow is if the rule system is insufficient, and the GM is expected to apply ad-hoc situational modifiers (Persuasion is at -2 because you just came out of the sewers, even though that wasn't explicitly written anywhere); but even then, the GM can just as easily apply -2 for "being wounded" as for "having a bloody nose".

 

[Harzel]

In RM, I know that my character needs healing with a spell cast from Bone Law rather than Blood Law because, in the fiction, I have a broken arm rather than a bleeding vein. In D&D, I know that my character needs Cure Light Wounds rather than Cure Serious Wounds because I look at my hp total. The fiction doesn't mediate between the hp depletion and the healing spell.

(Contrast, say, being struck by a Sword of Sharpness and needing a Regeneration spell; or being petrified by a basilisk and needing a Stone to Flesh spell. In these cases, there is mediation through the fiction - the successful attack brings about a known change in the fiction, that then determines how healing will take place.)

Without trying to claim that you are wrong, per se, I think that, at minimum, there is a different way to look at this. IIRC, Baker's definition of the cloud is stuff that exists only in fiction. In the case, for example, of petrification, this is a condition that is specifically recognized by the mechanics. It is both an output from and an input to pieces of the mechanics. That being the case, it seems that it should be part of cube land. The fact that we may choose to simply remember that Stony the Dwarf is now, really, stony seems irrelevant - we could track HP purely in our heads too if we wanted, but that doesn't make them less cubey. And it seems like the same could be said for an RM "broken arm".

I'm not sure I have this thought all the way through, but it makes me begin to wonder if there are not a lot more cases of cube-to-cube-arrow-with-incidental-left-arrow than one might have initially thought.

EDIT: Upon re-reading, this is perhaps just a restatement of what Saelorn just said.

 

[pemerton]

Without trying to claim that you are wrong, per se, I think that, at minimum, there is a different way to look at this. IIRC, Baker's definition of the cloud is stuff that exists only in fiction. In the case, for example, of petrification, this is a condition that is specifically recognized by the mechanics.

Not in AD&D.

And I would say "barely" in 3E - the d20 SRD gives me this for the petrified condition:

A petrified character has been turned to stone and is considered unconscious. If a petrified character cracks or breaks, but the broken pieces are joined with the body as he returns to flesh, he is unharmed. If the character’s petrified body is incomplete when it returns to flesh, the body is likewise incomplete and there is some amount of permanent hit point loss and/or debilitation.​

That is not fully "mechanised", and requires plenty of adjudication of the fiction (eg joining a broken piece to the body; a body being incomplete when it returns to flesh; any resulting debilitation).

As I said to [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] upthread, Vincent Baker doesn't talk about the role of note-taking to keep track of the fiction. The "petrified" condition in 3E is really just a form of note-taking. Whereas in 4e and 5e it is clearly more than just that.

it makes me begin to wonder if there are not a lot more cases of cube-to-cube-arrow-with-incidental-left-arrow than one might have initially thought.

Arguably, as more and more conditions get codified and "mechanised", the answer is "yes". This was discussed very often in threads about the prone condition in 4e (eg what does it mean to impose the prone condition on a snake, and why does a snake being prone make it easier to strike with a sword but harder to shoot with an arrow?).

I think this is one reason why designers like Baker are attracted to the OSR.

Saying that you are somehow injured, with no further specification, is more abstract than saying that you have a bruised rib. It's a spectrum.

Having played and GMed both systems, I can say that I don't agree. In RM, "being injured" means something in the fiction. It directly impacts my PC's ability to do stuff.

Whereas in D&D being down hit points doesn't directly impact my ability to do stuff. It's simply a potentiality, a disposition towards being more easily defeated next time I suffer hp loss.

Does it matter to the game mechanics that one injury is associated with bone, and the other with blood?

In D&D, no. In RM, absolutely. The spells required to heal are different. The recovery times are different.

In every case, you could skip the left-facing arrow that translates the mechanic back into narrative.

In RM you can't complete the resolution of the hit without applying a left-facing arrow; and you can't resolve the healing of the resulting injury (either by magic or by natural healing) without learning what sort of injury it is.

RQ is less intricate than RM in this regard, but likewise requires left-facing arrows in order to resolve combat - because after the successful attack roll (not "hit" roll) the target has to resolve their parry or dodge; and then, if that fails and there is a hit, once the damage dice are rolled the hit location has to be determined so that the armour on that location can be checked. And each body location has its own hp pool, damage to which causes debilitation of that body part.

As I said - these systems are quite different from D&D, and deliberately so. They wanted leftward arrows to be an inescapable component of resolving combat; and they wanted so-called "damage spirals" ie the clouds that were generated by those leftward arrows would then generate rightward arrows that affected subsequent combat resolution.

My understanding - correct me if I'm wrong - is that you have never played these late-70s/80s-era "sim reaction to D&D" systems. Given your preferences, I think you might find them quite interesting. My own experience is that the combat resolution generates quite a different feel from D&D - more visceral. (With one exception - position tends to be less important in these systems than in 4e, and the latter delivers a sense of being manipulated or knocked about the battlefied that is quite distinctive in my experience, and also in my experience is the sufficient answer to the suggestion that 4e combat is cubes-to-cubes only.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In RM you can't complete the resolution of the hit without applying a left-facing arrow; and you can't resolve the healing of the resulting injury (either by magic or by natural healing) without learning what sort of injury it is.

As stated in the previous post regarding imaginary damage types, you don't need to apply a left-facing arrow in order to apply the mechanical effects of the injury. You don't need to know what a tibia is, or what a bone is, to know that a broken tibia cuts your Move Speed in half and requires a Bone Law spell to heal. It makes it easier to narrate, if you care about that thing, but the game mechanics don't actually care that you have a broken tibia; it only cares that your Move Speed is cut in half, and that you need a Bone Law spell to heal it.

My understanding - correct me if I'm wrong - is that you have never played these late-70s/80s-era "sim reaction to D&D" systems. Given your preferences, I think you might find them quite interesting.

I've skimmed the rules before, and it didn't seem like the added detail of resolution justified the additional complexity. I already know that a hit is a hit when I play D&D, and knowing that it's a bruised rib rather than a cracked tibia doesn't add that much more to the story, while it adds a lot more to the mechanical overheard.

For the amount of time it would take to learn, I would rather spend my time on games I might actually play.

 

[innerdude]

The rules say I can inflict a penalty on your character, and (incidentally, in the course of doing so) I narrate the fictional cause. A lot of 4e critics see a lot of this in 4e. (I think some of them are wrong, because they're ignoring the keywords, but that's a separate discussion). In this sort of system, the principal arrow is cube-to-cube ("I made my roll - now you've got to suck up a -2 penalty"). We don't need to invoke any clouds to keep playing. Establishing the fictional explanation for the penalty is incidental, and nothing else follows from it. It hangs there as mere colour.

Yes, you don't NEED to invoke any clouds to keep playing---but there's potentially some very good reasons why perhaps you should. I've long ago made my peace with the idea, but just so you understand, you're going to get massive pushback from "dissociative mechanics" proponents on this, who would tell you that establishing fictional explanations like this is not in any way "purely incidental," that any number of in-fiction elements can and probably should follow from it, and as a result is much more than "mere color."

Perhaps I've missed something, but isn't this about the game rules, plus how particular actions are framed?

Eg, consider the following episode of play (sblocked for convenience):
(snip)

Okay, so, what to make of the (snipped) example? As a GM, I could tell you were trying to "Say yes!" to the player, were trying to use the 4e powers/page 42 stuff to make a reasonable judgement call, were trying to let the resolution play out according to the player's stated action intent.

But bottom line, it was for all intents and purposes a case of "Mother, May I?" with a few rolls by the player interposed. There's no explicit rules in 4e that says you can allow players to expend healing surges to modify the fiction. And if you were willing to allow them to expend healing surges as a way to codify the properties of the spell he was casting, why make him roll at all? You're GM-fiat-ing the crap out of the scene at that point, what difference does it make if you just allow the player to win?

However, I'm willing to admit that this kind of thing may simply be endemic to high-level D&D play. To play the part of a demi-god PC, you have to be able to do demi-god-like things, which is pretty much rewriting the rules of physics and the nature of existence on the fly. This is probably the reason why I have historically had ZERO interest in high-level D&D play and "planar travelling" storylines---because inevitably it ends up as a weird mish-mash of GM fiat mixed with high-powered spellcasting and magic items that has no real basis in what I consider to be interesting explorations of the human experience.


Boiled down, I think the diagram in the OP could actually be simplified as follows:

1. Cube output => Cube input

2. Cube output => Cloud input

3. Cloud output => Cube input

4. Cloud output => Cloud input


Or, read in plain English:

1. A mechanical output informs a following mechanical input.

2. A mechanical output informs a following fictional state input.

3. A fictional state output informs a following mechanical input.

4. A fictional state output informs a following fictional state input.


And it seems to me that we're actually moving to a consensus that RPGs as systems only care about States 2 and 3. In State 1, if the mechanics don't inform the fiction but only other mechanics, they have no real meaning until State 2 is reached. If there is no State 2 transference, we aren't playing an RPG. Interestingly, I'd imagine that most of us are actually okay with keeping a certain amount of information in State 1 for a certain period of time before moving to State 2. I think "D&D"-style hit points live in State 1 much of the time.

As a side note, I do get what you're saying, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], about hit point loss not being intrinsically tied to the fiction. In much of the "middle parts" of a D&D fight, characters may have lost say, 40% of their hit points, but based purely on what those characters are still capable of doing, we wouldn't know the difference. Those characters are still acting normally, using all of the powers at their disposal, suffering no debilitating effects, etc. There are cases all the time where marking off 15 hit points from my character sheet creates no real impetus for me as a player to reevaluate what's happening in the fiction. The one caveat to that is we have to assume that on some level, in the fiction, a character has some awareness of their own general state of health, fatigue, willpower, etc., that correlates to their hit point total.

The polar opposite of State 1 is State 4, where system is meaningless. State 4 simply ignores an RPG's rules to inform the fictional state. For example, if a player decides their character is married, that output informs the following fictional state inputs that A) society probably expects the PC to remain faithful to that spouse, and B) should the character violate those in-fiction norms, there will in-fiction consequences. Likewise, the same is true if a player convinces the GM to give a player a fancy +4 magic sword, even though there's no treasure parcel being handed out and there was nothing of the kind to be found in the GM's random treasure rolls. Previously the character did not possess a sword in the fiction; now they do, and that output must inform following fictional state inputs (i.e, "Where'd you get that sword, bub?").

The real dividing line is State 2. For some, State 2 is only acceptable via adjudication of individual character inputs. For others, State 2 is perfectly acceptable via direct narrative control. And along that continuum lies the heart of what we would call a "traditional" RPG game, and what we'd now call a "narrative story" RPG.

 

[pemerton]

1. Cube output => Cube input

<snip>

Interestingly, I'd imagine that most of us are actually okay with keeping a certain amount of information in State 1 for a certain period of time before moving to State 2. I think "D&D"-style hit points live in State 1 much of the time.

Cube-to-cube is not per se inimical to RPGing, in my view, provided that it is experienced as incidental to something that actually generates meaningful fiction. Now, "experienced as incidental" is going to vary from player to player, from session to session, from table to table. It would make perfect sense for the exact same series of exchanges, interactions etc to be experienced by you as "That was a pretty skirmish-y sesision today" and by me, or even by you in a different mood, as "That was awesome - I really felt like I was there!"

This is one reason why I think lecturing people over the internet about whether or not they are really RPGing - something which is oddly popular on these boards! - almost always misfires. If you weren't there and part of it, it's pretty hard to know what was going on, and how all that cube-y stuff related to cloud-y stuff that anyone cares about.

Nuff said.

Yes, you don't NEED to invoke any clouds to keep playing---but there's potentially some very good reasons why perhaps you should. I've long ago made my peace with the idea, but just so you understand, you're going to get massive pushback from "dissociative mechanics" proponents on this, who would tell you that establishing fictional explanations like this is not in any way "purely incidental," that any number of in-fiction elements can and probably should follow from it, and as a result is much more than "mere color."

<snip>

I do get what you're saying, @pemerton, about hit point loss not being intrinsically tied to the fiction. In much of the "middle parts" of a D&D fight, characters may have lost say, 40% of their hit points, but based purely on what those characters are still capable of doing, we wouldn't know the difference. Those characters are still acting normally, using all of the powers at their disposal, suffering no debilitating effects, etc. There are cases all the time where marking off 15 hit points from my character sheet creates no real impetus for me as a player to reevaluate what's happening in the fiction. The one caveat to that is we have to assume that on some level, in the fiction, a character has some awareness of their own general state of health, fatigue, willpower, etc., that correlates to their hit point total.

The difference between "can", "should" and "must" is (I think) the main thing that Vincent Baker is trying to get at. He notes that players of In A Wicked Age who bring expectations/habits from other games will introduce the rightward arrows he feels are missing. But he doesn't want this to be optional - he wants it to be mandatory to resolution.

I'm not sure what is going on with your caveat. Assuming that something is true in the fiction isn't the same as actually generating leftward arrows (ie the fiction changes based on some mechanical event) or rightward arrows (ie the fiction informs or gives rise to some mechanical event).

And for present purposes, "mere colour" remains that, I think, even if people really care about it. A really vivid narration which doesnt affect the resolution might be fun at the table - perhaps might even be the reason someone plays the game - but it doesn't generate arrows simply in virtue of that.

Which also connects to the "dissociated mechanics" crowd. As you may recall, I think that "dissocated mechanics" is just a pejorative label for metagame, FitM-type mechanics. But that seems fairly orthogonal to the current discussion. For instance, Gygax characterises an AD&D saving throw vs poison in FitM terms - you don't know what has happened in the fiction until you make the roll - but a poison save certainly generates leftward arrows (either "I was injected with venom, and now amd dying/dead" or,"The snake tried to bite me, but didn't succeed in sinking its fangs into me").

A poison saving throw can also be subjected to rightward arrows - for instance, Gygax notes that the virulence of a toxin may cause a saving throw adjustment, which the GM is at liberty to impose as s/he thinks is appropriate. This is a case of the fiction generating a rightward arrow that affects the mechanical event (an adjustment to the die roll to save vs poison).

The same thing is true with that perennial favourite CaGI. Rightward arrow - there's a pit between the character and the desired target, so s/he can't be targetted by CaGI (which requires the pulled victim to end adjacent to the PC). Leftward arrow - the character uses CaGI, and now the enemy is adjacent here rather than over there.

I also gave an example upthread of how layering narration over the top of the FitM mechanics can generate leftward arrows to fiction that will then, later on, support rightward arrows: the fighter in my game, whose use of CaGI it esablishes, in the fiction, that he is deft with a polearm, then being able to use his polearm to plug a water weird's spring.

2. A mechanical output informs a following fictional state input.

<snip>

For some, State 2 is only acceptable via adjudication of individual character inputs. For others, State 2 is perfectly acceptable via direct narrative control. And along that continuum lies the heart of what we would call a "traditional" RPG game, and what we'd now call a "narrative story" RPG.

I don't really follow.

What is "an adjudication of an individual character input"?

For instance, player A declares "I cast Magic Missile at the goblin". A then rolls a die, gets a 5, and tells this to the GM, who replies "OK - the goblin dies!"

In cube/cloud terms, this is cloud (something happens in the fiction - A's character casts a spell) > cube (A rolls a die) > cloud (goblin is dead). It's analogous to 2, 4, 6 in the OP diagram (no 3, because there is no fictional input into the circumstances of resolution; no 5, because we don't have any tracking of a hit-point tally but go straight from roll to fiction).

Now consider player B, playing Burning Wheel, engaging the circles mechanics: player B declares "I am hoping to meet up with an old friend or contact who can help me decipher this darned scroll". B then rolls some dice, and gets 3 successes, and tells this to the GM, who replies "OK - you learn that an old class mate from wizard school turns up a the Green Griffon most evenings."

In cube/cloud terms, this is clouds (something happens in the fiction - B's character is on the look out for a friend/contact who might help decipher the scroll) > cube (B rolls some dice) > cloud (B's character hears something about where such a contact might be met up with).

In both examples the initial fiction involves some state or action of A or B's character; then mechanics are invoked; and then something new happens in the fiction - in the first case, a change of state in the goblin, in the second case a change of state in B's character.

Most people would regard the combat example as traditional - the mechanics determine whether A can kill B - but would regard the circles example as "player narrative control" - because there is no causal connection between anything A's character did in the fiction and the fact that the old classmate has a habit of frequenting the Green Dragon. But you can't capture this contrast by looking at the distribution of arrows between cubes and clouds; nor by looking at the content of individual clouds.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION] - I hope it's still funny after the edit!