D&D 5E I just don't buy the reasoning behind "damage on a miss".

[TwoSix]

This is a really strange anectode to me. I have never heard of anything like this in D&D. In this example, does the Player have any agency to declare what WILL happen, and the DM always complied regardless of the result? Or is it just the Player declaring that the character is attempting to do so-and-so?

My D&D experience goes like so:
Player: "I cut his head off!"
(rolls to-hit: hits; rolls damage: 5 damage)
DM: "The orc shifts away, and although you fail to cut his head off, your axe does nick his shoulder. He takes 5 damage."

(If, however, the damage brought the orc to zero hp, then heads go rolling.)

Which is precisely why you shouldn't pre-narrate a fortune in the middle mechanic, so you don't have to retroactively change the narrative. The fact that everyone assumes the player is stating intent only is merely familiarity with the system.

 

[Mistwell]

Right those are specifically listed as targeting objects... does Fireball, which was the spell mentioned?

Only if the DM allows it.

 

[LostSoul]

Or is it just the Player declaring that the character is attempting to do so-and-so?

This; I wasn't clear.

My D&D experience goes like so:
Player: "I cut his head off!"
(rolls to-hit: hits; rolls damage: 5 damage)
DM: "The orc shifts away, and although you fail to cut his head off, your axe does nick his shoulder. He takes 5 damage."

(If, however, the damage brought the orc to zero hp, then heads go rolling.)

To me, that sounds like damage on a miss. I'm not sure in which way it is different in the game world. At the table, yeah, but in the game world I don't see much difference.

 

[TwoSix]

Show me where in the DMG it explains how keywords interact with the narrative in that way. I am not seeing what you're referring to, and I felt your referene to FATE confused the issue a lot.

I don't have the DMG on me, sorry.

Yeah, if I need to read a non-D&D game to grok how a D&D game is supposed to function well, I think you're not making the case you think you are making on behalf of 4e (and I like 4e - I just think you're not making a wise argument in it's favor).

I'm well past the point of being concerned about defending 4e. Those who know how to run it well do so. Those who don't want to, don't.

 

[Mistwell]

Which is precisely why you shouldn't pre-narrate a fortune in the middle mechanic, so you don't have to retroactively change the narrative. The fact that everyone assumes the player is stating intent only is merely familiarity with the system.

I understood what you said, but only after reading it three times. You're speaking in a slightly different language from the language of conversational English or D&D. I don't think borrowing language from storygame discussions is helpful here. The argument you're trying to make is helpful, but not the language itself. The language itself makes one feel excluded from the discussion, if they are not familiar with the terms you're using. And feeling excluded is a sure way to make people dismiss your comment.

 

[Imaro]

Only if the DM allows it.

And again, was this stated explicitly in the first 3 core books that came out for D&D 4e... I'm going to assume not since we're now going in circles.

 

[urLordy]

Which is precisely why you shouldn't pre-narrate a fortune in the middle mechanic, so you don't have to retroactively change the narrative.

I copied and pasted LostSou's example, but in my games, nobody pre-narrated or viewed it as fortune in the middle. IOW, if a player said "I cut his head off!" then he meant "I try to cut his head off" or "I swing my axe at his neck trying to sever his head from his torso" but "I cut his head off!" would just be short-hand. Remember that we tend to play in-character (from 1e to 2e to 3.xe) so players would generally narrate that way.

The fact that everyone assumes the player is stating intent only is merely familiarity with the system.

I didn't assume that. Who is everyone?

 

[Mistwell]

I don't have the DMG on me, sorry.

I do. Can you tell me at least what section of the DMG has this sort of stuff in it?

 

[Imaro]

Which is precisely why you shouldn't pre-narrate a fortune in the middle mechanic, so you don't have to retroactively change the narrative. The fact that everyone assumes the player is stating intent only is merely familiarity with the system.

Uhm... no it's not... At least for me, it's how me and my players state our actions when playing...

 

[Mistwell]

And again, was this stated explicitly in the first 3 core books that came out for D&D 4e... I'm going to assume not since we're now going in circles.

I don't think it was, but TwoSix claims it was. I think it was first mentioned explicitly in the PHB2, which is not "first THREE core", but then it's definitely "core" according to most who played 4e. Indeed, a lot of concepts people think of as core as in the PHB 2 and not the PHB 1.

And again, 3e ran into this same problem of a "core" type rule being in a "non-core" type book. Why are folks not willing to cut 4e slack on an important later retroactive rule like that when 3e committed a similar "sin" with another important rule?