Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wrecan" data-source="post: 5626843" data-attributes="member: 64825">But that model can be that the DM (or the DM and players jointly) will interpret the result within the context of the shared narrative.&nbsp; It's not &quot;reconstructing&quot;, which implies that the reality of the moment had already been constructed.&nbsp; Every die roll in a game contributes to the ongoing construction of the reality.&nbsp; When you roll your d20 to hit something in a D&amp;D game of any edition, and then you get a &quot;hit&quot; that doesn't necessarily mean anything concrete in game.&nbsp; You still roll your damage, apply any other effects, and the DM then compares that to the stats of the NPC your character hit.&nbsp; In that moment between the roll of damage and the DM deciding what that means, has any reality been &quot;constructed&quot;?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; The DM could narrate that the blow staggered the creature filling his eyes with fear, or that it was a grazing blow that did little damage, or a solid shot to the jaw that causes the creature to smile and say &quot;Is that all you've got?&quot;The dice dictate a mechanical effect.&nbsp; Its' the DM and players who determine what their characters perceive, based on that mechanic.&nbsp; Sometimes the mechanic leaves little room for interpretation.&nbsp; Sometimes it leaves a lot of room for interpretations.&nbsp; But invariably, between the dice and the DM's narrations, there is going to be an interpretation of some sort.I don't think theAlexandrian is giving an accurate presentation of how the process of interpreting dice works.&nbsp; Any inferences and assumptions of what a given die roll means has to be on an ad hoc basis, until the DM and players obtain a shared set of assumptions.&nbsp; Let's take hit points.&nbsp; I've seen games in which it is assumed that every &quot;hit&quot; on an attack roll is an actually hit, that 10th level fighters may emerge from a battle against archers looking like porcupines.&nbsp; I've seen games in which a &quot;hit&quot; means nothing concrete unless it knocks you into the negative numbers.&nbsp; And in other tables, the players and DM decide when a &quot;hit&quot; means physical contact and it doesn't, usually based on how entertaining it would be one way or the other.&nbsp; I don't think anybody is playing incorrectly at any of these tables.&nbsp; It's just a matter of preference.I think that assumes that the combat mechanics represent some sort of &quot;internal rules&quot;, as opposed to game rules designed to evoke a feeling of heroic fantasy combat.&nbsp; For me, the rules help the DM and players construct a narrative.&nbsp; The dice ensure that some of that narrative is beyond the control of the DM and the players, and that adds an element of gambling-style fun.&nbsp; The rules and dice don't act as physical laws, but rather of narrative ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wrecan, post: 5626843, member: 64825"] But that model can be that the DM (or the DM and players jointly) will interpret the result within the context of the shared narrative. It's not "[B]re[/B]constructing", which implies that the reality of the moment had already been constructed. Every die roll in a game contributes to the ongoing construction of the reality. When you roll your d20 to hit something in a D&D game of any edition, and then you get a "hit" that doesn't necessarily mean anything concrete in game. You still roll your damage, apply any other effects, and the DM then compares that to the stats of the NPC your character hit. In that moment between the roll of damage and the DM deciding what that means, has any reality been "constructed"? No. The DM could narrate that the blow staggered the creature filling his eyes with fear, or that it was a grazing blow that did little damage, or a solid shot to the jaw that causes the creature to smile and say "Is that all you've got?" The dice dictate a mechanical effect. Its' the DM and players who determine what their characters perceive, based on that mechanic. Sometimes the mechanic leaves little room for interpretation. Sometimes it leaves a lot of room for interpretations. But invariably, between the dice and the DM's narrations, there is going to be an interpretation of some sort. I don't think theAlexandrian is giving an accurate presentation of how the process of interpreting dice works. Any inferences and assumptions of what a given die roll means has to be on an ad hoc basis, until the DM and players obtain a shared set of assumptions. Let's take hit points. I've seen games in which it is assumed that every "hit" on an attack roll is an actually hit, that 10th level fighters may emerge from a battle against archers looking like porcupines. I've seen games in which a "hit" means nothing concrete unless it knocks you into the negative numbers. And in other tables, the players and DM decide when a "hit" means physical contact and it doesn't, usually based on how entertaining it would be one way or the other. I don't think anybody is playing incorrectly at any of these tables. It's just a matter of preference. I think that assumes that the combat mechanics represent some sort of "internal rules", as opposed to game rules designed to evoke a feeling of heroic fantasy combat. For me, the rules help the DM and players construct a narrative. The dice ensure that some of that narrative is beyond the control of the DM and the players, and that adds an element of gambling-style fun. The rules and dice don't act as physical laws, but rather of narrative ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification