D&D 5E Q&A 10/17/13 - Crits, Damage on Miss, Wildshape

[bogmad]

"Roll this to see if you hit and inflict regular damage"
"I missed. Dang. I didn't hurt it."
"Actually. You did miss, but you deal some damage anyway"
"OK GREAT. I don't intuitively understand it, but I'll take the damage anyway. I want to hurt the thing."
"Well, it's meant to reflect the idea that you're so good with that weapon that you don't hit squarely, but you either score a glancing blow or else wear the creature down so much that it's tired and loses a small amount of hp anyway"
"Oh. Sure. That makes sense... I HURT IT GREAT! I CAN'T MISS!"

Sure, players understand "fiat tokens", but it's not exactly intuitive without explanation.

 

[bogmad]

Can't XP, but I really liked Ratskinners reply to my post.
I do think games like with fiat tokens and fate points and everything else do make a lot of sense to kids. And I like that it might program them to think about games differently.

But D&D has always straddled the line between pretending to simulate reality and actually doing a pretty bad job at it. I don't think we need to pick one side or the other and cleave to it. We can get somewhere in the middle that lets you either skew back to one side where we just get all imaginative with every corner case to explain why something weird works, or else you add more complicated rule systems [like 3.5?] that let you add complexity where you want it.

 

[Ratskinner]

"Roll this to see if you hit and inflict regular damage"
"I missed. Dang. I didn't hurt it."
"Actually. You did miss, but you deal some damage anyway"
"OK GREAT. I don't intuitively understand it, but I'll take the damage anyway. I want to hurt the thing."
"Well, it's meant to reflect the idea that you're so good with that weapon that you don't hit squarely, but you either score a glancing blow or else wear the creature down so much that it's tired and loses a small amount of hp anyway"
"Oh. Sure. That makes sense... I HURT IT GREAT! I CAN'T MISS!"

Sure, players understand "fiat tokens", but it's not exactly intuitive without explanation.

Sure it is, or at least no less so that D&D's other mechanics. HP, for example, are nothing but a great big pile of fiat tokens.

"The Ogre's club smashes into your arm! You take (rolls) 15 points of damage."
"Okay. I still have 33, I ignore the pain and fight on. I attack the Ogre...."

Note the distinct lack of anyone looking for consequences to getting your arm bashed by an Ogre's club. (Which many non-gamer Newbies do look for, until they understand HP.) Barring other factors, if you have positive HP, you can carry on without penalty...fiat, pure and simple.

The problem isn't understanding fiat tokens. Its the system around it. Or rather...its the attempt to combine several subsystems which vary wildly in their "fiat-ness".

 

[Ratskinner]

But D&D has always straddled the line between pretending to simulate reality and actually doing a pretty bad job at it. I don't think we need to pick one side or the other and cleave to it. We can get somewhere in the middle that lets you either skew back to one side where we just get all imaginative with every corner case to explain why something weird works, or else you add more complicated rule systems [like 3.5?] that let you add complexity where you want it.

Honestly, I've personally pretty much given up on D&D as sim or story game. Nowadays I take it as a kind of free-form board game for me and my dorky friends to have fun time with. As such, I like it very simple. It does pretty well taken like that. Trying to push it to be more has been a constant source of frustration for me since about 1988, I'm over it. (Which I don't intend to sound as disgruntled as it might appear.)

As far as straddling that middle ground again...I'm not sure. Maybe. I hope for the sake of the game's continuity that they can pull it off.

 

[Mistwell]

Wall of text

Tovec, if someone posted a post that long other than you, would you read it?

Wall of Text 2: The Revenge of the Wall

Et tu, Brute?

 

[bogmad]

Sure, players understand "fiat tokens", but it's not exactly intuitive without explanation

Sure it is, or at least no less so that D&D's other mechanics. HP, for example, are nothing but a great big pile of fiat tokens.

"The Ogre's club smashes into your arm! You take (rolls) 15 points of damage."
"Okay. I still have 33, I ignore the pain and fight on. I attack the Ogre...."
.

It's not intuitive though. It takes the explanation of what HP means.

The "intuitive" grasp I came up with initially when I was 12 is "in this game reality the base assumption is that you can get hit by an ogre several times and ignore the pain without consequence." I was fine with that for a while, and to a nebulous extent I still am (i.e.when I bother to narrate a hit when I'm DMing I usually narrate a weapon connecting).

Some people don't like that "break with reality" though, so then they ask the questions of how getting hit repeatedly by an ogre and still living makes sense, and then we explain how HP is actually a bundle of "fiat" or whatever.

But at the same time that I intellectually understand that HP isn't pure wounds, I might intuitively think of it the same way as when I was a kid. And the great thing about this game is I can live with the discrepancy as long as I don't think about it too much. It's only when certain mechanics rub the disconnect in my face (such as autodamage on a miss) that I think "wait a minute! How come it's impossible for that guy to not hurt a guy?"

And then, some people can't live with the discrepancy as well as I do without thinking about it too much, or as well as you or Pemerton can live with it by explaining mechanics as the result of gamer fiat tokens.
For those guys I say "it makes sense most of the time, but feel free to try out this advanced module to clarify. Or these house rules. Or GURPS."

 

[bogmad]

As far as straddling that middle ground again...I'm not sure. Maybe. I hope for the sake of the game's continuity that they can pull it off.

Me too!

 

[Tovec]

Still catching up.

Tovec, if someone posted a post that long other than you, would you read it?

Yes. Evidenced by my MANY threads, especially against @pemerton . I/We like to argue and I/we have very different idea/s of how the game should look and operate. Point in fact, I read everything in a thread - even the dumb stuff. I reply to only what I need to reply to (or rather to whom I need to reply).

And I also try to catch up on the most recent stuff before adding another post. I'm just throwing this in because it is so off-topic.

EDIT: OH, as it turns out there was only like 2 posts after yours. Caught up now.

 

[pemerton]

HP, for example, are nothing but a great big pile of fiat tokens.

I'm glad someone else noticed this!

I've personally pretty much given up on D&D as sim or story game. Nowadays I take it as a kind of free-form board game for me and my dorky friends to have fun time with.

Harsh words! Although isn't what you describe here pretty much the definition of at least one approach to "old school" play?

But at the same time that I intellectually understand that HP isn't pure wounds, I might intuitively think of it the same way as when I was a kid. And the great thing about this game is I can live with the discrepancy as long as I don't think about it too much. It's only when certain mechanics rub the disconnect in my face (such as autodamage on a miss) that I think "wait a minute! How come it's impossible for that guy to not hurt a guy?"

I would be very surpised if anyone who wasn't already a pretty hardcore D&D player would have problems with this at all.

In the same way that D&D players (but not, say, Rolemaster players) just take it for granted that a wizard can cast his/her spells properly every time, so new players will take it for granted that great weapon fighters just wear down their opponents, to some extent at least, with every attack.

 

[urLordy]

In the same way that D&D players (but not, say, Rolemaster players) just take it for granted that a wizard can cast his/her spells properly every time, so new players will take it for granted that great weapon fighters just wear down their opponents, to some extent at least, with every attack.

This one begs me for clarification. I might take it for granted that I can yell a good insult every time, but I don't take for granted that my insults always have some effect on everyone.