D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[clearstream]

Right, terrain is, I found, a really good way to do this in 4e. The other technique, which your descriptions of 4e play seem to use as well, is a lot of dynamic situations, rapidly evolving fiction, and such. I'm definitely going to see how this 'describe your defense' thing works in my game, it may not add much more, but it seems like it might help a little bit.

In option B player still rolls.

The possible issue I see in what you described is the redundancy or load of F>F>G>FG.

DM describes foe attacking
P describes how they defend
P rolls (I use "rolls" to mean one unbroken resolution process, input through to output)
DM says what happens, reduced HP ongoing

It seems like this could be called often enough to want to remove one F from the beginning.

 

[pemerton]

I couldn't even tell you what makes a rule 'constitutive' or not, really. I don't know how that would be helpful.

<snip>

I'm certainly open to gaining an understanding of how a constitutive/regulative classification could be useful, but it isn't really all that obvious on the face of it, to me.

One of the most influential author in contemporary English-language philosophy of law continues to be HLA Hart. And his account of law is as a type of normative social practice. So there is a big literature coming out of that tradition on the nature of rules, and how they relate to the social practices that they are found in and/or are elements of. Hart used games (real and imagined) to illustrate various points about the constitutive relationship of rules to practices, and that tradition continues in the literature.

There is a sense in which the stakes, in law, may be quite high - if certain legal institutions are constituted by the rules that govern them, for instance, then that has implications for how we understand rule-breaking behaviour by officials within those institutions. Eg if rule R is constitutive of the institution, and the official purports to act in accordance with not-R, then there may be a sense in which the action is not an official action at all, and hence is not attributable to the institution. (This may be a good outcome if you're trying to have the action invalidated or set aside; but a bad outcome if you're trying to sue the institution on the basis that its official's action caused you loss.)

But in the context of RPGs, I'm not sure what the stakes are. Does it matter if someone characterises and comports themself as playing D&D, although they disregard one or more rules set out in the D&D rulebooks? What turns on that?

@clearstream - Is the thought that the "functionally optional" described by Vincent Baker can be avoided if doing the thing in play is nothing more nor less than stepping through the process that involves the intended sequences of leftward and rightward arrows? So the constitutive relationship is between the process and some particular facet of play in that RPG?

 

[pemerton]

Well, yes you do: you need to reference the fiction to see if an attack roll is necessary in the first place (i.e. has someone changed the fiction state by having their character move to attack) and-or whether said attack has any chance of success (e.g. on a melee attack is the foe within reach?); and again to determine the odds of said attack doing anything useful (e.g. in the fiction, what armour and-or other defenses does the foe have?).

Yes these things are abstracted as to-hit rolls and AC and suchlike because - unless a group is in full-on LARP mode - it has to be, but it all stems from the fiction first.

As has been discussed at some length, Baker has an example where one character attacks another, generating a rightward arrow from fiction to cues (an attack roll).

But that does not mean that hit point loss is anything but cubes-to-cubes.

Once it gets into the abstraction piece, you're right - the resolution process is separate and nothing in it matters to the fiction until narration resumes. My point is that without the fiction there's no need for the resolution process in the first place, and thus the running of the "resolution process subroutine" is in fact caused by (events and actions in) the fiction.

Abstraction here seems to mean cubes-to-cubes. Runequest is abstracted too - it uses a 7-point hit location table, and assigns hp totals to each location - but it generates leftward arrows that matter in the way they change the fiction.

 

[clearstream]

As has been discussed at some length, Baker has an example where one character attacks another, generating a rightward arrow from fiction to cues (an attack roll).

But that does not mean that hit point loss is anything but cubes-to-cubes.

In 5e as written, the output of roll should be

--> G reduced HP ongoing
--> F DM must update fiction

The basic pattern requires that, so cubes to cubes alone falls short of satisfying it.

 

[pemerton]

Something I've noticed are surprising parallels in the written explanations of play between D&D and DW. Consider the OP's quoted "it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." And DW's "the players say what their characters are thinking, feeling, and doing." There is mirrored language in many places.

I think the verbs determine and say are not necessarily synonyms here. Only the second directly has the player contributing to the shared fiction.

how do we know which G should be launched from a given F. The valency F=G is explicit in DW. If the fiction is like this, do this game thing. Although the D&D basic pattern directs players to work fiction to mechanic and back again, it leaves it up to each DM to solve F=? on a case-by-case basis at their table.

<snip>

Except where the fiction is identical to the exemplified trigger, interpretation in both games results in diverging judgement calls.

I think this is a point of radical difference between 5e D&D and DW/AW.

The essence of AW, and therefore DW, is if you do it, you do it - at which point a dice throw is required, which is apt to generate the well-known spread of results (success, limited/complicated success, or a hard move from the GM). This is the "not functionally optional" apparatus of AW: the fiction generates rightward arrows, and that process will generate leftward arrows, and then action declarations trigger new rightward arrows. The GM's agenda and principles are key here, as they channel the narration of soft moves, when players don't make moves, towards situations which will prompt players to declare actions that trigger their moves. (This is a key design requirement for PbtA: the moves and the principles align properly.)

The earliest RPG I know to use a version of this structure - not as clever or tight as AW, but far from hopeless - is Classic Traveller.

5e D&D, on the other hand, doesn't have anything like if you do it, you do it. It's almost always the case that whatever action the player declares, unless it enlivens some cubes-to-cubes-ish subsystem (attacks as discussed above, using spell slots or other character abilities), the GM can decide to call for a check, or can go straight to new fiction (as per my reply not far upthread to @AbdulAlhazred, with the example of the slippery wall).

So I don't think it's right to say that "the D&D basic pattern directs players to work fiction to mechanic and back again". It directs the GM to think about how they want the fiction to change (if at all), and to perhaps call for a check by a player as one way of seeing if the fiction changes.

 

[pemerton]

In 5e as written, the output of roll should be

--> G reduced HP ongoing
--> F DM must update fiction

The basic pattern requires that, so cubes to cubes alone falls short of satisfying it.

That leftward arrow is completely optional. Nothing about play changes if it is neglected. And I've participated in a lot of D&D play where it was not done. That was not 5e play, but 5e is not different from AD&D in this respect.

A further issue with "updating" the fiction is that, because that fiction (the Orc reeling, or parrying, or having a slashed forearm, or whatever) does not generate any rightward arrows, the impression is created that the fiction is actually irrelevant to resolution. It's the opposite of Baker's example of making the oppressive heat seem real.

Again, I don't understand why we are trying to elide the difference between D&D and all the games that reacted against it, trying to give being struck in combat the same sense of "realism" (ie of being a genuine part of the fiction - not necessarily resembling reality too closely) as the oppressive heat in Baker's example.

 

[clearstream]

That leftward arrow is completely optional. Nothing about play changes if it is neglected. And I've participated in a lot of D&D play where it was not done. That was not 5e play, but 5e is not different from AD&D in this respect.

To say it is optional makes me feel you are describing groups that either haven't read the basic pattern on PHB 6, or choose not to apply it. I am speaking about the game as written.

A further issue with "updating" the fiction is that, because that fiction (the Orc reeling, or parrying, or having a slashed forearm, or whatever) does not generate any rightward arrows, the impression is created that the fiction is actually irrelevant to resolution. It's the opposite of Baker's example of making the oppressive heat seem real.

I think you are describing hard constraints on the orc's future Fs and Gs. The orc player might not be able to say the orc runs quickly away, because of that leg. Let's look at a canonical example from DW.

GM: Jarl, you’re up to your not-inconsiderable belly in slavering goblins. They have you surrounded, knives bared. What do you do?
Jarl: I’ve had enough of this! I wallop the closest goblin with my hammer.
GM: Okay, then. This is definitely combat, you’re using hack and slash. Roll+Str.
Jarl: I got an 11. It says here that I have a choice. Fear is for the weak, let those goblins come!
GM: You smash your hammer into the nearest goblin and are rewarded by the satisfying sound of the crunching of his bones. That and a knife wound as the goblin counterattacks. He deals 4 damage to you. What do you do?

Only weapons with the forceful or stun tags do more than that. That wasn't in play here so any immediate constraints on future Fs and Gs are left up to players and DM. Maybe goblin cares that it is now close to death and acts on that, maybe not. 5th as written is identical: reduced HP ongoing is enough to have changed the fiction (compare with a miss!)

Again, I don't understand why we are trying to elide the difference between D&D and all the games that reacted against it, trying to give being struck in combat the same sense of "realism" (ie of being a genuine part of the fiction - not necessarily resembling reality too closely) as the oppressive heat in Baker's example.

If you are playing 5e the same way many played AD&D then I can understand why you say this. If your goblins never care about being close to death - never flee or plead for their lives - then you've made empty an arrow that 5e mandates. There are many cases in 5e that expressly give you the contents of that arrow - menacing Attack is one example - where not express it is up to DM.

DM also is the sole judge of when a fictional trigger has been provided (if you aren't getting that from 5e, you need to reread the rules.) If players do the thing, DM is intended to say they do the thing. DW steps in by codifying explicit triggers. It has been robustly shown that this comes down to making it more likely - but not guaranteeing - that play by different groups will be similar. A good pattern is given, but again - it us up to DM to interpret that pattern. Look at Dworkin's concept of right answers.

An incomplete or traditional concept of 5th led to incorrect assumptions up-thread. 5th certainly allows that kind of play. DW does too. DW rightly takes more care to say exactly what is intended. 5e is less explicit, guiding folk to the play they expect.

Aside from work left up to DM (who is expressly told to do that work) 5e takes a significantly different approach to establishing fiction. I map that something like this

DW
Play Fs > DM Fs

5e
DM Fs > Play Fs

That ">" is greater than or leading to, whichever makes most sense to you. This difference is far more productive of real differences in play than the whole arrows thing. Finding myself in surprising agreement with @Ovinomancer, watching play you can't easily tell superficially between them, but it is a big deal. [And again, not all or nothing or clear cut in either system.]

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream - Is the thought that the "functionally optional" described by Vincent Baker can be avoided if doing the thing in play is nothing more nor less than stepping through the process that involves the intended sequences of leftward and rightward arrows? So the constitutive relationship is between the process and some particular facet of play in that RPG?

My basic position is that RPG rules are more than usually subject to interpretation so that what game is constituted is always in doubt.

Accordingly, the right answers about what is functionally optional have to be reached locally. As noted this is more Dworkin than Hale.

I must acknowledge that you have changed my view of the LP. We should take it that the meaning of agreement has to be in light of the fiction the group sits down to imagine. A good system is one that reliably produces agreement to the fiction we sat down for, at a price we're willing to pay. [My complement is unneeded, as you have patiently pointed out.]

Compare our difference of views on DW vs 5e under probabilistic versus modal interpretations. I say that if it has to be stated modally, 5e does what DW does. You say that stating it probabilistically, the two are gulfs apart. These views are compatible even though we exhaust ourselves by arguing about them. (Which I am at fault for, sorry.)

[Another way to say that is that the two are on the same spectrum, and where is determined locally. 5e is not AD&D.]

 

[Ovinomancer]

In 5e as written, the output of roll should be

The basic pattern requires that, so cubes to cubes alone falls short of satisfying it.

This is a plain error. The requirement to narrate outcomes does NOT require that it be a change to fiction. The outcome can be that hp totals were reduced, keeping it firmly in the cubes and this satisfies this "requirement." There's nothing here that says that the only information flow between participants is on the fiction side! Cubes-side information flow between participants can be very open (or closed).

 

[clearstream]

My basic position is that RPG rules are more than usually subject to interpretation so that what game is constituted is always in doubt.

Accordingly, the right answers about what is functionally optional have to be reached locally. As noted this is more Dworkin than Hale.

I must acknowledge that you have changed my view of the LP. We should take it that the meaning of agreement has to be in light of the fiction the group sits down to imagine. A good system is one that reliably produces agreement to the fiction we sat down for, at a price we're willing to pay. [My complement is unneeded, as you have patiently pointed out.]

Compare our difference of views on DW vs 5e under probabilistic versus modal interpretations. I say that if it has to be stated modally, 5e does what DW does. You say that stating it probabilistically, the two are gulfs apart. These views are compatible even though we exhaust ourselves by arguing about them. (Which I am at fault for, sorry.)

[Another way to say that is that the two are on the same spectrum, and where is determined locally. 5e is not AD&D.]

Additionally consider under formalist and non-formalist views. Suppose you accept my contention that 5e rules require

F -> G
G -> G + G -> F

You (might) say that it is formally the case that some arrows are empty, because you interpret that no rules fill them. You add that such voids include triggers for fiction to cubes, and any consequences for cubes to fiction.

I can say that it is formally the case that those arrows are not empty because as a matter of fact there are rules throughout 5e that fill them, and a super-rule that requires and empowers DM to do so in their absence. I add that you draw an invalid distinction between impaired novement and reduced HP ongoing, because both are intended to matter. DM F > Play F.

As a non-formalist I say that we may both be right according to how we interpret the constituting rules. Where the constituting rules are in doubt, the game is in doubt. You could rightly ask why on Earth we would want the game to be in doubt!? I could mutter "rulings not rules" and point to popularity.

If we have a feeling that Play F > DM F is best, then empowering DM sufficiently to do as 5e as written requires might defeat the form of play we have chosen to value. There needn't be any conflict, however, if DM uses their powers according to the best way.

This is a plain error. The requirement to narrate outcomes does NOT require that it be a change to fiction. The outcome can be that hp totals were reduced, keeping it firmly in the cubes and this satisfies this "requirement." There's nothing here that says that the only information flow between participants is on the fiction side! Cubes-side information flow between participants can be very open (or closed).

So to you, narrates means say something empty of meaning? Inconsequential?