D&D 5E Starter Set Character Sheet Revealed!

[Uller]

It's a tree falling in the woods, and science is very clear about what happens when nobody is watching.

The tree has both fallen and not fallen?

Really? the dm explains that the
goblins raided the caravan and killed all the guards off screen and you're going to insist he actually play out the battle with dice, stats, and rules? Excuse me while I suspend my disbelief...

 

[Shaangor]

If the outcome of an unobserved fight needs to be determined, it should be determined using the same methods as if it were observed. Or at a minimum, the outcome of the fight needs to be the same as what the outcome would be if you'd figured it out long-hand. As a player, I trust that the GM is being objective in such determinations. Because whether something takes place on-screen is only a meta-game state that doesn't carry any in-game meaning, and having the outcome influenced by something from outside the game universe would violate causality - and there's no way I can suspend belief enough to buy into a non-causal universe.

It's a tree falling in the woods, and science is very clear about what happens when nobody is watching.

I can understand your reasoning, as you've said you play the game as a process sim, which if your group is into that then it makes sense. Your characters are just cogs in the machine, and everything has to follow the same rules. But for my group and I, ensuring that sort of consistency is way too much work for little to no payoff. Like I said, nobody (in my group) cares about the minutiae happening beyond the current frame of reference. As the DM, my players trust me in making the decisions about the goings-on in the world outside of what they are currently observing. As far as the story goes, it really only matters on a macro level. No one (again, in my group) cares about exactly what happens when a harpy attacks a village, i.e. how many villagers are killed, how much damage the harpy took, if any of them fell off cliffs or spent healing surges or whatever. They get to the village, and the elder says a harpy attacked and sends them on a quest to kill it. It's only the outcome that mattered.

And I do try to make things consistent (and by consistent I mean, it's believable from an in-world perspective, and could have happened even I had done it "long-hand"), but the decisions I make are biased for the sake of the story I'm trying to tell. I guess that's where our play styles differ, because it seems like (and I apologize if I interpret incorrectly) your games are basically a world that your GM creates at a point, then "flips the switch" and everything starts playing out according to the predefined rules. Again, if that's the way your group enjoys it then so be it. But for mine, nothing is happening/no decisions are made until its actually relevant for the PCs to care, and everyone just assumes the world is "happening" around them. When it becomes relevant/observed, then I tell them the state of the game world. It much simpler for me, and while it may not be objective, it works to tell the story, which is what really matters.

 

[Shaangor]

The tree has both fallen and not fallen?

Really? the dm explains that the
goblins raided the caravan and killed all the guards off screen and you're going to insist he actually play out the battle with dice, stats, and rules? Excuse me while I suspend my disbelief...

I don't think he meant that he insists the GM actually roll it all out, but merely that the outcome is objectively determined in a way that models the game rules. I interpret it as the GM shouldn't just arbitrarily make up the result, and maybe doesn't even know what it is himself until he actually determines it. Correct me if I'm wrong, Saelorn.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The tree has both fallen and not fallen?

Really? the dm explains that the
goblins raided the caravan and killed all the guards off screen and you're going to insist he actually play out the battle with dice, stats, and rules? Excuse me while I suspend my disbelief...

No, you don't have to actually play out the battle with dice by following all of the rules. That would be tantamount to watching the tree fall.

Rather, you expect that the outcome of the fight should be exactly what it would have been if you had played it all out with dice. It's like saying, if you know a tree falls in the woods, but we're not directly observing it, then we expect everything else - the air, the ground, and all of the furry woodland creatures - to react in the same manner that they would react if we had been watching.

If the PCs fight the guard, and it turns out he has 100hp and +27 to hit for ~35 damage, but the guard is later defeated by some goblins, then we don't expect those goblins to have 10hp and +2 to hit for ~4 damage. We expect that the outcome of the fight should be very close to what it would have been, had we actually played it out. You can't change the outcome of that sort of situation merely by watching it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And I do try to make things consistent (and by consistent I mean, it's believable from an in-world perspective, and could have happened even I had done it "long-hand"), but the decisions I make are biased for the sake of the story I'm trying to tell. I guess that's where our play styles differ, because it seems like (and I apologize if I interpret incorrectly) your games are basically a world that your GM creates at a point, then "flips the switch" and everything starts playing out according to the predefined rules.

Yes, what I run is pretty much the definition of a sandbox. Which isn't to say that there's no plot, or it's all just mindless wandering and getting into fights, but whatever plot does ensue is just the result of NPCs trying to have their own say in the sandbox. If the players don't like it, then they can abandon that plot thread and head off in the other direction, in the hopes of finding something more to their liking. (Which is probable, because it's supposed to be an interesting world where there's a lot of stuff going on, even if all of that stuff is just the world playing out according to the predefined rules.)

I don't think he meant that he insists the GM actually roll it all out, but merely that the outcome is objectively determined in a way that models the game rules. I interpret it as the GM shouldn't just arbitrarily make up the result, and maybe doesn't even know what it is himself until he actually determines it. Correct me if I'm wrong, Saelorn.

Well put. That is the GM's role, as neutral arbiter.

 

[Dausuul]

No, you don't have to actually play out the battle with dice by following all of the rules. That would be tantamount to watching the tree fall.

Rather, you expect that the outcome of the fight should be exactly what it would have been if you had played it all out with dice. It's like saying, if you know a tree falls in the woods, but we're not directly observing it, then we expect everything else - the air, the ground, and all of the furry woodland creatures - to react in the same manner that they would react if we had been watching.

If the PCs fight the guard, and it turns out he has 100hp and +27 to hit for ~35 damage, but the guard is later defeated by some goblins, then we don't expect those goblins to have 10hp and +2 to hit for ~4 damage. We expect that the outcome of the fight should be very close to what it would have been, had we actually played it out. You can't change the outcome of that sort of situation merely by watching it.

I would not go so far as to say the outcome needs to be exactly what it would have been if played out with dice; how could you possibly know the exact outcome without playing it out? But it should be plausible given what the players know. How the DM chooses an outcome within the range of plausible results will depend on his or her DMing style.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I would not go so far as to say the outcome needs to be exactly what it would have been if played out with dice; how could you possibly know the exact outcome without playing it out? But it should be plausible given what the players know. How the DM chooses an outcome within the range of plausible results will depend on his or her DMing style.

The outcome of a DM- arbitrated encounter should be indistinguishable from what would have happened if it had played out following all of the rules. One-in-twenty chances are allowed to happen, about 5% of the time.

Tying it back around to the original point of this tangent, though, it would be inconsistent for an NPC soldier to come out of any off-screen conflict with a broken arm or leg. There is no way to apply the combat rules such that (slow-healing) broken bones are a result. (Unless you're using some sort of optional rules for critical hits or something, at which point it applies equally to PCs and NPCs.)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

So the Hit Point debate is really dead horse now because it is out of Second Winds.

I said it before. D&D is not a simulation. Hit points are an abstraction for fatigue, wounds, adrenaline, gumption, chutzpah, attitude, will power and pixie dust. So... can we talk about something else?

Mike Mearls has a really good rebuttal about the so called "infinite second wind problem" in the Starter Set unboxing video. Jump to minute 46:00.

http://www.twitch.tv/wotc_dnd/c/4523741


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raging Owlbear -- http://ragingowlbear.blogspot.com

Okay, I'm going to pick your post because you put what I want to address into straightforward and simple terms. Don't take this as any sort of personally directed statement.

We can talk about something else as soon as people on both sides admit that it is a matter of preference and that they aren't objectively right about their interpretation of hit points. As long as people keep trying to provide arguments for why chocolate ice cream is objectively better than vanilla ice cream, people (on both sides of the issue) who don't believe in letting BS go unanswered will feel an indignant desire to speak up.

Sure, it'd be nice if we could all just let it slide when people spout preference as if it were a logically valid argument. But we're humans and we have limited patience.

 

[Chaltab]

The outcome of a DM- arbitrated encounter should be indistinguishable from what would have happened if it had played out following all of the rules. One-in-twenty chances are allowed to happen, about 5% of the time.

Tying it back around to the original point of this tangent, though, it would be inconsistent for an NPC soldier to come out of any off-screen conflict with a broken arm or leg. There is no way to apply the combat rules such that (slow-healing) broken bones are a result. (Unless you're using some sort of optional rules for critical hits or something, at which point it applies equally to PCs and NPCs.)

I refer you again to my previous post. Your preference is noted, but it's also something that D&D was never intended for, but was tried once--and that try was an unmitigated disaster in terms of balance and ease of use. I mean there's a reason people say "I like to play 3E but I prefer to DM 4E" or variations thereof. You like what you like, and you're not wrong to like it, but expecting D&D to go that route is unreasonable. Pathfinder or GURPS Fantasy are way closer to what you're looking for.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I refer you again to my previous post. Your preference is noted, but it's also something that D&D was never intended for, but was tried once--and that try was an unmitigated disaster in terms of balance and ease of use. I mean there's a reason people say "I like to play 3E but I prefer to DM 4E" or variations thereof. You like what you like, and you're not wrong to like it, but expecting D&D to go that route is unreasonable.

And yet, It has gone that route in the past. Even AD&D was close enough to that route such that no serious house rules were needed. I can't see how it would be unreasonable to expect them to do what they had done for thirty years without fail.