D&D 5E Weird Interpretations for High/Low Ability Scores

No offense or anything, but have you read the rule book? Because the "How To Play" section is pretty clear about who is supposed to describe what.

Right. Yes, I'm all too familiar with Page 6 of the PHB. You seem to be caught up with a very strict definition of "The DM narrates the results of the adventurer's actions" - beyond declaring a success or failure - and are using that as some sort of justification to take control of the PC, even if for a moment. It does not interrupt the play cycle to ask a player to describe what the tremendous success or failure of their PC's action looked like. You as DM still have the power to then describe how the success or failure affected other creatures, objects, and/or the environment, which brings us back to step 1 in the play loop. No thank you on telling the player how their PC thinks, acts, or talks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


G

Guest 6801328

Guest
At my table, whoever lands a killing blow gets to narrate it.

Now, I agree that this is a "house rule" in the sense that the DM is ceding narrative control to the player, and we all expect it. But is the actual narration bending/breaking the rules? Is it a house rule to narrate, say, a decapitation? According to the rules, the only thing that actually decapitates in the game is a Vorpal sword, so are we houseruling when we narrate such a thing with a mundane sword?
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
At my table, whoever lands a killing blow gets to narrate it.

Now, I agree that this is a "house rule" in the sense that the DM is ceding narrative control to the player, and we all expect it. But is the actual narration bending/breaking the rules? Is it a house rule to narrate, say, a decapitation? According to the rules, the only thing that actually decapitates in the game is a Vorpal sword, so are we houseruling when we narrate such a thing with a mundane sword?

I'd make it a house rule so that I don't have to argue about whether it breaks the rules. :-(
 

So is this an argument that this is making things more difficult for the DM and/or player? Because...yeah, it probably is. So? Lots of player choices make things more difficult for the DM.

Or is it an argument about potential cheating? Like in my previous example about the Kensai monk, I could say, "No, my wooden sword can fit through the windy crawlspace because it's not really a staff." But that would be using my alternative fluff to bend the rules, so that's not a permissible interpretation. It would be up to me to come up with a story that fits the rules.

And maybe that's the difference between the two camps here: one thinks that the rules determine the narration, and the other thinks that part of the fun is coming up with narration that complies with the rules.
No. definitely not about cheating. Like in the situation of the bokken fitting in the crawlspace but a default staff not, I would absolutely prefer you to 'cheat' and just take the bloody thing with you. Far less jarring that way. The bokken is an object of certain agreed upon length, and behaves as such in the setting. If the rules fail to represent that properly, there's a disconnection and the rules have to change.

(Default staff stats in PHB are a perfectly valid representation of the combat stats of a long bokken. They're pretty bad representation of actual quarterstaff though, so I have houseruled them...)

And yeah, it makes things harder for the GM, but my distaste goes farther than that. Rules being disassociated from the fiction actively makes the game unfun to me and makes me stop caring about the rules altogether were I the GM or a player. I want having a high dexterity score to mean being agile and agile things to have a high dexterity score. I have no use for rules that are not representing things that exist in the fiction, that sort of ludo-narrative disconnect is a massive fun and immersion killer for me. And sure there is a lot of abstraction, but I want the concrete connection to be there. And I think this is pretty common attitude, I believe this was a big part of why so many people reacted to 4E so negatively, it had clearly more severely disassociated mechanics than any of the previous editions did or that 5E does.

(I know that you don't think things this way and it is a big part of the reason for our disagreement on the ASIs. We simply see the whole purpose of the mechanics differently.)
 



G

Guest 6801328

Guest
No. definitely not about cheating. Like in the situation of the bokken fitting in the crawlspace but a default staff not, I would absolutely prefer you to 'cheat' and just take the bloody thing with you. Far less jarring that way. The bokken is an object of certain agreed upon length, and behaves as such in the setting. If the rules fail to represent that properly, there's a disconnection and the rules have to change.

(Default staff stats in PHB are a perfectly valid representation of the combat stats of a long bokken. They're pretty bad representation of actual quarterstaff though, so I have houseruled them...)

I agree that it's easier just to handwave the situation I was describing, but I'd actually prefer to adhere strictly to the rules. I might say something like, "I'm worried about a loose stone collapsing on my companions, so I use my bokken as shoring and leave it behind." Or whatever.

And the reason I think it's important is so that there's a clear boundary. In the 5-Int Genius thread, Max kept throwing these scenarios at me, along the lines of "Well what if you're in a Zone of Truth and..." He was trying to find a way in which the alternative interpretation would cause actual rules to get broken, in a way that would give unfair advantage.

Or another example is the proficiency: in my fluff the only reason I'm not using a real longsword is that my sensei hasn't given me permission. If we take that fluff at face value, there's no reason I couldn't defy my sensei and pick up the real thing, even though that would break the metagame rules. But since I have zero intention of trying it, the rule remains inviolate.

I think that if you're going to play around with re-fluffing, it's important to be diligent about adhering to the rules.

Rules being disassociated from the fiction actively makes the game unfun to me and makes me stop caring about the rules altogether were I the GM or a player.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean here, but I don't see it as disassociation of the rules and the fiction at all. It's just swapping in a different fiction that is still tightly associated to the rules. E.g. my wooden sword. It still follows all the same rules in the same way, it just has different fluff.

(I know that you don't think things this way and it is a big part of the reason for our disagreement on the ASIs. We simply see the whole purpose of the mechanics differently.)

Yeah there's definitely some underlying principal that is common to these apparently unrelated debates.
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
I agree. Whether its considered good or bad, in my opinion, is all personal preference.

Fully agree.

There's somebody at my table who bases every single character off of some character in modern culture. I hate it. It doesn't fall within my range of preferred fantasy aesthetics.

But it doesn't break any of the rules. It's just a difference in preference.
 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Fully agree.

There's somebody at my table who bases every single character off of some character in modern culture. I hate it. It doesn't fall within my range of preferred fantasy aesthetics.

But it doesn't break any of the rules. It's just a difference in preference.
At least they aren't playing a warlord. :)
 

Remove ads

Top