The DM must choose what to use prior to play just like in Mastermind.
I find the comparison to Mastermind quite unhelpful. Mastermind is, literally, a code-breaking game: the "referee" creates a hidden pattern, the "player" takes goes at guessing it, and is given strictly-defined feedback by the GM after each attempt.
D&D differes from Mastermind at almost every point. The GM does not literally create a hidden pattern, but rather draws a dungeon map and writes up a description of it. The players do not try and
guess the GM's dungeon map. Rather, they describe their PCs entering and exploring the dungeon, and the GM is obliged to describe what the PCs can see. There is no need for the PCs to try and reconstruct the map from oblique clues (as in Mastermind).
when a player declares thats/he has rolled a 6 on the initiative die, what pattern is being deciphered?[/quote]The distributive pattern of a 6-sided die roll is being learned.[/quote]Nonsense. A person doesn't learn ("decipher") the distributive pattern of a die roll by checking for initiative. You learn that by reading a maths textbook, or from Gygax's discussion of dice probabilities on pp 9-10 of his DMG.
Rolling for initiative isn't about deciphering any sort of pattern. It's about determining a mechanical game-state, in this particular case for the distribution of turns within a combat. An analgoue is found in the late-70s Toltoys boardgame "Battlestar Galactica", that I have been playing recently with my older daughter. In that game, when you launch laser torpedoes against your opponents, you roll a d6 (or, if your gameboard is still intact, you spin the spinner with numbers 1 to 6) to see how many shots you get. That is not "pattern-recognition" either - the pattern-recognition already took place, when you decided that now was a good time to spend your
laser torpedoes card.
This simply illustrates that not all games are identical in their underlying structure. Some do not have randomly-determined game states (eg chess, Mastermind). Some use randomisation to determine the parameters of the players' moves (eg backgammon, ludo and many other race games) - choosing moves involves "pattern recognition", but rolling the dice isn't an exercise in pattern recognition. Some games use randomisation to allocate turns - rolling for initiative, or to see how many shots of laser torpedoes are permitted, is like this. It's not pattern recognition either.
And I have said it was designed with all its mass of hidden rules so referees do not do that.
<snip>
The referee uses the code behind the screen to learn the results.
<snip>
every DM needs to generate these materials prior to play if they are going to be in the game.
As I have asked before, where does this "code" come from? Who writes it? When?
And, as I have stated before, the number of permissible player action declarations is, for practical purposes, unlimited. Hence it impossible for the GM to write, in advance, a "code" for resolving all of these.
I've given several examples upthread where the rulebooks do not provide any "code": using a hammer and piton to smash a winch so that a portcullis will quickly drop down; hurling a mug onto a floor so that it shatters, making a noise; jumping a 10' wide pit.
Here is another example: a player turns up with "bag of knucklebones" written on his PC sheet. The GM has never before thought about the significance of knucklebones in the game. Then the player's PC meets a goblin, ends up in freindly conversation, and challenges the goblin to a friendly game of knucklebones for a silver piece stake. How do we work out who wins the game of knucklebones. Where is the relevant "code" to be found?
I think the first instinct for many GMs would be opposed DEX checks (or a straight DEX score comparison). But what is the DEX of a goblin?
Determine = generate from the game system already in place, the code repeated, usually by rolling dice so the referee can find out the outcome.
Many people, including me, describe this as
action resolution, meaning the resolution (= determining the outcome of) a player's action declaration.
there is an element here of improvisation (or "Schroedinger's wood spinters") - whichever socket is the first to be examined will contain the splinters. That is, the GM is authoring the imagined state of affairs, within certain rather constrained paramaters, as s/he goes along.
Which would be against the rules and gaslighting the players.
With what authority do you assert that Gygax is breaking the rules, when he wrote them? What rule is he breaking? Where is this rule stated?
You want an illustration specfically from a gaming book of a piton or mug?
No. You said all these things will be on the referee's map. I asked you to point me to a map containing a piton or a mug. Heck, point me to a map with a portcullis that also indicates where the portcullis winch mechanism is located.
Notice that the room, the platform, the splinters of wood, etc have never actually existed. They are imaginary.
Obviously you admit they exist, they are not references to anything outside the imagination beyond the map. Hense they are neither fiction nor nonfiction, but their own actuality.
I don't admit that purely imaginary things exist: that would be straightforwardly contradictory. They are not "their own actuality" (whatever that is meant to mean). They aren't real.
There is a very extensive technical literature on reasoning about imaginary things: the literature on counterfactuals; the literature on paraconsistent logics; the literature on fictionalism. But we don't need to engage with that literature to see what is going on in typical RPG play.
I gave an example in a talk I gave at a conference earlier this year: speaking to my audience, I said - Suppose that this room was quite a bit smaller than it is; and suppose that there were a hippopotamus in it. Then either there would be fewer of us in the room than there currently are, or alternatively some of us would be squashed.
That is an example of reasoning about the imaginary - an imaginary hippopotamus filling an imagined room. It is very commonplace for human beings to engage in that sort of reasoning. D&D referees, in particular, have to be quite good at it if they are going to do their job well.