D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's a good example of what I am discussing. A parking rule is not binding in itself, it is binding because it is enforced. It's easy to see that we can park where we like - the rule doesn't make us park in accord with it - rather it is our concern to avoid a fine that secures our consent to the rule. (Or we may feel a sense of civic duty, etc.)

For RPG we often agree to process rules. Like this

1. We know that sometimes we have different ideas about what should happen next, in circumstances where that will take what follows down different paths (the antecedent behaviour)
2. We author a rule "In case of 1., you will roll 1d6. On 6, what you say goes. On 3-5, what you say goes and I get to add something. On 1-2, what I say goes."
3. We come to a case of 1. You pick up 1d6 and roll it - a 6. What makes me go along with that? It's not the roll. It's my consent to the roll, due in very large part to the player-ethos we share that would make my behaviour that of a spoilsport (see Huizinga et al) should I now disregard this rule that we gave our prior consent to.

Of course, I don't normally think about consenting or not to every roll (as John Harper reminds in a recent video). Our shared ethos is normative. Instead I give my consent as we enter the magic circle, thus adopting a lusory attitude that should (but is not guaranteed every time to) meet the lusory expectations of my fellow players.

Again, we are perhaps in the end just agreeing (by disagreeing). I am absolutely talking about whether a rule is inherently binding or not. I gather from your caveat that you perhaps agree that rules aren't inherently binding. Have I got that right?

We're speaking to a conversation about rule zero versus every other rule in 5e, and I am saying that none of those rules are inherently binding. They are binding because of norms and penalties, anticipated benefits, etc, that bring us to accept/enact them for ourselves. This makes @Thomas Shey's argument exactly right: a GM could wield Rule 0 in an unhelpful way - any participant could wield any rule in an unhelpful way - but they do not because they don't follow the rule just because of the existence of that rule. They follow that rule because of (and in the way that satisfies) the shared-ethos and the benefits the group desire that rule to have.

Look, at the end of the day this entire line of reasoning amounts to "but we can't actually talk about rules authority AT ALL because someone might decide not to follow the rules, and nobody can make them!" or its alternative incarnation as "no matter what the rules say, the players won't play by them, they'll force the GM to do things in a way that is acceptable to them. So we can't really care about rules/system!"

Its a fundamentally discussion ending kind of argument that misses the entire point of the rules. Sure, they're subject to acceptance, but people DO ENTER THE MAGIC CIRCLE. They accept the rules, mostly as written, and they play the game! If they don't, we're not even having an RPG game play/design/theory discussion anymore, because no RPG is happening, or its a totally different one, or Calvinball, etc.

EDIT: Again, I think this was fairly well answered to in post 1627 above, please don't feel like we're beating the horse after it died, lol.

 

[Campbell]

I can't agree. The numbers I'm applying are not entirely pulled out of thin air; for the most part my players have a good sense of the range of expected problems they can expect to encounter and deal with, and certainly know the specifics in most cases where any dice are to be rolled. Its entirely within their capability to look at what I've presented and note if something seems outside the expected range and question what I'm doing; it happens with some regularity. I realize there's a tendency in the hobby for GMs to view such things as tantamount to lese majesty, but it isn't intrinsic.

I'm not saying the numbers are pulled out of thin air (always). I am saying that is long as the numbers (or more importantly the setting's impact on the shared fiction) fit within that fairly wide acceptable range there is no way of telling why the fall where they fall. Fiat that comes from a disciplined attention to the GM's conception of the setting is still fiat. It's the sort of fiat that is needed to make exploration work - the GM is our window into the setting in exploratory play. Still fiat though.

There is a world of difference between fits within an acceptable range and the sense of powerful expectation that comes from knowing that if you get that 6 in Blades in the Dark you are going to achieve your intent without a complication or that on a 10+ on go aggro in Apocalypse World the NPC will either give in or face the consequences. Night and day in terms of tension, immediacy and follow through.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not saying the numbers are pulled out of thin air (always). I am saying that is long as the numbers (or more importantly the setting's impact on the shared fiction) fit within that fairly wide acceptable range there is no way of telling why the fall where they fall. Fiat that comes from a disciplined attention to the GM's conception of the setting is still fiat. It's the sort of fiat that is needed to make exploration work - the GM is our window into the setting in exploratory play. Still fiat though.

There is a world of difference between fits within an acceptable range and the sense of powerful expectation that comes from knowing that if you get that 6 in Blades in the Dark you are going to achieve your intent without a complication or that on a 10+ on go aggro in Apocalypse World the NPC will either give in or face the consequences. Night and day in terms of tension, immediacy and follow through.

While I agree with both you and @Thomas Shey at one level, I also think it isn't at all that simple. The GM is very much armed with secret backstory, and the ability and often desire to come up with certain specific answers. Those answers quite often can be surprising to the players! I mean, this is where the classic 'dungeon crawl' formula worked its magic. The GM was boxed into a highly restricted space. Sure, he could invent a new trap where none was before or something, but that was clearly demarked as being not within the skilled play agenda of a game like B/X. Once you get outside that sort of 'box' the whole structure Thomas is proposing largely breaks down. In 'town' there can be all sorts of secret plots, unknown NPCs, and just such a wide range of possibilities that there's no real judging. This is exceptionally true when the game opens up into other sorts of challenges like if there is social conflict, etc. I don't care how much common sense you have, etc. the imagined game world is just not filled with all the 1000's of possible details that would even guide use of that. Regardless of what the GM says happens, it can be justified, and the only question then is who decided what the fiction would be and how?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not saying the numbers are pulled out of thin air (always). I am saying that is long as the numbers (or more importantly the setting's impact on the shared fiction) fit within that fairly wide acceptable range there is no way of telling why the fall where they fall. Fiat that comes from a disciplined attention to the GM's conception of the setting is still fiat. It's the sort of fiat that is needed to make exploration work - the GM is our window into the setting in exploratory play. Still fiat though.

There is a world of difference between fits within an acceptable range and the sense of powerful expectation that comes from knowing that if you get that 6 in Blades in the Dark you are going to achieve your intent without a complication or that on a 10+ on go aggro in Apocalypse World the NPC will either give in or face the consequences. Night and day in terms of tension, immediacy and follow through.

Keep in mind I'm talking about this in terms of response to the idea that what GM-generated material kills Gamism. It really doesn't, unless the GM is being remarkably opaque (which to be clear, some of them do, sometimes deliberately to kill gamism). I am neither qualified nor particularly interested in trying to discuss how it impacts a Story Now approach.

 

[Thomas Shey]

While I agree with both you and @Thomas Shey at one level, I also think it isn't at all that simple. The GM is very much armed with secret backstory, and the ability and often desire to come up with certain specific answers. Those answers quite often can be surprising to the players! I mean, this is where the classic 'dungeon crawl' formula worked its magic. The GM was boxed into a highly restricted space. Sure, he could invent a new trap where none was before or something, but that was clearly demarked as being not within the skilled play agenda of a game like B/X. Once you get outside that sort of 'box' the whole structure Thomas is proposing largely breaks down. In 'town' there can be all sorts of secret plots, unknown NPCs, and just such a wide range of possibilities that there's no real judging. This is exceptionally true when the game opens up into other sorts of challenges like if there is social conflict, etc. I don't care how much common sense you have, etc. the imagined game world is just not filled with all the 1000's of possible details that would even guide use of that. Regardless of what the GM says happens, it can be justified, and the only question then is who decided what the fiction would be and how?

I still maintain, however, that how much the books are being cooked here is less well disguised than many people think it is. Though you're correct that some scales of problem are more open ended than the tactical ones I was discussing, even when looking at a larger scale issue, the investigative part (assuming the characters are set up to do it properly) should not leave you completely in the dark about parts of the problem; they may not give you complete information, but things like conspiracies and the like have to be doing something to be an issue, and those things leave footprints, even if where they go is unclear in some cases without further work. From a gamist point of view, the only time such things should come completely out of the blue is when they involve places or situations the PCs have been giving no attention to at all. Otherwise, I think there is, indeed, an ability to judge that the GM has performed a hat trick.

 

[Campbell]

I still maintain, however, that how much the books are being cooked here is less well disguised than many people think it is. Though you're correct that some scales of problem are more open ended than the tactical ones I was discussing, even when looking at a larger scale issue, the investigative part (assuming the characters are set up to do it properly) should not leave you completely in the dark about parts of the problem; they may not give you complete information, but things like conspiracies and the like have to be doing something to be an issue, and those things leave footprints, even if where they go is unclear in some cases without further work. From a gamist point of view, the only time such things should come completely out of the blue is when they involve places or situations the PCs have been giving no attention to at all. Otherwise, I think there is, indeed, an ability to judge that the GM has performed a hat trick.

I absolutely agree that most GMs who engage in a lot of trickery are not half as clever as they think. Most of the time they simply have players who are willing to go along with the illusion.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I still maintain, however, that how much the books are being cooked here is less well disguised than many people think it is. Though you're correct that some scales of problem are more open ended than the tactical ones I was discussing, even when looking at a larger scale issue, the investigative part (assuming the characters are set up to do it properly) should not leave you completely in the dark about parts of the problem; they may not give you complete information, but things like conspiracies and the like have to be doing something to be an issue, and those things leave footprints, even if where they go is unclear in some cases without further work. From a gamist point of view, the only time such things should come completely out of the blue is when they involve places or situations the PCs have been giving no attention to at all. Otherwise, I think there is, indeed, an ability to judge that the GM has performed a hat trick.

Sure, but what is the 'gamist view' here? I mean, I think its possible to construct a 'mystery story' for instance, conceptually, but its going to be hard to do so in a gamist fashion. The basic 'tooling' of classic D&D or 5e doesn't really help you at all. Furthermore the story is wide open, you cannot say there are only certain possible suspects, that the motives are really XYZ, etc. D&D at least also lacks any sort of progress structure, so neither is there some sort of signifier of 'achievement' nor is there even an indicator of progress! In fact progress is a hard thing to even consider, as if it turns out you were wrong at some point, you can end up right back at zero, or even worse off than you started.

I'm not saying it would be impossible to construct gamist RPGs that dealt with the subject of mysteries or conspiracies or such stuff, it is just that they wouldn't look at all like D&D! I do not believe that you can do this sort of stuff in a way I would call gamist in D&D, at least not modern D&D. The problem with going back to really old school techniques, like just having the GM narrate the results of PC actions, is even that doesn't guarantee the adventure will 'work' (IE the PCs may never choose to search the dresser and so never find the vital clue). The other observations about lack of ways to measure achievement or skill also still apply.

It seems vastly likelier that any sort of social conflict adventure of the 'conspiracy', 'mystery', or even just general social conflict, is going to rapidly become some sort of HCS or process simulation kind of affair, and process sim is probably going to break down too! (too many variables to simulate, though there might be ways to mitigate that).

 

[clearstream]

This is also exactly why I called 5e's skill system nothing but a prompt.

Take a typical 5e ability check at our table

1. There's a fictional situation
2. There's a game state (often partly hidden)
3. Players ask questions and describe their actions
4. Players sometimes name mechanics they hope to invoke (Harper's recent video mentions that for Blades) - my take is it forms a ludically extended language
5. DM (often me, but not always) asks questions (of themselves and players)
   1. How is this possible? (Hopefully, players have described how)
   2. How is this uncertain? (If it's possible and not uncertain, it may just succeed)
   3. What's at stake? (If nothing's at stake so it can be reattempted, it may just succeed)
6. If its justified by situation, descriptions, and system, DM calls for roll with a mechanic in mind (e.g. if it's a jump, I will have in mind that the upshot of the game text is you can jump Strength with a 10' run up, clearing an obstacle with DC10, and landing safely in difficult terrain likewise.)
7. Taking into consideration roll and that context, result is narrated, saying what follows. (And you know my thoughts on "narrates" entailing saying something that shall be meaningful)

Supposing that is what you call "nothing but a prompt", then okay!

Look, at the end of the day this entire line of reasoning amounts to "but we can't actually talk about rules authority AT ALL because someone might decide not to follow the rules, and nobody can make them!" or its alternative incarnation as "no matter what the rules say, the players won't play by them, they'll force the GM to do things in a way that is acceptable to them. So we can't really care about rules/system!"

Its a fundamentally discussion ending kind of argument that misses the entire point of the rules. Sure, they're subject to acceptance, but people DO ENTER THE MAGIC CIRCLE. They accept the rules, mostly as written, and they play the game! If they don't, we're not even having an RPG game play/design/theory discussion anymore, because no RPG is happening, or its a totally different one, or Calvinball, etc.

EDIT: Again, I think this was fairly well answered to in post 1627 above, please don't feel like we're beating the horse after it died, lol.

In the interests of principled discussion, I feel you have a decision to make here. We can terminate this line of discussion - agreeing to disagree - without either of us scoring further points. Accepting, for instance, that while you might feel it "was fairly well answered", I do not.

Alternatively, you can continue this line of discussion. If you do, you can hardly expect me to respect @Manbearcat's request. I'm very interested in rules, so I am very happy to carry on, but I am equally glad to accomodate the requests of principled interlocutors. What do you prefer?

 

[Manbearcat]

In the interests of principled discussion, I feel you have a decision to make here. We can terminate this line of discussion - agreeing to disagree - without either of us scoring further points. Accepting, for instance, that while you might feel it "was fairly well answered", I do not.

Alternatively, you can continue this line of discussion. If you do, you can hardly expect me to respect @Manbearcat's request. I'm very interested in rules, so I am very happy to carry on, but I am equally glad to accomodate the requests of principled interlocutors. What do you prefer?

That was just me talking. If what I said doesn't serve the interests of multiple participants here, then you guys all carry on. I don't see how deconstructing the philosophy of rules will lead to anything more than a nearly infinite regression (which I see as a digression). But if you and @AbdulAlhazred and anyone else (possibly @pemerton given his position as an academic philosopher) find it useful and/or at least possibly capable of stimulating the penetration (giggety) of Gamist-related design and experience of play?

Have at it. I appreciate your consideration/courtesy here very much (hence the xp), but I'm just one dude and I don't get to dictate the conversation (particularly if my position doesn't carry a healthy majority). I can just work my way around the philosophy the best I can (which will entail post-skipping and post-skimming which I'm entirely capable of)!

 

[Campbell]

@clearstream
Do you find this diagram a fair description of the structure of how you play?

If not how does the essential structure differ? Assume GM Fiat here may include principled decisions based on your black box knowledge of NPCs and other setting elements.