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

[pemerton]

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?

I'm not too concerned about an infinite regress - Lewis Carroll has an answer to that in a paper from around 130 years ago, and in my view that answer can be applied outside of the formal logical domain Carroll is concerned with to other domains in which rules operate.

But I do agree with you that it is a digression. The Lumpley Principle - ie that it is social contract that establishes the system, and that it is shared imagination that constitutes the setting, characters and situation - is (in my view) uncontroversial, and I haven't noticed anyone in this thread trying to controvert it.

But the Lumpley Principle doesn't tell us anything about what systems are possible and the differences between them. Baker himself - as per my quote upthread - clearly thinks that social contract can support a system of task resolution, in which the resolution of situations is under the control of the GM who (as @Campbell explained with reference to John Harper) must decide what affect (if any) the achieving of a task by a character has on the unfolding and ultimate upshot of the situation; or a system of conflict resolution, in which the resolution of situations is not under the control of the GM in the same way.

Baker (and I think @Campbell too) have mostly made the point that that task-resolution, "GM is the glue" approach is not very suitable for "story now". You (that is, @Manbearcat) have also made the point that such a system is not very suitable for "step on up".

We can posit exceptions. A very disciplined GM, with very transparent fiction (setting, situation, NPCs), might make task resolution work for vanilla narrativism. I don't think it will be trivial. Rolemaster looks superficially like task resolution, but some of the features of its non-combat resolution charts actually push it closer to conflict resolution in some arenas (especially social). Nevertheless, using it for vanilla narrativism still raises some of these GM-as-glue problems. I say that on the basis of nearly 20 years of experience with the system.

On the gamist side, a commitment to rock-solid prep and a tight resolution space (ie the dungeon) can make GM-as-glue gamism possible. Even here, there can be problems, for instance for some social conflicts. And take the same approach into a less confined and spartan (imagined) environment, and as I and @AbdulAlhazred have said, the gamism will break down, because no matter how disciplined the GM is, they will have to make stuff up to preserve the logic and verisimilitude of the fiction.

I therefore don't think the rather modest exceptions refute the general point.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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!

Well, it is interesting that at 6 you choose the example of a Jump, which is about the very most nailed down and clear possible case, on a par with a combat check. Even in THAT case suppose a PC has a STR of 15. Is the gap in the bridge they are jumping over exactly 15' or less? We probably don't know, especially in a game where even in combat it is common to have TOTM. Now, the GM could set a DC, but I didn't actually see that as one of the steps, oddly (I'll accept that it would be something like step 5B).

To a large degree though my point isn't really addressed by this breakdown, because part of the issue is that 5e doesn't deal with CONTEXT. Sure, the PC jumps the gap, but often situations don't clearly break down to a single check producing a binary pass/fail. Instead a check produces some as-yet-undetermined increment of success or failure.

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?

Yeah, I had read further, and my feeling is you addressed this pretty well at post 1627, but you probably didn't catch my edit to point that out. Again, I'm happy not to beat a dead horse. I personally don't find debates about whether not rules are actually going to be followed or exactly what is a 'rule' vs a 'convention' or etc. to necessarily be super interesting. I mean, possibly they could be in terms of discussing how game authors could inculcate users of their game with an understanding of how they envisage it being used. AW and DW are interesting to me in this respect, as DW at least is very explicit about what it EXPECTS vs just being some rules.

 

[clearstream]

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

View attachment 157317

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.

That's a fair and quite interesting question. When I looked at it before, my intuitive response is that purple GM fiat circle was jarring. Any interpretation which makes it GM fiat - I felt - just makes it fiat all the way down.

I'm not too concerned about an infinite regress - Lewis Carroll has an answer to that in a paper from around 130 years ago, and in my view that answer can be applied outside of the formal logical domain Carroll is concerned with to other domains in which rules operate.

Snap. What the Tortoise Said To Achilles. I was thinking of that paper as I wrote, up-thread. It's not quite apposite in my view, but in any case, I felt that the infinite regress is headed off by social contract. (Situating agreement outside the rules heads off any regress.)

EDIT I was mixing up my turtles and greek heroes
SECOND EDIT It strikes me to ask, are you thinking of a different paper? What the Tortoise Said to Achilles points out an infinite regress. I don't think Carroll supplied any answer to it. If he did I would like to read that. I suppose the answer implied is - Carroll's regress is only headed off by situating the answer to it outside of the regress. Was that your thought?

 

[Manbearcat]

I think, again, this makes some assumptions about perceived usage in the field that I don't think always follows. And I think it turns on an important issue of GM process in those cases that players are usually relatively aware of if they've been playing with a given GM for any length of time.

The question is "Is the GM making a rule 0 style decision to address output or input?"

What I mean here is that, even if they're doing so for the reason you suggest (and I remind you again that I'm not happy with calling this "sim" when it includes a number of to many people unrelated things, but that doesn't directly impact your statement other than to remind you where I'm coming from), it makes a great degree of difference whether it is to control output or to frame input and process. In other words, is it changing the process because it looks too easy/too hard in general, or for that player. In the case of the latter I agree with your assessment; in the former, not so much. And I think transparency on the part of a GM as to why he's doing that (and possible input from the players in it) makes a big difference.

Put simply, from a gamist point of view, if the GM is going to change a set of processes or simply some numbers because he had not realized how poorly they represented the situation as he sees it, as long as I know its the case I can still engage with it on a gamist level in most cases because I can still know whether the thing I'm attempting to do is the most sensible choice given my character's abilities and aims. Its Campbell's "black box" that destroys this, and the black box is not an automatic element that goes with the ability to engage "rule 0". It may, in a few cases be a necessity to engage with process in a way that seems appropriate on both a game and story level (unless one knows at least a bit about the quality of guards one is sneaking past, one should generally commit to doing so or not without knowing exactly what their perceptual ratings will be--but even here there should be a range of possible cases unless in-fiction one is going into the situation very blind). But those are, for the most part, specialty cases outside of some extremely information-tight old school approaches where players having any information of a usable level is considered anathema (as you can tell, I'm not a fan).

So my thoughts here would be the following:

This seems to be calling on a pretty sizable edge case use of Rule 0; deploying it transparently during play to "fix" an eff-up so it can be resolved in such a way that observes Gamist priorities. This absolutely can happen, but it is a very remote usage of Rule 0. But lets talk about that edge case. The change has to be both transparent and deftly deployed AND the GM has to be very self-disciplined and conscientious (they have to be hyper-aware of even the smallest of mental-model-perturbing eff-ups and demand of themselves and the table the time and effort to resolve the mismatch). This is because we're (the participants interested in distilling Skillful play from Unskillful play) reliant upon the players having well-parameterized mental models of the situation such that their OODA Loop can be executed with optimum skill. If we fail at either transparency or deftness, that (lets call it) "software patch" that we're introducing into play doesn't yield the necessary course-correction to the players' mental models.

In my experience, the huge % of in-situ "eff-up fixes" like you seem to be describing above doesn't entail the transparency rider because the GM is simultaneously trying to observe "I'm There" priorities (High Concept Simulation or Purist for System - Process Sim - agenda) and being transparent about the "software patch" to fix the players' mental model will be perceived as harming immersion.

But yeah, if a GM applies the fix with transparency and deftness, Gamist priorities can absolutely be salvaged. Its just that this (IMO) a small subset of a very small use case of deploying Rule 0. Its sufficiently "edge-case-y" enough and demonstrably different enough that it should really be called something different; "system patch" or something.

And finally, this is why I'm a huge believer of systematizing this stuff and structuring play/conversation and having a principle that says to "keep the meta-channel open (to resolve exactly this stuff)." You are (a) no longer become reliant upon GM self-discipline, conscientiousness, and deftness of resolving the software patch. Not just that, but you (b) aren't reliant on the nearly perfect uptake of that software patch in real time by the players (same problem but coming from the other direction). Neither (a) nor (b) manifest as a problem because you have a huge part of this equation offloaded onto or bridged by system (eg Torchbearer or Blades is a great example of what I'm talking about).

 

[clearstream]

Well, it is interesting that at 6 you choose the example of a Jump, which is about the very most nailed down and clear possible case, on a par with a combat check. Even in THAT case suppose a PC has a STR of 15. Is the gap in the bridge they are jumping over exactly 15' or less? We probably don't know, especially in a game where even in combat it is common to have TOTM. Now, the GM could set a DC, but I didn't actually see that as one of the steps, oddly (I'll accept that it would be something like step 5B).

To a large degree though my point isn't really addressed by this breakdown, because part of the issue is that 5e doesn't deal with CONTEXT. Sure, the PC jumps the gap, but often situations don't clearly break down to a single check producing a binary pass/fail. Instead a check produces some as-yet-undetermined increment of success or failure.

I can give you chapter and verse on a wide range of cases that come up in typical play, but is your concern here more whether 5e has skill challenges? (Incremental success/failure.)

 

[clearstream]

So my thoughts here would be the following:

This seems to be calling on a pretty sizable edge case use of Rule 0; deploying it transparently during play to "fix" an eff-up so it can be resolved in such a way that observes Gamist priorities. This absolutely can happen, but it is a very remote usage of Rule 0. But lets talk about that edge case. The change has to be both transparent and deftly deployed AND the GM has to be very self-disciplined and conscientious (they have to be hyper-aware of even the smallest of mental-model-perturbing eff-ups and demand of themselves and the table the time and effort to resolve the mismatch). This is because we're (the participants interested in distilling Skillful play from Unskillful play) reliant upon the players having well-parameterized mental models of the situation such that their OODA Loop can be executed with optimum skill. If we fail at either transparency or deftness, that (lets call it) "software patch" that we're introducing into play doesn't yield the necessary course-correction to the players' mental models.

In my experience, the huge % of in-situ "eff-up fixes" like you seem to be describing above doesn't entail the transparency rider because the GM is simultaneously trying to observe "I'm There" priorities (High Concept Simulation or Purist for System - Process Sim - agenda) and being transparent about the "software patch" to fix the players' mental model will be perceived as harming immersion.

But yeah, if a GM applies the fix with transparency and deftness, Gamist priorities can absolutely be salvaged. Its just that this (IMO) a small subset of a very small use case of deploying Rule 0. Its sufficiently "edge-case-y" enough and demonstrably different enough that it should really be called something different; "system patch" or something.

And finally, this is why I'm a huge believer of systematizing this stuff and structuring play/conversation and having a principle that says to "keep the meta-channel open (to resolve exactly this stuff)." You are (a) no longer become reliant upon GM self-discipline, conscientiousness, and deftness of resolving the software patch. Not just that, but you (b) aren't reliant on the nearly perfect uptake of that software patch in real time by the players (same problem but coming from the other direction). Neither (a) nor (b) manifest as a problem because you have a huge part of this equation offloaded onto or bridged by system (eg Torchbearer or Blades is a great example of what I'm talking about).

Another possibility that I'm not sure we've mooted yet is gamist-fantasy, by which I mean the feeling of gamism, without over-indexing on wargamey crunch and difficulty.

So a casual player can get excited and feel great on an @EzekielRaiden's Score - Achievement axis (with perhaps some of my Construction - Perfection going on too) and that really is satisfying a gamist agenda, just not a rigorous wargamey gamist agenda. They're in it for the gamist-fantasy.

 

[pemerton]

I can give you chapter and verse on a wide range of cases that come up in typical play, but is your concern here more whether 5e has skill challenges? (Incremental success/failure.)

The essence of a skill challenge is not incremental success/failure. It is that resolving the challenge resolves the scene.

Action scenes in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic are the same in this respect, even though they have the possibility of not being incremental (eg if the first acting hero rolls very well and generates sufficiently many sufficiently large effect dice to bring the scene to its close).

Versus tests in Burnin Wheel are the same in this respect, although manifestly not incremental.

Contrast your steps:

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)

How are the stakes defined? In terms of resolving the situation? Or - in the case of a jump - in the ingame causal terms of possibly falling down a chasm?

And what constrains the narration? You say that it "must follow" and "be meaningful". But how does that relate to the situation? In Baker's example, saying "You disarm the guy and totally kick his butt" follows, and in some sense is meaningful, but leaves it wide open for the GM to declare that while the fight was taking place the ship set sail.

Hence why @AbdulAlhazred says that 5e's task resolution skill checks are prompts: they give the GM additional material (like a disarmed guy whose butt got kicked) that must be woven into the overall fiction; but they don't actually resolve situations.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

View attachment 157317

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.

It seems like it captures a lot of the essence of how a game like 5e works. There's some sort of situation, in which a conflict is present (IE some character needs something). Once a player declares a task, 5e, as @clearstream outlined above in This Post the GM is going to assess whether there's some sort of opposition, then whether failure is possible, and what the consequences might be. A check might be invoked at this point, but it addresses only the specific action the character is taking, leaving the question of how many tasks lie between the current state and the end state of conflict resolved. Beyond that the purple balloon also contains all the fictional state that is not known to the players, which can potentially change the valence of a check, or even make one necessary or not necessary. There's a lot that is not really nailed down here.

 

[Manbearcat]

Another possibility that I'm not sure we've mooted yet is gamist-fantasy, by which I mean the feeling of gamism, without over-indexing on wargamey crunch and difficulty.

So a casual player can get excited and feel great on an @EzekielRaiden's Score - Achievement axis (with perhaps some of my Construction - Perfection going on too) and that really is satisfying a gamist agenda, just not a rigorous wargamey gamist agenda. They're in it for the gamist-fantasy.

From where I sit what you’re describing is Power Fantasy/Flex with either a meaningless (in terms of consequence to play trajectory) veneer of Skilled Play or a Skilled-Play-Lite aesthetic whereby the ceiling to floor ratio is truncated dramatically such that the distribution of play really can’t yield pronounced tails (Skill on one side and Unskillful on the other) because that difficulty curve flattening.

Gamism means those pronounced tails are the point of play. Getting rid of them gets rid of Gamism as play priority. The distribution can’t be overwhelmed by “you have to be this talk to ride…which pretty much everyone is” with very little (to none) “Kicked Ass” and “Ass Kicked”…your tails aren’t fat enough.

Power Fantasy/Flex with veneer or lite (“tail-less”) SP is binned in High Concept Simulation under the Forge model and OC/Trad (I believe) in that Cultures of Play model. Either way, very much “Not Gamism.”

 

[clearstream]

The essence of a skill challenge is not incremental success/failure. It is that resolving the challenge resolves the scene.

Good point. Sometimes an ability check resolves a scene. There's nothing in 5e that I can think of that prevents it. What are you thinking of (if you have something in mind that does?) Doesn't it just come back to whether it is incremental?