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

[niklinna]

It’s possible to get lost on a river by following a tributary instead of the main branch.

Sneaky.

 

[clearstream]

DMG p47 contains the 'core loop', though Gygax doesn't quite put it that way. Basically the table on the bottom of p47 establishes the frequency of encounter checks and the text states that the PCs move from hex to hex and these checks are made (with pop density determining the size of die to use). The paragraphs on p49 describe other factors, the process for resolving encounter distance/surprise, and some movement options. So, 'step-by-step' is the PCs decide which square to move into, or they decide to camp, and then an encounter check is made (possibly more than one, depending on the hex scale and the movement rate of the party, or I guess they might move more than one square before needing to check). There is then also presumably a check for getting lost, this is covered in that section. So, unlike B/X, 1e doesn't explicitly call out each element as "this is the loop." This is typical of Gygax game text, he is very bad at being explicit, but there's really no great ambiguity here, there IS a system, you just have to read the whole of 2 pages and remember a couple things to know what it is (and its a quite simple system, really). I'd note that making disease checks and docking party supplies are also implicit elements of this loop, though they are not covered in this one section. I'd also note that presumably morale/loyalty/obedience MIGHT also factor in, but exactly how or when would have to be decided by the DM.

Perfect, got it. Here is the 1e game text (with line breaks for added clarity)

Procedure:

Daylight hours consist of morning, noon, and evening; night consists of night, midnight, and pre-dawn.

These times equate to periods of about an hour after the party sets forth for the day, the mid-point of the journey, and near the end when camp is being made with respect to daylight hours.

During hours of darkness, equate the periods to first, middle, and end sleep periods. Where only 1 or 2 chances for encounter exist, you may vary the time as you see fit in order to avoid player reliance on information which they should not be privy to. When an encounter check is indicated, roll the appropriate die, and if a 1 results, an encounter takes place.

In this event, go to the appropriate table for the terrain, and determine randomly what sort of monster is being encountered.

Note: In areas where you have detailed the monster population, a random determination should not be necessory, as this information should be recorded by you.

When an actual meeting does occur, consult the explanations accompanying the table for any special procedures to follow. Attempts by the encountering party to evade are dealt with under COMBAT, PURSUIT AND EVASION OF PURSUIT (q.v.).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the problem @Campbell is describing is that B/X allows the roll to be avoided, e.g., by following a river, while ToA mandates it be made no matter what. That’s OSR-style skilled play in B/X (i.e., gamism).

I can see kind of a middle case; while sometimes following a river or using a mountain as a point-of-reference works, you do have situations (desert, arctic or some swamp travel) where things only help so much.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I point out that we are making decisions - for example your creating a fiction about a shortage of oil - that operate in a decision-space that is strictly limitless. Another GM could have created a different fiction, and been equally right in doing so.

Well, IIRC, the 'shortage of oil' thing came up because Awanye failed a resources check to buy oil. @Manbearcat was then given the usual choice, a twist or a condition. Now, he's GOT to utilize the stuff that comes from the PCs, belief, goal, creed, instinct, and friends/enemies primarily. I don't recall the exact mechanical details of this specific interaction, but the upshot was that we were getting our oil, but with a complication, which was that this shifty guy had to be dealt with. This addressed Jakob's belief/creed and the previous history with Bear and the hand removal was leveraged to provide the fiction. The twist threatened to turn into a condition, and then it further threatened to turn into an immediate problem about how to dispose of the situation once we grabbed the guy. Two obs were overcome, resulting in the situation being back-burnered and left to maybe next time we are in Strond.

Likewise we ran into a complication (another twist) at the point where we exited the town, due to not being able to pass our resource tests for lifecycle costs. This turned into another series of tests where @Manbearcat put pressure on one of our friends, the Ghost Mother. We were able to cut down the consequences to a condition for Awanye, and some fictional change in state for the Ghost Mother. It might also eventually create some relationship with a priest, but I'm not sure how that will play out, the precedence rules are a factor there.

If you are able to write down what those things are, you will see that agreement to a rule isn't located in the rule. It can be located in view of the consequences of the rule. And it can be located in view of the consequences of agreement to the system as a whole.

Game rules are not followed simply because they are rules. Games are voluntary. Their rules are followed in view of their consequences for us (their appeal) and in view of external considerations like friendship, trust, and so on. We can find ourself in a game where some participants don't follow rules that we have chosen to follow, or follow them in a different way (and thus in view of the consequences of following them that way.)

It's not all or nothing. Opt-in is not automatic: intrinsic to the rule. One might choose not to follow a rule, and then have another explain it to you in a way that makes it more appealing, and thus decide to follow it. That is explained by knowing that the following of the rule is in view of something other than the rule itself.

What difference does any of this make? I am completely puzzled by why this is going on and on. Of course rules don't enforce themselves, DUH! Participants in the game decide what rules they are using or not using in their own game. When I play Monopoly maybe I do funny things with the money from 'fines', maybe I don't, it will be up to all the people playing to decide. What the criteria for that are, that's also up to the participants, but its probably implicit and something like "because it will be more fun" with some kind of additional refinement perhaps, like "because it adds a bit more luck to the game" or whatever. Given that this sort of thing is simply THERE in all games, why debate about it?

What CAN be debated is what the game text itself does or does not do which may affect people's ideas about what they want to use and why, and maybe how.

That is why I cite Torchbearer. Because I mean to illustrate that we are able to follow constraints even while working in decision-spaces that are strictly limitless.

I think it is far less 'strictly limitless' than you assert. Its true that the GM in TB2 could probably devise almost any fiction that accomplished certain goals that the system specifies. Maybe the shifty fence with the oil could have been something totally different, but it would HAVE to address elements of the character sheet of the PC involved, that is mandated by the rules, and is a CENTRAL element.

It might turn out that our greatest disconnect is that as GM you (possibly?) do not see reasons in 5e as a system to accept constraints, while I do. If right, maybe the rest follows from there?

I don't see where 5e really erects those constraints. It seems more like "DM, do what you want, though you should consider this or that." vs games like TB2 that are much stronger in evoking specific principles and tying them directly to very concrete mechanics.

Those are excellent examples of choosing to follow rules in view of the consequences if you accept/enact them for yourself.

1. From experience, you have found that the rules reliably achieve an agenda of play that is one you find enjoyable (the appeal is the enjoyability of satisfying that agenda)
2. You find that the cognitive space is desirable (perhaps parsable, diverse, and complex enough to be stimulating)

That another could not find the achieved agenda enjoyable, or the cognitive space stimulating, is perfectly plausible. Half our play group love TB2, and the other half don't have any desire to play it again. When they don't, they choose not to accept/enact the rules concerned for themselves. It is in view of the benefits (the appeal) that we chose to follow the rules.

Isn't this just self-evident? Again, I'm not understanding why were burning thread space on this.

Another example, you chose to follow different Journey rules from those in the LMM. You explained your view that the consequences of following the different rules were appealing in some ways. The LMM rules had no power to force themselves upon you, other than that you granted them (and in this case, you did not grant them that power).

Sure, its a pretty small change though, IMHO. House rules certainly count as 'customization' of the rules, but we still follow THOSE rules, and they fit with the rest of the game in the same way as the RAW rule.

Yes, constraints are fundamentally opt-in. The characteristics are relevant because it is in view of them that we may choose to opt-in. There can be other reasons, too. For example, a player with no understanding of the rules may opt-in to them because they want to enjoy their friends' company. And may continue to follow them in order to avoid being seen as a spoilsport.

I think @Manbearcat's point is that some things really are NOT opt-out if you want to play anything like the game as designed. If you make such a change the character of the game will change considerably and all of a sudden your shorthand is invalid. When someone says "lets play Dungeon World" I have a PRETTY GOOD idea of what that will be. If it turns out to be something quite a bit different, then the game is likely to fail. It may not even be obvious to participants when something in a game is subverted this way until they experience it, or even AFTER they experience it, yet they are likely to be dissatisfied. So 'choice of game' does a lot of work! Monkeying with that is hazardous to success in an RPG.

That includes 5e. There is no smuggling in. Rather I think sensitivity to what the system offers and adherence to principles. Looking for the best in a system - taking advantage of its strengths.

Yeah, but then people seem to misapprehend what my experience tells me the conscientious, principled play will or is likely to achieve, or how it is achieved, in various games. Now, obviously I am not some oracle of rightness in terms of what I think, but, for example, I don't see 5e actually doing a lot of things that some people have claimed for it, certainly not in close to a way equivalent to certain other games. But when I point that out, I get told that "it can be done." Hmmmm, yeah, but that's a pretty weak assertion! I can do any darn thing at all with Holmes Basic too, if I hack it enough... lol.

What I thought we were debating is whether GM-fiat necessarily applies in 5e. You and others seemed to be saying that due to Rule 0 or for other reasons, it does necessarily apply. That's not my experience.

GM-fiat is coded throughout 5e, that would be MY response to this. Sure, you can work to avoid it, but it isn't just a matter of saying "Oh, I'm not going to use Rule 0", there's much more to it than that! In fact I am not sure how you can NOT use Rule 0, though you might sort of 'reconstitute it' as basically a coda of pretty much every other rule (5e tends to read this way, a LOT of its 'rules' recapitulate some phrase about how the GM is supposed to make choices as to how, why, when, and where a rule is used).

Frex, I use Rule 0 in play to make rulings in case of lacunae. I note such rulings and after play the group agrees whether (or not) that will be our houserule for the rest of the campaign. I use Rule 0 out of play to author or revise rules in ways that can better serve the group, and such rules become constraints from there. I never use Rule 0 to arbitrarily disapply constraints consistent with "system-directed, system-constrained, rule-and-principles-and-best-practice-observing, conscientious GMing".

We are simply saying that 5e has a very different take on what that is than say TB2, DW, BitD, BW, or for that matter original D&D. Some of those games (most of them) don't mention a 'Rule 0', and are written with the intent of being less centered around GM directed play. So obviously this has a real impact on the structure of the game, and how, when, why, and where all the things you mention above happen, or could happen.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perfect, got it. Here is the 1e game text (with line breaks for added clarity)

Yeah, though what he meant by 'explanations accompanying the table' is a bit obtuse, does he mean the ENCOUNTER table? Certainly the table presented here has no 'explanations' accompanying it... lol. I'd also note that while he calls out the combat rules, there is actually some relevant rules text right here in this section, which we would have to dovetail with the part in the combat chapter (which is the next section of the rules after the outdoor adventures part). Overall its fairly clear, but as I hinted before there is some complexity in terms of how many hexes one crosses in the 'move' part, as it will depend on scale and encounter check frequency, which itself is gated by which terrain you are in. So when a party moves through a complex environment the GM will have to decide which encounter tables to consult, and exactly where the encounter will happen, though the notes on times obviously does help. Its not as simple and straightforward as the B/X system. So, clearly Gygax started from the game world and extrapolated to some rules, whereas B/X is more explicitly gamist, the rules are formulated, and any complexities are dealt with via their structure before questions arise. B/X is certainly cleaner, but either system will work and give you similar results, 1e's getting lost rules are for example virtually identical to the B/X ones, and likely they derive from the same source.

 

[niklinna]

Has anybody looked at the Journey stuff in EN Publishing's Level Up (Advanced 5E)? I've only skimmed it but they've got a fair bit of procedural-looking material in there, and all the character classes get a whole new category of abilities to pick from that directly deal with the exploration pillar (and other noncombat things).

 

[niklinna]

Well, one can argue that if that sort of thing is a problem, almost any die roll is. After all, a die roll can often make your decision-making moot. The most you can do in most games is put your thumb on the scale of difficulty.

Good thing that isn't a problem for B/X style hexcrawls, then!

 

[kenada]

I can see kind of a middle case; while sometimes following a river or using a mountain as a point-of-reference works, you do have situations (desert, arctic or some swamp travel) where things only help so much.

Sure, but the point was to contrast a mechanic from B/X hex crawls that supports gamist play with one in ToA that doesn’t.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Has anybody looked at the Journey stuff in EN Publishing's Level Up (Advanced 5E)? I've only skimmed it but they've got a fair bit of procedural-looking material in there, and all the character classes get a whole new category of abilities to pick from that directly deal with the exploration pillar (and other noncombat things).

What about some of the backgrounds and whatnot that just totally negate significant parts of hexcrawl/journey like Outlander? It seems like WotC doesn't intend to issue 'errata' to things as happened back in 4e, nor declare some sort of 5.5e where everything gets a refresh. So it seems like about the only remaining option would be something like a 'suggested list of things to ban if you want to do this' or something like that .

 

[niklinna]

What about some of the backgrounds and whatnot that just totally negate significant parts of hexcrawl/journey like Outlander? It seems like WotC doesn't intend to issue 'errata' to things as happened back in 4e, nor declare some sort of 5.5e where everything gets a refresh. So it seems like about the only remaining option would be something like a 'suggested list of things to ban if you want to do this' or something like that .

Level Up is not from WotC. It specifically addresses such points, although if the GM allows o5e material that obviates journey stuff, they'll have to handle it, of course.