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

[pemerton]

And yet would you agree that individual rules can hurt one's enjoyment of the game?

Maybe? I'm not sure what you count as an "individual rule". There are a lot of ways that a game can not be enjoyable, and many of those will result from game rules, given that it is the rules that constitute the game. I'm not 100% sure what additional understanding we get by working out whether the reason for dislike is an individual rule, or some combination of rules, or something that emerges out of the deployment of rules.

To try and cash out with examples: some people don't like d% systems because of the double-digit maths they bring with them. I see people debating "roll over" or "roll under". Are these the sorts of things you have in mind as rules that hurt one's enjoyment?

Or are you meaning particular principles or expectations that govern content introduction? Eg some people don't like wandering monster rules, because they prefer every bit of introduced content to be tailored or deliberate.

Or particular processes of play? Eg Torchbearer deliberately has no requirement that players make a map, because the designers think that actually drawing maps in play slows things down. (Instead, mapping is abstracted into a skill check which, if successful, confers benefits on subsequent journeys through the mapped region).

These might all count as individual rules that could hurt someone's enjoyment of a game, whether due to cognitive load, "feel", contribution to (or lack of contribution to) creative agenda, or something else.

 

[pemerton]

This post is a bit tangential, but was prompted by what kenada posted about fronts:

I struggled with fronts when I ran Dungeon World. I think part of the problem is Dungeon World is just really bad at explaining how the game is supposed to work. It took reading Apocalypse World to really understand that. I feel like fronts are more evocative of a story-based approach.

My understanding of fronts - based on reading, not play - is that they are intended to act as a source of material for GM moves. And not just any sort of source, but a "structured" and "indexed" source.

I've used scare quotes because the meaning is a bit approximate. I'll try and explain what I've got in mind.

A common concern I see voiced about no-myth or low-myth RPGing is that the resulting fiction will be inconsistent or even incoherent, potentially meandering or unfocused, etc. I see fronts as a type of prep intended to insure against those risks, while at the same time maintaining the no-/low-myth character of the game. They don't serve the traditional role of GM-authored backstory, namely, as establishing constraints on framing and even on resolution in virtue of establishing fictional positioning that is often secret from the players, or at least prior to and independent of their action declarations. But they do provide material for the GM to draw on for making moves (both soft and hard) so that the game has a sense of "living, breathing" antagonism with an agenda and a presence that comes from outside the immediate concerns and action of the PCs.

I'm more familiar with Burning Wheel than AW/DW. It doesn't use fronts, but it does have a concept - for Circles checks - called the Enmity Clause, and you might have encountered the same notion in Torchbearer. The Enmity Clause, together with hostile/inimical relationships, and Beliefs about opponents/rivals etc, serve a broadly similar function to fronts in the sense of guiding the GM towards content to introduce to establish and maintain adversity without drawing on that traditional pre-authored backstory that establishes player- and character-independent fictional positioning.

To relate this to your "story-based" remark: I think the BW way of going about things is highly "story-based". Characters encounter their nemeses, and conflict with them, are sometimes bested by them and sometimes overcome them. It's Gandalf vs Saruman, Pippin vs Denethor, Sam vs Bill Ferny, the Noldor prince vs Morgoth, etc. It's nearly always personal. For me, at least, this is part of what I love about Burning Wheel.

I think fronts are not as personal, or at least not in the same way. I see them as a way of getting the feel of "the world doesn't just revolve around the PCs" in a game in which nearly everything the GM says is in response to an action declared by a player for their PC. So while their deployment is "story based", their content is not quite so much. I think this is a very clever bit of design. In my Classic Traveller game I don't literally use fronts as AW would tell me to, but I find I have to do something similar - use particular groups, institutions, personalities, whose agendas and inclinations I have a general sense of (the Imperium uses its Navy to strike out at psionics; Lt Li's conspiracy uses its Naval and Scout connections to build its bioweapons capability; etc) - as the sources of adversity that I reach for, in order to keep the game going without it just drifting into what I would feel to be aimlessness.

For what you're doing, it seems that you are more willing to have non-player/PC-centric backstory act as a constraint on fictional positioning, both for framing and resolution - using random tables to generate it in the course of play, so it is novel to you as well as the players. To me that doesn't sound like fronts, and so it makes sense that you're using a different approach.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Fronts to me seem very similar to how a lot of people in more traditional games use organisations, factions etc. To make the world living outside the PCs and fodder for conflict and interesting situations.

 

[kenada]

This post is a bit tangential, but was prompted by what kenada posted about fronts:

My understanding of fronts - based on reading, not play - is that they are intended to act as a source of material for GM moves. And not just any sort of source, but a "structured" and "indexed" source.

I've used scare quotes because the meaning is a bit approximate. I'll try and explain what I've got in mind.

A common concern I see voiced about no-myth or low-myth RPGing is that the resulting fiction will be inconsistent or even incoherent, potentially meandering or unfocused, etc. I see fronts as a type of prep intended to insure against those risks, while at the same time maintaining the no-/low-myth character of the game. They don't serve the traditional role of GM-authored backstory, namely, as establishing constraints on framing and even on resolution in virtue of establishing fictional positioning that is often secret from the players, or at least prior to and independent of their action declarations. But they do provide material for the GM to draw on for making moves (both soft and hard) so that the game has a sense of "living, breathing" antagonism with an agenda and a presence that comes from outside the immediate concerns and action of the PCs.

I'm more familiar with Burning Wheel than AW/DW. It doesn't use fronts, but it does have a concept - for Circles checks - called the Enmity Clause, and you might have encountered the same notion in Torchbearer. The Enmity Clause, together with hostile/inimical relationships, and Beliefs about opponents/rivals etc, serve a broadly similar function to fronts in the sense of guiding the GM towards content to introduce to establish and maintain adversity without drawing on that traditional pre-authored backstory that establishes player- and character-independent fictional positioning.

To relate this to your "story-based" remark: I think the BW way of going about things is highly "story-based". Characters encounter their nemeses, and conflict with them, are sometimes bested by them and sometimes overcome them. It's Gandalf vs Saruman, Pippin vs Denethor, Sam vs Bill Ferny, the Noldor prince vs Morgoth, etc. It's nearly always personal. For me, at least, this is part of what I love about Burning Wheel.

I think fronts are not as personal, or at least not in the same way. I see them as a way of getting the feel of "the world doesn't just revolve around the PCs" in a game in which nearly everything the GM says is in response to an action declared by a player for their PC. So while their deployment is "story based", their content is not quite so much. I think this is a very clever bit of design. In my Classic Traveller game I don't literally use fronts as AW would tell me to, but I find I have to do something similar - use particular groups, institutions, personalities, whose agendas and inclinations I have a general sense of (the Imperium uses its Navy to strike out at psionics; Lt Li's conspiracy uses its Naval and Scout connections to build its bioweapons capability; etc) - as the sources of adversity that I reach for, in order to keep the game going without it just drifting into what I would feel to be aimlessness.

It’s not that they are story-based per se. It’s that they remind me of the usual pitch for a trad campaign, and that’s more specifics than I want established from the beginning. And honestly, I’m just lazy. I struggled with creating factions up front when following WWN’s campaign creation procedure because I had no idea who would be important enough to merit tracking at that level of detail. Another concern is that the players decided at the start what the campaign would be about (the “experiment”), and I fear introducing an initial threat (like a red dragon in the north) might make them think they have to go deal with that first.

For what you're doing, it seems that you are more willing to have non-player/PC-centric backstory act as a constraint on fictional positioning, both for framing and resolution - using random tables to generate it in the course of play, so it is novel to you as well as the players. To me that doesn't sound like fronts, and so it makes sense that you're using a different approach.

That’s a pretty fair assessment, though it’s not all going to be generative. Some of the consequences will fester, and some groups that get established will have their own agendas. The players met a vampire when I ran Halls of the Blood King, and allowed her to return to their plane with them. She lives on their manor now. She’s also (probably) the last vampire around and is going to want to make more vampires. This is especially interesting because there’s a cleric in the party.

I’m open to ideas for managing this. I absolutely want a structure to take over the decision-making for that because it’s not something I want to author. It’s not that authored-play is bad (if that’s your thing), but I’m almost incapable of sticking to my notes. If I’m going to improvise anyway, I should lean into supporting that with tools. It also doesn’t have to be factions. This post prompted me to dig back into AW 2e, which dispenses with fronts in place of threat maps, and I’ve always liked threats as portrayed in AW 2e. I’ve just never been good at making them work when I tried them in other games (admittedly bodged onto them and not games that supported them natively).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Fronts to me seem very similar to how a lot of people in more traditional games use organisations, factions etc. To make the world living outside the PCs and fodder for conflict and interesting situations.

And, yet, they are not similar. They are, effectively, a theme presented to the table that then defines an available set of failure consequences. They are not independently operative -- the Front doesn't move forward on it's own, the GM isn't theorizing and imagining what the Front is up to or telling players that it has advanced on it's own because they didn't pay attention to it. Instead, it's a clear and open threat that will be used for appropriate GM moves in response to failures. This is a marked difference from how factions or organizations are used in trad games.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And, yet, they are not similar.

They're similar, which doesn't mean they're the same.

They are, effectively, a theme presented to the table that then defines an available set of failure consequences. They are not independently operative -- the Front doesn't move forward on it's own, the GM isn't theorizing and imagining what the Front is up to or telling players that it has advanced on it's own because they didn't pay attention to it. Instead, it's a clear and open threat that will be used for appropriate GM moves in response to failures. This is a marked difference from how factions or organizations are used in trad games.

Right. And all these ways in which fronts are different I would consider to be flaws for my personal purposes.

 

[Aldarc]

I am not. The use of 3d6 came out of a discussion in the “What’s your favorite dice system?” thread. As noted there, 2d6 broke down given the range of modifiers I wanted to use. While it becomes impossible to generate a failure result at the top end (+7), one can still get partial successes. I’m going with that for now to see how it works out in practice. (I’m a big fan of iterating on a system with actual play versus spending lots of time theorycrafting something up.)

The AGE Stunt subsystem is a fortune in the middle mechanic. The AGE resolution mechanic is 3d6 (+Attribute, +Focus). If the player rolls doubles on 3d6, then it generates a number of stunt points equal to the value on the designated "stunt die." Those stunt points can be used to perform special moves and enhanced effects.

I haven’t. I’ve also had @Manbearcat ask me why I wasn’t using The Perilous Wilds. Compatibility with B/X and feeling like D&D are hard requirements.

I want to be able to reuse the OSE and RC bestiaries basically unmodified.‡ I have a different saving throw progression, but because Basic D&D is table-based, I just use my table instead of the original one. I need to convert morale modifiers, but that is simple math. Everything else works more or less the same. Since skill checks are made (almost) exclusively by the players, I don’t have to decide on numbers for creatures (something I disliked doing in WWN).

For my players, we’ve been playing D&D for a while. Going from OSE to PF2 was a little disappointing because they lost a lot of flexibility in how they could build their characters. I would describe my players as trad-ish inclined. When we switched to WWN, they liked how capable they felt and the options they could take. While I could probably pitch us successfully on switching to a different system, keeping it compatible made it a much easier sell. Their characters converted* over pretty neatly from what we were doing in WWN.

Also, I really want to use the exploration procedure I discussed in the WWN thread. I don’t like the use of hexes as a movement abstraction. I don’t like distance either. Using time solves the problem of tracking distance very neatly and presents well to the players. They can ask how far away something is, and telling them it’s about two hours to the north is immediately intuitive. If they take a break mid-journey to do something else, the system deals with it naturally. Anyway, I’m using that mostly as-written, but I plan to revise and evolve it once I get to that part of the system.

Thanks for the rundown. That explains your postion better.

I struggled with fronts when I ran Dungeon World. I think part of the problem is Dungeon World is just really bad at explaining how the game is supposed to work. It took reading Apocalypse World to really understand that. I feel like fronts are more evocative of a story-based approach.† That seems particularly true if you set some up in the beginning. I’m looking for something more emulative of a “living world sandbox”, which BitD-style factions seems more fitting.

You will get no counterargument from me about that. That is one reason, FYI, I have been happy with Stonetop. It does a much better job at elucidating what play should look like, including many examples. Stonetop reworks Fronts into "Threats," but these represent potential issues that come out of Session 0 character creation, PC backstory, etc. So in this regard, Stonetop Threats are something between Kickers and DW Fronts. But there is an entire chapter in Stonetop dedicated to running Threats.

† Edit: I should also note the red dragon resulted from an events check, which happen regularly. It wasn’t something I decided ahead of time would be part of the campaign. This kind of “discovering the setting by playing to find out” is something I want to preserve going forward. This is also why I describe fronts as feeling story-like. We started with a (more or less) blank slate when it came to dangerous things out in the world.

One way to use Fronts would be to ask the players about the threats of the area or even what sort of things they want their characters to face.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@clearstream

I think we're talking about the exact opposite sort of experience here. I was speaking to (as a player or GM) actively maintaining the momentum of play, not surrendering to it. Not effortless play, but effortful play. Players playing their characters hard. GMs framing scenes to keep the focus on dramatic needs one after the other. Everyone embracing the tension. Everyone on the edge of their seat. The imperative phrase here is bring it! Keep the story feral! Grab the game by the throat!

It's a somewhat aggressive playstyle. Not towards each other, but towards the game. It's not like improv theater or jazz. We're not harmonizing. We're embracing chaos and fictional conflict. We're setting up stakes and seeing how things shake out. There is no status quo in Apocalypse World!

Right, so to illustrate a bit, there's a character. This character's motivation is fundamentally about discovering a path in life. She has discovered an affinity for a certain animal. So, everything that happens is framed in reference to this. The player decides the character has heard tales of an order of warriors dedicated to this totemic animal, but none seem to exist (a scene that was set before the actual start of play where her father tries to discourage her interest, and only manages to make her determined to learn what now seems to be a secret). Off she goes, and runs into the other PC in this game, and an NPC, her cousin, who wants to help her, but she finds out his boss isn't keen on the idea (this part came out of a skill challenge scene). This propels the character into the woods, with a clue about visiting a druid, and a ritual needed to enter a sacred grove. A few scenes ensue in which the character has to, for example, choose between getting her cousin in trouble and going ahead (she goes ahead, presumably this will have consequences in the future). The druid gives her a vision, which shows success, but also terrible scenes of war and destruction. Is this the cost of seeing her quest through? She heads in the direction of the next step in her goal, and the plot develops some more WRT exactly what her quest is really about. Continuing it constantly requires choices between safety and danger, and between success and making other people's lives easier. She gets a ranger in trouble, etc. We've learned, she's ruthlessly obsessed with this quest, she'll risk her life and that of others. The player in this sequence seems to think the character's motives are pure. I'm not so sure! The other player is not so sure either! lol.

This is not a wandering around in a setting. Though we established the existence of a dwarf kingdom, an order of warriors who serve him, several family relationships, a bunch of politics involving rangers, dwarves, etc. this was all incidental to constantly focusing on what does this character want, what is she willing to do to get it, and playing to find out both the answer, and whether or not she will succeed, and what 'success' will amount to. The other character likewise has a whole story of his own, though his agenda has been a bit less prevalent. Still, he learned something about his enemies, and his family. Soon enough, if we resume playing this one, he'll have to make some choices, undoubtedly.

I also have some ideas for what might come next, but who knows if it will turn into anything. I can do DW-style dooms though, which is a good way to kick things whenever the game threatens to bog down!

 

[clearstream]

Part 3 of 3 Comparing the hexploration process between

1. Expert (Cook/Marsh) + Isle of Dread (Cook/Moldvay)
2. 5th Edition (Mearls/Crawford) + Tomb of Annihilation (Perkins/Doyle/Winter)

The process rules in Expert are in the core book, while the process rules in 5th are spread across three books. In both, the process has a bulleted sequence to follow, with calls out to other rules (bolded). Both also have other rules that apply, but that are not referenced in the bulleted sequence. As a reminder, those sequences

Spoiler: Expert Hexcrawl

Order of Events in One Game Day

1. The party decides their direction of travel. Miles/day is based on character moves per turn, modified for terrain type. Forced marches increase distance covered at cost of a forced rest the following day.

2. The DM checks to see if the party becomes lost (1d6, see p.X56). There are five terrrain types. Chance is fixed per type, e.g. 1-2 for Woods. Direction is rolled randomly. Don't roll if following road, trail, river, or reliable guide.

3. The DM rolls for wandering monsters (1d6, see p. X55). Encounter on a 1. Three tables dividing monsters by level-appropriateness. 20 monsters per table. Isle of Dread supplements those with three more, longer tables. (About a dozen new creatures.)

4. If monsters are not encountered, the day ends. If monsters are encountered, the DM must determine the type of monsters and for the Number Appearing. Some hexes have fixed encounters.

5. The DM rolls to check the distance between the monsters and the party (4d6).

6. The DM rolls to check surprise (1d6). It is possible to evade the encounter at this point. 10-90% chance based on party size cross-referenced with number of creatures. It is easiest for small parties to evade large numbers of creatures. DM judgement call to adjust for circumstances by a recommended up to 25%.

7. The DM and the party roll for initiative (1d6).

8. The DM rolls for Monster Reaction (2d6, see Monster Reactions). Rolled only if DM hasn't planned reactions inadvance. Five possible reactions, from attack to friendship.

9. The party and the monsters react. (If Combat occurs, see p.X23).

10. End of turn. When necessary, the DM should check the character's remaining hit points, changes in the party's marching order, and the duration of any spells in progress

Spoiler: 5th Edition Hexcrawl

For each day that the party travels through the wilderness, follow these steps:

- Using the poster map, identify the hex in which the party is currently located. Don't share this information with the players if the party is lost; otherwise, show the players the party's location by pointing to the appropriate hex on their map of Chult.

- Let the players determine what direction the party wants to go, and whether the party plans to move at a normal pace, a fast pace, or a slow pace (see "Travel Distances" below). Players choose a pace that is adjusted for terrain type and converted to hexes. Mounts and vehicles adjust distance covered. Forced marches increase distance covered at the possible cost of exhaustion.

- Let the players choose a navigator, then make a Wisdom (Survival) check on the navigator's behalf to determine if the party becomes lost (see "Navigation" below). Becoming lost is an ability check against terrain difficulty, with a modifier for pace. Navigating is one of several defined activities travellers can turn their attention to. If lost, direction is rolled randomly.

- Check for random encounters throughout the day (see appendix B). Threats may be noticed depending on pace. Weather modifies visibility. Creature reactions are based on starting attitudes and character abilities. Encounter distances are given on the DM's screen, which I take to acknowledge a miss in core.

- At the end of the day, check to see if any party members are dehydrated (see "Dehydration" below). Food and water require management (water in jungle is poisonous). That can be obviated by Ranger class or Outlander background. Dehydration is modified by pace and armor, and causes exhaustion. Exhaustion formalises penalties that are suggested in freeform in Expert.

To @kenada's question, between module and core, the two editions have near identical procedure tying it all together. 5e formalises some resource management that is implied in Expert. In both editions, a weakness (as pointed out by others) is how readily resource management is obviated by player choices for their characters. There are a number of other mechanics in the game texts, such as Weather, that come into exploration should a group be focusing on it.

Weather

Spoiler: Expert Weather

For hexploration, weather in Expert is outlined narratively at the level of climate. For example

"The general weather patterns of this part of the continent move from west to east. Hence, much rain falls on the western edge of the Altan Tepe mountains, while little or none falls on the Alasiyan desert. The warm offshore currents near Thyatis and Minrothad modify the weather somewhat in the south, making the climate there similar to the Mediterranean."

It's worth noting that weather at sea is mechanically detailed. With 2d6 rolls for wind, chances of ship loss, and modifiers to movement.

Spoiler: 5th edition Weather

For hexploration, weather in 5th edition is mechanically detailed, with tables for temperature (offset from norms), wind and precipitation, and mechanical consequences for extremes of each.

ToA provides norms for Chult and adds more extreme precipitation with mechanical consequences on travel. The exhaustion rules are again employed as a cost of travel in such extreme weather.

Again, there are additional rules for weather at sea.

Overall, weather receives more detail in 5th edition than in Expert.

Mapping

Spoiler: Expert Mapping

The DM should prepare a map of the campaign area ahead of time, noting general features such as the type of terrain, villages, rivers, etc. It has been found that paper with a hexagonal or square grid is most useful for making maps. Hexagonal-grid maps are the best because there are six spaces to go to that are an equal distance from the space started from; with a square grid there are only four (diagonals distort the distance). Thus, whenever the rules use "hexagon" in connection with maps, it simply means "a space on the map". The scale on these maps is often 6 miles per hexagon.

Players will want to keep a permanent map of the areas they pass through. Usually players can map only the hexagon they are actually in, but this may vary with terrain (one can see farther on top of a mountain than in a valley).

Moving through a wilderness hexagon will give the players only a general idea of terrain features, as well as obvious signs of civilization — roads, cities, castles, farms, and the like. Players will not gain any specific knowledge of the inhabitants unless they spend extra time there.

Spoiler: 5th edition Mapping

PHB Cartographer's tools can be bought. As an activity while travelling, a character can draw a map that reeords the group's progress and helps the characters get back on eourse if they get lost. No ability check is required.

DMG Discussion, tables and rules specific to mapping a wilderness is provided. I don't quote those here as I have for Expert as they are too extensive.

That is supplemented for jungle environments in ToA.

On the one hand, there is without doubt more coverage of the topic of mapping in 5e. On the other hand, the upshot of the two is fairly similar. Players can map terrain they observe. No roll.

Tracking and Foraging

Spoiler: Expert Tracking and Foraging

I couldn't find rules for tracking, other than one or two creatures are described as being able to.

FORAGING: Characters travelling in the wilderness may attempt to search or hunt for food, either to extend their normal supplies or prevent starvation. Searching for food may be done while travelling. If 1 is rolled on a d6, the party will have found enough to feed 1-6 men for one day. This food will consist of nuts, berries and possibly small game. To hunt, characters must spend a day without moving. There is a 1 in 6 chance of having an encounter from the Animal Subtable on the Wilderness Wandering Monster Tables. This encounter is in addition to any normal encounter rolls for the day. Days spent resting cannot be used for hunting. Characters who run out of food may face a variety of circumstances that must be handled by the DM. Possible effects of hunger might include the need for more rest, slower movement rates, minuses "to hit", and gradual loss of hit points.

Spoiler: 5th edition Tracking and Foraging

PHB Rangers have rules for tracking, and there is a general rule for foraging (which references the DMG). Each character travelling can conduct one of navigating, mapping, tracking, foraging, or keeping a look out.

DMG Foraging uses an ability check against a DC given by food and water availability. Needs are found on a table for creature size. Travelling at a fast place prevents foraging.

Note that I've quoted the Expert text, but only overviewed the 5th edition because there is more of it. Expert seems stricter to me on foraging than 5th edition; stopped for a day seems to me more likely to limit a party than a slow or normal pace.

Evocative content

Spoiler: Evocative Content (both editions)

Illustratively

X1 has a continent hex map, an island hex map, two cave lairs, a pirate lair, three monster camps, and two villages.

ToA has a high-detail continent hex map that (without counting hexes) offers at least equal hexploration potential, a large port, a merchant villa, three camps, five sites, an anchorage, a monstery, a ruined garden, a wreck, a mine, and a village. Hexporation segues into a city, which in turn contains a detailed temple and several other locations.

The quality of the content for the purposes of play seems about equal to me. There is just more of the ToA content and it is much fancier than X1.

Conclusion
Despite the procedures being near-identical, Expert seems to me stricter than 5th edition, because 5th edition characters have a far greater number of ways to ignore the costs and limits. Perhaps the infected jungle water is a nod toward that by the ToA team? On the flipside, to me the comparison validated that 5th edition has more rule coverage and is more replete with evocative content than Expert. (They both have evocative content, 5th has more of it.)

It surprised me how close the two editions were mechanically! It was mentioned that advice text leads some to feel the 5th edition procedure is necessarily softened. When I parse game texts, I count different types of text as having different weights: I commit to being constrained by mechanics, I don't commit to being constrained by advice. That is fruitful for me. Those who find it fruitful to give all parts of a game text equal weight are - as noted - likely to find the procedure softened.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm silent here on John Harper's diagram. Perhaps we mean different things by fiat. I am using the word in a strong sense to imply making an arbitrary decision. One that - as to that precise decision - is arbitrary. How are you using it?


I believe that play examples in the free basic PDF are intended to give an uncomplicated picture of the process for novices.


There's likely low value in reciting the arguments. Up-thread you resisted the thought that game rules are followed when we find them appealing to follow. Elsewhere we've implicitly acknowledged the possibility of following a game system in comprehensively different ways.

@pemerton's point is key though, where does 5e give you any other path besides the GM deciding when, where, how, and why something happens (outside of combat)? A player can declare an action, and the GM will decide "should it be a check." Now, this is based on certain principles, but many of the inputs to those principles are the GM's fiction, often unrevealed backstory. Furthermore, it is a very 'task oriented' system, so while the PC may pick the lock, the actual substantive outcome of doing so is almost always to refer back to some fiction that is outside the player's current view. The clue may or may not be in the drawer, GM decides. Nothing may be in the drawer at all, or successfully picking the lock may expend so much time that they fail to achieve their goal for some other reason. The GM may impose innumerable checks, each of which is a 'must pass'. Yes, presumably the basic agenda of play, whatever that is, probably falls in favor of "when the player rolls success a lot, the character's fortunes are good." However, that is nothing like assured. So, 5e really does rest FUNDAMENTALLY, in an ARCHITECTURAL SENSE on the GM to determine where things go next, in a fairly unconstrained way.

By contrast in a TB2 game the constraints are much more significant. @pemerton was slightly in error, in the scenario I cited we DID get the oil, even though we failed the resources check, AS WELL AS a twist which directly attacked the "do lawful stuff" belief of one of the characters (and traded on some previously established facts to do so). The GM is supposed to present things which 'follow', and they must address character beliefs/creed/etc. Jakob could have made the whole situation a bunch more complicated by getting his enemy involved, but instead he chose to go against his own character trait and let the scummy fence guy off the hook (clearly not very legal). ALL TB2 play will be like this, at every turn. 5 minutes later we got another twist and it forced us to act to save our friend, which ended up giving one of the characters a condition, which is not catastrophic, but he'll be stuck with it at least until we camp, and each condition forbids you to use certain rules in your favor, so they are substantive gamist penalties.