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

[Crimson Longinus]

It seems to me that what you’re describing above is prioritizing Process Simulation (the importance of exploring and discovering and affirming the internal causality of the naturalistic cause and effect relationships of a system) rather than Genre Emulation (which is a quintessential part of High Concept Simulation). Without the focus of play in good part being about you being able to poke and prod and peel back the layers of “the world” (in reality, the Process Sim engine) > reveal a persistent world in the doing > flesh out a working model > make model-based inferences and extrapolations that anchor your play (all of this encompassing the experiential quality of “being there”, “deep immersion” etc), “play is pointless.”

Yes? No?

Yes. Probably. Though I'm not sure if I'd characterise the focus of play being on peeling the onion, the onion simply is the underlying structure in which everything is built on. But focus of play could still be on character relationships, winning a challenge or on something else.

Also, more I think about high concept simulation, more muddy the category seems to me. Because it actually doesn't inform or imply any specific practices or structures, as the concepts being 'simulated' (I'd say emulated) can de so wildly different that they cannot rely on any even remotely uniform approach. If your 'concept' is very grounded and doesn't have genre conventions that strongly go against normal causality, you are probably good with a pretty process sim approach with a predetermined onion, (perhaps the odds slightly weighted towards genre appropriateness) but if your 'concept' relies on heavy genre logic and dramatic things happening at 'appropriate' moments etc, then some sort of no-myth setup will probably cause way less issues, and conflict rather than task resolution approach would probably work better too.

 

[kenada]

5e uses consequence-resolution. Read the PHB 174 game text in conjunction with the DMG 237 game text. Per RAW, you roll when a meaningful consequence is possible. Per RAW, when success and failure are possible but there is no meaningful consequence, the character succeeds in 10x the time. Something else that is easy to overlook is that consequence is known going in. (I will edit my post to make that clearer.)

This and some of the subsequent discussion helps clarify what you are saying, which is not that 5e uses conflict resolution. I do still have one question. Given what the DMG says about rolling only for meaningful consequence of failure, and that success must be possible, what you are saying is the roll is not determining success at the task but whether you get the success consequence or the failure consequence?

For example, in the safe scenario, the party has snuck into a place with guards to find this safe, so the consequences might be: the lock-picker opens the safe (for success), or they take too long and are found by the guards (for failure). Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes. Probably. Though I'm not sure if I'd characterise the focus of play being on peeling the onion, the onion simply is the underlying structure in which everything is built on. But focus of play could still be on character relationships, winning a challenge or on something else.

Also, more I think about high concept simulation, more muddy the category seems to me. Because it actually doesn't inform or imply any specific practices or structures, as the concepts being 'simulated' (I'd say emulated) can de so wildly different that they cannot rely on any even remotely uniform approach. If your 'concept' is very grounded and doesn't have genre conventions that strongly go against normal causality, you are probably good with a pretty process sim approach with predetermined onion, (perhaps the odds slightly weighted towards genre appropriateness) but if your 'concept' relies on heavy genre logic and dramatic things happening in 'appropriate' moments etc, then some sort of no-myth setup will probably cause way less issues and more conflict rather than task resolution approach would probably work better too.

This is a good post.

I think you might have stumbled upon something here.

That thing is that the difference between High Concept Simulation and Story Now play might actually be subtle to an outside observer but huge to the folks playing.

HCS and SN can trivially produce the same stories. But it’s not the outputs that matter. It’s (a) the process of getting there and (b) the focus of play.

For instance:

Your conceptual No Myth High Concept Simulation above? Well, if the system inputs (imperatives, participant orientation to play, incentive structures, resolution mechanics, and constraints) are situated in x array (let us call x Apocalypse World) then it’s actually Story Now play.

Situated in y array (let’s call y Fate), then it’s High Concept Simulationism.

No Myth setting undergirded but Genre Emulation can yield SN or HCS play contingent upon the array of the system inputs (imperatives, participant orientation to play, incentive structures, resolution mechanics, and constraints).

 

[Aldarc]

This is a good post.

I think you might have stumbled upon something here.

That thing is that the difference between High Concept Simulation and Story Now play might actually be subtle to an outside observer but huge to the folks playing.

HCS and SN can trivially produce the same stories. But it’s not the outputs that matter. It’s (a) the process of getting there and (b) the focus of play.

For instance:

Your conceptual No Myth High Concept Simulation above? Well, if the system inputs (imperatives, participant orientation to play, incentive structures, resolution mechanics, and constraints) are situated in x array (let us call x Apocalypse World) then it’s actually Story Now play.

Situated in y array (let’s call y Fate), then it’s High Concept Simulationism.

No Myth setting undergirded but Genre Emulation can yield SN or HCS play contingent upon the array of the system inputs (imperatives, participant orientation to play, incentive structures, resolution mechanics, and constraints).

Potentially a good series of points of comparison regarding the point in bold, IMHO, would actually be the sheer magnitude of Lovecraftian RPGs out there.* Call of Cthulhu, Cthulhu Dark, Trail of Cthulhu, Achtung! Cthulhu, Tremulus, or Fate of Cthulhu can all be used to produce thematically similar stories regarding the Lovecraft Mythos. However, the game systems prioritize different play agendas and processes as part of its core gameplay.

Likewise there may be a fair number of "fantasy adventure" RPGs out that produce similar stories, but the how, where, when, why, and who of game processes produce different games in the moment of play.

* A similar point could be made about Lovecraftian board games that involve various thematic ideas: e.g., "Can the Investigators/Players stop the Lovecraftian horrors in time?"

 

[clearstream]

This and some of the subsequent discussion helps clarify what you are saying, which is not that 5e uses conflict resolution. I do still have one question. Given what the DMG says about rolling only for meaningful consequence of failure, and that success must be possible, what you are saying is the roll is not determining success at the task but whether you get the success consequence or the failure consequence?

Yes. And the failure consequence can be failure (perforce consequential, else no roll) or success-with-complication (success consequence plus a constrained/principled twist.)

For example, in the safe scenario, the party has snuck into a place with guards to find this safe, so the consequences might be: the lock-picker opens the safe (for success), or they take too long and are found by the guards (for failure). Am I understanding this correctly?

Whether that is right or not depends on decisions made by the group.

In my preferred mode, "the lock-picker opens the safe" is unlikely to be the consequence that players are concerned with, that brought them here to this safe. There is something inside this safe connected with their objectives. That's why I'm saying we don't really check to open the safe, we're "really" checking to see if players got what they needed (in case of success, and where failure is also meaningful.)

A few examples

• We need this gold to resurrect Jo (the "real" consequence of opening the safe is going to be resurrecting Jo)
• These incriminating documents will allow us to defy the Baron (the "real" consequence is defiance of the Baron, which probably goes on to open up new options)
• Tomorrow when they get the books, they'll see the purloined letter I'm putting inside and know they've been duped (the "real" consequence is the scales falling from their eyes, which probably goes on to cause other stuff)

So we could end up with

• Party's broke, but Jo's back, with all their strengths, flaws and goals, maybe changed
• The Baron is roiling but powerless (for now) and the party's free to get on with whatever it is service to the Baron was in the way of
• The scales fall from their eyes and the volatile political situation blows up, catching everyone in the fall out

An assumption, which in my experience has been a safe one (heh), is that players can come up with and pursue objectives. That doesn't need to be reified in the system as it is reified in players as humans.

Some modes don't create much space for those objectives - we're in room 12, which per the map key contains a trapped but empty safe. The up-front meaningful consequence that could justify a roll is the trap. What do players describe?

1. Player describes opening the safe without checking for traps? No roll, with time they get it open. Trap triggers.
2. Player describes checking for traps? Now we have player intent (avoid death or attrition) and we're resolving something consequential.

The mistake in the above would be to roll to open the safe, because, as I've put it, 5th edition really uses consequences-resolution.

 

[Manbearcat]

I pulled this out of another response and tidied it up as it captures something I've been mulling. Maybe 5e ability checks are helpfully explained like this, using the example of opening a safe

1. It may seem counter-intuitive, but in 5e, you don't really roll to open a safe
2. Per DMG 237, what you are really rolling for are consequences
3. Taken together with PHB 174, the results can be
   1. you open the safe (the consequence you want)
   2. you open the safe but with additional consequences
   3. you become engaged with some consequences

For emphasis, per RAW, outcomes of ability checks in 5e - pass or fail - are ordinarily not inert. I'm not saying a dead-end couldn't ever come up in an interesting way, but that isn't the default.

I can wonder - what if the safe is empty? The answer depends on decisions about the kind of play I am interested in. Perhaps an immersionist would like to imagine possibly empty safes.

I can wonder - what consequences? For me, the answer is constrained by fiction, description, and system. For another DM, the answer could be entirely different. And that will matter. For 5e, system and DM matters. Because consequences are what justified calling for a check, they're known going in. Thus one could most accurately characterise 5e ability checks as consequence-resolution.

In understanding ability checks for 5e, folk normally start with examples like the one in the primer. Later, they might read the PHB 174 and see they should take uncertainty into account and can narrate complications on failure. Eventually, they'll get familiar with DMG 237 and see what's possible: that 5e uses what I'm calling consequence-resolution. Stopping short at primer or PHB leaves the picture incomplete. Because in D&D system + DM matters, even the whole picture won't guarantee that any two groups will play it the same way.


[EDITED To tighten up a few elements.]

What you’re describing above is an already well-understood technique for action resolution:

Fail Forward

You’ve captured paradigmatic Fail Forward in your formulation and unwittingly renamed it “Consequence Resolution.”

I remember contrasting 5e with 13th Age as they were both being conceived /designed at the same time. I think the problem with “5e as Fail Forward action resolution” (which 13th Age is) is that it leaves “say no” both (a) on the table and (b) at the discretion at the GM (and the cognitive workspace that resolves this discretion is, again, a host of things both potentially conflicting and potentially converging).

The other problem with Fail Forward that isn’t intensively nailed down in terms of procedures/principles (like 13th Age…which was one of my major critiques of the system) is that it leads to a pretty steep increase of GM-directed play because “when does the scene end/resolve is entirely not nailed down (contrast with Fail Forward in 4e whereby “when dies the scene end” is governed by codified scene resolution parameters; The Skill Challenge).

So 13th Age’s noncombat action resolution machinery (as is) situates play toward paradigmatic, GM-directed HCS play. In order for it to yield Story Now play, you’re going to need more tech and/or more clear constraints built into the resolution architecture.

 

[clearstream]

What you’re describing above is an already well-understood technique for action resolution:

Fail Forward

You’ve captured paradigmatic Fail Forward in your formulation and unwittingly renamed it “Consequence Resolution.”

As it happens, there is no unwittingness here. Fail forward as I understand it from the infinite arguments of the mages in this forum, is where we get success-with-complication. No fail and find another way. 5th edition isn't fail forward, that's just one option within the 5th edition consequences-resolution system.

Fail and die, for example, is not failing forward, but it is consequential.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Personally I find it easier to think mostly in simple task resolution terms. And yes, in sometimes this means that your success does not do much, except perhaps net some information about what is not there (you successfully search for secret doors, but there aren't any here, so what your success gains is the knowledge about the absence of secret doors) or even in some rare situations make a situation worse (you succeed at destroying a supporting pillar... causing the ceiling to collapse on you.) And to me this is perfectly fine.

 

[kenada]

Yes. And the failure consequence can be failure (perforce consequential, else no roll) or success-with-complication (success consequence plus a constrained/principled twist.)


Whether that is right or not depends on decisions made by the group.

In my preferred mode, "the lock-picker opens the safe" is unlikely to be the consequence that players are concerned with, that brought them here to this safe. There is something inside this safe connected with their objectives. That's why I'm saying we don't really check to open the safe, we're "really" checking to see if players got what they needed.

A few examples

• We need this gold to resurrect Jo (the "real" consequence of opening the safe is going to be resurrecting Jo)
• These incriminating documents will allow us to defy the Baron (the "real" consequence is defiance of the Baron, which probably goes on to open up new options)
• Tomorrow when they get the books, they'll see the purloined letter I'm putting inside and know they've been duped (the "real" consequence is the scales falling from their eyes, which probably goes on to cause other stuff)

So we could end up with

• Party's broke, but Jo's back, with all their strengths, flaws and goals, maybe changed
• The Baron is roiling but powerless (for now) and the party's free to get on with whatever it is service to the Baron was in the way of
• The scales fall from their eyes and the volatile political situation blows up, catching everyone in the fall out

An assumption, which in my experience has been a safe one (heh), is that players can come up with and pursue objectives. That doesn't need to be reified in the system as it is reified in players as humans.

Some modes don't create much space for those objectives - we're in room 12, which per the map key contains a trapped but empty safe. The up-front meaningful consequence that could justify a roll is the trap. What do players describe?

1. Player describes opening the safe without checking for traps? No roll, with time they get it open. Trap triggers.
2. Player describes checking for traps? Now we have player intent (avoid death or attrition) and we're resolving something consequential.

The mistake in the above would be to roll to open the safe, because, as I've put it, 5th edition really uses consequences-resolution.

It was a hypothetical example. Suppose that the safe is something that was keyed on the map (and not put there for the PCs’ needs), or that the two consequences are consequence A and consequence B. Is the purpose of the roll just to decide A or B?

However, let’s assume one of your examples. Suppose the party attempts to open the safe with the purpose of obtaining the treasure inside for the purpose of resurrecting their friend, and they fail. Is it now impossible to try again to get at that treasure? Can the barbarian smash the safe open, or the artificer apply some concoction to damage the safe such that it opens? I assume yes based on your discussion re: knock, assuming retries are possible.

Also, returning back to the hypothetical. I suggested assuming that it was just something keyed. You suggested that it serves some purpose for the PCs in your examples. Who decides that? You’ve already indicated that this approach is not Story Now nor conflict resolution, so would the DM need to recognize the need and put in place the necessary objectives to meet it? For example, the party wants to resurrect their friend, so the DM decides the funds can be found in a safe, which the adventure is then about finding an opening.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes. Probably. Though I'm not sure if I'd characterise the focus of play being on peeling the onion, the onion simply is the underlying structure in which everything is built on. But focus of play could still be on character relationships, winning a challenge or on something else.

Also, more I think about high concept simulation, more muddy the category seems to me. Because it actually doesn't inform or imply any specific practices or structures, as the concepts being 'simulated' (I'd say emulated) can de so wildly different that they cannot rely on any even remotely uniform approach. If your 'concept' is very grounded and doesn't have genre conventions that strongly go against normal causality, you are probably good with a pretty process sim approach with a predetermined onion, (perhaps the odds slightly weighted towards genre appropriateness) but if your 'concept' relies on heavy genre logic and dramatic things happening at 'appropriate' moments etc, then some sort of no-myth setup will probably cause way less issues, and conflict rather than task resolution approach would probably work better too.

This probably relates to a comment I've made several times that there's genres and genres. The examples I give in contrast are Westerns and superhero stories.

Western genre stories are primarily about certain initial state expectations in time, space and situation; once you've set those how the story plays out can look quite a bit like other stories where the time and space components are quite different (this is why The Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven can be so much the same story).

Superhero stories (and I tend to use these because they have very visible genre conventions, but they aren't alone; noir detective stories and fairy tales also have very strong genre conventions), on the other hand have more than that. If you don't have those baked in some way (either by group convention or mechanics) then they can very quickly look nothing much like a conventional superhero story, but more like, say, the subset of urban fantasy where the magic and supernatural entities have become openly visible. The initial rest-state won't do all the lifting for you.

This is one reason I criticize GNS lumping both "high concept" and "process" together as Sim; the latter can engulf a rather large number of genres and stories because they don't necessarily require any dramatic conceits to work, where the former really can't; there's a degree of stylization baked into them that shows no relationship to each other.

(And to forestall some comments I can see rolling in from people who haven't seen my earlier posts on this, no the former does not forbid SF and fantasy genres intrinsically. Most of their story conventions are simply extreme changes in rest state; everyone in their settings know (and in some cases understand why) magic works or FTL drives function. In the kind of genres that require baked in genre conventions, those conventions are largely invisible to its occupants (certain fourth-wall breaking exceptions notwithstanding) and in fact would change the texture of those settings strongly if that was not true).