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

[Crimson Longinus]

I've participated in threads where this is extremely contentious. Or at least where it has been extremely contentious to suggest that any smaller role is feasible.

The roles are clearly different. I don't think it is super helpful to think about 'smaller' or 'greater' roles regarding contribution to the fiction, as it is not particularly objectively measurable thing. Is it more important to decide what exists in the world or what the main character does? They're just different things.

 

[pemerton]

The roles are clearly different. I don't think it is super helpful to think about 'smaller' or 'greater' roles regarding contribution to the fiction, as it is not particularly objectively measurable thing. Is it more important to decide what exists in the world or what the main character does? They're just different things.

Well, you did use the adjective "big" which was the premise for my use of "smaller".

Also, what exists in the world is not different from - in the sense of independent of - what the main character does.

If the character looks for secret doors, and it is already established (in GM notes, or by way of other GM decision-making) that there are no secret doors, then one thing the character is doing is searching futilely for secret doors. And the GM's decision is as fundamental as the player's in making that description true.

Also: the point made in the previous paragraph is pretty central to how classic D&D dungeon mapping, traps-and-tricks play works. The reason why skilled play is possible in that sort of game, and why players can beat the dungeon or fail to beat the dungeon, is precisely because what is at stake in their action declarations is not solely under their control. They have to "guess" (not necessarily randomly, but using their knowledge of the fiction as revealed so far, their knowledge of the tropes and genre, their knowledge of the GM) as to what descriptions might be true of possible actions, so as to work out which ones to take and which ones to avoid.

Contrast with Cortex+ Heroic or even Apocalypse World: if an action fails, the way in which it fails or the description under which it fails is established after the dice are rolled, as part of the consequence narration. There was no prior description, flowing from GM decision-making, which already imposed a true description of the action as futile or failing.

You can't have the "onion" to explore without also recognising that the GM makes decisions that determine, in advance, true descriptions of the actions the players declare for their PCs.

 

[clearstream]

I've bolded one part of your post, and underlined another.

The bolded bit could happen in Burning Wheel, in Classic Traveller, in Marvel Heroic RP or a fantasy Cortex+ Heroic variant, in Torchbearer, in Apocalypse World (make it a hardhold rather than a city), in 4e D&D, even in Prince Valiant though that's a bit less likely.

The underlined bit is not part of the process in Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic. In Burning Wheel or Torchbearer, it is part of the process only in the sense that the players can frame those questions as Wises or other sorts of knowledge/research tests, which require the GM to say stuff depending on success or failure. In AW the asking and answering of questions is a process disciplined by the rules, and subject to the same soft/hard move structure as the rest of the game. A 4e skill challenge can play like BW/TB, or a bit like AW, or some mix of both - but with the GM being obliged to honour individual successes while also moving the fiction towards resolution of the situation.

Classic Traveller tends to elide the whole of the underlined bit into a single Streetwise check.

Prince Valiant has no clear approach to this. It's not really it's thing to do setting rather than situation-focused play.

The 5e Basic rules spell out a way of doing the underlined bit, as I have posted upthread: map-and-key, notes-based resolution. I am still basically at a loss as to whether that is the technique you use, or whether you do something else.

This addition to your post reinforces my impression that you are engaged in exploratory play, with the GM taking responsibility for producing the material that is explored (either via notes or via improvisation). I don't see how it is differing from John Harper's diagram, or from Vincent Baker's description of the GM enjoying "privileged authorship". (I know you assert the roles are equal, but I'm not seeing what this is adding to the description of them as asymmetric.)

Hopefully you can see that I'm focused on questions around GM-constraint and nature of resolution in 5th edtion D&D. I'm not interested in the question of how that should be categorised. If it is categorised a certain way and turns out to include elements that "shouldn't" be in that category, then I can only say that it is not my intent to fit my approach to any category in the first place.

Okay, so roles and equality. The roles are equal because almost all of what ends up authored, is authored in directions players have chosen and in fitting with their ideas about the kind of world their characters live in. What we discover about the world is driven by their interests. And by equal, I mean that I get a say, too.

About the game text you quoted. My view is informed by the whole game text, weighing some parts as advice and other parts as rules. That makes it hard to reconcile our views because you are quoting only part of the game text, including much that I weigh as advice. According to what I've argued up-thread about Rs and Zs, I would put it that we aren't referencing identical Rs, because yours is not complete, and our Zs are profoundly far apart. [EDITED] That leads you to conclusions that I feel aren't justified, and me to conclusions that you feel aren't justified. Without somehow bringing our Zs nearer together, it could be quite difficult to improve on that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Also, what exists in the world is not different from - in the sense of independent of - what the main character does.

As the character exits in the world and affects the world they obviously are connected. But I think the differentiation is pretty clear. In the real life you control what you do, but you do not control what exists in the reality external to you except via affecting it by your actions.

If the character looks for secret doors, and it is already established (in GM notes, or by way of other GM decision-making) that there are no secret doors, then one thing the character is doing is searching futilely for secret doors. And the GM's decision is as fundamental as the player's in making that description true.

You mean the character expertly determines the absence of secret door, thus gaining better understanding of their surroundings which in turn helps them make further informed choices?

Also: the point made in the previous paragraph is pretty central to how classic D&D dungeon mapping, traps-and-tricks play works. The reason why skilled play is possible in that sort of game, and why players can beat the dungeon or fail to beat the dungeon, is precisely because what is at stake in their action declarations is not solely under their control. They have to "guess" (not necessarily randomly, but using their knowledge of the fiction as revealed so far, their knowledge of the tropes and genre, their knowledge of the GM) as to what descriptions might be true of possible actions, so as to work out which ones to take and which ones to avoid.

Yes?

Contrast with Cortex+ Heroic or even Apocalypse World: if an action fails, the way in which it fails or the description under which it fails is established after the dice are rolled, as part of the consequence narration. There was no prior description, flowing from GM decision-making, which already imposed a true description of the action as futile or failing.

Right...

You can't have the "onion" to explore without also recognising that the GM makes decisions that determine, in advance, true descriptions of the actions the players declare for their PCs.

To me that seems like very bizarre way to see things. We are talking about unpredictable mix of predetermined material, player decisions, dice rolls and ad hoc improvisation interacting with each other in countless combinations. This is not a deterministic process in any practical sense! Some specific isolated things (is the document in the box) could be described the way you do, but not the ensuing whole.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The roles are clearly different. I don't think it is super helpful to think about 'smaller' or 'greater' roles regarding contribution to the fiction, as it is not particularly objectively measurable thing. Is it more important to decide what exists in the world or what the main character does? They're just different things.

But, this is the thing: the degree that difference is necessary is in the eye of the beholder. I get that you learn toward (in old GDS terms) simulationism, and to a simulationist keeping those lines fairly sharp is often important--but that's just a perspective thing. Its not a law of nature, but there are absolutely traditionalists who will act like violating it is not only not what they want, its bad on the face of it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But, this is the thing: the degree that difference is necessary is in the eye of the beholder. I get that you learn toward (in old GDS terms) simulationism, and to a simulationist keeping those lines fairly sharp is often important--but that's just a perspective thing. Its not a law of nature, but there are absolutely traditionalists who will act like violating it is not only not what they want, its bad on the face of it.

Sure, it is just a preference.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, it is just a preference.

And that's it. The truth is there are a bit too many people who tend to not only not be interested in game processes that are different from their own--they're actively hostile to it. I don't doubt at all Pemerton has hit some of that, especially on a D&D-centric board.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

You've stated 3 outcomes:

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

This is classic "no dead ends" or "no whiffing" or "something interesting always happens and the situation always changes." That is Fail Forward resolution. It undergirds the Burning Wheel family of games (from BW to MG to TB), D&D 4e, 13th Age, among others. PBtA games make use of this on knowledge/perception/divination related moves that result in a 6- (yeah, you see the thing or know the thing or perceive the thing...but I've got bad news for ya).

As a resolution technique, its designed into games for three purposes:

1) So the dead end of "no, and the gamestate/fiction remains unchanged (nothing happens)" is taken entirely out of play.

2) To prevent deprotagonization due to a high "whiff factor" which screws up expected levels of competency (Control-F "Whiff Factor") and reduces player control of the gamestate/over the momentum/trajectory of play.

3) In concert with a trivial genre credibility test (eg no jumping to the moon without escape velocity boots) + intent-directed conflict resolution (eg not "can I open the safe" but "are the documents in the safe no strings-attached"), it gives players huge authority over the momentum and trajectory of play because it basically takes GM veto off the table.


However, every game that I know of that uses it has codified DCs and they're table-facing so GM mediation within the architecture of action resolution is virtually nil. A game that takes that off the table is bringing in GM veto or control over the momentum/trajectory of play by proxy of establishing the DC. Further still, a game that doesn't encode the results of "yes" but allows/requires the GM to interpret that also brings about GM control over the momentum/trajectory of play by proxy of the "there is still work left to be done" button.

Further, my understanding (and application) of 5e Ability Checks is that the GM is in control of everything beyond the player's action declaration. Order of Operations for GM:

1) Impossible to succeed "No"? Impossible to fail - "Yes"? Neither and meaningful consequence of failure (MCoF) - "Maybe"?

2) If MCoF set DC based on either genre emulation (presumably based off of the natural language interpretation of an adventurer within the current Tier of Play; "what tropes can heroes/adventurers of this Tier of play - distinct genre - pull off?") or process logic/internal causality of the world (presumably off of a natural language interpretation of and orientation to Very Easy, Easy, Moderate, Hard, Very Hard, Nearly Impossible by "a character with a 10 in the associated ability and no proficiency").

3) If failure, then the GM can decide retroactively to use Success at a Cost (fail by 1 or 2 means success but some kind of cost or complication akin to the 7-9 PBtA Defy Danger result or a new obstacle/setback akin to Twist + Fun Once in TB or 4e's Skill Challenge micro-failure) or Degrees of Failure (5 or less might mean "nothing happens/gamestate is unchanged" or "gamestate changed somewhat adversely but not catastrophically" while 5 or more is a "botch" with serious gamestate consequences).

4) If Crit Failure then calamity might ensue (at GM's discretion) or Crit Success then maybe an extra boon (at GM's discretion).

5) Decide how much the gamestate has moved/how much of the situation is left to resolve (presumably based off of the GM's conception of the convergence of (i) what makes for "fun" + (ii) "what makes for a compelling story" + (iii) "what tailoring to this particular player or this group of players demands" OR (iv) some kind of prior precedence for consistency of handling when the demands of consistency are at odds with (i-iii) ).


That doesn't look like what you've laid out above (which, again, looks like Fail Forward). "No and/or the gamestate doesn't move (which can be interpreted as "meaningful consequences for failure" and clearly is by a cross-section of the user-base...typically with evinced Gamism proclivities or "we're there" experiential proclivities because people fail and nothing happens within the setting their adventure occupies)" is absolutely on the table in 5e. And Genre Emulation based DCs and process-based/internal causality (based off of the perspective of an in-setting "character with a 10 in the associated ability and no proficiency) DCs are both the domain of 5e DC setting (and they will be different because they're different baselines for Easy, Moderate, Hard et al).

Whatever else 5e Ability Check handling is it is profoundly GM-directed in a myriad of ways. Its not Fail Forward. Its certainly not Gamism. Its certainly not Story Now. Again, this is why I've been calling it a devise for GM-Directed, High Concept Simulation with possibly a veneer of Process Simulation. It doesn't do nearly enough work to get to actual Process Simulation, but a GM might mix in a nice chunk of both approaches to DC handling in 2 that a player might feel that the experiential quality of play hews enough to respect for internal causality that their Process-Sim Dander doesn't get kicked up. Exceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeept...this is a big time violation of "the consistency clause." So I don't know how GM's resolve this. My guess is that the overwhelming % of 5e tables are composed of and tailored toward players that don't particularly care about "the consistency clause" and they just want a fun, relatively casual time, with a tailored experience of compelling story + performative theatrics and plenty of color + a tailored experience that hits the Power Fantasy notes they're looking for. Whereas a table for @Crimson Longinus and or @Thomas Shey better have a GM that consistently hits the internal causality grounded litmus test for DCs and action resolution.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yes, though if you look carefully at what DW does with them you will see that they are also pretty focused on the character's concerns, ultimately. So, in DW, the process is supposed to be that you have a 'Session 0' (which I assume these days is probably some email thread or discord or something) where the players draw up their characters, the GM asks questions, bonds are written, and a 'steading' (base camp, basically) is established. By the end of this 0th session it should be clear to the GM who the PCs are, what their concerns and goals are, what they care about, etc. or at least what the players are CLAIMING these are.

NOW the GM goes off and draws some 'maps with holes in them', and draws up a couple of fronts. These are probably not 'campaign fronts', but more 'adventure fronts' at this point, but they could grow. They will each have portents and dooms. The GM will then decide the framing for the first scene of the game, which is generally supposed to be a pretty 'hard start' (no meet ups in the local dive bar). It could be a literal fight, or maybe something slightly less intense, but casting it in terms of one of the fronts would often make sense. It could involve a 'doom' (a hard GM front-related move) or a foreshadowing event that presages the coming of a doom.

These are always going to focus on something that the PCs care about, want, don't want, etc. I don't get the feeling that this is so much true with more traditional usage. Often traditional games have deep setting with organizations that have a lot of backstory and maybe some elaborate meta-plot that was developed entirely independently and 'just happens'. It may be totally background, if the players steer clear of involvement, or it might become central to the action if they move towards it (and maybe in some cases it is an unavoidable thing). If it does engage with things that are player priorities, it is a purely voluntary thing where a player got together with the GM and negotiated something, or signed on for something. So it could be derived from player input, but that's probably not the typical case. In Dungeon World it is 100% mandatory if you play the game as-written.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Can you say how you see something not yet disclosed as necessarily not constraining? For example, suppose in the LotR boardgame The Confrontation my Nazgul is not yet disclosed. Do you see that as freeing me from constraints in its regard?

I couldn't say about your example as I know nothing of the game and what having a Nazgul implies. Now, depending on the sort of play you are engaging in, unrevealed elements of the fiction may or may not be constraining on the GM. In classic D&D they ARE, the referee as D&D calls it, is pretty much obliged to reveal his map and key as written to the players when they fulfill the criteria required to achieve uncovering it (granting that these criteria may sometimes be determined on the fly by said referee, but there's always a strong principle of doing so in a neutral way that is hopefully intelligible to the players and can inform their decisions). In a 2e or 5e game, the GM IMHO is not at all constrained to disclose anything, she can decide the clue is not in the drawer even though the module says it is, simply because in her opinion it will make a better story!