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

[AbdulAlhazred]

And in 5e the GM is allowed by the rules start the session by "rocks fall, everyone dies," but they probably won't. In practice these things have structures and conventions governing them; it is not arbitrary. Now it perhaps could be argued that DMG does poor job in outlining such principles and conventions.

I'm not at ll disputing that. All I'm saying is that the situation in, say Dungeon World, is MUCH more constrained for the GM. While a 5e GM won't arbitrarily kill the PCs, because it probably isn't enjoyable, she's pretty much entirely free to do anything else, and to do it simply because she considers it 'fun'. There will likely be 'better' and 'worse' GM moves in 5e, and some are worse enough to violate the basic tenets of having fun, but the players are not in a position to judge WHY she chose a particular 'move' in many cases. In Dungeon World the players will ALWAYS be able to say why, it will be perfectly plain. An orc jumped out of the shadows and attacked the halfling because the fighter has a bond with the halfling that says he'll always protect her from danger. While the GM could pick some other bond to make a move against, or perhaps some other 'asset' of the PCs to put pressure on, the game rules literally state that the GM must make a move at a certain point in the game, and this move must address an element of player-decided character element. Will the fighter drop the big bag of treasure he's carrying and leap to the aid of the halfling, or not?

I don't think 5e's DMG is particularly bad at describing the GM's responsibilities and naming good techniques. It is just a very GM-centered game in which most of the decisions that decide the direction of things are made by the GM, and most of the options the GM has are in reference to things often hidden from the players.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Just a reminder that while I understand the attractions, I'm more of a gamist than a simulationist any more; if I was to point my desires they're a combination of old GDS D and G with just a touch of S. I'm perfectly willing to accept some compromises on causality for other reasons.

 

[kenada]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

I was trying to avoid picking nits at the specific example. You listed various other possible success consequences other than just opening the safe. I didn’t want the focus of discussion to be on the one I picked for example but rather on what the technique did and how it was set up to work.

Can you say what meaningful consequences of failure you are thinking of here, other than time taken? if it's just time taken, then sure, they get it open eventually somehow. That's a given.

In conflict resolution, you can’t generally retry. It doesn’t really make sense, and games usually explicitly tell you that it’s not possible. I believe it’s something @Manbearcat has mentioned a few times with regards to BW and TB. Since you said this is not conflict resolution, I’m trying to understand the bounds on consequences resolution versus just plain task resolution or conflict resolution.

I mean, if you can just keep trying to open the safe, and the only consequence is time, is that really a consequence? My understanding of the advice in the DMG is that wouldn’t be considered a meaningful consequence of failure, and you would be best off to have the PCs succeed without rolling and just narrate some time has passed. For example, one might have you roll a DC 0 check to climb a ladder in 3e. I’ve done it (in combat to amusing effect). In 5e, I believe the intent is such trivial checks just aren’t made.

Do you mean, who decides whether it is map-and-key play or players pursue their own objectives?

What I’m trying to determine is who puts the safe there for consequence resolution. It doesn’t seem like it’s necessarily a fact of the world. Do the players postulate it into existence by saying they are looking for a safe full of cash, or does the GM put a safe there because it is a thematically appropriate way of providing a situation where there can be consequences (the PCs acquire the cash they need to raise their companion, or something suitably bad happens when they fail their roll to do so)? That’s what I mean. I think the rest of your response might provide something of an answer.

Rather I think the party start snooping around looking for a safe that could contain the necessary funds. Say they're in a large city, in previous play it might have been established there is a Merchant's Guild and so the players might feel that there could well be a safe in there and take steps to figure out if that's true and how they can get to it. The DM is answering their questions, which might well author elements of the world that were previously unknown. Those elements should be consistent with what is known.

This sounds somewhere in the middle. The safe doesn’t exist per se, but it follows from the setting already established and makes logical context within that sense. In a fantasy setting, this safe might be a dragon’s hoard that had been established. The PCs knew there was a scary cave, and it would make sense for a dragon and her hoard to be there.

I'm not aiming for story now here, in case there is doubt. So the questions answered here are orthogonal to my assessment that 5th edition is consequences-resolution. I follow an approach of asymmetric but equal roles. Suppose there just is no safe already established in our fiction or game state? Then we figure out in our conversation - playfully - whether it makes sense to have one.

Right, this is why I asked. I know you had already disclaimed that you were doing Story Now, but it wasn’t clear to me how a safe was coming into play without its existence being established already. Your answer sounds like something in the direction of Story Now (reconciling its existence from existing play state at the time it is needed), but I assume that your asymmetric distribution of roles would put more responsibility on the GM to proffer the existence of the safe rather than on the PCs to request it.

Like if the PCs said, “We need some cash to raise our friend,” and the GM responded with, “There’s a dragon’s hoard in the scary cave to the north.” The hoard wasn’t established previously, but it follows from other things the GM has prepped and said so far.

 

[clearstream]

Right, this is why I asked. I know you had already disclaimed that you were doing Story Now, but it wasn’t clear to me how a safe was coming into play without its existence being established already. Your answer sounds like something in the direction of Story Now (reconciling its existence from existing play state at the time it is needed), but I assume that your asymmetric distribution of roles would put more responsibility on the GM to proffer the existence of the safe rather than on the PCs to request it.

Like if the PCs said, “We need some cash to raise our friend,” and the GM responded with, “There’s a dragon’s hoard in the scary cave to the north.” The hoard wasn’t established previously, but it follows from other things the GM has prepped and said so far.

Right. I might picture that conversation going like this

• The kind of world we're in is one that has dragons: they're definitely a thing. They're not a living next door thing! They're an - away on the lonely mountain over there - thing.
• The ranger asked at some point if the hills they skirted could extend into mountains running north. We thought they did, or maybe that's part of the map that isn't blank (part of my say, as DM).
• From previous sessions, they have knowledge or contacts pertinent to the whereabouts of dragons.
• Asking around, they get a few leads. One of those is there is a dragon in the northern range, and don't dragons always have a ton of gold?!
• The players get interested. I'm curious about what they're going to try. Dragons are pretty fierce, someone warns.

And off they go. Chances are that yes, they do find a dragon's hoard. It didn't just spring into existence arbitrarily, but it wasn't there before we focused in on it. And suppose alternatively that a dragon just wouldn't follow? Then no, in that case there wouldn't be a dragon hoard. Or then again, I could possibly have dragon and hoard pencilled in (part of my say, as DM). That's probably on a parabola that matters in some way to the big picture; and could just fade away, if players go in another direction.

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO. There's the dragon's existence in the fiction itself - which until revealed is often in a type of Schrodinger's state.

But we also have our world and the decision process that we go through here to decide the existence of the dragon within the fiction. That may entail a 1st draft pre-authoring type process, feedback and ideas from stakeholders that might change some details of that draft, editorial decisions made to the draft to fit into the gaming session or current arc of the campaign, and finally last minute acting/character decisions that can push the fiction a bit differently than initially drafted (example: try to befriend the dragon instead of fighting it).

Does it actually matter if the dragon was placed in our first draft or added in due to one of the subsequent phases?

Is sticking to the dragon in the first draft more gamist while changing a fire elemental to a fire dragon due to player comments leading up to the reveal less gamist and more fiction/player driven?

Is the dragon being added in solely on GM fiat or is there some kind of internal non-codified process the GM is following - one that weights a variety of nearly impossible to codify factors and decides based on that?

 

[Manbearcat]

Right. I might picture that conversation going like this

• The kind of world we're in is one that has dragons: they're definitely a thing. They're not a living next door thing! They're an - away on the lonely mountain over there - thing.
• The ranger asked at some point if the hills they skirted could extend into mountains running north. We thought they did, or maybe that's part of the map that isn't blank (part of my say, as DM).
• From previous sessions, they have knowledge or contacts pertinent to the whereabouts of dragons.
• Asking around, they get a few leads. One of those is there is a dragon in the northern range, and don't dragons always have a ton of gold?!
• The players get interested. I'm curious about what they're going to try. Dragons are pretty fierce, someone warns.

And off they go. Chances are that yes, they do find a dragon's hoard. It didn't just spring into existence arbitrarily, but it wasn't there before we focused in on it. And suppose alternatively that a dragon just wouldn't follow? Then no, in that case there wouldn't be a dragon hoard. Or then again, I could possibly have dragon and hoard pencilled in (part of my say, as DM). That's probably on a parabola that matters in some way to the big picture; and could just fade away, if players go in another direction.

Ok, the Ranger says to the table:

"I believe I remember the tale of Averandox the Fury of Winter. A great and terrible White Dragon who terrorized the communities around those mountaintops. Perhaps a tale about his lair...a secret entrance maybe...or the resources (eg Lair Actions) that he can bring to bear within."

Has Favored Enemy Dragon, +2 Int, and Proficiency History.

What happens now? You say "yes?" You say "no?" You say "roll dice?" Why?

If you say "roll dice", what is your process for setting the DC and what is the DC?

If the Ranger didn't have Favored Enemy Dragon...do you let another PC Help? Why yes or no and what are the constraints on that? If "yes" and the roll fails, what liability is "the Helper" assuming?

If they succeed what do you say? Why?

If they fail by 2 what do you say? Why?

If they fail by 4 what do you say? Why?

If they fail by 6 what do you say? Why?

If they roll a 1 what do you say? Why?

Finally, if the Ranger doesn't have Favored Enemy Dragons/Prof History/Good Int Mod but elects to cast "Speak With Plants" on a wise, old Treant in the forest below the tree line of the mountain region where Averandox lairs with the intention of learning the same information as above...how do you handle the ruling here?

Is it "yes" because "wise, old Treant in the mountain range of Averandox?" Is it yes because "Ranger just spent a pretty significant resource to attain this info?"

If not "yes" and not "no", is the answer "same DC as the prior situation conceived above?" Do you give the Treant History Proficiency because "wise, old Treant in the mountain range of Averandox?" If it is an alternative DC for the Treant...why?

If we're going with "Treant rolls Int + Prof History" and they get a success, is it the same info as if the Ranger rolled Int + Adv for Favored Enemy + Prof History? If failure, then what? Same? Why?

Do you let the Ranger Help or another PC? Why, why not, etc?

EDIT - because I don’t want to make a separate post.

@clearstream , the use of “unwittingly” wasn’t intended as pejorative. Everyone (certainly myself included) does or says things due to some or another level of unawareness (or even just a preoccupied kind momentarily forgetting…I do that on the regular). It’s no big deal. I just saw a 1-3 that looked like bog-standard Fail Forward in its formulation yet called something else so that was my sincere reaction to it.

As far as Force vs Fiat, I broke that out upthread. Check post 1817. My takeaway as it pertains to 5e is:

* It’s impossible to run without Fiat. It’s baked in to a degree rarely seen in TTRPG design. Whether that is principally guided or arbitrary depends. But even principally guided Fiat in 5e is fraught because of the extreme zoom (and therefore discretion and latitude) inherent to 5e principles (which I captured upthread).

* It’s possible to run 5e without Force (I’ve done it) though it’s an enormous effort and requires rather significant cognitive load and table handling time to (a) remain disciplined and aware within your effort and (b) make the process of action resolution mediation abundantly transparent. The question becomes “is the juice worth the squeeze.”

I don’t see 5e as conducive to the type of GMing I’m speaking about directly above. WotC’s APs + GMing in the wild + testimonials on ENWorld and everywhere else on the internet bear that out pretty robustly. The abundance of GMing 5e is breezy, story-and-Power Fantasy-need-directed which means this becomes the principal for Fiat and it means that sometimes that Fiat manifests as player/system-input-subordinating Force.

In other words, High Concept Simulationism.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Hmm, okay. In previous discussion of "fail-forward" on these forums, the inclusion of fail-and-die (as an example) seemed ruled out for fail-forward. I see it described on multiple blogs in words similar to these,

"Failing forward is the idea that you still get to unlock the door on a failed roll, but it comes at a cost"

"if you want the origins of it conceptually, that'll go back to the first referee in OD&D who let the game continue moving forward with an awkward hindrance on a failure "

"the mechanical result of failure (e.g., rolling below the target number) is described as being a success-with-complications in the game world."

It felt unnecessary and was mistaken to call me unwitting. I considered "fail-foward". I did not choose it as a label because of the gating of 5e ability checks behind meaningful consequences. Those meaningful consequences can include set-backs. I don't especially want to fight you on label (it's not a great hill to die on!), but "fail-forward" is not universally understood to include set-backs so far as I could find.

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.

In a few places the DCs are given. A few examples

• Social Interaction DCs by attitude and objective
• Acrobatics and Athletics DCs for chases, jumping, swimming and so on
• Survival DCs for tracking and foraging

But certainly not as codified as say BW skills. I do have a collection of several hundred DC precedents from published material as a reference, but I shouldn't think that is a resource many DMs possess. (I didn't create the resource, it's found online. I just put it in an Excel sheet and sorted by ability.)

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"?

A DM could run it as loosely as you fear, or could run it following principles and constraints indicated by the rules they opt to follow. For example, wording is used like "some kind of roll is appropriate." Does that mean roll? One DM might decide that "some kind of roll is appropriate" means "roll". Another might decide to wing it, case by case. That "maybe" depends on DM.

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).

They can also commit in advance to using the Core rules as written. Or do you see something preventing that?

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).

I value GDS and GNS hugely for opening space for designers to explore. On the other hand, I'm not too concerned to argue for one categorisation or another. For example, the "gamism" label has a few qualities associated with it. Those seem too narrow, and the contributing qualities are not simply present or absent. I can't really say that an RPG is "gamist" or is not "gamist". That doesn't really mean anything.

I can say that for some important subsystem - PVE combat, say - game A's model and rules yield a simpler game state with less taxing decisions than comparative game B. And then I might have to caveat that game B's subsystem has transactions with some other subsystems that create another layer of decisions that are actually more taxing. Some players dislike combat, but they love trade. A detailed economic system with some bite to it will thrill them to bits. How can I say that combat-focused games A and B are "gamist" from their perspective? Or that their interests in play are not "gamist"?

As Baker put it (in 2015)

And I should be super clear: it's not that I think that there are hybrid creative agendas, coexisting creative agendas, overlaps, gray areas. It's not that I think that G, N and S aren't adequate. I think that the idea of creative agendas altogether isn't adequate. Gameplay doesn't have a creative agenda. Games aren't designed to support a creative agenda. The idea of creative agendas was useful to me for a while, but it's not anymore.

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.

The concern here to my reading is mainly one of skepticism about whether a DM can rule in a way that is principled, constrained by fiction/description/system. Is that right? There seems to you too much scope - too much leeway - for any constraints to be strict enough to suit your preferences.

A few times you've connected "GM-fiat" with "force", so I have understood it to be egregiously arbitrary. Was that what you really intended? I have resisted - and do resist - the notion that the degree of leeway in 5th edition necessarily guarantees egregiously arbitrary rulings. But maybe that's not what you intend after all? Your last line seems to indicate an out. So if time permits, can you clarify?

 

[clearstream]

Will answer later. It's late!

 

[clearstream]

Ok, the Ranger says to the table:

"I believe I remember the tale of Averandox the Fury of Winter. A great and terrible White Dragon who terrorized the communities around those mountaintops. Perhaps a tale about his lair...a secret entrance maybe...or the resources (eg Lair Actions) that he can bring to bear within."

Does that all follow what we know to be true? Or is the ranger just throwing it out there?

Has Favored Enemy Dragon, +2 Int, and Proficiency History.

What happens now? You say "yes?" You say "no?" You say "roll dice?" Why?

Can you say what the ranger describes doing? Are they just throwing out that snippet apropos of nothing and demanding a roll to make it true or not true? (i.e. going off-piste.) Did anything come prior to make sense of it, or did they spout it completely out of the blue?

If you say "roll dice", what is your process for setting the DC and what is the DC?

I still don't have the situation and description in place, so I can't tell you what we are checking for.

If the Ranger didn't have Favored Enemy Dragon...do you let another PC Help? Why yes or no and what are the constraints on that? If "yes" and the roll fails, what liability is "the Helper" assuming?

If they succeed what do you say? Why?

If they fail by 2 what do you say? Why?

If they fail by 4 what do you say? Why?

If they fail by 6 what do you say? Why?

If they roll a 1 what do you say? Why?

Finally, if the Ranger doesn't have Favored Enemy Dragons/Prof History/Good Int Mod but elects to cast "Speak With Plants" on a wise, old Treant in the forest below the tree line of the mountain region where Averandox lairs with the intention of learning the same information as above...how do you handle the ruling here?

Is wise old Treant part of what we already know to be true? What brought the party to this forest? Was it just to ask them about dragons? Again, you have to say more about situation and description before we can get to system.

Is it "yes" because "wise, old Treant in the mountain range of Averandox?" Is it yes because "Ranger just spent a pretty significant resource to attain this info?"

Can you say more about what resource the ranger has spent? Do you mean speak with plants?

If not "yes" and not "no", is the answer "same DC as the prior situation conceived above?" Do you give the Treant History Proficiency because "wise, old Treant in the mountain range of Averandox?" If it is an alternative DC for the Treant...why?

If we're going with "Treant rolls Int + Prof History" and they get a success, is it the same info as if the Ranger rolled Int + Adv for Favored Enemy + Prof History? If failure, then what? Same? Why?

Do you let the Ranger Help or another PC? Why, why not, etc?

I'm happy to answer all this, but ranger in white room with treant spouting sudden lore, isn't enough to go on. You've included a bunch of names, do you mean that the player characters have great familiarity with all those places? Or are you thinking about it as a label the ranger has proposed out of nowhere for that bit of the map?


[EDIT Should tear myself away, but had too many questions!]

 

[Manbearcat]

@clearstream I’m just working off of your conversation with @kenada in posts 1966 and 1967 above with the ranger and the mountain and the dragon.

Your situation you’ve depicted above has a Ranger. It has a mountain. It has a Dragon.

The Ranger tries to recall specific lore about historical events and legends (the same way it’s done in any game) by saying some words to the table/GM.

How does that matter get settled/resolved?

Alternatively, if they want to look for a Treant (that are wise and old by default so it’s unclear why that became a point of contention?) in the forest below the mountain’s tree-line, how does the matter of “a Treant exists/does not exist in these forested mountains” get settled/resolved?

If they do find a Treant, how does “does this Treant recall specific lore about historical events/legends sufficient to resolve the Ranger’s pondering” get resolved?

The answer to these questions are quite relevant to the thread. There is a Gamism approach to resolve these matters. There is a Simulationism approach to resolve these matters. There is a Story Now approach to resolve these matters.

They all diverge significantly.