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

[pemerton]

I'm not interested in the question of how that should be categorised.

<snip>

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.

This seems a description of exploratory play. I can't see how it is any different - in basic techniques and processes - from the exploratory Traveller play that I described upthread.

Hopefully you can see that I'm focused on questions around GM-constraint and nature of resolution in 5th edtion D&D.

That's why I keep asking you to say something about it. How is it done? Where does the fiction come from? Who sets the stakes? What principles constrain scene-framing? Etc. At the moment I'm making guesses based on hints and very abstract descriptions.

 

[pemerton]

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 "loved" this post, so I am inferring that this is an accurate description of the approach.

Are the PCs framed into the cave mouth? Or do the players now declare actions to have their PCs travel to the cave? If the latter, does the resolution of these actions "cumulate" or "snowball" in some fashion, as the cave is approached? These are the sorts of difference in process and technique that produce the variety of RPG experiences that are out possible.

 

[kenada]

While searching around for various takes on the safe problem (as it were), I stumbled across an interesting discussion by Eddwards on authority. I see it has an entry on the big model wiki, but I can’t find much other discussion about it. However, I feel like it really cuts to the heart of this discussion.

In the thread, Edwards observes that there are four types of authority. Additionally, while it is commonly assumed that the four types of authority are related, Edwards postulates that they are separate.

As it turns out, it's easiest to respond by taking your last point first. I'll expand those authorities I talked about into a list, with a key addition and with the order changed for greater clarity:

Content authority - over what we're calling back-story, e.g. whether Sam is a KGB mole, or which NPC is boinking whom

Plot authority - over crux-points in the knowledge base at the table - now is the time for a revelation! - typically, revealing content, although notice it can apply to player-characters' material as well as GM material - and look out, because within this authority lies the remarkable pitfall of wanting (for instances) revelations and reactions to apply precisely to players as they do to characters

Situational authority - over who's there, what's going on - scene framing would be the most relevant and obvious technique-example, or phrases like "That's when I show up!" from a player

Narrational authority - how it happens, what happens - I'm suggesting here that this is best understood as a feature of resolution (including the entirety of IIEE), and not to mistake it for describing what the castle looks like, for instance; I also suggest it's far more shared in application than most role-players realize

So how is this useful? I think the argument for conflict resolution is assuming that players have content authority. When they roll, the conflict is over whether they obtain the incriminating documents not whether they complete the task of opening the safe. Obviously, not everyone agrees with this position. It feels odd or incorrect that players could just will a safe full of documents into existence regardless of what the GM has prepared.

The question that has been bothering me on this topic is how to reconcile a setting-centric approach with conflict resolution, and the answer is that content authority must remain with the GM. However, in order to retain protagonism for the PCs, the players must have plot authority and situational authority. They must be able to pursue their goal of obtaining the evidence, and when it comes time for the conflict, the GM must provide appropriate content. If that means a safe full of documents, then it will consist of the safe full of documents. If it’s something else, then framing a scene with an empty safe would be stepping on the players’ authority. The GM doesn’t get to fake them out. The GM has to provide the appropriate content from their prep.

This is one of the things that has given me trouble with wanting to embrace conflict resolution while still preserving the space for setting and prep in my homebrew systems. The answer seems to be that I can have those things, but I don’t get to say what happens. I have to rely on the players for that (and reconciling event rolls, but I would not take that as plot authority on my — the referee’s part). At least, that’s the theory anyway.

Applying this idea to consequence resolution, I think most of the authority would be retained by the GM. While I think there is some taking into consideration what the players want, it doesn’t appear they have the ability to establish situations or actually direct the plot. The GM needs to “read the tea leaves” and make those things happen.

(I could also be in fact totally wrong about this, but one of the things I want to be able to do is take a module with a situation, ignore whatever plot it has if any, and play to see what happens. We’ve done that with several adventures from OSE, and I think it’s a strength of them. Having words and a framework for reasoning about who gets to say what would be really helpful.)

 

[clearstream]

I don't follow. That is, I get what you are saying about only rolling if there is a meaningful consequence, but I completely don't get the bolded part... To use the safe example, how can the player know that there isn't going to be any papers in the safe going in? If he knew that, why would he even be there? Obviously only the GM knows these things, and the players are, in effect, playing to discover what is in the GM's notes. Sure, at the instant when it comes to a head the GM can say "Oh, yeah, you eventually get it open, there's nothing inside." instead of demanding a check, but I don't think that's really very consequential! I don't think it is what you are trying to say, so I'm just going to see what your explanation is, so I can understand the whole thing thx.

The bolded part was consequence is known going in. Picture a super-simple finite-state diagram.

Roll or not-roll
1. Is there a meaningful consequence?
1a. Yes, go to 2.
1b. No, exit.
2. Roll

The only way to get to roll is to know "going in" - i.e. at the time of deciding roll or not-roll - that there is a meaningful consequence. Logically, that has to come before roll. The wording of DMG 237.

Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

As a separate consideration, one can think about who must know and who may know which consequences? DM must know, in order to make the call. Players may know, and what they know may be incomplete.

 

[clearstream]

@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.

It felt cutting at the time, but I know exactly what you mean. I recollect myself in this very thread inadvertently doing something similar.

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.”

This all makes a ton of sense to me. The question shifts from is it possible (yes, it is possible) to "is the juice worth the squeeze"? I'm guessing I'm an outlier, but then, it's not my aim to play according to what is typical. As I mentioned up-thread, a reflex to translate my claims into normative ones could well cause difficulty in following them.

 

[clearstream]

@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?

I think it will go like this

• We earlier established that there is a mountain range to the north
• The kind of world there is, it's perfectly reasonable to speculate there are dragons in those peaks
• To resurrect Jo, the party are hoping to claim at least 1000gp (individual creatures of CR 11-16 are pretty sure to have that)
• Ranger is (implicitly) directing the group to say more about that: they're demonstrating interest in that direction
• As DM, I must respond to that direction, the conversation probably goes through a series of steps

Ranger - "There could be dragons in those peaks to the north. They're my favoured foe: can I recall hearing anything more specific?"

Asking that question brings it into the conversation and makes it something we must now decide. There are two parts to that

1. What is going to be true?
2. What does the ranger know about what is true?

As DM, my say is to decide if there is a dragon, following all that has gone before. Sure, I think, there's a dragon up there somewhere. So now all I need to rule on is what the ranger knows about that? The consequences matrix as I see it is

• Success - the party possess more knowledge about this world (but nothing that seems particularly rare, closely guarded, or obscure), and they are furnished with an option to get the gold they need (which is what I expect they are focused on: their intent)
• Failure -
  • the ranger can't recollect some knowledge that would be held by many, worth at most a few coins to interested parties: regarding party intents, further minor costs or efforts would need to be entered into
  • the ranger recollects the knowledge as success, but with something mistaken
  • the ranger gets it all horribly wrong (unlikely, but possible)

NOTE EDIT
The main thing is to have a view to what works for your group, and consistently rule within that view. The player chose dragon as favoured enemy, meaning they "have significant experience studying, tracking, hunting, and even talking to a certain type of enemy". I'm close to calling no roll here. However, the chance of getting it horribly wrong, or even just something mistaken, means failure can have meaningful consequences.

Known by many indicates it's easy - DC 10. For fun, let's say we land on success-with-complication. (The maths is something like +6 so roll would have been say 3 = 9 result. Even with advantage! In most worlds they roll success, but in this world, I have them manage to fail and narrate according to the consequences I had in mind that justified roll.)

DM - "With a bit of time to mull on all you've heard, yes. You recall a great and terrible white dragon lairs up there on a narrow pass above the tree line. What's more, you have a good description of the route there. You've heard that the dragon terrorizes the communities around those mountaintops...

Ranger - "Ah yes, Averandox the Fury of Winter. Well, there's our gold if we will risk it."

To be fair, the players mostly leave naming to me, but that's not down to any authority I've ever claimed over it. One specific player likes to name things: I'll assume they're the ranger in this case. The ranger has learned the dragon is a terror, but the players know that alignment is contingent in my game world. So that's my chosen complication: an unfortunate mischaracterisation of Averandox, Protector of the Peaks.

I think there is a metagame conversation possible here, that might have happened in some previous lore ruling

Player - What does fail entail, for lore?

DM - You mightn't recollect anything useful, or - worst case - what you recollect could be misleading.

By this rubric, when wouldn't I call roll? One example would be the availability of corroboration. That's down to player description.

Ranger - Previously we established that Autumn and Willow - friends in the order - were passing through. As part of mulling this over, I'll talk to them.

This is where something like your Treant comes in. Description constrains DM. We've previously established that Autumn and Willow are friends, and as rangers in the order they have similar lore. I've far less freedom in this case for meaningful consequences of failure! So here, I very likely rule no roll. The situation at the table always contains more detail than what we write here, and that detail counts.

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?

I'll assume that the party previously learned about the wise Treant who has lived in those mountains for centuries. And what's more, they decide to visit the Treant on their journey to the peaks. Assuming they find it, the question isn't what the Treant knows, but what it will tell them. I'd need to know their approach to say more.

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.

They'll diverge. As to the type of play afforded. I think one can have one approach to lore recollection, another approach to the fight with the dragon (e.g. get out miniatures, lay down a grid, all that), and a third approach to the journey. Variety is the spice of life.

Will we now tavel to those peaks? That's not up to me as DM. Might we learn more about Averandox prior to departing? Maybe, that will depend on the direction of players. Might I sketch a dragon lair and think about Averandox's means and motives? There's a good chance, even though we mightn't use it.

EDIT to illustrate the overall flow

Player intent (resurrect Jo) > player intent (get 1000gp) > player direction (uncover new truths) > DM say (about those truths) > player information (ranger's lore) > player intent (new intents) > all setting us up for what follows.*

Nothing invalidated what went before: it followed from what we already knew. My say is not the same as player say, but they are equal. As I see it, I didn't arbitrarily decide there was a dragon. Rather, a player instructed me to perform construction according to their intentions. I think @kenada's post above indicates how asymmetry with equality can be achieved.

Maven alert. Notice the flat trajectory of momentum in this example. My favoured sand-box style is like an orrery. Parts moving and turning. Players are crucial catalysts. Parts accelerate, wobble, get knocked out of orbit, by their choices. Some moments in our conversation are ones where we increase momentum, others are where we dampen it. A few are explosive. Sometimes explosive moments arrive unexpectedly, without build up. Sometimes build up fizzles. A snowball is one possible trajectory.

*Implicitly included at each step is fiction (what came before, what we know to be true, how things stand now), description (what players say), and system (what the game model and rules specifies), as appropriate.

 

[pemerton]

While searching around for various takes on the safe problem (as it were), I stumbled across an interesting discussion by Eddwards on authority.

Yes, I referred to this a bit of a way upthread: D&D General - Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

A paradigm example of a game in which the players have situational authority is classic dungeoncrawling D&D: if the players open a door and don't like the look of things, they shut it; if the players use their rumours and their wands of enemy detection properly, they can choose which monster to loot when; etc.

A BW Circles checks is another device for allowing player situational authority: it differs from the classic D&D approach in at least two ways, namely (i) it is gated behind a particular fortune mechanic, and (ii) it is an exception to the general rule in BW that the GM exercises situational authority.

Conversely, the more that the GM is free to bring NPCs onto the "stage" at any time (either BW-style, or "living breathing world" style), the less situational authority the players have. But that doesn't exhaust the analysis: in the same thread Edwards discusses the GM "taking suggestions" (this post, which on further reflection I think is the same one that you linked to) in their exercise of situational authority. Beliefs in BW are just one way of formalising the idea that the players get to make suggestions to the GM about how to use their situational authority.

The same thing of course can be true of content authority: the GM might take suggestions. (And one way of formalising this would be Read a Situation or Discern Realities-type moves in PbtA games. Another would be Wises in BW.)

The key to linking content authority to protagonism is found in Edwards discussion of setting-based "story now": the content has to be known to the players, so that it something everyone shares and "basks in" during play.

So if the game has a device for the players suggesting to the GM that the documents are in such-and-such a safe (as @AbdulAlhazred has been posting about for the past few pages) and can know that the GM has taken up that suggestion, then protagonism is preserved. I've often posted an example of this from my own BW play: Thurgon's sidekick Aramina conjectured that Evards's tower was in the general neighbourhood, and succeeded on a Wises check, and hence the player's "suggestion" to the GM about what content the setting contains becomes locked in as true.

The next player-side move, of course, is to travel to the tower. In my case, that was resolved as conflict resolution via a successful Circles check to find someone who could take us there: so Circles to exercise situational authority, then drama resolution - ie dictating how the friendly NPC helped us - to oblige the GM to then frame a scene involving our arrival at Evards' tower. (It started with a demon!)

I think this sort of thing is all pretty clear. I've not got the least clue so far how it is being done in 5e D&D, though.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, I referred to this a bit of a way upthread: D&D General - Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

A paradigm example of a game in which the players have situational authority is classic dungeoncrawling D&D: if the players open a door and don't like the look of things, they shut it; if the players use their rumours and their wands of enemy detection properly, they can choose which monster to loot when; etc.

A BW Circles checks is another device for allowing player situational authority: it differs from the classic D&D approach in at least two ways, namely (i) it is gated behind a particular fortune mechanic, and (ii) it is an exception to the general rule in BW that the GM exercises situational authority.

Conversely, the more that the GM is free to bring NPCs onto the "stage" at any time (either BW-style, or "living breathing world" style), the less situational authority the players have. But that doesn't exhaust the analysis: in the same thread Edwards discusses the GM "taking suggestions" (this post, which on further reflection I think is the same one that you linked to) in their exercise of situational authority. Beliefs in BW are just one way of formalising the idea that the players get to make suggestions to the GM about how to use their situational authority.

The same thing of course can be true of content authority: the GM might take suggestions. (And one way of formalising this would be Read a Situation or Discern Realities-type moves in PbtA games. Another would be Wises in BW.)

The key to linking content authority to protagonism is found in Edwards discussion of setting-based "story now": the content has to be known to the players, so that it something everyone shares and "basks in" during play.

So if the game has a device for the players suggesting to the GM that the documents are in such-and-such a safe (as @AbdulAlhazred has been posting about for the past few pages) and can know that the GM has taken up that suggestion, then protagonism is preserved. I've often posted an example of this from my own BW play: Thurgon's sidekick Aramina conjectured that Evards's tower was in the general neighbourhood, and succeeded on a Wises check, and hence the player's "suggestion" to the GM about what content the setting contains becomes locked in as true.

The next player-side move, of course, is to travel to the tower. In my case, that was resolved as conflict resolution via a successful Circles check to find someone who could take us there: so Circles to exercise situational authority, then drama resolution - ie dictating how the friendly NPC helped us - to oblige the GM to then frame a scene involving our arrival at Evards' tower. (It started with a demon!)

I think this sort of thing is all pretty clear. I've not got the least clue so far how it is being done in 5e D&D, though.

Is it right that you see protagonism as all or nothing? There is no degree or modality to protagonism?

EDIT Something I hope to understand along the way is if in your view there is no protagonism without player-fiat? And no protagonism where there is information hidden from players?

 

[Manbearcat]

This was to @clearstream, but I'll give my answer too.

First of, the player doesn't start by spouting specific lore before veracity of it has been established. It would be like the player stating that their character slays a troll before an attack roll has even been made. (Or they could say that, but that's basically just the character making stuff up.) Presumably what they actually want to do is establish whether they know any historic legends regarding whereabouts of dragons. So they communicate that.

Then the GM (if they have not already done so whilst setting up the world) determines some locations for dragons. Presumably the players in this instance are interested in nearest ones, so determining those/that will suffice. This determination is done based on the knowledge the GM has regarding the setting and behaviour of dragons. Then the GM determines how esoteric the knowledge is, thus setting the DC. (If we are talking about active dragons, not very. They are rather noticeable and also a big deal so the word gets around.) Then the player rolls the relevant skill (history in this instance,) with an advantage if there is reasons to warrant it. Appropriate background might be one, and having dragons as favoured enemy would definitely suffice.

Then based on the result and the DC, the GM will inform the player what their character can recall. I usually use some sort of decree of success for knowledge checks, so barely beating the DC might result "you have heard some rumours about people having seen dragons in near location X" type of an answer whilst a higher result would warrant more specific knowledge possibly including the names, ages and colours of the dragons in question, and some information regarding their behaviour and past deeds.

There is a lot more I'd like to know about this (maybe I'll ask those questions tomorrow), but thanks for your answer!

I agree that what you've outlined above is a mix of Sim handling (setting and internal causality extrapolation and the like).

@clearstream thanks for your answer! Like CL, what I’m seeing from your post looks like standard Simulationism via GM conception and extrapolation of setting, of the fiction, of the conversational inputs of the player.

@FrogReaver , here is an answer without any further context needed (I don't know why you need me to supply further context...but if you need further context, just make something up and reference that to answer the questions!). Clearstream and kenada's conversation established:

• Ranger
• Dragon
• Mountain (where the dragon lairs)

Just from those 3 things I can resolve my questions above for Gamism brought to you by Rules Cyclopedia D&D.

1) There are no Rangers in RC D&D. So lets make this a 21s level Fighter (Avenger) so he can cast level 4 Cleric Spells (Speak With Plants). He's Ranger-ey, so General Skills of Nature Lore (Forest), Tracking, Survival (Forest), Knowledge (Legends).

2) The player asks if in their travels they have heard legend of the location of this Dragon's lair. They've got Knowledge (Legends) so I'll just say "sure" and I'll give them the name of the dragon by default (which I have written on the key of my hexmap and tied to a particular hex w/ its hunting grounds being the adjacent hexes). To see if they know what hex its located in I tell them to roll under their Int for Knowledge (Legends). The orthodox modifier spread in RC is -6, -4, -2, +2, +4, +6. This is specific knowledge, but an Ancient Dragon's broad location as a series of a hexes would be pretty well known. So I probably ask, "do you want to know the hexes its been seen in or do you want to know where its actual lair is (so they can travel straight-away to that hex rather than explore)?" If they say, "general hexes seen" I would say "roll under Int (that is pretty general stuff)." If they say "specific hex of the lair," I would say "roll under Int -4 as that is difficult stuff to know." If they elect for the former and succeed, I'll give them the hexes. Latter and succeed? I'll give them the hex of the lair.

Now, RC doesn't help you on failures really, so the way I've always handled it is like Thief failures. You can't ask another question on the subject until the situation appreciably changes (you gain a level or you gain access to a repository of knowledge - like a Treant).

If another PC has Knowledge (Legends) and they pool their accumulated knowledge, I'll give them a +2 modifier to their roll.

3) So now maybe they want to consult a wise, old Treant about the Dragon. So the "Ranger" (Fighter/Avenger) again has Knowledge (Legends) but also has Nature Lore (Forest; which is only about common plants and animals in the region generally). Seems reasonable that Nature Lore (Forest) might help Knowledge (Legends) in locating a wise, old Treant in the forest region around the Dragon's mountain redoubt.

I'll have them test Int +2. If successful, they won't spend all the time procedurally hexcrawling through all the hexes of the forest. I'll look at my hexmap. Order of operations would be (i) is there a Treant keyed to this hex? If so, (ii) give them the hex. (iii) If no Treant keyed, look at the Encounter Tables. If Treant is one of the 8 entries, (iv) I'll give them the hex. (v) If no Treant but Unusual is one of the 8 entries (with Treant being 1 of the 12), I'll give them the hex(es).

If no Treant and no Unusual (odds of this are remote but possible), (vi) then "sorry about your luck...no Treants."

4) Now we carry out all of the typical hexcrawl procedures for each of the 24 mile hexes (that is what I've used because I've always liked the way it maps to Travel Modes and modifiers to Travel and I just like that scale). If the Encounter Tables had Treant, then we'll do Hexcrawl procedures within that Hex until (a) their Tracking (which I would put at -2 because they're Rare creatures and don't move a ton) "hits" that day or (b) Daytime Wandering Monster "hits" and "hits Treant" or (c) Nighttime Wandering Monster "hits" and "hits Treant". If its just Unusual, then I'll put the Tracking at -6 (due to it its extreme rarity in 1/8 and then 1/12) and same deal as above. So we'll follow Hexcrawl procedures until we "hit Treant."

5) We hit Treant.

30 ft encounter distance.

"Ranger" casts Speak with Plants (because they don't speak the slow and difficult tongue of Treants; they don't have the language).

Typically, its time for Monster Reaction Roll. But the Ranger has chosen Treants because (a) they're wise and old and (b) they're automatically friendly with forest creatures and forest defenders. This character is a 21s level "Ranger" with forest-friend bonafides so we go straight to "Friendly." It is absolutely willing to help.

So they've tracked the Treant > its friendly > they've casted Speak With Plants. They want to find out if there is a secret entrance to the Dragon's lair that the Dragon isn't aware about so they can circumvent the typical Encounter Distance (which gives the Dragon a huge advantage) and surprise it to put the Encounter Distance at a mere 1d4 x 10' w/ the Dragon not noticing the party until half that distance.

Big advantage for the PCs and tough to know so I'll test the Treant's Int -2.

However, the Treant can animate other trees around it to help. So, I'll give it +2 for the help from the ancient trees around it.

Maybe if that is successful, they'll ask the Treant if they know when the creature is active and when it sleeps. If successful, that would circumvent the base % Chance to Be Asleep and let them go straight up to it and get a round of attacks with +2 to hit! That would be a massive advantage for the PCs and seriously difficult stuff to know so I'll test the Treant's Int -6.

6) After all of these procedures/play, we'll hexcrawl toward the Dragon's lair armed with information (or not) that will change the gamestate and play procedures once we get to the hex.

---

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand done. Standard Gamism via RC’s engine and play procedures.

That isn't 5e D&D.

That isn't 4e D&D (which would be a Story Now heavy, Gamism light Skill Challenge where we consult map, set goal/stakes/complexity/level and resolve snowballing fiction/gamestate based on procedures/principles).

Both of those would involve extremely different play (and extremely different play from each other).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Manbearcat I really don't see anything in your outlined process that is fundamentally different that what could be done in 5e. It just happens that these days most people probably don't have worlds preplanned on hexmaps with that level of detail. (And frankly, I doubt that in olden days most people had either.) But it basically relies on objective world set up by the GM and 'skill rolls' by the PCs to gain knowledge about that world. And that's how it is commonly done in 5e too.