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

[clearstream]

@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.

@Manbearcat to me locates "gamist" interests in the world lore establishing. As I noted, I'm locating them in the combat (if there is one).

The play is layered. Assessing the whole as "gamist" or not "gamist" doesn't really mean anything. How much time is spent in the "gamist" layer? Is it "gamist" only if 100% of the time is? At that point, aren't we playing a board-RPG?

 

[Manbearcat]

@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 bascally 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.

The problem with 5e hexcrawling is:

* It doesn’t have a robust and integrated hexcrawling system/set of procedures. I listed a chunk of them upthread but not even close to the whole engine. 5e has the most bare bones possible. You have to invent a large swathe of procedures and then integrate them with the rest of the engine (which is fraught due to several confounds).

* To go along with those procedures all of the other integrated engine tech isn’t there to support/facilitate it; Daytime and Nighttime Wandering Monster procedures/tables that integrate with real logistical challenges around moving/light/encumbrance/info gathering, xp paradigm that is integrated with that exploration challenge environment.

5e spells are at-will, ubiquitous, and crazy powerful. Encumbrance is a nothingburger. Info gathering capability is potent.

---

The confounds and lack of game engine tech (constituent parts and their integration) are a huge thing to overcome.

Which is why you don’t see virtually any talk of this kind of play in 5e. You see a lot of GM-directed AP play + ignoring of things like encumbrance/light and logistical challenges (because 5e groups have so many means to just obviate Wilderness Crawl logistic challenges) + GM conception and extrapolation of setting/fiction/conversation inputs and milestone xp to pace GM story beats (rather than to incentivize Gamism).

Which is fine.

Totally cool. It’s just not Gamism it’s GM-directed High Concept Simulationism sometimes with a veneer of Process Simulationism. That play is what is wildly popular.

 

[clearstream]

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 else has Knowledge (Legends) and their 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, give them the hex. If no Treant keyed, look at the Encounter Tables. If Treant is one of the 8 entries, I'll give them the hex. 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), 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 it 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).

Concretely, we were focused on one question: what became known to the Ranger about the dragon? As to that one question, you seem to argue that saying "sure" is more "gamist" than calling for a check. That's a... surprising... conclusion.

 

[FrogReaver]

Concretely, we were focused on one question: what became known to the Ranger about the dragon? As to that one question, you seem to argue that saying "sure" is more "gamist" than calling for a check. That's a... surprising... conclusion.

Could it just be that gamism is viewed more about following the 'game' process than rolling dice.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat to me locates "gamist" interests in the world lore establishing. As I noted, I'm locating them in the combat (if there is one).

The play is layered. Assessing the whole as "gamist" or not "gamist" doesn't really mean anything. How much time is spent in the "gamist" layer? Is it "gamist" only if 100% of the time is? At that point, aren't we playing a board-RPG?

A bit more than that, but that is absolutely part of it.

In D&D, I locate Gamism in the following places:

* Overcoming logistical challenges within the collision of integrated procedures/engine and your PC build capability and constraints (including inventory and loadout) + your wits/guile. This needs to feature a difficult, entangled decision-space for players over a myriad of things and playing unskillfully needs to be costly.

* Combat. Some engines are rough as dangerous but not intricate like RC. Some engines are intricate but not terribly dangerous due to PC capability vs Team Monster capability (like 5e). Some are extremely intricate with all kinds of moving parts and a very threatening, synergizing Team Monster + Terrain/Hazard system (4e). Again, entangled decision-space and playing unskillfully needs to be costly.

* Overcoming Social challenges. Again, entangled decision-space and playing unskillfully needs to be costly. IMO, and I’ve said this many times in the past, THIS is the site of 5e Gamism. Combat is too easy and the logistical stuff just isn’t there due to all of the confounds and lack of procedures/tech (and obviously their integration).

But 5e’s “social conflict as puzzle solving/Pictionary/Wheel of Fortune?” Fantastically conceived and designed mini-game (particularly for this particular game).

It should come as no surprise, that when I reviewed the game many years ago and up through its first 5 years (end of ‘19 is the last I looked in on this…but id be shocked if the needle has moved appreciably in the last few years vs the nothingburger of the first 5 years) and brought up these procedures and touted them for how good they were for (well-integrated) Gamism…

…it was complete crickets by the 5e userbase.

Virtually no one even knew they were there OR they elected not to use them.

The best piece of system-integrated 5e tech that produces compelling and rewarding Gamism. Total unknown or memory holed.

Dissapointing and huge missed opportunity for the 5e player base imo.

Now if the logistical exploration component of 5e play had that kind of system integrated tech (with lack of confounds)? I would 100 % say “5e is a totally awesome Gamism-providing engine” and I would run the hell out of it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The problem with 5e scrawling is:

* It doesn’t have a robust and integrated hexcrawling system/set of procedures. I listed a chunk of them upthread but not even close to the whole engine. 5e has the most bare bones possible. You have to invent a large swathe of procedures and then integrate them with the rest of the engine (which is fraught due to several confounds).

* To go along with those procedures all of the other integrated engine tech isn’t there to support/facilitate it; Daytime and Nighttime Wandering Monster procedures/tables that integrate with real logistical challenges around moving/light/encumbrance/info gathering, xp paradigm that is integrated with that exploration challenge environment.

5e spells are at-will, ubiquitous, and crazy powerful. Encumbrance is a nothingburger. I go gathering capability is potent.

---

The confounds and lack of game engine tech (constituent parts and their integration) are a huge thing to overcome.

Which is why you don’t see virtually any talk of this kind of play in 5e. You see a lot of GM-directed AP play + ignoring of things like encumbrance/light and logistical challenges (because 5e groups have so many means to just obviate Wilderness Crawl logistic challenges) + GM conception and extrapolation of setting/fiction/conversation inputs and milestone xp to pace GM story beats (rather than to incentivize Gamism).

Which is fine.

Totally cool. It’s just not Gamism it’s GM-directed High Concept Simulationism sometimes with a veneer of Process Simulationism. That play is what is wildly popular.

Sure. But the question really was about how we establish whether a ranger knows where a dragon is, not viability of 5e hexcrawls. And I feel your old school answer and my 5e answer were very similar. There is a GM established objective world from which the PCs can gain knowledge via ability/skill rolls, the difficulty of which is being tied to the specificity of the knowledge being sought.

But regarding hexcrawls, I kinda wish 5e had more structure for travel and I have houseruled several of the "skip travelling challenges" spells and features. However, reading your descriptions of what you think proper travel focus takes, I can say with confidence that I don't want that either, and I would be highly surprised if majority of the current player base wouldn't feel the same. Frankly, a lot of that just seems like tedious micromanaging to me, and I don't find it appealing.

I don't know, I'd really like to have some sort of distilled broad strokes version of interesting travel mechanics I could insert in 5e. Something between detailed micromanaging of specific hexes and resources and the GM just making something up on a whim.

Perhaps I should have look at that AP @clearstream was talking about which had something like that. What was it? Not that it really looked exactly like the sort of thing I'm thinking.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

* Overcoming Social challenges. Again, entangled decision-space and playing in skillfully needs to e costly. IMO, and I’ve said this many times in the past, THIS is the site of 5e Gamism. Combat is too easy and the logistical stuff just isn’t there due to all of the confounds and lack of procedures/tech (and obviously their integration).

But 5e’s “social conflict as puzzle solving/Pictionary/Wheel of Fortune?” Fantastically conceived and designed mini-game (particularly for this particular game).

It should come as no surprise, that when I reviewed the game many years ago and up through its first 5 years (end of ‘19 is the last I looked in on this…but id be shocked if the needle has moved appreciably in the last few years vs the nothingburger of the first 5 years) and brought up these procedures and touted them for how good they were for (well-integrated) Gamism…

…it was complete crickets by the 5e userbase.

Virtually no one even knew they were there OR they elected not to use them.

The best piece of system-integrated 5e tech that produces compelling and rewarding Gamism. Total unknown or memory holed.

Dissapointing and huge missed opportunity for the 5e player base imo.

I literally don't have the foggiest what you're talking about here...

 

[Manbearcat]

Concretely, we were focused on one question: what became known to the Ranger about the dragon? As to that one question, you seem to argue that saying "sure" is more "gamist" than calling for a check. That's a... surprising... conclusion.

Could it just be that gamism is viewed more about following the 'game' process than rolling dice.

And tagging @Crimson Longinus .

So FR has it here.

Whenever I talk about Gamism (whether it be D&D or another game), I’m not talking about a singular constituent part. That doesn’t do nearly enough work to create vital, dynamic, rewarding Gamism.

I’m talking about a slick, well-integrated whole (an integrated engine without Gamism-thwarting confounds and with Gamism rewarding incentive structures).

So that is why I laid out that entire mapped RC Hexcrawl above (even though I elided a few Hexcrawl procedures because I would be typing forever). It’s not just the question or the series of questions. It’s all of why they’re asked the way they’re asked (eg Ranger invoking Treant and being able to marshal their particular skill set to bring about positive outcomes within the crawl), why they’re asked (the specific, engine-related leverage they afford), and how they resolve.

Back to 5e’s Gamism-awesome Social Interaction. Again, it’s not one component part of the procedures…it’s all of the procedures together + how well they’re integrated with the rest of the system + the slick, “D&D-true” puzzle solving nature of them that makes them so well conceived as a minigame for Gamism.

EDIT - @Crimson Longinus Social Interaction procedures DMG mid 240s (not home do don’t have handy). Couple pages. 4 step procedure. Starting Attutude > Skillful Converstion + Ability Check (Wis Insight and various Cha) marshaling to suss out NPC BIFTs to use as leverage (to lower DC and/or get Advantage for final Charisma Check > Charisma Check (after “solving the conversation/action resolution puzzle and getting the mechanical rewards in lowered DC/Adv) to better the NPC’s Reaction (with the goal being “Attain Friendly”).

 

[FrogReaver]

A bit more than that, but that is absolutely part of it.

In D&D, I locate Gamism in the following places:

* Overcoming logistical challenges within the collision of integrated procedures/engine and your PC build capability and constraints (including inventory and loadout) + your wits/guile. This needs to feature a difficult, entangled decision-space for players over a myriad of things and playing unskillfully needs to be costly.

* Combat. Some engines are rough as dangerous but not intricate like RC. Some engines are intricate but not terribly dangerous due to PC capability vs Team Monster capability (like 5e). Some are extremely intricate with all kinds of moving parts and a very threatening, synergizing Team Monster + Terrain/Hazard system (4e). Again, entangled decision-space and playing in skillfully needs to e costly.

* Overcoming Social challenges. Again, entangled decision-space and playing in skillfully needs to e costly. IMO, and I’ve said this many times in the past, THIS is the site of 5e Gamism. Combat is too easy and the logistical stuff just isn’t there due to all of the confounds and lack of procedures/tech (and obviously their integration).

But 5e’s “social conflict as puzzle solving/Pictionary/Wheel of Fortune?” Fantastically conceived and designed mini-game (particularly for this particular game).

It should come as no surprise, that when I reviewed the game many years ago and up through its first 5 years (end of ‘19 is the last I looked in on this…but id be shocked if the needle has moved appreciably in the last few years vs the nothingburger of the first 5 years) and brought up these procedures and touted them for how good they were for (well-integrated) Gamism…

…it was complete crickets by the 5e userbase.

Virtually no one even knew they were there OR they elected not to use them.

The best piece of system-integrated 5e tech that produces compelling and rewarding Gamism. Total unknown or memory holed.

Dissapointing and huge missed opportunity for the 5e player base imo.

Now if the logistical exploration component of 5e play had that kind of system integrated tech (with lack of confounds)? I would 100 % say “5e is a totally awesome Gamism-providing engine” and I would run the hell out of it.

Most players may play Megaman with the goal of beating the game.
Some players play Megaman with the goal of beating the game in the least time possible. (Speed runners).

Those players aren't really playing the same 'Game' in the most proper sense but they are both playing Megaman. They use the same set of procedures and player moves but their goals are vastly different and so that makes their play look much different despite having access to the same procedures and moves. But one goal is simply a self imposed goal and not one that originated within the game itself. I don't think having that self added player goal makes Megaman into a non-gamist game.

With that concept in mind, when a player in D&D adds an additional goal to D&D (I only 'win' if I play my character as I envision him) then that goal might very well restrict the player from making certain better valid moves, but everything he's doing still falls into game procedures. Wouldn't that be gamist as well?

So then a group like mine that treats out of combat as almost completely roleplay (albeit our party has goals) but we don't necessarily pick the best moves to achieve those goals as the game we have chosen to play is one where our moves are restricted based on our vision of our character.

How does one pull apart this onion?

 

[kenada]

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.

Does protagonism need to be the ability to introduce the specific location (i.e., the safe has the documents), or is it sufficient to introduce that evidence exists, and then to use one’s plot and situational authority to compel the GM to provide for its discovery?

This is an inversion of the villain behind the mask scenario in Edwards’s discussion. Instead of finding out who the villain is by (owned by whom the PCs assume is the villain) taking off the mask, you are finding the incriminating mask in a safe. But if the mask is kept under the bed, then that is what the GM would need to provide when it comes time for the scene with the discovery.

What I am getting at is the distribution of authority sufficient for protagonistic play. It would seem plot authority is necessary and at least shared situational authority. The issue is over content authority. You are suggesting that if the players lack content authority (e.g., because the game is setting-centric) than the content must be known to them.

So to bring things back around to the safe discussion, the players would have to know that so-and-so is up to no good, and this is because of the link from content to plot authority. They would not be able to exercise the latter without knowing, and if it is kept hidden, then the GM is seizing plot authority in that case (by making the decision about what is revealed).

I assume that the only thing that keeps the players from charging the castle immediately is the separation of what they know from what their characters know. If said villain is perceived as an upstanding member of the community, then the players would have to establish a link they could use to credibly make their accusations.

I would speculate that the more backstory (as Edwards puts it) that one has prepped, the more one has to reveal up front to facilitate player control of plot authority, and so detailing ahead of time that the evidence is in the safe is probably a worse idea that having a mechanic to suggest there is evidence and then to situate it as appropriate (e.g., the PCs are searching the office, and “you find a safe where you think the evidence is” is as valid a response to the search fortune as “you find a ciphered letter at the bottom of a drawer”).