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

[Crimson Longinus]

It's not unrelated. It's the whole rationale for even being interested in the safe. If no one was interested in the safe, then the GM would just "say 'yes'" and no dice would be rolled.

It is unrelated to 1) quality of the safe 2) skill of the safe opener. It is not unrelated to the motives of the characters, but neither of the things you derive your odds for the paper being there measures that. So yes, these things are unrelated.

Again, you are inputting simulationist premises.

Why would the result of what happens if the safe is picked be indifferent to who is doing it? In a character-driven "story now" game the precise opposite is the case!

Right. So you admit that you shouldn't let the person with the low skill to try to open the safe as that will crash the odds of the paper being there?

And I get the idea of the motives of characters and desires of the players shaping the reality just fine, it just seems incoherent tome to bring obviously simulationist measures of safe quality and lockpicking skill into it then.

 

[pemerton]

I think we can get even crazier. Suppose there are 2 PC's. Both players want papers in that safe that point to a different arch nemesis.

How would a conflict resolution game handle that?
Which player gets first attempt? If the first player succeeds does that mean the other player failed? If the 1st player fails does he open an empty safe or does he just fail to open the safe altogether so that player 2 can get a chance to attempt to succeed at opening the safe and thus finding paper pointing to his arch nemesis?

I don't see how this is crazy at all.

@Campbell has already offered one set of answers. In BW, if the two PCs are racing to the safe we can test Speed vs Speed. If there is debate about what might be in the safe, we can test Incriminating Document-wise vs Incriminating Document-wise, or even vs Safe-wise.

If the player of the first character to get to the safe fails, there are any number of possible consequences depending on other details of the scene. Obviously one might be that they find what player 2 was looking for . . .

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't see how this is crazy at all.

@Campbell has already offered one set of answers. In BW, if the two PCs are racing to the safe we can test Speed vs Speed. If there is debate about what might be in the safe, we can test Incriminating Document-wise vs Incriminating Document-wise, or even vs Safe-wise.

If the player of the first character to get to the safe fails, there are any number of possible consequences depending on other details of the scene. Obviously one might be that they find what player 2 was looking for . . .

I keep getting told that can be done but no explanation of what actually doing any of this looks like in the scenario I described.

Players are both around safe.
1. Who makes the first move?
2. The first player wants to open the safe and find incriminating evidence of his arch nemesis. What move does he make?
3. Does that move resolve to completion with out player B being able to offer any input? Or does player B get to interrupt the move or declare his own move before it’s resolved?
3b. In what order are moves resolved? Is there the streetwise or battle of wits resolution first and then the player that wins that gets first crack at the safe? Or does it work in a different order?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.


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.

I think the point where we diverge is in terms of by whom the consequence is known! If it isn't known by the players going in, then they're kind of flying blind. I mean, its OK if they don't know every detail of what the negative consequence of failure will be (though they should have some idea that it will fall within certain boundaries). OTOH if the GM can give them his idea of what success means, what are we playing for?

 

[Krachek]

Do you have much experience with Burning Wheel? Or Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic? Or Apocalypse World (the DCs are fixed, but the adds to the dice roll reflect character aptitudes)?

Fortune systems allow testing what is at stake in a more exciting fashion than "fiat" systems.

I wish you that 5.5 revision include some content authoring hints or even some basic mechanics. You seem a fan of those.

 

[Manbearcat]

I keep getting told that can be done but no explanation of what actually doing any of this looks like in the scenario I described.

Players are both around safe.
1. Who makes the first move?
2. The first player wants to open the safe and find incriminating evidence of his arch nemesis. What move does he make?
3. Does that move resolve to completion with out player B being able to offer any input? Or does player B get to interrupt the move or declare his own move before it’s resolved?
3b. In what order are moves resolved? Is there the streetwise or battle of wits resolution first and then the player that wins that gets first crack at the safe? Or does it work in a different order?

This situation could come up in Blades in the Dark (though it hasn't yet in any of the...8...games I've run?). The game has safes. It has incriminating documents. It has a Crew filled with PCs with converging and diverging agendas. And each PC has an Enemy!

Here is what Harper has to say on the matter:

---

PC vs. PC

Situations may arise in play in which two or more PCs come into conflict. How do you deal with this? In general, the rules for PC vs. PC action are the same as the rules for PC vs. NPC action. It’s still action rolls, resistance rolls, fortune rolls; effects and consequences; and resolution into a new situation. But it’s a good idea to follow some guidelines when it comes to PC vs. PC conflict.

1. Pause the game. When a PC comes into conflict with another PC, pause the game. It’s a time-out in the fictional space, while the players talk things through. Don’t be in a big rush to roll dice. Slow everything way down. This isn’t a “who talks first wins” situation (and especially not “who talks more or loudest”).

“Who goes first?” is sometimes the question players fixate on, especially if things are about to get violent. Usually, the answer is clear from the situation: someone has the initiative and someone else is reacting. If it isn’t clear, you can make fortune rolls—each player rolls an action rating and you compare the results.

2. Agree to the resolution methods. Talk it through, figure out the rolls, and discuss the consequences at stake. Don’t try to resolve the situation until everyone agrees to the methods you’re about to use. If you have an objection or an alternate idea, speak up! If the players can’t agree to a method, then you’re deadlocked. You can’t proceed without everyone’s consent, so this conflict just isn’t going to happen. Maybe the PCs get in each other’s faces and act like they’re going to tangle, but then, nope... it fizzles and they back off. This happens in fiction a lot, and it’s okay if it happens in the game.

It’s a good idea to ask each other questions to help establish the resolution, rather than trying to impose your will. You might ask, “Can Vale be Swayed here? What would it take?” or, “Is Jewel within reach if I draw my sword now and attack?” or, “How vicious is Cyr going to be? Do you really want to hurt me?”

3. Abide by the results. Once you’ve agreed to the methods, then follow them through and abide by the outcomes. You can roll resistance to avoid bad results, as usual, so don’t try to weasel out of it some other way if things don’t turn out the way you hoped.

Note that this is not a “player vs. player” system. When characters come into conflict, the players must still collaborate and make judgment calls together, as usual. Conflicts between players are outside the scope of the game; they can’t be resolved with the dice rolls and mechanics of Blades in the Dark. If the players—not their characters—are in conflict, you’ll have to work it out using social methods, then return to the game when it’s resolved. Don’t try to use the game as a way to dodge or replace a normal social interaction to resolve person-to-person conflict.

---

I've had players with divergent goals in a Free Play/Info Gathering and in situations mid-Score. Differences of approach in social conflicts (befriending vs threatening/cowing). Differences in orientation to collateral damage in shootouts or demolition (people or locales or exposure). Differences of approach in dealing with the supernatural (pressing a "candy red button" vs definitely not no thank you). Differences in course charted in a Transport Score.

I think those are all the ones I've encountered. Every time we've resolved through the means above, sometimes bringing in relevant elements of PC build (eg the Lurk has a feature called Reflexes where you always act first if there is ever a question and the Leech has a feature called Ghost Ward that repels spirits when you Wreck with arcane substances...those were involved in both of those PC vs PC moments above).

So if the safe thing were to come up, we'd resolve it in Blades via the above order of operations. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

 

[niklinna]

It is unrelated to 1) quality of the safe 2) skill of the safe opener. It is not unrelated to the motives of the characters, but neither of the things you derive your odds for the paper being there measures that. So yes, these things are unrelated.

It's related to all of them—or can be. Apocalypse World doesn't care about (1) & (2). Blades in the Dark very much cares about them and provides a robust system that accounts for them (although its "skills" are very broad in scope). The character in question wants some particular thing that has been established to be in the safe (part of the stakes), and they want to get into it by picking the lock (skill/task).

But again, the stakes are not "papers found" vs. "papers not found". The stakes are, "I get the dirt" vs. "some complication arises". And that is not a binary but a pair in combination, in which the particular combination "I don't get the dirt but there's no complication" is deliberately excluded, because it's boring. So the outcomes are:

• Success without complication
• Success with complication
• Failure with complication

Even the first case is somewhat boring from a dramatic perspective, but it's nice to have things go your way every now and again. You can add in degree of success or complication, as Blades does. "Not only do you find the Baron's incriminating documents, but you discover he's been blackmailing the Countess."

And again, all such outcomes and facts could be mooted as part of the stakes ahead of time, or after the resolution of the dice roll, but even then in a game like Blades it's subject to some discussion and negotiation. That's part of the play style for these games.

Right. So you admit that you shouldn't let the person with the low skill to try to open the safe as that will crash the odds of the paper being there?

Not at all. See my earlier post about what the potential complications are. Picking the lock quietly might fail with a complication, or succeed with a complication, but that complication is much less likely to be alerting the guards and winding up in a chase or pitched battle. Then again, if the party is cool with making a huge racket and leaving obvious evidence of a break-in and maybe getting into a pitched battle, they can have the smasher do their thing.

And I get the idea of the motives of characters and desires of the players shaping the reality just fine, it just seems incoherent tome to bring obviously simulationist measures of safe quality and lockpicking skill into it then.

It's not just the motives & desires, it's the generation of a plausible fiction that everybody at the table is satisfied with (regardless of success or failure at individual dice rolls). The fiction has to take some form, but the binding from fictional form to game mechanics varies from game to game. Apocalypse World is way at the far end of generality. Blades in the Dark leans toward appearing more (process-)simulationist, but when you look at how it handles action resolution, that turns out not to be the case. Torchbearer has even more skills, but again, the way it handles them is cosmetically simulationist at best.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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”).

It is funny that this is even less visible as a system in actual use than SCs were for a lot of 4e players, lol. I agree it is a moderately well-defined system, though the prevalence of charm spells and such may be one reason it tends to get ignored a lot. Mostly though the 5e 'social spells' are fairly well-designed in terms of use within this framework, as they tend to produce an immediate advantage but also a longer-term problem. Suggestion is the one spell that seems to be easy to get (level 2) and is unequivocally beneficial without any obvious downside. OTOH Suggestion is the most overall limited of these spells, and depending on exactly how you construe it could be seen as basically "trade a level 2 spell slot for a success on the final check", given that the effect can only last for a limited time (8 hours, still not bad).

So, overall, yeah, if the GM preps things ahead to the degree of giving the NPC(s) in question a character trait, and a disposition, and a definite motive, then you can play through a social situation in a pretty cut-and-dried way. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it is any better than 5e combat though, I really have never run one of these social interactions 'by the book' and I'm not sure how tough they would be to succeed at, though the GM SHOULD be able to make it harder or easier (but then they could theoretically use terrain and such to do the same with combat, yet most 5e combats I've seen were pretty easy).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

Gamist has to be going for some sort of objective measure of performance. That's why classic D&D has gold and XP/levels. That was really what made it such a successful game too, no other RPG really had that simple clear concise reward loop. Without objective measures/reward loop there's no gamism, unless you call Calvinball gamism. It is the gamist equivalent of the Czege Principle, you can't challenge yourself with performance measures you make up yourself on the fly, and have the form of a game. I think that was always the POINT of the joke of Calvinball (well, one of them, it works at a few levels).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Gamist has to be going for some sort of objective measure of performance. That's why classic D&D has gold and XP/levels. That was really what made it such a successful game too, no other RPG really had that simple clear concise reward loop. Without objective measures/reward loop there's no gamism, unless you call Calvinball gamism. It is the gamist equivalent of the Czege Principle, you can't challenge yourself with performance measures you make up yourself on the fly, and have the form of a game. I think that was always the POINT of the joke of Calvinball (well, one of them, it works at a few levels).

I think this is overly narrow. You can have established performance expectations that are still subjective; you just set them prior to engaging with the situation. They also don't have to be numerical. "Take down the wizard king" is a perfectly cromulent gamist aim, albeit a strategic, rathe than tactical one for example.