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

[pemerton]

I mean we even have a concrete example of what we are talking about. A PC opens a safe with whatever 'skill' is fictionally appropriate for his stated method of doing so and he has the purpose of finding incriminating evidence on a particular NPC. The player rolls and succeeds with no complication. He both opens the safe using his method and gets incriminating evidence. The safe opening is tied to the skill used in the check but that's only tangential because this a conflict resolution check about the players intent for papers being found and finding those papers has absolutely nothing to do with the skill used to open the safe and absolutely nothing to do with any skill the PC has (other than perhaps 'Luck', if that's a skill in the game).

You seem to be restating the basic workings of conflict resolution here. I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm also not sure why you say the use of a lockpick skill to open the safe is "tangential". The character wants to open a safe. That's the task. Picking locks seems more than tangentially relevant to that task.

 

[pemerton]

in some instances the activity being done to 'make things happen' in the story has the result fictionally follow from being successful at the activity. Beating a bad guys face with a purse full of bricks using your inner strength with the intent of knocking him out till police arrive would be a good example of an activity where all the results directly followed from being fictionally successful at that activity.

However, one could use inner strength to bust open a safe with the intent of finding incriminating evidence against a particular NPC. In this case only part of your results directly follow from being fictionally successful at the activity. The part where you open the safe. What papers are in it doesn't fictionally depend upon your inner strength.

Again, all you seem to be doing here is pointing out that conflict resolution doesn't exclusively model in-fiction causal processes. Results are connected to what overall goal the character is hoping to achieve by performing the task. We can even see that in the "purse full of bricks" case - we don't ask whether or not the character's Inner Strength is strong enough to allow her to swing enough bricks hard enough to really have a chance of knocking out a thug. Inner Strength is a descriptor with a hint of metaphor, not a rating of the character's capacity to produce adrenaline when needed. Just as the reason the game participants accept that the documents are in the safe is because that satisfies the PC's dramatic need, so the reason the game participants accept that enough bricks were swung with enough force is because that satisfied the other PC's dramatic need.

If you want strictly task resolution, because you don't like the way conflict resolution factors dramatic need into outcomes, there are many game systems that offer it! The flipside is that you will need someone to make a decision, independent of the resolution framework, as to when a conflict is done. Typically that power is granted to the GM.

 

[clearstream]

The flipside is that you will need someone to make a decision, independent of the resolution framework, as to when a conflict is done. Typically that power is granted to the GM.

To contrast two systems

1. Some folk agree that this roll resolves this conflict. Success is rolled: conflict is resolved.
2. Some folk agree that when these tasks are resolved, this conflict is resolved. Success is rolled on those tasks: conflict is resolved.

In both cases, there is a decision made by some folk to connect a given conflict with some roll(s).

 

[pemerton]

I'm confused, you previously said it had nothing to do with information and yet here you quote it talking about information.

My point was to contrast with @clearstream's assertions about how it works.

clearstream was saying: the upshot of a Streetwise checks is "you are told such-and-such by a NPC" and now the GM is at liberty to decide whether or not what the NPC told you is true. clearstream began making this point a few pages upthread by picking up on my use of the phrase "rumour mill" and saying that rumours are per se not fully reliable.

I am saying that the upshot of a Streetwise check is not that you hear about something (rumours, information). It's that you know a fact - who will sell you guns, who will sell you licences, where the dirt is, etc.

From the point of view of the character, of course, there is no difference between talking to a NPC and being lied to, or being given unreliable information, and talking to a NPC and coming to know a fact - it's all just talking and being told things. But from the point of view of the player - who is the one playing the game and making the roll for Streetwise - the difference is profound.

Streetwise in Classic Traveller is the earliest version I know, in a RPG, of a structure similar to Read a Sitch in Apocalypse World, which (on a success) allows the player to ask the GM questions from a list, like "which enemy is the biggest threat?" or "who's in control here?" As the rulebook explains to the GM (p 199), "sometimes you’ll already know the answers to these and sometimes you won’t. Either way, you do have to commit to the answers when you give them." The GM can't say so-and-so "seems" like they're in control, and then later on reveal that they really weren't.

Likewise in Classic Traveller Streetwise 1977. The GM can't say (on a success) "You hear a rumour that so-and-so will sell licences under the desk" and then reveal that to be a lie, or a false rumour. The player, on a success, gets knowledge of a fact about the fiction: so-and-so will sell licences under the desk.

That doesn't guarantee a licence, of course. It doesn't bypass the rules for NPC reactions and the way they interface with Bribery. Or if the player learns that the dirt is in a safe, that doesn't bypass the rules for Mechanical or Electronic or Demolition or whatever is appropriate to actually getting the safe open.

 

[clearstream]

My point was to contrast with @clearstream's assertions about how it works.

clearstream was saying: the upshot of a Streetwise checks is "you are told such-and-such by a NPC" and now the GM is at liberty to decide whether or not what the NPC told you is true. clearstream began making this point a few pages upthread by picking up on my use of the phrase "rumour mill" and saying that rumours are per se not fully reliable.

I am saying that the upshot of a Streetwise check is not that you hear about something (rumours, information). It's that you know a fact - who will sell you guns, who will sell you licences, where the dirt is, etc.

From the point of view of the character, of course, there is no difference between talking to a NPC and being lied to, or being given unreliable information, and talking to a NPC and coming to know a fact - it's all just talking and being told things. But from the point of view of the player - who is the one playing the game and making the roll for Streetwise - the difference is profound.

Streetwise in Classic Traveller is the earliest version I know, in a RPG, of a structure similar to Read a Sitch in Apocalypse World, which (on a success) allows the player to ask the GM questions from a list, like "which enemy is the biggest threat?" or "who's in control here?" As the rulebook explains to the GM (p 199), "sometimes you’ll already know the answers to these and sometimes you won’t. Either way, you do have to commit to the answers when you give them." The GM can't say so-and-so "seems" like they're in control, and then later on reveal that they really weren't.

Likewise in Classic Traveller Streetwise 1977. The GM can't say (on a success) "You hear a rumour that so-and-so will sell licences under the desk" and then reveal that to be a lie, or a false rumour. The player, on a success, gets knowledge of a fact about the fiction: so-and-so will sell licences under the desk.

That doesn't guarantee a licence, of course. It doesn't bypass the rules for NPC reactions and the way they interface with Bribery. Or if the player learns that the dirt is in a safe, that doesn't bypass the rules for Mechanical or Electronic or Demolition or whatever is appropriate to actually getting the safe open.

Traveller Referee exercises fiat over DM, but Referee may play by principles that can generally support the outcome claimed. As a point of comparison, here are the 5e rules that cover gaining information (e.g. about the contents of a safe) via social skills from an NPC. A GM following similar principles to those supposed for the Referee will put the player in the same position.

5e Social Interation

Spoiler: 5e Social Interaction

3. CHARISMA CHECK
When the adventurers get to the point of their request, demand, or suggestion - or if you decide the conversation has run its course - call for a Charisma check. Any character who has actively participated in the conversation can make the check. Depending on how the adventurers handled the conversation, the Persuasion, Deception, or Intimidation skill might apply to the check. The creature's current attitude determines the DC required to achieve a specific reaction, as shown in the Conversation Reaction table.

CONVERSATION REACTION
DC Friendly Creature's Reaction
0 The creature does as asked without taking risks or making sacrifices.
10 The creature accepts a minor risk or sacrifice to do as asked.
20 The creature accepts a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked.

DC Indifferent Creature's Reaction
0 The creature offers no help but does no harm.
10 The creature does as asked as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved.
20 The creature accepts a minor risk or sacrifice to do as asked.

DC Hostile Creature's Reaction
0 The creature opposes the adventurers' actions and might take risks to do so.
10 The creature offers no help but does no harm.
20 The creature does as asked as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved.

Characters can "demand" the truth about the location of the dirt. Where a creature "does as asked", that is as silent on that possibility for falsehood as Traveller. Players can thus lock in safe contents by playing toward social interaction checks. Characters can back up social interaction with Insight (or magic) to ensure that doing as asked has been understood as they intend.

 

[pemerton]

You've made me ponder. Why aren't players ever accused of 'player fiat'.

@Campbell has frequently posted about player-side railroading.

Also, the language of "accusation" seems misplaced. There is no crime at issue here.

I'm pointing to points in the play structure where it should be uncontroversial that someone at the table makes a decision. I'm questioning whether characterising such decisions as "fiat" and associating them with force and railroading, is always right. Decisions have to be made at many points in conduct of RPGs, and there are constrained, principled ways of doing that; even where in the end someone at the table has to just say something. (As I put it, they can say something that follows.)

No one disputes that decisions have to be made. The discussion, insofar as it pertains to Vincent Baker on conflict vs task resolution, and John Harper's diagrams, is around a very particular decision: who decides when a conflict, or a situation, is resolved?

Saying that the GM decides this isn't accusing anyone of anything. It may or may not be railroading, depending on a whole lot of extra consideration at work. It needn't typically be Force - mostly it will just be the GM exercising authority over scene-framing and content/backstory.

I also think the contrast of "principled" with "railroading" is not always apt: I've played CoC scenarios which were extremely principled in the way they were GMed, but were clearly railroads in the sense that the players supplied a bit of colour and narration but little else. (The Forge calls this "participationism" because it is not at all illusionistic.)

To contrast two systems

1. Some folk agree that this roll resolves this conflict. Success is rolled: conflict is resolved.
2. Some folk agree that when these tasks are resolved, this conflict is resolved. Success is rolled on those tasks: conflict is resolved.

In both cases, there is a decision made by some folk to connect a given conflict with some roll(s).

Can you give an actual example of the second, in which these tasks is not a set of tasks that is decided by the GM as the resolution of the game unfolds? I'm thinking of a certain sort of approach to a skill challenge, but is that what you have in mind?

A method is followed by which everyone reaches agreement about what happens in play. Perhaps it helps to picture GM as another player? Like all players, they get a say. Their say is not in contest with that of other players: it conspires with that of other players. The roles are asymmetrical, but equal.

1. Someone asks "How can we be sure the dirt is in the safe?"
2. Someone else says "The accountant accesses that safe every day to get the books."
3. Someone else observes their known peccadillo.
4. Some play happens. Some social interaction ability checks are called for.
5. Finally at the safe, intents are known, consequences are understood, the location of the dirt is locked in.

A fair bit of the action here seems to be in the social interaction ability checks. These will or won't reveal that the accountant knows the dirt to be in the safe. How are those to be resolved? I assume the accountant is a NPC. Is the GM allowed to have the accountant lie if they fail their save vs intimidation?

Also, who decides what it is that the accountant actually knows? Is the GM allowed to decide that the dirt isn't in the safe but is in the secret underwater hideout? If the players, sitting around discussing possibilities but never thinking of the hideout, what happens in play?

 

[clearstream]

Can you give an actual example of the second, in which these tasks is not a set of tasks that is decided by the GM as the resolution of the game unfolds? I'm thinking of a certain sort of approach to a skill challenge, but is that what you have in mind?

Yes, it is noticeably similar to skill challenges. In the approach I am thinking of, it is the players who ultimately decide what tasks they will go about attempting. Framing those tasks (deciding their place and meaning) is up to the table as a whole: it emerges from their conversation.

A fair bit of the action here seems to be in the social interaction ability checks. These will or won't reveal that the accountant knows the dirt to be in the safe. How are those to be resolved? I assume the accountant is a NPC. Is the GM allowed to have the accountant lie if they fail their save vs intimidation?

I've put the relevant rules in a spoiler up thread.

Also, who decides what it is that the accountant actually knows? Is the GM allowed to decide that the dirt isn't in the safe but is in the secret underwater hideout? If the players, sitting around discussing possibilities but never thinking of the hideout, what happens in play?

When the player specifies that the item they want is the location of the dirt, who decides where that is? You've described some principled approaches a few times up-thread, which apply mutatis mutandis.

 

[pemerton]

Traveller Referee exercises fiat over DM, but Referee may play by principles that can generally support the outcome claimed.

The rule say that "The referee should set the throw required" and then gives examples. Page 20 of Book 1 (1977 version) also states the following general set of principles:

It is impossible for any table of information to cover all aspects of every potential situation, and the above listing is by no means complete in its coverage of the effects of skills. This is where the referee becomes an important part of the game process. The above listing of skills and game effects must necessarily be taken as a guide, and followed, altered, or ignored as the actual situation dictates. . . .

In order to be consistent (and a consistent universe makes the game both fun and interesting), the referee has a responsibility to record the throws and DMs he creates, and to note (perhaps by penciling in) any throws he alters from those given in these books.​

The throw required for the location of good guns at a good price is 9+. That suggest the throw to learn where the dirt is is probably 10+, maybe 11+ if it's extremely well-concealed dirt. To actually get the dirt would sound like 12+ to me.

As a point of comparison, here are the 5e rules that cover gaining information (e.g. about the contents of a safe) via social skills from an NPC. A GM following similar principles to those supposed for the Referee will put the player in the same position.

5e Social Interation

Spoiler: 5e Social Interaction

3. CHARISMA CHECK
When the adventurers get to the point of their request, demand, or suggestion - or if you decide the conversation has run its course - call for a Charisma check. Any character who has actively participated in the conversation can make the check. Depending on how the adventurers handled the conversation, the Persuasion, Deception, or Intimidation skill might apply to the check. The creature's current attitude determines the DC required to achieve a specific reaction, as shown in the Conversation Reaction table.

CONVERSATION REACTION
DC Friendly Creature's Reaction
0 The creature does as asked without taking risks or making sacrifices.
10 The creature accepts a minor risk or sacrifice to do as asked.
20 The creature accepts a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked.

DC Indifferent Creature's Reaction
0 The creature offers no help but does no harm.
10 The creature does as asked as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved.
20 The creature accepts a minor risk or sacrifice to do as asked.

DC Hostile Creature's Reaction
0 The creature opposes the adventurers' actions and might take risks to do so.
10 The creature offers no help but does no harm.
20 The creature does as asked as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved.

Characters can "demand" the truth about the location of the dirt. Where a creature "does as asked", that is as silent on that possibility for falsehood as Traveller. Players can thus lock in safe contents by playing toward social interaction checks.

This is not the same as the Traveller rules I've cited. Nowhere does it talk about getting what you want, only about getting a creature to agree. You can get a creature to tell you, honestly, what it believes. But who gets to decide what it believes, and whether or not those beliefs are true? The Traveller Streetwise mechanic completely bypasses those questions. Success doesn't mean This NPC tells you something they think is true. It means You know how to obtain the item/service in question - licences, illegal guns, or whatever it might be.

 

[pemerton]

When the player specifies that the item they want is the location of the dirt, who decides where that is? You've described some principled approaches a few times up-thread, which apply mutatis mutandis.

What is the mutatis mutandis? I don't know what that means here. How are you converting task resolution to conflict resolution? Are you saying that "intent and task" and "let it rid" apply?

 

[clearstream]

What is the mutatis mutandis? I don't know what that means here. How are you converting task resolution to conflict resolution? Are you saying that "intent and task" and "let it rid" apply?

I mean that I read several of your posts up-threads, and principles like, don't say something implausible, and many more, are all applicable to those at the table. You were writing them with a specific purpose in mind, so you have to make the necessary changes while not affecting the main point at issue here.