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

[Thomas Shey]

I don't like the idea of deciding something in the physical world of the game to have always been true as an effort of player will when it would be advantageous. I know knowledge checks are conceptually similar, but they feel quite different. To expound further I feel would just lead to other posters explaining how my opinion is wrong, and I really don't need that today.

Also fair.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, as I demonstrated in my last post, it wasn't even possible for me to know what was in my own carrying bag, lol. So I'm a bit dubious that simplistic sparse inventories with things like "Iron Rations" really tells us the whole story. The real world is just much more 'textured' than our descriptions of imagined worlds, and that has real consequence.

As I noted above, having a few extra random things in your pack that you don't know about is less likely to be something you pay attention to (or the lack of some things you might want) when you're a half hour from the nearest convenience store.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, no, nothing about it is wrong at all! Neither is it 'right', it is just what it is. I do think, particularly back maybe 10 years ago or so, when a lot of us started talking here about different ways of playing there was a pretty strong backlash of people saying literally "THAT IS WRONG!" It seems like the leaf has turned largely at this point though. Many prefer older ways, which is cool though. Maybe even some newer types of play rely on linear time too, I'm not sure.

Well, you're absolutely going to get a thing where a place where a particular game system or family of game systems is the primary focus where some percentage of the vocal populace is going to think of its approach as a law of nature for various reasons. That's not limited to D&D and its still strongly trad approach, though; I've had to fight with people to explain that, no, the core assumption of PbtA games (that there's intrinsic value in a game system that pushes you toward things becoming "more interesting") really, really isn't what a lot of people want on occasion, often with some pretty dismissive pushback on it. That's more likely to just be in individual threads, though, as I'm unlikely to hang out at a place with a super-strong focus in that direction (heck, only reason I hang out here is that I find the tone of the board more pleasing than other places; I'd rather be on one without quite as D&D-centric a focus myself).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don’t know that knowledge checks function similarly to flashbacks. Knowledge checks seem like an acknowledgement that the character knows more about the world they live in than the player, because that world was created by the gm. Whereas with flashbacks, neither player nor gm knows how it is going to play out. That’s part of the fun of flashbacks—playing it out and figuring out together how it’s going to affect the story/score. I don’t know if it originated in blades, but its an innovative aspect of the game because it works differently than things like dnd knowledge checks.

If we break it down purely to game elements, both function like this: I have a thing written on my character sheet which may allow me to make the current obstacle easier.

Just because not everyone has the wherewithal to argue with you about it does not mean they're agreeing with you. I'll freely admit I'm quite a bit more willing to be confrontational at need than a lot of people. As such, when I think someone is essentially missing the point of someone else's position, I don't hesitate to say so even if its a position I don't agree with in whole or part.

We’re just spinning wheels here. I don’t think everyone agrees with me. I am well aware some people don’t.

That does beg the question though of why a system like BitD's is rejected, as it has sufficient plausibility (and certainly seems like it also invokes player creativity and skill). I still think the most significant factor here is just that people like what they are already comfortable with.

I think this is a huge part of it. People will often hold their first exposure to something as some kind of ideal. This is actually reasonable… until exposed to an alternate take, in their mind, that is “the way it’s done”.

As I posted upthread, I know people who had this reaction. We discussed it quite a bit when my group started playing Blades in the Dark. We worked through it all, and now we’re wrapping up a lengthy Spire campaign, and that game has a crazy amount of player authority to deal with, and they don’t flinch from it at all.

The way that classic D&D creates the illusion of a total inventory is by (i) being incredibly, implausibly sparse, and (ii) glossing over details (eg you have "iron rations" but we don't say anything about what they are, what sort of container they might be in, etc). And (ii) is just what BitD does, only more systematically and with a different rule for who gets to fill in the details when.

Honestly, the Blades system just seems more plausible to me. Not the chronology of what the player does, but what is happening in the fiction.

In the fiction, it’s clear if a Blades character is loaded for bear or not. They can only carry a reasonably limited number of things. The gear that they have is suited to what they’re doing.

With a lot of more standard inventory rules, I find there to be so many absurdities. Need a potion of healing mid-combat? Here it is right on my belt! No, of course it didn’t break when that ogre hit me with a tree! What’s that? You need an oil flask? I have one in my backpack, give me just a second I can always find everything in there immediately! Then I’ll sling my backpack on again because it won’t hinder my movement in any way! Anyone whose been on a subway with a backpack can tell you how easy it is to get around and never bump anyone or get caught on anything!

It’s why I can’t take appeals to realism very seriously.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If we break it down purely to game elements, both function like this: I have a thing written on my character sheet which may allow me to make the current obstacle easier.



We’re just spinning wheels here. I don’t think everyone agrees with me. I am well aware some people don’t.




I think this is a huge part of it. People will often hold their first exposure to something as some kind of ideal. This is actually reasonable… until exposed to an alternate take, in their mind, that is “the way it’s done”.

As I posted upthread, I know people who had this reaction. We discussed it quite a bit when my group started playing Blades in the Dark. We worked through it all, and now we’re wrapping up a lengthy Spire campaign, and that game has a crazy amount of player authority to deal with, and they don’t flinch from it at all.



Honestly, the Blades system just seems more plausible to me. Not the chronology of what the player does, but what is happening in the fiction.

In the fiction, it’s clear if a Blades character is loaded for bear or not. They can only carry a reasonably limited number of things. The gear that they have is suited to what they’re doing.

With a lot of more standard inventory rules, I find there to be so many absurdities. Need a potion of healing mid-combat? Here it is right on my belt! No, of course it didn’t break when that ogre hit me with a tree! What’s that? You need an oil flask? I have one in my backpack, give me just a second I can always find everything in there immediately! Then I’ll sling my backpack on again because it won’t hinder my movement in any way! Anyone whose been on a subway with a backpack can tell you how easy it is to get around and never bump anyone or get caught on anything!

It’s why I can’t take appeals to realism very seriously.

I don't actually CARE that much about the realistic feel of things, one way or the other myself. Its all about motives and figuring out who this character is, and how they'll handle things.

 

[pemerton]

When it comes to character knowledge, people often don't even know what they know in real life until its time to retrieve it in many cases. The way our "encumbrance" works in that area is complex and our retrieval of same is a linear process. Basically, the very question of whether you Know X is what let's you know if you Know X in some cases, and in some cases you have to "look" for it. This becomes very obvious to some of us as you get older and things get put "in the back of the closet" as it were. And that's with actual possession of the information, not just the emulation of it that is what's going on in an RPG.

You are not, however, someone who is dependent on the contents of your backpack being necessary to your survival, and being away from immediate resupply in a potentially hostile situation. I can promise you if you talk to people who do find themselves in that situation regularly, they'll have a very good idea what they have with them, and in fact check it quite regularly when setting out. This parallels what PCs in most games where inventory is relevant do quite well.

I'm dependent on knowing what I know for most of my professional activities - I'm an academic. The idea that what I might know is essentially random, and reliant on revelations by some oracle I appeal to, is for me far more unrealistic than finding unexpected stuff in my backpack.

That's before I get to @hawkeyefan's points about things not breaking or spilling, being easily found, etc.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe even some newer types of play rely on linear time too, I'm not sure.

Agon uses linear time.

Burning Wheel uses linear time for inventory. For who and what you know it uses knowledge/streetwise-type checks (Circles and Wises) but without relying on the GM's prior determination ("notes") to decide whether or not to say "no" prior to a roll. So it's the same as Streetwise in 1977 Traveller!

 

[Manbearcat]

DELETE

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm dependent on knowing what I know for most of my professional activities - I'm an academic.

If you think that's parallel to people who literally can die from having forgotten to pack something, I really don't know what to tell you.

 

[Manbearcat]

If you think that's parallel to people who literally can die from having forgotten to pack something, I really don't know what to tell you.

So here is a thought for you to interact with.

When you're a lead climber, there is kit that you pack out. Now this isn't offloaded onto automaticity in the way that (say) a morning drive might be (such that you get to work and you experience the peculiar cognitive state of having no recollection of the duration of the drive)...but when you're tenured and capable, the second nature of it becomes not terribly far afield once you've organized and packed out and put on and deployed your kit enough times.

Same thing goes when you're on the wall/face and you're developing (in real time) or deploying beta (the charted course/procedures/techniques necessary to ascend a climb). Now this development and deployment of beta is effectively "consulting your accumulated memory/knowledge" or, in D&D parlance, "a knowledge check."

All of this is to say that if you're tenured and capable, the cognitive state of pulling from your kit the thing you need (because you know you packed it) and pulling from your memory/knowledge the thing you need to ascend this climb (because you've metaphorically "packed it") is experientially pretty close to the same thing.

Transition to D&D Adventurer or a Blades Crew member. Is there really a huge swathe of daylight between these folks adventuring or heisting and a lead climber working a wall/face?