Let's talk Procedure of Play

I, personally, have always preferred "process of play" over "procedure of play"

A process is a series of steps you do to get to a conclusion or resolution.

Mechanics are among the steps you use during the process.

Communication is a tool used during the process, but it is not itself the process.

So, for D&D, the process of play for a generic non-combat action might be:

• Player declares an action they want their PC to take.
• GM decides if there is any risk of failure, or consequences to failure.
• If there are no risks/consequences,
  • GM narrates success.
• If there are risks/consequences:
  • GM chooses what attribute or skill roll is appropriate, and target number/modifiers.
  • Player rolls attribute skill/check, PC and GM modifiers are applied, result is compared to TN
  • Result (success or failure) is narrated by GM.

Repeat as necessary.

Umbran said:

I, personally, have always preferred "process of play" over "procedure of play"
A process is a series of steps you do to get to a conclusion or resolution.
Mechanics are among the steps you use during the process.
Communication is a tool used during the process, but it is not itself the process.
So, for D&D, the process of play for a generic non-combat action might be:
{example}

Click to expand...

Because it is widely familiar, let's take the iconic TSR-era dungeon exploration, er, 'play loop.'

Y'know, 'DM describes, players discuss and choose course of action (with caller officially calling it in), then DM adjudicates and describes again.' That's it at its simplest (perhaps reduced-to-base-principle form), but you can also describe it with more specific steps. Steps include time & resource tracking; searching (either mechanics or say-what-you-do); mapping; wandering monster checks; if door or trap, resolution checks; if monsters, reaction table check; if combat, morale checks; then within-combat the specifics of the combat system; treasure-finding; and then moving on (possibly to repeat, possibly exit dungeon).

Is my simplest version the process/procedure, or just is it a description and the more steps-included version the process/procedure? I think things like the actual specific initiative or moral or trap-finding rules are clearly rules. What each one is, descriptively, clearly steps (or would the game's morale system, in isolation, be a process of play?). But what level, in your mind, is the process or procedure?

Willie the Duck said:

Is my simplest version the process/procedure, or just is it a description and the more steps-included version the process/procedure?

Click to expand...

From back in my technical writing days - when documenting any process, you have choices to make as to the level of granularity you should use, depending on the purpose of the writing.

So, the question isn't whether your version is the process or not. The question is whether your version communicates what you want the reader to understand about the process.

Willie the Duck said:

But what level, in your mind, is the process or procedure?

Click to expand...

As above, there is no single answer to that question.

The typical reason to talk about process of play around here is to look at the responsibilities and goals of different participants, and the framework for their interaction, especially for purposes of comparing and contrasting between games.

So, if you are comparing D&D and Daggerheart, the impact of the initiative system on the process may be something you really want to highlight. When comparing D&D and, say, GURPS, you may not find it relevant.

This is both really hard to talk about and really important when it comes to TTRPGs.

This must be why Powered by the Apocalypse generates such heated arguments. There's barely any mechanics but tons of procedure

dbm said:

I didn’tread the Forge personally. The best explanation I have is that procedures and mechanics are both examples of rules but mechanics are the smaller more discrete things like skill rolls or attack rolls and procedures are the bigger things like how combat works (incorporating rules like initiative, turns, movement, attacks, special abilities etc.).

Click to expand...

Ah thats helpful. Love when some people just use terms and act like this would be in the dictionary, although its only used like that in this specific domain. Form me its still mostly the same. Its the clockwork of the game. Procedures are also mechanics, just composite ones. But whatever.

I think for me the distinction is only relevant for homebrewing - I homebrew mostly procedures in this sense. Its easier to take the core mechanics and only "re-wire" them, build new blocks of procedures out of it.