Let's talk Procedure of Play

[Umbran]

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.

 

[Willie the Duck]

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}

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?

 

[Umbran]

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

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.

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

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.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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

 

[Retros_x]

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.).

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. On further thought, it might be even vice-versa because you could even describe some "atomic mechanic" like an attack roll in DnD as a procedure:

1) Take a d20 in your hand and roll it
2) add your modifier to the result value
3) compare to target AC.

and this whole procedure gets compiled as "attack roll mechanic". So maybe a mechanic is just the composite term for a procedure of some sort. The only thing that really is no procedure are pure stats that describe the state of the game. But nobody would call STR a mechanic. So my take: Every mechanic has a describing procedure.

IMO at least it is debatable and not as god given as some posters here act just because some forum (I don't know The Forge, is it a forum?) decided for a convention and definition.

What gets here described as mechanic are for me core mechanics. The clockwork movement of the game. But I think we need a better term for the "outer" mechanics than procedures, because every rule or mechanic has a procedure. Procedures are just a pre-defined sequence of steps. Thats how the word gets used in the rest of the world at least.

 

[Composer99]

Dolmenwood, as a variant of Old-School Essentials - which in turn is a retroclone of B/X D&D, is chock-a-block full of procedures:

1. The game identifies a "Basic Game Procedure" (Player's Book, pp. 138-139) which resembles what's discussed by Umbran and Willie the Duck. I've included a screen capture of the outline of this procedure. It also greatly resembles the three-step basic procedure of D&D 5e (2014 PHB 6 or 2024 PHB 8).
2. The game has a daily travel procedure (PB 156-157).
3. The game has a distinct camping procedure (PB 158-159).
4. The game has a distinct daily "spend time in town" procedure (PB 160-161).
5. The game has a dungeon exploration procedure (PB 162-163).
6. The game also has procedures for encounters (PB 164-165) and combat (PB 166-167).

I would contrast these with the rules detailed on pp. 144-145 of the Player's Book, which I would take to count as mechanics using the implicit definition/assumption in this thread.

Games with similar procedure-heavy gameplay would be the OSR-influenced Errant or the OSR-and-4e-influenced Trespasser.

To take a pass at differentiating between mechanics and procedures, I would say that mechanics can be elementary or fundamental, but don't have to be, while procedures can't.

When I refer to game mechanics being capable of being elementary or fundamental, I have in mind fundamental particles; that is, a mechanic is elementary if it is unable to be broken down into self-contained, fully-functional mechanics. For instance, making an attack in D&D 5e, as detailed in 2014 PHB 194, strikes me as elementary or fundamental: its constituent steps can't be resolved individually when shorn from the context of making an attack - at first glance, at least.

To my mind, then, a procedure of play cannot be elementary; it will necessarily invoke more elementary or fundamental mechanics. For instance, the combat procedure in Dolmenwood invokes the mechanics for making attacks, which can function effectively even outside of the context of combat.