Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9226355" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I don’t have time to dig in too deeply and I’m going to be away the bulk of the day, but we’ve got issues right away. The most significant one is:* The Social Interaction mechanics in the 5e  DMG are not task resolution mechanics. They are classic conflict resolution mechanics.1) I believe I was the very first person on ENW to bring these up at the release of the game, siting their function, their functionality, their kindred relationship to Pictionary and Apocalypse World.Virtually no one had any any idea what I was talking about because “no one reads the DMG“ (apparently) as the saying goes.2) Fast forward two years later in like 2016 and I brought them up again (as I had run the game). Again and still, no one knew what I was talking about.3) Insofar as I did get conversation around it, it was almost universally “I don’t like artificial minigames. Social stuff should be freeform/roleplay.” That is a Trad players code for “I don’t like (the binding nature and superstructure of) conflict resolution.”4) However…the issue (insofar as their is one…most Trad D&D players will call this a feature rather than a big), while the superstructure is there and it appears to instruct, constrain, and encode goal + play loop + win con/loss con binding result to facilitate “the minigame of conflict resolution”…its embedded in a rules text that expressly grants GM opt-out discretion any/all of the superstructure, the constraints, and the results of play if the GM deems any of those at odds with the conception of what is good for “the fun” and/or the story/trajectory of play.That means, in the final analysis, “situation resolves” is governed by GM Fiat. So while the Social Interaction mechanics are indeed conflict resolution, the text has to be holistically indexed to determine whether “situation resolves” is governed by inviolable systemic constraint and binding superstructure or whether it’s governed by GM Fiat. The text (and culture for that matter) enshrining opt-out of system at GM’s discretion supplants inviolable with Fiat. Contra, when a text enshrines “follow the rules” and “neither plan nor subvert outcomes” it supplants Fiat with inviolable. That matters deeply to the process and experience of play for all parties. Further still, if the game delivers on what it promises by just following through on its inviolable systemic constraint and binding superstructure, that backstops everything that comes before it.Now, any given 5e table can autobiographically encode inviolable and discard opt-out. That is Fiat at inception, but, if followed through upon over the tenure of play, becomes standard practice that informs the process and experience of play for all participants. But that game becomes (for instance) “Manbearcat’s or clearstream’s home game of 5e” which likely bears little resemblance to the rest of the “I don’t like artificial minigames, roleplaying should be freeform, and the GM needs to have discretion to opt-out of outcomes that they deem bad for fun (which is enshrined as the highest virtue in the text) and the story (which is enshrined right behind “the fun”)” 5e space that dominates the culture. That matters.</blockquote>

Verification