D&D 5E Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

[pemerton]

Of course it isn't. That was precisely my point. Neither is dictating outcomes, which you derisively refer to by that term.

Well, given that I use the phrase "GM fiat" to describe the GM dictating an outcome, GM fiat is discounting outcomes.

As with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I tend to agree that derision is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. I personally don't like GM fiat as a resolution mechanic - if there is going to be fiat, I prefer player fiat - but I recognise that there are whole systems built around GM fiat as the principle resolution technique (eg 2nd ed AD&D - a module like Dead Gods, or many of the Ravenloft modules I've seen, are paradigm

It certainly does come into play, unless those resources result in an exactly equal chance of success for all conceivable mechanical approaches.

I don't agree with this. If, in practice, relative to the resource suite available to the players no one can tell in what way the likelihood of success has changed (up or down) then their is no sense that the GM is determining the outcome in one particular way rather than another.

What the choice of framing tends to do is to increase the "heft" of the event in play, because of the sorts of choices and consequent results of those choices it brings into the resolution.

For instance, choosing to resolve a social interaction as a skill challenge rather than a single Diplomacy roll is going to result in more conversation taking place, more decision points for the players, and more nuance to the outcome. Whether or not it is mechanically more difficult is not the main issue, and very hard for anyone to assess, given that extremely complicated mathematics of skill challenge resolution with all its bells and whistles on.

If the players would be able to survive a fall fine by virtue of hp, and you ignore this in favor of some other mechanical approach (RAW or otherwise), you've screwed them.

Were does that possibility come from? I've talked about toggling between skill checks, skill challenges and combat resolution. "Rocks fall and everybody dies" is not an instance of any of those.

Whatever the reality of the game world actually is, it is somehow reflected in the game mechanics where Joe is "hit" by ten arrows and then falls unconscious.

<snip>

Even if you don't buy into the idea that there's any mapping of game actions onto the reality of the game world - and you can describe any of those powers in similar or distinct ways, changing the description of the same power each time you use it - it's still true that a 2[W] power pushes you closer to unconscious than a 1[W] power.

<snip>

It's objectively true, whether or not anyone can see any difference between those two powers in action.

These seem to me all to be statements of preference. They are not true generalisations about RPGing as such.

For instance, the fact that the mechanics permit a participant in the game (GM or player) to make N action declarations which result in a particular character being declared unconscious does not, in and of itself, tell us anything about what is happening in the gameworld. It might, if we took the view that every player action declaration maps in some discrete fashion onto events in the gameworld. But that view is not universally held (as we've already noted in this thread, for instance, Gygax didn't seem to hold to it).

Similarly, it is objectively true as matter of action resolution mechanics that a 2W power does more damage than a 1W power. But that need not correlate to anything real or observable in the gameworld. For instance, consider the following two events: a 2W power that does 20 hp damage and reduces an NPC from 50 to 30 hp; or a 1W power that does 2 hp damage and reduces an NPC from 1 hp to 0 hp. In the gameworld, the second event is the one that is an observable severing of a head, or disembowelling, or whatever ther mode of death takes place. Whereas the first did not even bloody the enemy, though no doubt it forced them to exert themselves in self-defence.

I play story games as well as D&D and they differ in that the story I get from retelling what happened during a D&D game is more of a "I can't believe everything worked out like that" instead of... however you'd define story games: there's a cathartic release from both types of games but it's different with story games. Story games challenge me more emotionally than tactically or strategically.

I've always described my 4e game as light narrativism. It is not emotionally supercharged, and as I've often said I'm sure that Ron Edwards, Vincent Baker and other Forge personalities would regard it as rather juvenile.

What I enjoy is a game in which the events of play are dramatic, unexpected, and are driven by the concerns of the players as expressed through the build and play of their PCs. My actual experience tells me that obstacles to this are the sorts of rules that Hussar calls "bean counting" (eg tracking rations, micro-managing the passage of time, etc), and rules that will produce anti-climaxes unless the GM fudges (2nd ed AD&D has this problem big time; so do systmes that favour scry-buff-teleport).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm vaguely aware of these and, truth be told, find them rather sad. Oh sure, in 1e at 3rd or 5th character level (depending on class) you could get access to Continual Light, but at least there'd be a couple of adventures where you had to worry about resources (torches, oil for lanterns, etc.) and-or the finding of a decent light source would be a big deal. The benefit of this would be to set the tone early that resources can't be taken for granted and at least some caution needs to be used in expending them.

I know exactly what you mean. I don't always agree - but the Sunrod being dirt cheap (and an Everburning Torch being within the price range of a first level PC who's trying) does cut some of the flavour out of the game. It really doesn't help that Sunrods are very, very bright (actually that's a downside - if you're using a Sunrod anyone can see you coming long before you can see them).

I was never a big fan of the D-lance adventures in part for just this reason.

It's anathema to both gamers who like really old school games and those who like Storygames for the same reason. In my experience the jump between the two is actually a lot smaller than it is for either of them to WotC/Paizo era D&D (or even 2E - but that's not so obvious).

That sounds like my game, to some extent - sure I have a story in mind when it starts but I've no idea if that'll end up being the story that gets told in the end.

No plan survives contact with the enemy. Surviving contact with its own side is rare enough.

Closer to OD&D or 1e.

Intersestingly I'd call these very different and be happy with oD&D or RC D&D level - but consider 1E D&D a very bad target to aim at.

 

[Ahnehnois]

As with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I tend to agree that derision is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that "fiat" is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't agree with this. If, in practice, relative to the resource suite available to the players no one can tell in what way the likelihood of success has changed (up or down) then their is no sense that the GM is determining the outcome in one particular way rather than another.

I find that degree of ignorance fairly unlikely. Moreover, even in the absence of knowledge, players are liable to make assumptions about these things.

 

[howandwhy99]

"Game content" here seems synonymous with "content of the shared fiction". The player and GM are both imagining the character having in his/her possession a carved wooden implement with the specified shape.

No such implement exists in the real world.

Of course games aren't "shared fiction". They are designs, patterns, which could be treated as enigmas in and of themselves. Like playing Chess against yourself thereby improving your understanding of Chess. Closing one's eyes and learning the pattern in imagination makes it no less actual as our imaginations actually exist.

But in the end it doesn't matter, the GM actually has these elements drawn out behind the screen. (I certainly couldn't hold all of them in mind at once). When the player adds some, the designs are created as well with appropriate features tracked in the game. Think atoms into molecules. The shapes are probably already covered. So too wood and other stuff, right? The new item is statted by the player even though they never told what those stats are (even after a game is over). Though you could say they might feel them in action over and over during play.

This is different from chess, which has no moves analogous to introducing an imaginary wooden spork as a feature of play.

Chess doesn't have any game rule I know of for adding pieces to play (that weren't already in play at start), true.

If there is no dung in the game, how can the players make any sort of attempt in relation to dung?

They aren't. They are through their attempts manipulating it into existence in a previously dung-less world. (this example is getting quite over the top, but hey).

Sports do not involve abstract or imaginary objects.
SNIP
I would also say that the spork in your examples does not operate as a mathematical object.
SNIP
The skill of a D&D player coming up for useful uses of a spork (or iron spike, or 10' pole) has very little in common with the skill of learning how to play a good chess opening.

Take my assurance for the fact that they do. Mathematical designs realized on ball courts, cards, boards, spork maps, and with whatever game relevant strategies enabled within.

 

[Libramarian]

I play story games as well as D&D and they differ in that the story I get from retelling what happened during a D&D game is more of a "I can't believe everything worked out like that"

Oh yeah, definitely. IMO an important sign of a good D&D game is you have a strong sense of the "butterfly effect" of various things that happened and how differently the game might have gone. I really like the randomness provided by rules like reaction, morale and item saving throws.

One departure I've made from this traditional format is to provide mechanics for what happens in the setting as time passes: specifically with NPC organizations, or "monster lairs" as I call them. The intent is to make time a resource. If you don't manage it well, even if you gain levels and magic items, squandering your time can make the game more difficult. (Not necessarily more difficult; it depends on the goal you've chosen for your PC, but in any case the setting will change.) How to get the right balance here is a difficult task, probably best suited for something like a computer game to figure out - so I don't have to run through dozens of year-long campaigns to test it.

Yes I think that's a great way to introduce additional complexity into the game. I don't have any mechanics for organizations but I have a calendar where sometimes I will put events a few days/weeks/months in the future, often by making it up on the spot. E.g. sometimes the PCs can't meet with the Duke because he's on a hunting trip for the next week, or a mysterious stranger wants to meet with them in 3 days, or if they think someone is a lycanthrope they'll want to keep an eye on them during the next full moon, etc. I also have rules to reduce the amount of treasure remaining on a dungeon level a little bit depending on how long it's been since the PCs' first assault.

 

[Libramarian]

Regarding DM fiat how about: the degree to which it is acceptable for the DM to decree things by fiat is proportional to how remote (stochastically) the thing to be determined is from affecting what matters in the game.

So it will be more or less acceptable to use DM fiat in different situations in different games where different things matter.

A DM will be able to make use of fiat with more confidence and efficiency in a game where it is more clear what the game is about.

For example in my game what matters most is the PCs' XP and HP. I don't mess with monsters and treasure by fiat in the middle of a dungeon crawl. Social conflicts are not centrally important; their purpose is to add additional interest to the dungeon game. The players never gain or lose XP/HP directly via discussion (there's always the option to fall back to the combat rules if a conversation really isn't going well) so I don't need objective rules to handle them and I just decide by fiat what NPCs think and say. I use reaction rolls and sometimes random personality rolls, but just to provide additional variety in how I roleplay NPCs, not to resolve the outcome of a PC attempting to change an NPC's mind about something.

 

[Hussar]

Reasonable to who? You? Were you the DM in this scenario? The DM determined that it wasn't a situation that was amenable to that particular skill use. It is exactly the same thing.

That's where you're wrong. The rules don't say that. They don't say that you, as a player are entitled to anything whatsoever. If you think one thing is appropriate, and the DM thinks something else, you lose.

Which is fine, because you don't play a PC in D&D expecting to be able to determine when or how your abilities will be applicable. That (at least according to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]) is for the DM to decide.

None of this has any bearing on the degree of agency the players have in the plot at large. While the resolution mechanics and the outcomes they generate are inextricably linked (rendering any hard distinction between them meaningless), the narrative is not composed solely or even mostly of a series of mechanical resolutions. The players get to play their characters, and that's enough. It's not railroading, or fiat, or anything other other than basic D&D-style roleplaying 101.

And this would be the fundamental difference between us. My players are entitled to all sorts of things and one of those things is that I will do my best to never impose my will on any outcome.

The other primary difference is that I recognize different playstyles and don't try to pretend to one true way ism by claiming something as role playing 101.

 

[pemerton]

Mathematical designs realized on ball courts, cards, boards, spork maps, and with whatever game relevant strategies enabled within.

Mathematical designs are realised in the building of my house - for instance, it is build on a concrete slab, which is a relatively sophisticated engineering technique. But I can almost guarantee you that the builders who laid that slab knew next-to-nothing about mathematics beyond simple arithmetic. And likewise if I ever need to takes steps to maintain the slab on which my house is built, I won't be asking a mathematician.

Playing a game of basketball on a basketball court is not a mathematical exercise, and does not require mathematical reasoning. To say otherwise would be to say that typing on my keyboard is a mathematical exercise, simply because the person who invented computer keyboards used mathenatical and engineering skills to do so.

Of course games aren't "shared fiction".

No one in this thread has asserted this. Not in general. And not even in the particular case of RPGs.

Chess neither is, nor involves, a shared fiction.

Basketball neither is, nor involves, a shared fiction.

RPGing is not a shared fiction. It is a game. But it involves (among other things) shared fictions, in something like the way that chess involves (though is not identical with, or equivalent to, or an instance of) a board.

They are designs, patterns, which could be treated as enigmas in and of themselves.

<snip>

Chess doesn't have any game rule I know of for adding pieces to play (that weren't already in play at start), true.

<snip>

They are through their attempts manipulating it into existence in a previously dung-less world.

"Manipulating" here is clearly a metaphor, and an obscure one at all. "Stipulating" is probably not quite right, but is closer to the literal truth of what is going on. The permissibility of the stipulation is obviously governed by the shared fiction - eg what makes it permissible for the players to stipulate the presence of goblin dung in the dungeon is that it is already established (i) that goblins are present in the dungeon, and (ii) that goblins are biological, more-or-less anthropomorphic beings, who hence have digestive systems comparable to those of humans.

This sort of reasoning is utterly crucial to playing D&D. It has no analogue in chess. You can't get better at chess, for instance, other than by practising your chess. Whereas you can get "better" at D&D by, for instance, learning more about human biology and hence learning new things to ask about goblins, who closely resemble human. Similarly, you can get better at D&D by reading books about polearms, hence getting a better idea of what options are available to your PC equipped with a Bohemian ear-spork.

 

[pemerton]

Regarding DM fiat how about: the degree to which it is acceptable for the DM to decree things by fiat is proportional to how remote (stochastically) the thing to be determined is from affecting what matters in the game.

<snip>

For example in my game what matters most is the PCs' XP and HP. I don't mess with monsters and treasure by fiat in the middle of a dungeon crawl. Social conflicts are not centrally important; their purpose is to add additional interest to the dungeon game. The players never gain or lose XP/HP directly via discussion (there's always the option to fall back to the combat rules if a conversation really isn't going well) so I don't need objective rules to handle them and I just decide by fiat what NPCs think and say. I use reaction rolls and sometimes random personality rolls, but just to provide additional variety in how I roleplay NPCs, not to resolve the outcome of a PC attempting to change an NPC's mind about something.

This was a good post. Unfortunately I've given you XP too recently to do so again.

you don't play a PC in D&D expecting to be able to determine when or how your abilities will be applicable. That (at least according to pemerton) is for the DM to decide.

Actually, I didn't say that. I said that if there is a disagreement over the best way to mechanically frame a situation for resolution, the GM has the final say.

If a situation is framed as a skill challenge, or as a simple skill check, then it is the players' prerogative to declare an action according to the rules of the game. Which I think is [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point about how he prefers to run and play games.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], yes pretty much. Once the framework has been put in place, which in DnD is almost always the job of the DM, everyone at the table, including the DM should be bound by that framework. IMO of course. There certainly are other ways to play but I can honestly say that they are not to my taste.