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

[Crimson Longinus]

What does making a check in 5e MEAN? I'm playing a character, and I have an intent, something I want to achieve. I think up some sort of action that might take me closer to accomplishing that intent. How much closer will I get if I succeed? How much further will I be from it if I fail? We don't know! My character decides to swim across the lake. How many checks, and of what kind can I expect to have to make in order to get across? There's literally no way of knowing! The GM can ask for all sorts of things, or heck, he can just say "Oh, its easy, your on the other side." Checks thus have no 'valence'. At least in combat its an orc, it has N hit points, and I do X damage if I hit, its pretty clear, but 5e abandoned even the pretext of OOC checks meaning anything at all. They're color, literally. "Oh, OK, you're crossing the lake, you make a swim check, good, you haven't drowned yet!" Clearly if the GM is operating in good faith then success is advantageous in some degree, but good faith is not really enough. I mean, what are my chances of making it across? If I'm asked to pass 1 check at 85% success, that's easy enough, but how about 3, of varying difficulties? And what happens if I fail the swim check, or the survival check, or whatever? Do I just die? Who knows?

Again, this is why I call check 'color', they HINT at something, they kind of bump the GM a bit towards "something nice" or "something nasty" but the 'mechanics' are toothless. This is poison to something like Story Now. In fact its aimed squarely at support of a kind of Illusionism or Participationist play where the GM smiles and tells you what happened every time you do something! If failure doesn't suite him, then he says "oh oh, you're in trouble, make a CON check! Oh, lucky you, you've passed that, you manage to drag out on the other shore, close one!" If success doesn't suite him "Oh, well, its a long swim, roll another swim check. Gosh, you start drowning and sink to the bottom of the lake..." Sigh.

I mean, it does work in a fair number of cases where things are reasonably clear-cut, did you set off the trap or not, that sort of thing, assuming the GM is really disciplined and/or the players really grill the DM every time they make a check and make him describe the full outcome before any dice are thrown at all, ever. Elegant it ain't.

Perhaps it is simply that I have some internalised principles that make this work fine, but I really do not see the issue. In most games these sort of things are not super tightly defined. I try to set the DCs according certain consistent (simmish) logic, and honour the successes and failures. I also aim to be pretty open about the stakes and difficulty, unless there is something in the situation that would specifically obscure this from the character.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Based on recent conversation, I had a thought I'd like to test.

Consider


And now insist on system - a designed thing with rules. Perhaps comprising some number of game texts, indexes, icons, symbols.


Freeform falls out of the taxonomy so that - at least from this taxonomy's point of view - freeform RPG does not exist. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, only that it seems worth noticing. (Freeform RPG doesn't exist as "a designed thing with rules".)

Yes, I would grant that. Theoretically, it is possible to work toward "freeform" S&A in a FKR sense, in that FKR does still include an extremely simple "roll for consequences" component, but it's gonna look...really weird, because of the "semi-objective" component I've referenced (hopefully every time...) I've laid out what "Score" means. A score where it's totally free-formed and fluid in the mind of a single referee would depend on absolute trust that the referee would never rule with bias neither for nor against (to rule with bias against would be to deny earned Achievement; with bias for, to give unearned Achievement), and that trust would have to be shared by all participants in perpetuity, something that will be difficult to maintain at best.

Again, I feel video games are an extremely useful comparison here, particularly things like speed-run competitions, tournament games, etc.: if the task is too loosey-goosey debatable, then Score is difficult or even impossible to determine, and thus the Achievement is weakened. But, critically, Score is not totally objective because it needs that component of "why do I, the player, care?" Someone can be extremely proud of (say) beating a shooter on the second-highest difficulty setting. They may not have the highest possible Achievement, but they have their personal best, and that can be enough--the task itself is still objectively completed, but the weight or meaning may be subjective. There are of course other things that may be perfectly objective, e.g. "world first" races to complete difficult content in MMO games (e.g. the recent world-first clear of Dragonsong Reprise: Ultimate in FFXIV), winning first prize in a competitive tournament, etc.

This is not to say that I think it's totally impossible to have a "systemless" S&A game (unlike G&S, where I do actually kinda think it's impossible, specifically because of how inherently system-centric G&S is.) It would just be....really weird. Score would not be consistent from one situation to the next, but purely contextual every time--meaning, Achievement would also have to be purely contextual every time. The players would have to trust that the fact that adjudication may not be the same each time is for a fully-justified reason, just one they won't be told because the rulebooks are invisible and therefore unutterable.

G&S though...it really, deeply, down to its bones is a gameplay loop about system and the manipulation thereof. In the absence of system, what is there to manipulate? This isn't a knock at either FKR or G&S, just an observation that by being "purist-for-system," it seems pretty much impossible to integrate it with the philosophy "don't use system! Use intuition!"

---

As a separate point from the above: you're correct that I'm intentionally cleaving out...well, not merely "un-systematic," which I take to have a rules-system but one that isn't necessarily clear or uniform or the like. Instead, I'm cleaving out "anti-systematic," game "designs" that actively eschew system (almost) entirely. Mostly because...I don't see how there's anything we can analyze. The requirements are obvious: you must trust that a human mind, using its intuitions and individual perspective, will be as consistent and "principled" (as in, adhering to a principle, whatever that principle may be, I don't mean "moral") as a set of written rules that can be examined directly. That trust will require constant and effective communication.

There is little to no "design" in this, and "tools" and "techniques" are going to be extremely difficult to spell out, because they'll ultimately (sort of how AbulAlhazred was talking earlier) just boil down to "GM says." When that is the only structure, "GM says," there's...really nothing to analyze there, and little to be learned. Hence...I don't see much point in analyzing openly anti-systematic games. Peraps there are still tools or techniques that may be relevant, but...it just seems like it's always going to have that phrase that I have come to so greatly dislike over the last ten years or so: "You're the DM, you decide!"

 

[clearstream]

People play a lot of games despite the game, not because of it. A game system that produces a lot of unpleasant experiences even if you forge through them doesn't "work" in any particularly meaningful sense.

Consistent with my philosophical skepticism as to knowing what game is played other than as settled from time to time by players, I mean this in a much stricter sense than you might assume.

Take another poster's problems with early 5e play. I've never encountered those problems, but I do believe that poster. Are we playing the same game?

 

[clearstream]

Yes, I would grant that. Theoretically, it is possible to work toward "freeform" S&A in a FKR sense, in that FKR does still include an extremely simple "roll for consequences" component, but it's gonna look...really weird, because of the "semi-objective" component I've referenced (hopefully every time...) I've laid out what "Score" means. A score where it's totally free-formed and fluid in the mind of a single referee would depend on absolute trust that the referee would never rule with bias neither for nor against (to rule with bias against would be to deny earned Achievement; with bias for, to give unearned Achievement), and that trust would have to be shared by all participants in perpetuity, something that will be difficult to maintain at best.

Again, I feel video games are an extremely useful comparison here, particularly things like speed-run competitions, tournament games, etc.: if the task is too loosey-goosey debatable, then Score is difficult or even impossible to determine, and thus the Achievement is weakened. But, critically, Score is not totally objective because it needs that component of "why do I, the player, care?" Someone can be extremely proud of (say) beating a shooter on the second-highest difficulty setting. They may not have the highest possible Achievement, but they have their personal best, and that can be enough--the task itself is still objectively completed, but the weight or meaning may be subjective. There are of course other things that may be perfectly objective, e.g. "world first" races to complete difficult content in MMO games (e.g. the recent world-first clear of Dragonsong Reprise: Ultimate in FFXIV), winning first prize in a competitive tournament, etc.

This is not to say that I think it's totally impossible to have a "systemless" S&A game (unlike G&S, where I do actually kinda think it's impossible, specifically because of how inherently system-centric G&S is.) It would just be....really weird. Score would not be consistent from one situation to the next, but purely contextual every time--meaning, Achievement would also have to be purely contextual every time. The players would have to trust that the fact that adjudication may not be the same each time is for a fully-justified reason, just one they won't be told because the rulebooks are invisible and therefore unutterable.

G&S though...it really, deeply, down to its bones is a gameplay loop about system and the manipulation thereof. In the absence of system, what is there to manipulate? This isn't a knock at either FKR or G&S, just an observation that by being "purist-for-system," it seems pretty much impossible to integrate it with the philosophy "don't use system! Use intuition!"

---

As a separate point from the above: you're correct that I'm intentionally cleaving out...well, not merely "un-systematic," which I take to have a rules-system but one that isn't necessarily clear or uniform or the like. Instead, I'm cleaving out "anti-systematic," game "designs" that actively eschew system (almost) entirely. Mostly because...I don't see how there's anything we can analyze. The requirements are obvious: you must trust that a human mind, using its intuitions and individual perspective, will be as consistent and "principled" (as in, adhering to a principle, whatever that principle may be, I don't mean "moral") as a set of written rules that can be examined directly. That trust will require constant and effective communication.

There is little to no "design" in this, and "tools" and "techniques" are going to be extremely difficult to spell out, because they'll ultimately (sort of how AbulAlhazred was talking earlier) just boil down to "GM says." When that is the only structure, "GM says," there's...really nothing to analyze there, and little to be learned. Hence...I don't see much point in analyzing openly anti-systematic games. Peraps there are still tools or techniques that may be relevant, but...it just seems like it's always going to have that phrase that I have come to so greatly dislike over the last ten years or so: "You're the DM, you decide!"

Just to note an unforced conflation between free-form and GM decides.

A fair sequitur from our conversation, but unforced. Many arrangements are possible. On that note, how do you feel about RPG where the terms of the magical circle are established by a system, but nothing inside it?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Consistent with my philosophical skepticism as to knowing what game is played other than as settled from time to time by players, I mean this in a much stricter sense than you might assume.

Take another poster's problems with early 5e play. I've never encountered those problems, but I do believe that poster. Are we playing the same game?

Well, there can absolutely be issues that apply to some people and not others. I didn't have Campbell's problem with 3e until pretty high level. Some people put a virtue on some things other people find an active flaw (I consider 5e advantage/disadvantage a pretty terrible design decision, but other people love it).

But I still stand by the idea that "You played it, therefor it worked" is either super-reductionist, or does not follow. There can be dynamics of group, of campaign, and probably more I'm not thinking of that causes people to keep playing, and perhaps even enjoy the campaign where the system is just consistently letting them down.

At the end of the day, you can pound nails with a wrench. It still doesn't make it any kind of reasonable sense to describe it as "working" for that purpose that is useful for discussion of functionality.

 

[Campbell]

Note that none of my criticism or really any of the criticism I have seen leveled against 3e in the last couple pages comes from a grounding in the Big Model. It was criticism of its technical system design based on play experience and a firm grounding in systems analysis and design (something I have some experience with as a software engineer).

3e is not alone of this score. Classic World of Darkness, Shadowrun, Palladium and Legend of the 5 Rings (prior to the current edition) all have terrible systems design. Great product design that drew you into the setting and great attention paid to building cultures of players who identified with them. Great product design. Poor game design from the prospective of something you can sit down and actually play without wrestling against.

Isn't it good we don't have to choose now? That the overall quality of game design is improving quite dramatically from those days? It's so nice talking to one of the younger GMs in my group about how much smoother his experience running his first games with 5e and Vampire Fifth Edition have been then my painful early experiences.

 

[clearstream]

Well, there can absolutely be issues that apply to some people and not others. I didn't have Campbell's problem with 3e until pretty high level. Some people put a virtue on some things other people find an active flaw (I consider 5e advantage/disadvantage a pretty terrible design decision, but other people love it).

But I still stand by the idea that "You played it, therefor it worked" is either super-reductionist, or does not follow. There can be dynamics of group, of campaign, and probably more I'm not thinking of that causes people to keep playing, and perhaps even enjoy the campaign where the system is just consistently letting them down.

At the end of the day, you can pound nails with a wrench. It still doesn't make it any kind of reasonable sense to describe it as "working" for that purpose that is useful for discussion of functionality.

On reflection, I retract it as not explaining my idea in a complete enough way. If we recall the poster wrote

It did not work. I played it for the entire life of the edition (both 3.0 and 3.5), having transplanted our existing 2e campaign across wholesale. I think we entered 3.X at level 8 or so and left it at level 12 or so (we advance very slowly).

I pictured a group playing 3.0 and 3.5 for the entire life of those editions together. That is eight years, and I would guess on average my own D&D campaigns have each run 2-4 years, so I am thinking about 2-4 full campaigns. How many sessions? We play weekly, but perhaps the poster played monthly? Perhaps a few hundred sessions?

It was in this context that I felt justified in observing that

You played it ergo it worked. We're equally aware of the system's problems, but it is the game as played that counts.

I should have written, you played it for hundreds of sessions, ergo it appears to have functioned. The game as played is what counted.

 

[clearstream]

Note that none of my criticism or really any of the criticism I have seen leveled against 3e in the last couple pages comes from a grounding in the Big Model. It was criticism of its technical system design based on play experience and a firm grounding in systems analysis and design (something I have some experience with as a software engineer).

3e is not alone of this score. Classic World of Darkness, Shadowrun, Palladium and Legend of the 5 Rings (prior to the current edition) all have terrible systems design. Great product design that drew you into the setting and great attention paid to building cultures of players who identified with them. Great product design. Poor game design from the prospective of something you can sit down and actually play without wrestling against.

Isn't it good we don't have to choose now? That the overall quality of game design is improving quite dramatically from those days? It's so nice talking to one of the younger GMs in my group about how much smoother his experience running his first games with 5e and Vampire Fifth Edition have been then my painful early experiences.

What do you think of ToR 2e, on the subject of contemporary design? I also have L5R 5e, although we're currently deep in TB2.

I am with you BTW in observing the overall quality of game design improving markedly. You might not agree, but I would also say that the designers of 3rd edition, and 3rd edition itself, played a part in that evolution. 4e of course even more so, but that has its roots in 3e, too.

And in case my feelings can be mistaken, AW et al had their own highly influential and important part to play, too!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just to note an unforced conflation between free-form and GM decides.

A fair sequitur from our conversation, but unforced. Many arrangements are possible. On that note, how do you feel about RPG where the terms of the magical circle are established by a system, but nothing inside it?

I think I may be unfamiliar with your metaphor. I'm also not sure what the difference between "free-form" and "GM decides" is in games that have a GM calling stuff--which is what I thought "FKR" meant? That is, Free Kriegsspiel itself is...specifically a "Free" by becoming "GM Decides."

At the end of the day, you can pound nails with a wrench. It still doesn't make it any kind of reasonable sense to describe it as "working" for that purpose that is useful for discussion of functionality.

I am intentionally staying out of this overall conversation, but my two cents on "working" etc.: If the best you can say is "you can play it, and it won't horribly break the instant you try," that is NOT "working." That's like saying that a car that doesn't explode the instant you turn the key in the ignition is "working." (I believe you and I agree on this, I'm just singling this bit out to respond to it.)

"It's playable"/"you played it" and "it doesn't prevent you from having fun" are absolute, barebones, rock-bottom prerequisites for a working game. They are necessary conditions. They are not sufficient conditions. Anything which fails to meet both requirements does not deserve the moniker "game." Frankly, if you design a game that is so utterly bad that it literally can't be played, you deserve an award of some kind, because holy toledo that's achievements in awfulness. And if you somehow manage to make a game that actively prevents the player from having fun, you should probably look into combat applications because that sounds like straight-up psychological warfare.

No game, no designed entertainment/aesthetic thing of any kind, that fails to meet the standards of "actually permits you to engage with it at all" and "actually permits you to enjoy engaging with it" should ever exist. As a result, holding up either of those requirements as though something that meets them has merited anything is not merely foolish, it's patently ridiculous. It is saying that "X is broken" can only apply to something that is the exact antithesis of perfectly flawless--that "brokenness" can only refer to something perfectly full of flaws.

Something can be badly-made and extremely broken and still somewhat functional. A game in specific can be badly made and extremely broken and still provide entertainment value. I, for example, actually enjoy playing gonzo games in Pathfinder. The system is already broken, so why not enjoy its brokenness? It's hard to find games that actively enable nigh-infinite cheese (sometimes, literal cheese!)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

On reflection, I retract it as not explaining my idea in a complete enough way. If we recall the poster wrote


I pictured a group playing 3.0 and 3.5 for the entire life of those editions together. That is eight years, and I would guess on average my own D&D campaigns have each run 2-4 years, so I am thinking about 2-4 full campaigns. How many sessions? We play weekly, but perhaps the poster played monthly? Perhaps a few hundred sessions?

It was in this context that I felt justified in observing that


I should have written, you played it for hundreds of sessions, ergo it appears to have functioned. The game as played is what counted.

okay, since you responded to the criticism I literally just posted, I guess it's warranted that I say something here.

You are, again, saying that "because it was possible for you to engage with the thing, it must have been functional." That definition of "it can't be broken if you can potentially engage with it" is worse than useless, it actively conceals any possibility of problem. It is a negatively useful definition, concealing from sight things that could have been seen. Because, I guarantee you, it is possible to say that about literally every game ever published, and very nearly every game not published. It is extremely difficult to design a game that anyone would call "a game" which actively prevents someone from engaging with it, at all.

Playing for hundreds of sessions does not, in the slightest, mean that problems weren't cropping up all the time. That reeks of Oberoni fallacy: "well, you made it work, so there wasn't a problem." No, there were problems, it was just possible to partially paper over them. Or (probably just as likely) struggle in vain to ignore them and hope they'd go away.