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

[niklinna]

Take this sentence that I grabbed at random from The Forge site:

A description of role-playing procedures as embedded in the social interactions and creative priorities of the participants. Each internal "box," "layer," or "skin" of the model is considered to be an expression of the box(es) containing it.​

Umm ... I know all the words are English but it might as well be Greek to me.

wait what?? what box? what is a layer or skin? does this set of sentences make sense to anyone ON the forge, I mean or was this just some nonsense?!?!

The meaning is pretty clear to me, even out of context (since none was provided by the person who grabbed the quotation). Someone is trying to describe procedures used in role-playing games, in terms of how the participants interact with each other, and in terms of what the participants want out of playing. Since there is a model, it must be composed of parts, which the writer is (unfortunately) dropping multiple terms for, in hopes of catching the understanding of people who might already use one of those varied terms. I myself just coined a fourth: "parts"! They are saying that the parts of the model are arranged such that one part can can contain others.

If anything, this excerpt is merely stating the obvious. I've been digging back into the Story Now article, and Ron Edward says several times that terminology is a real problem, because it was already muddled by the time that whole group were having their discussions and trying to develop a theory for role-playing games. Which, you know, kinda hadn't been done before, which is partly why the terminology was muddled. Confusing as it can be, I give 'em credit for trying, and if people involving themselves in a discussion based out of their work refuse to even familiarize themselves with that work and its terminology, and just complain that we're using words wrong, that's their problem.

Edit: Fixed typos.

 

[clearstream]

Ability checks are literally not different from what they were in previous editions, unless the difference is so subtle it's escaped me after several thorough readings (which, I admit, is 100% always possible, but I would be surprised if this is true).

In 3e, players invoke skills. Virtually in neo-trade mode. Most skills can be retried on failure.

In 5e, if following the game text as written, DM calls for a check when a player character's actions and system considerations together indicate one. There must be both uncertainty and meaningful consequences. Following the game text as written, 5e skills would be played fiction-first, although 5e gives the DM the traditional opt out. The important text to read is DMG 237 and PHB 174 (read together for the whole meaning.)

5e's approach isn't innovative: it's immediately traceable to significant discourse and design work that occured between the editions.

BIFTs are less subtle and more superfluous, with many DMs (including every single one I have personally had with 5e) totally ignoring that they exist, and many more struggling to find ways to use them and to make Inspiration actually something worthwhile. (Doubly so because, exactly as I predicted back during the playtest, 5e massively over-uses Advantage, making Inspiration worthless in any situation that already offers Advantage.)

Agreed that advantage is over-used. I'll emphasise again my words - "faint nods". The DMG discussion of Inspiration outlines what they are nodding toward. Speculatively, 6e will go one of two ways. Either it will remove inspiration. Or it will improve it so that it mechanically matters. They might tighten up the contextualising text, also, as it's a bit all over the place.

I don't personally see any "ludic self-awareness" in the divination mechanic, but perhaps there is something I have missed there too.

Hmm, what do you experience when at your table a diviner chooses one of two d20 rolls they made that morning, to replace a roll they observe another entity making? The sense is they saw and can intervene in the future. It is implemented at the table as straight-up dice manipulation. It's presence in the game is cute.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If natural understanding is disguised jargon, and not natural understanding is disguised jargon, I don't know what we're doing here. What terms are we discussing here, and what do they mean? Serious questions.

You tell me, you're the one assuming obvious shared definitions. I've linked my sources already.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The meaning is pretty clear to me, even out of context (since none was provided by the person who grabbed the quotation). Someone is trying to describe procedures used in role-playing games, in terms of how the participants interact with each other, and in terms of what the participants want out of playing. Since there is a model, it must be composed of parts, which the writer is (unfortunately) dropping multiple terms for, in hopes of catching the understanding of people who might already use one of those varied terms. I myself just coined a fourth: "parts"! They are saying that the parts of the model are arranged such that one can can contain others.

I got none of that... but lets try (jokes aside)

A description of role-playing procedures as embedA description of role-playing procedures as embedded in the social interactions and creative priorities of the participants. Each internal "box," "layer," or "skin" of the model is considered to be an expression of the box(es) containing it

A description of role-playing procedures as embedded in the social interactions

a description of a role playing RULE as USED in the social interactions

and creative priorities of the participants.

no clue here...

Each internal "box," "layer," or "skin" of the model is considered to be an expression of the box(es) containing it.

this makes me wonder if they mean that box layer and skin are all useable interchangable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Assuming people have a natural understanding of narrativist seems more like disguised jargon. I mean, I have no idea what you mean here. I mean, by this assumption, hitpoints are metacurrency and a narrativist device.

This is a bit of an aside to your actual discussion, but it might (probably not, but still might) surprise you to know that I pretty much do consider HP to be a metacurrency. It's your participation bank account, overdraft too far and you get locked out. HP don't represent anything fictional until we project that fiction onto them; there is no meaning to them other than "you still get to play" unless and until we decide that these HP were due to getting burned by an overturned braizer (but the fire bolt that rolled min damage earlier was just a grazing hit), while those HP were from a shallow cut on the enemy's sword (but the sword hit that takes you below zero was one that "struck true.")

It doesn't help that the exact same action, e.g. being successfully struck once by identical hobgoblin soldiers, has radically different meaning across levels. At first level, that can literally knock down characters in a single hit (and, for the most fragile, literally KILL them outright with a single hit). At 10th level, such hits might not feel good, but have literally zero chance of causing more than inconvenience and spending a hit die or two later; even two hits is unlikely to knock such a character down.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In 3e, players invoke skills. Virtually in neo-trade mode. Most skills can be retried on failure.

In 5e, if following the game text as written, DM calls for a check when a player character's actions and system considerations together indicate one. There must be both uncertainty and meaningful consequences. Following the game text as written, 5e skills would be played fiction-first, although 5e gives the DM the traditional opt out. The important text to read is DMG 237 and PHB 174 (read together for the whole meaning.)

5e's approach isn't innovative: it's immediately traceable to significant discourse and design work that occured between the editions.

Okay...but that had already happened in 4e. I could say more but honestly I'd rather not risk devolving the thread. Suffice it to say I don't even see evolution here. The only difference is 5e made it semi kinda sorta official-ish to use variant ability scores for various skills (e.g. a Strength check with Intimidate proficiency to threaten someone into obedience.)

Agreed that advantage is over-used. I'll emphasise again my words - "faint nods". The DMG discussion of Inspiration outlines what they are nodding toward. Speculatively, 6e will go one of two ways. Either it will remove inspiration. Or it will improve it so that it mechanically matters. They might tighten up the contextualising text, also, as it's a bit all over the place.

Perhaps then my issue is that I would not so much call these things "subtle" as...well, superficial. They don't seem to reflect adroitness, but rather seem hamfisted but (ideally) harmless. I don't see Advantage as harmless, personally, but that's a separate convo.

I'm honestly not sure how to address the issues with Advantage. Its key selling point is its simplicity, but that very simplicity is what makes it flawed. Making alternatives or making it more complex would cost some of the things its fans like best, and ditching it altogether would piss off a LOT of people. As with many design conundrums if 5e, there doesn't seem to be many paths forward, and to retreat is almost worse.

Hmm, what do you experience when at your table a diviner chooses one of two d20 rolls they made that morning, to replace a roll they observe another entity making? The sense is they saw and can intervene in the future. It is implemented at the table as straight-up dice manipulation. It's presence in the game is cute.

I mean, it is kind of cute, but "cute" is...not that much in my estimation? Particularly when the Wizard is overall the worst class in the game at actually implementing its core class fantasy, given that it literally does not have features to support its core concept, research. Literally no mechanics of the Wizard involve actually researching anything. The basal spell school thing just makes you better at copying other people's homework for God's sake!

 

[Oofta]

The meaning is pretty clear to me, even out of context (since none was provided by the person who grabbed the quotation). Someone is trying to describe procedures used in role-playing games, in terms of how the participants interact with each other, and in terms of what the participants want out of playing. Since there is a model, it must be composed of parts, which the writer is (unfortunately) dropping multiple terms for, in hopes of catching the understanding of people who might already use one of those varied terms. I myself just coined a fourth: "parts"! They are saying that the parts of the model are arranged such that one can can contain others.

If anything, this excerpt is merely stating the obvious. I've been digging back into the Story Now article, and Ron Edward says several times that terminology is a real problem, because it was already muddled by the time that whole group were having their discussions and trying to develop a theory for role-playing games. Which, you know, kinda hadn't been done before, which is partly why the terminology was muddled. Confusing as it can be, I give 'em credit for trying, and if people involving themselves in a discussion based out of their work refuse to even familiarize themselves with that work and its terminology, and just complain that we're using words wrong, that's their problem.

Edit: Fixed typos.

Whereas to me the words all make sense but they don't really say anything. It may be clear to you, I suspect it's kind of a meaningless sentence to most people.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is a bit of an aside to your actual discussion, but it might (probably not, but still might) surprise you to know that I pretty much do consider HP to be a metacurrency. It's your participation bank account, overdraft too far and you get locked out. HP don't represent anything fictional until we project that fiction onto them; there is no meaning to them other than "you still get to play" unless and until we decide that these HP were due to getting burned by an overturned braizer (but the fire bolt that rolled min damage earlier was just a grazing hit), while those HP were from a shallow cut on the enemy's sword (but the sword hit that takes you below zero was one that "struck true.")

It doesn't help that the exact same action, e.g. being successfully struck once by identical hobgoblin soldiers, has radically different meaning across levels. At first level, that can literally knock down characters in a single hit (and, for the most fragile, literally KILL them outright with a single hit). At 10th level, such hits might not feel good, but have literally zero chance of causing more than inconvenience and spending a hit due or two later; even two hits is unlikely to knock such a character down.

It is a metacurrency. Been making that argument for awhile. Usually gets flatly denied.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It is a metacurrency. Been making that argument for awhile. Usually gets flatly denied.

in another thread I have a superhero fight going on... but yeah it's batman/black widow being with Thor/Superman... both have HP... aka PLOT ARMOR

 

[Ovinomancer]

in another thread I have a superhero fight going on... but yeah it's batman/black widow being with Thor/Superman... both have HP... aka PLOT ARMOR

"The orc runs you through with his blade, and..."
"Wait! I spend hitpoints to negate that."
"Okay <clatter> spend 8 hp."
"Sure. Yikes, I only have 3 left. Bob, next turn can you hit my PC with your Lay On Metacurrency? Thanks."