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

[niklinna]

I am a day or two and about 4 pages behind on this thread.

But anyone who want to see a discussion, "in the wild", that exhibits what high concept simulationist D&D play involves, and reveals some of the challenges, can look at pages 13 and 14 of this thread (beginning from post 254).

Thanks, I had stopped following that thread a while ago.

 

[Manbearcat]

I am a day or two and about 4 pages behind on this thread.

But anyone who want to see a discussion, "in the wild", that exhibits what high concept simulationist D&D play involves, and reveals some of the challenges, can look at pages 13 and 14 of this thread (beginning from post 254).

Guess what games I've run in the last decade+ that don't have any problem with framing and resolving dynamic (in terms of interesting decision-space, consequential gamestate movement, and coherent fiction) "travel based" or "in the wild" scenarios?

D&D 4e
Dungeon World
Stonetop
Mouse Guard
Torchbearer (1 and 2)
Blades in the Dark (Transport Scores both within Duskvol and in The Deathlands beyond the walls)
Dogs in the Vineyard
Strike(!)
Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy

What do these games not feature? Freeform, serial exploration via task resolution and GM fiat (and often Force as well).

What do they feature? Structure, conflict resolution, and principally constrained/focused GMing.

See Harper's diagrams and Vincent Baker's commentary on Task Resolution vs Conflict Resolution upthread.

If you want consistently rewarding and functional Journey scenarios (no matter where it might be) with meaty, interesting, consequential decision-points and a vital, dynamically-evolving gamestate...go with the latter.

 

[pemerton]

I again think this assumes a gamist agenda has to be much more "tight" than anyone I know focused on that does. Sometimes making things up as long as you communicate them to the players and are flexible to concerns about temporal concerns (i.e. potential earlier decisions the players made that would have been made differently with the current information, which they should have had) has no meaningful impact on the gamist process; you take in the addition, include it in your decision making, and move on.

I'm far from clear how this counts as GM-as-glue play.

 

[clearstream]

I am a day or two and about 4 pages behind on this thread.

But anyone who want to see a discussion, "in the wild", that exhibits what high concept simulationist D&D play involves, and reveals some of the challenges, can look at pages 13 and 14 of this thread (beginning from post 254).

I noticed some recurring gamist concerns about the interaction of travel legs with resources and objectives. A few examples

there is a bit of a problem there. If there are various challenges to get to the "main challenge", then avoiding those challenges is a win condition.

Inspiration Points. You have 5+1/2 points, and regain them all when you gain a level. You can also regain points by seeing new and wonderous sights, experiencing new things, and living at an above average level of quality of life.

Especially, let them practice with tools or languages and mark off days toward gaining proficiency. Let the alchemist or herbalist gather while walking and make things at night. Use the Xanathar’s rules for cooking tools and cobbler’s tools.

The PHB puts the cost of traveling on a sailing ship at 1 silver/mile/person. That says nothing about the cost the space for cargo. People on this reddit post did some math and probably the cheapest option was 4 cp/mile/ton, which sounds acceptable to me, but you know what--we'll dop it to 1cp/mile/ton for ease of math. If you're carrying animals, you also have to pay for their upkeep in addition to renting their cargo space. Boat tickets aren't free and it's unlikely that the merchants in a mountain town (pop 4.5k, 1.5 of which are rural farmers) that is many miles from a coast own their own boat.

a lot of the road is in patrolled land and that some of the patrollers are magic users. You're also forgetting that monsters are actually going to be a lot less common than it seems, because adventurers go out of their way to seek them out.

That's not to take away from concerns expressed about immersion, simulation and realism. The first challenge for gamism seems to be a decision - is travel where we want to situate our gamist play? If answered in the affirmative, folk seem to grasp that there are two fundamental opportunities: interplay of time and resources (some gained, some lost), and risk of attrition.

If all that is on the table is risk of attrition, players lean into skipping to the destination. If there is interplay of time and resources, players may engage if there is scope for gain as well as loss. Consider this in light of board-RPGs such as Gloomhaven and Mage Knight, where movement amounts to resource-and-tempo play.

D&D has often offered many parts of the puzzle for successful gamist travel, but I'm not sure it has ever brought them together successfully.

 

[clearstream]

GM fiat (and often Force as well).

constrained/focused GMing.

In my experience helping ourselves to this (as a) dichotomy is not well justified. It depends on assumed weakness or deficiency in the social contract and poor insight (by the DM) as to the prospective play.

I'd like to reframe it that explicit versus implicit, stronger versus weaker, guidance in the form of principles and rules, can bestow a praxis and have more reliable results.

EDIT @Manbearcat I hope you will see here that I'm agreeing that the differences you outline are altogether possible, but we can't just help ourselves to that as a necessary dichotomy. DM-curated play is - for good or bad - down to the qualities of the DM. They may well have the qualities you assign them, in the absence of the system doing work to guide to better results, but it is neither true that they must have those qualities, nor even that system must work (in any game) to guide toward the best results.

EDIT Maybe what I say leads to a question of whether it is task-resolution / conflict-resolution that informs the differences, or the praxis explicitly embodied in the game texts? (And the furniture supplied to convey it.)

 

[Aldarc]

D&D has often offered many parts of the puzzle for successful gamist travel, but I'm not sure it has ever brought them together successfully.

I think that it's there in some earlier editions (i.e., the Hex Crawl) and 4e (i.e., skill challenges), but it was faded out in favor of "GM as storyteller," with travel rules seen as an annoyance that is glossed over for the sake of "getting to the good stuff," whether that's dungeon-crawling action or story.

There are definitely a number of TTRPGs out there that incorporate and feature travel as an integral part of play procedures (e.g., Ultraviolet Grasslands, Ryuutama, The One Ring, etc.), but I'm not sure if this is something that WotC era D&D is interested in.

 

[Manbearcat]

I noticed some recurring gamist concerns about the interaction of travel legs with resources and objectives. A few examples











That's not to take away from concerns expressed about immersion, simulation and realism. The first challenge for gamism seems to be a decision - is travel where we want to situate our gamist play? If answered in the affirmative, folk seem to grasp that there are two fundamental opportunities: interplay of time and resources (some gained, some lost), and risk of attrition.

If all that is on the table is risk of attrition, players lean into skipping to the destination. If there is interplay of time and resources, players may engage if there is scope for gain as well as loss. Consider this in light of board-RPGs such as Gloomhaven and Mage Knight, where movement amounts to resource-and-tempo play.

D&D has often offered many parts of the puzzle for successful gamist travel, but I'm not sure it has ever brought them together successfully.

Good post! I particularly like (and agree with) this:

The first challenge for gamism seems to be a decision - is travel where we want to situate our gamist play?

This is THE key component of a lot of rancor and confusion I've seen on ENWorld over the years. Is a GM eliding an aspect of play (eg travel from here to there, for instance) an instance of Force? You'll see people who are so deeply invested in serial exploration reflexively answer "OF COURSE!" The problem is that takes for granted a notion that serial exploration and moment-by-moment timekeeping are fundamentally necessary to achieve an adequate expression of Process Simulation and Gamism (these are pretty much always the concerns with eliding time/space and therefore "cutting to the action"). That notion is not a truism, but it has been assumed as such for a certain segment of the D&D userbase (and they're also typically preoccupied with the game's granular and realism-hewing, as these folks perceive it, expression of economics and ecologies and biological inputs and outputs and various other aspects of internal causality...curiously, they often just zoom right past by legacy D&D elements that kill all of those things stone dead!).

The other thing I wanted to touch upon above was the next sentence:

If answered in the affirmative, folk seem to grasp that there are two fundamental opportunities: interplay of time and resources (some gained, some lost), and risk of attrition.

My position on this is that there is one more than your two fundamental opportunities (both of which I agree with) for Gamist play situated at the site of Travel. Let us take your first two (with a minor amendment - italicized) and add the other:

(1) The interplay of time and resources

(2) The risk of attrition/management of liability

(3) The skillful management of the decision-space for all legs of travel/attendant obstacles which entails charting a macro course from starting point to destination and charting a micro course for legs (through varying terrain features/topography/hazards/dangers and potential discoveries so multiple, clear options are on the table for the micro course charting with the consequences for each choice being transparent or inferable) which takes into account (i) the prowess/loadout/cohorts (et al) you can marshal and (ii) winnows the consequence space to a desirable portfolio of fallout (and away from an undesirable one).

---

My italicized on your (2) and my full (3) is a huge part of GM-side skill, regardless of the system (it will manifest in particular ways though dependent upon system). If you're a GM running a Travel/Transport/Journey (etc) conflict, you need to deeply understand how these things manifest in the particular system you're running. If the system cares about Travel/Transport/Journey conflicts, these things will have gears and teeth. You need to know how to create a vital decision-space for players in which they simultaneously feel the interaction of multiple, both converging and discrete, pressure points and make this dynamic and compelling (thematically/dramatic need-wise, tactically, strategically...each of these being more or less depending upon the game) with transparent or readily inferable relationships between choices and risk and consequences.

EDIT - TO ANSWER THIS (cross-post):

In my experience helping ourselves to this (as a) dichotomy is not well justified. It depends on assumed weakness or deficiency in the social contract and poor insight (by the DM) as to the prospective play.

I don't agree that (a) this is happening in my post nor (b) that it is reliant upon a weakness or deficiency at the social contract level or poor insight by GM.

What I am expressing is that it is a fundamental shortcoming of system. Like, take for example, the game expressing that Travel is a site of Skilled Play expression, yet it is not entirely (or even entirely not) fit for purpose.

Social contract and great insight by the GM doesn't save Gamist play from the inherent shortcomings of system. I have endless reserves of confidence in my ability to consistently (and off the cuff...I never "design"/prep them) create vital and interesting (thematically/dramatic need, tactically, strategically) Journey/Transport/Travel (etc) conflicts in a dozen variations of system. But I will not run these types of conflicts in certain systems despite that endless reserves of confidence that I have because I know for a fact I will have rely upon a level of Fiat (or Force) that negatively impacts the experience for both parties (the players and myself) and damages the integrity of the through line of their skilled play efforts.

 

[clearstream]

I think that it's there in some earlier editions (i.e., the Hex Crawl) and 4e (i.e., skill challenges), but it was faded out in favor of "GM as storyteller," with travel rules seen as an annoyance that is glossed over for the sake of "getting to the good stuff," whether that's dungeon-crawling action or story.

There are definitely a number of TTRPGs out there that incorporate and feature travel as an integral part of play procedures (e.g., Ultraviolet Grasslands, Ryuutama, The One Ring, etc.), but I'm not sure if this is something that WotC era D&D is interested in.

I ran a very satisfying campaign using Griffin Mountain (RQ) for about two years, with a ton of overland travel. I was able to use OOTA in 5e in a similar way (via Fantasy Grounds VTT). Journey in both was highly successful - loved by players. I was mulling this, and I have a speculation about it.

To contrast two campaign structures, in a gamist light (focusing on Skill - Expression or what @EzekielRaiden termed Score - Achievement). T is Town. D is dungeon. J is Journey. A is Arena (of proof). R is Resolution (of various kinds).

A fairly simple, standard D&D structure
T > DAR > T

What happens when we insert J?
T > J > DAR > J > T

Of what use is Journey here?

A structure I have found productive, for D&D, Earthdawn, RQ, Traveller and others
T > JA > TR / TAR

This could be called "Whole World as Dungeon", although I would like to think that is a pretty blunt, bloody-minded label that sells it short. Essentially, we answer the question of why Journey by saying Journey is where we encounter mortal peril - it is the arena of proof for all those "I want to express my skill in an arena of pretend violence" types. They move between Towns (castles, homes, taverns, witches-huts, etc; conflicts and resolutions) encountering peril on the Journey.

It's like in a way that the towns (etc) are the interesting rooms full of stuff (but also folks) where various sorts of tensions can arise and be resolved. And the journeys are the corridors between, with guardians and traps. In these campaigns, "dungeons" tend to be much shallower (like, literally shallower!) than in much standard D&D. A tunnel and few cells perhaps. A cave. A well. They tend to be more part of the world around them, less a world in themselves.

 

[clearstream]

Good post! I particularly like (and agree with) this:



This is THE key component of a lot of rancor and confusion I've seen on ENWorld over the years. Is a GM eliding an aspect of play (eg travel from here to there, for instance) an instance of Force? You'll see people who are so deeply invested in serial exploration reflexively answer "OF COURSE!" The problem is that takes for granted a notion that serial exploration and moment-by-moment timekeeping are fundamentally necessary to achieve an adequate expression of Process Simulation and Gamism (these are pretty much always the concerns with eliding time/space and therefore "cutting to the action"). That notion is not a truism, but it has been assumed as such for a certain segment of the D&D userbase (and they're also typically preoccupied with the game's granular and realism-hewing, as these folks perceive it, expression of economics and ecologies and biological inputs and outputs and various other aspects of internal causality...curiously, they often just zoom right past by legacy D&D elements that kill all of those things stone dead!).

The other thing I wanted to touch upon above was the next sentence:



My position on this is that there is one more than your two fundamental opportunities (both of which I agree with) for Gamist play situated at the site of Travel. Let us take your first two (with a minor amendment - italicized) and add the other:

(1) The interplay of time and resources

(2) The risk of attrition/management of liability

(3) The skillful management of the decision-space for all legs of travel/attendant obstacles which entails charting a macro course from starting point to destination and charting a micro course for legs (through varying terrain features/topography/hazards/dangers and potential discoveries so multiple, clear options are on the table for the micro course charting with the consequences for each choice being transparent or inferable) which takes into account (i) the prowess/loadout/cohorts (et al) you can marshal and (ii) winnows the consequence space to a desirable portfolio of fallout (and away from an undesirable one).

---

My italicized on your (2) and my full (3) is a huge part of GM-side skill, regardless of the system (it will manifest in particular ways though dependent upon system). If you're a GM running a Travel/Transport/Journey (etc) conflict, you need to deeply understand how these things manifest in the particular system you're running. If the system cares about Travel/Transport/Journey conflicts, these things will have gears and teeth. You need to know how to create a vital decision-space for players in which they simultaneously feel the interaction of multiple, both converging and discrete, pressure points and make this dynamic and compelling (thematically/dramatic need-wise, tactically, strategically...each of these being more or less depending upon the game) with transparent or readily inferable relationships between choices and risk and consequences.

EDIT - TO ANSWER THIS (cross-post):



I don't agree that (a) this is happening in my post nor (b) that it is reliant upon a weakness or deficiency at the social contract level or poor insight by GM.

What I am expressing is that it is a fundamental shortcoming of system. Like, take for example, the game expressing that Travel is a site of Skilled Play expression, yet it is not entirely (or even entirely not) fit for purpose.

Social contract and great insight by the GM doesn't save Gamist play from the inherent shortcomings of system. I have endless reserves of confidence in my ability to consistently (and off the cuff...I never "design"/prep them) create vital and interesting (thematically/dramatic need, tactically, strategically) Journey/Transport/Travel (etc) conflicts in a dozen variations of system. But I will not run these types of conflicts in certain systems despite that endless reserves of confidence that I have because I know for a fact I will have rely upon a level of Fiat (or Force) that negatively impacts the experience for both parties (the players and myself) and damages the integrity of the through line of their skilled play efforts.

Agree to all; save cross-post reply, which I am reflecting on [note edit]. Referring to my diagrams in the post below yours, we can add A* which is an arena of proof differentiated from A, and then answer the question

What happens when we insert J?
T > J > DAR > J > T

Of what use is Journey here? (Answered by...)
T > JA* > DAR > JA* > T

So that we gain worthwhile play from Journey. I think my 1 and your 3 may be close to the same thing (or it may need more thought to separate them.) And we might both be thinking of TB2 LMM Journey rules. I feel like the worth of those rules is partly due to a

A* --> A

information-passing relationship. It's generally the case that games with multiple arenas benefit from and lean into passing information between them. In fact, I would speculate that (multiple arenas with information passing between them) is something that differentiates modern game designs from pre-modern and ancient.

EDIT And note the dissatisfactions associated with

T > JA > DAR > JA > T

What is the point of Journey if the A is undifferentiated from that in Dungeon?

 

[clearstream]

Elisions may obscure intent: more thought required.