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

[Aldarc]

X1 adds a hex map replete with evocative detail, yet ToA is even more replete.

So you're saying that a 256 page hardback book is more replete than a 38 page module?

 

[clearstream]

I tend to agree with @Manbearcat that what you're really describing here is a type of simulationism - a type of feel-oriented, exploration-oriented play. That is, you're describing an approach to play where the game aspires to reliably deliver the feel of victory, not one in which the player has to step on up.

This is independent, by the way, of wargame-y crunch. Craps is as much step-on-up as is chess.

Is it right then to say a player's creative agenda is what they commit to doing, and not what they aim to experience?

Suppose the former. I feel like that cannot be applied as a binary, but must exist in degree. By asking questions like

• Is playing chess casually playing chess gamistly? What about craps?
• Are games necessarily less gamist if they take into account differences in ability?
• Is there an account of why it must be all or nothing?
• Is a weaker performance less gamist than a stronger one?
• Can inept players have gamist agendas?
• Can a player who misunderstands some rules still have a gamist agenda?

What I am thinking most about is something like this.

• As a game designer, I decide to craft a game I hope will appeal to those with a gamist creative agenda
• Surveying my audience, I see they want to engage with performance at risk, but they are not zealots in that regard: they only want to put moderate effort in and yet still value it
• I design a game that can be approached with a gamist agenda by someone willing to put only moderate effort in

I design for a broad audience, with a range of capabilities and interest in effort. Craps, not chess. So then what I'm identifying is that audience (often called casual, although they can be passionate in their adoption of a game.)

Wargamers might call them lazy or inept. Does that exclude them from being gamist?

 

[clearstream]

So you're saying that a 256 page hardback book is more replete than a 38 page module?

Yup. That's what I'm saying. It seems plausible, right?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Actually, The GNS model does have a name for this type of thing. It's Incoherent, and if you happen to like them you have brain damage

Sorry to potentially bring up this chestnut again, but I'm pretty sure the discussion didn't get here and I don't feel like a discussion about using the GNS model is complete without my uhh... favorite part of it, shall we say.

Oh, he actually said that! Well, I guess it is informative to see the smug condescending elitism that comes across as subtext in a lot of Edwards' writing confirmed in actual text...

 

[Aldarc]

Yup. That's what I'm saying. It seems plausible, right?

I don't know about plausible, but it is possible; however, I would prefer not conflating verbosity with repletion. Sometimes less is more, especially since teaching tools and advice can get easily lost and bogged down in excess details. After all, I have never heard people online talk about how good the advice in 5e DMG or ToA is for running hex crawls. IME, usually past D&D editions or other D&D-adjacent games get referenced instead. So the appearance of either 5e DMG and/or ToA being "replete" may be deceptive. My preferences in this matter lean more towards "esse quam videri," to borrow from the North Carolina state motto: i.e., "to be, rather than to seem." As such, I suspect that X1 is procedurally tighter and easier to run than ToA, though your tastes and opinions may vary.

If I had any sway at WotC, I would suggest making the upcoming Starter Set: Dragons of Stormwreck Isle as an initial tool for teaching how to run and create hexcrawls while also introducing the game.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't know about plausible, but it is possible; however, I would prefer not conflating verbosity with repletion. Sometimes less is more, especially since teaching tools and advice can get easily lost and bogged down in excess details. After all, I have never heard people online talk about how good the advice in 5e DMG or ToA is for running hex crawls. IME, usually past D&D editions or other D&D-adjacent games get referenced intstead. So the appearance of either 5e DMG and/or ToA being "replete" may be deceptive. My preferences in this matter lean more towards "esse quam videri," to borrow from the North Carolina state motto: i.e., "to be, rather than to seem." As such, I suspect that X1 is procedurally tighter and easier to run than ToA, though your tastes and opinions may vary.

If I had any sway at WotC, I would suggest making the upcoming Starter Set: Dragons of Stormwreck Isle as an initial tool for teaching how to run and create hexcrawls while also introducing the game.

Here is what I expect (bare minimum) from a functional, integrated (these two are the words that matter...having a "pile of stuff" does not yield an actual functional, integrated play experience...its actually quite the opposite - until someone has done the integrating and stress-tested it) hexcrawl experience. In no particular order:

* Gear/inventory loadout and encumbrance management matters.

* PC build suites don't obviate play from the word go. In D&D-land, this means spellcasters so I'm looking at you At-Will Cantrips and Rituals.

* Exploration Turns or Travel Leg management is (a) rigorously and consequentially codified and integrated with both the game engine at large and PC build features and (b) is easy to use.

* The play loop for managing hex travel is clearly written, easily to GM principally and with discipline, and contains an interesting and vital play space (charting a course is a consequential menu of choices where you're integrating risk/reward + playing off of the resources you can martial to best manage the hexes' dangers + winnowing your post-resolution consequence-space).

* There is a functional clock that serves as a continuous pressure-cooker, strategic/tactical input for player decision-space (in B/X this is Wandering Monters...Torchbearer this is The Grind) as it looms heavily over play.

* There is an optional camp phase for active decision-points about recovery (Torchbearer model) or mandatory rest/respite after x Turns (this is 4 in B/X) and that doesn't pose an integration puzzle to solve with other game tech (eg the Short Rest of 5e and its implications upon play).

* Functional NPC Reaction adjustment and Morale rules.

* Functional reward cycles/incentive structure paradigm; eg xp is best earned via attaining Gold and avoiding resource-draining combats and hazards. Or xp bonus is earned for each Hex explored or for uncovering or resolving particular Discoveries within a hex.

* There aren't other system confounds baked in (eg PC power level/Adventuring Day throughput and nova capability contingent upon a particular resource attrition schedule because of the deep disparity in resource scheduling and attendant power) that you have to either (a) bake into GM decision-making when creating the hexmap and tables or (b) its just a nonstarter so you have to start with rejiggering PC build stuff or the default rest dynamics of the game.

---

I don't remotely see how 5e is a good system for hexcrawls. The DMG has some very basic, not-well (or at all) integrated stuff, is missing/ leaves out an enormous swathe of Hexcrawl loop game tech stuff that is needed to create actual compelling Hexcrawl play and there is little to no actual instruction on the how or the why, and has tons of confounds baked in (mega powerful At Wills Spells is a nonstarter!).

Like that loop depicted on that Avernus thing (I'm assuming an AP or something)? @clearstream , with respect, that is just awful. There is no actual game there. My Perilous Journeys in Dungeon World and Stonetop contain vastly more intensive journey-based play.

Before setting out:

* Players are making consequential decisions to Requisition assets or not.

* Players are making consequential loadout decisions.

* Players are charting a macro course.

"In the Field":

* Players are making consequential leg-based:

* Role decisions (who is doing what).

* Course charted decisions (from a menu of choices I provide they choose how to "attack" and hedge risk with regard to the topography/potential threats and hazards/potential discoveries...or they give me an "off-menu" option and we nail that down and go with that).

* Role intra-move resolution decisions (martialing resources to amplify and choosing options based on their move results).

* Extra-Role move decisions (like Forage or Find Shelter) and resolving those.

* Dealing with the fallout of their moves (finding Discoveries and exploring them or dealing with Dangers/Hazard scenes as they emerge as a result of move resolution).

* Dealing with Make Camp related decisions and the if danger/discovery manifests in the night.

EDIT - @darkbard , @Nephis . Contrast the below 5e DIA with our Journey loop for your DW and ST games. @hawkeyefan , @Ovinomancer , contrast with our Blades Transport play loop or ST Journey loop. @AbdulAlhazred , @kenada , @niklinna , contrast the below with either our Journeys or our Wilderness Adventures in Torchbearer. "Not much there" doesn't quite do it justice, yeah?

Using the map to chart a course from one location to another is unreliable at best… When charting a course through Avernus, ask the player whose character is overseeing navigation to roll two dice:

• Roll 2d4 if the characters are traveling to an unvisited destination marked on their map.
• Roll 2d8 if the characters are returning to a destination they’ve visited previously.
• Roll 2d10 if a native guide is leading the characters to their destination.

If the rolls of both dice don’t match, the characters arrive at their destination as intended. If the dice match, they wind up somewhere else: pick one of the other locations.

---

That is a hell of a lot of "play" and it isn't even close to the primary point of play (whereby, in Hexcrawling, its the biggest overall piece of the pie of play or at least equal to Delving)!

By contrast, that Avernus "procedure" is a giant nothingburger of mostly non-play! Maybe we're missing a whole swath of chunky play in the loop...but that looks like the most tacked-on, barely qualifying as vestigial Journey play loop that I could conceive of. Its bordering on GM Prompt territory.

 

[clearstream]

I don't know about plausible, but it is possible; however, I would prefer not conflating verbosity with repletion. Sometimes less is more, especially since teaching tools and advice can get easily lost and bogged down in excess details. After all, I have never heard people online talk about how good the advice in 5e DMG or ToA is for running hex crawls. IME, usually past D&D editions or other D&D-adjacent games get referenced instead. So the appearance of either 5e DMG and/or ToA being "replete" may be deceptive. My preferences in this matter lean more towards "esse quam videri," to borrow from the North Carolina state motto: i.e., "to be, rather than to seem." As such, I suspect that X1 is procedurally tighter and easier to run than ToA, though your tastes and opinions may vary.

Based on having DM'd both start to finish, and a recent review of the texts, my opinion is that the 5e hexcrawl in ToA is improved over X1. Hardly surprising given all that has been learned in between, and the possibly larger budgets.

By comparison, the Tomb of Nine Gods (also in ToA) stands out as a self-indulgent piece of dreadful game design.

If I had any sway at WotC, I would suggest making the upcoming Starter Set: Dragons of Stormwreck Isle as an initial tool for teaching how to run and create hexcrawls while also introducing the game.

I agree with you that there is a great opportunity to provide DMs guidance from the outset. And not of the elliptical - "you may find" - sort that typifies the edition!

What would be ideal is if official publications explained multiple frameworks. Too much to hope, probably.

 

[clearstream]

Here is what I expect (bare minimum) from a functional, integrated (these two are the words that matter...having a "pile of stuff" does not yield an actual functional, integrated play experience...its actually quite the opposite - until someone has done the integrating and stress-tested it) hexcrawl experience. In no particular order:

* Gear/inventory loadout and encumbrance management matters.

* PC build suites don't obviate play from the word go. In D&D-land, this means spellcasters so I'm looking at you At-Will Cantrips and Rituals.

* Exploration Turns or Travel Leg management is (a) rigorously and consequentially codified and integrated with both the game engine at large and PC build features and (b) is easy to use.

* The play loop for managing hex travel is clearly written, easily to GM principally and with discipline, and contains an interesting and vital play space (charting a course is a consequential menu of choices where you're integrating risk/reward + playing off of the resources you can martial to best manage the hexes' dangers + winnowing your post-resolution consequence-space).

* There is a functional clock that serves as a continuous pressure-cooker, strategic/tactical input for player decision-space (in B/X this is Wandering Monters...Torchbearer this is The Grind) as it looms heavily over play.

* There is an optional camp phase for active decision-points about recovery (Torchbearer model) or mandatory rest/respite after x Turns (this is 4 in B/X) and that doesn't pose an integration puzzle to solve with other game tech (eg the Short Rest of 5e and its implications upon play).

* Functional NPC Reaction adjustment and Morale rules.

* Functional reward cycles/incentive structure paradigm; eg xp is best earned via attaining Gold and avoiding resource-draining combats and hazards. Or xp bonus is earned for each Hex explored or for uncovering or resolving particular Discoveries within a hex.

* There aren't other system confounds baked in (eg PC power level/Adventuring Day throughput and nova capability contingent upon a particular resource attrition schedule because of the deep disparity in resource scheduling and attendant power) that you have to either (a) bake into GM decision-making when creating the hexmap and tables or (b) its just a nonstarter so you have to start with rejiggering PC build stuff or the default rest dynamics of the game.

---

I don't remotely see how 5e is a good system for hexcrawls. The DMG has some very basic, not-well (or at all) integrated stuff, is missing/ leaves out an enormous swathe of Hexcrawl loop game tech stuff that is needed to create actual compelling Hexcrawl play and there is little to no actual instruction on the how or the why, and has tons of confounds baked in (mega powerful At Wills Spells is a nonstarter!).

Like that loop depicted on that Avernus thing (I'm assuming an AP or something)? @clearstream , with respect, that is just awful. There is no actual game there. My Perilous Journeys in Dungeon World and Stonetop contain vastly more intensive journey-based play.

Before setting out:

* Players are making consequential decisions to Requisition assets or not.

* Players are making consequential loadout decisions.

* Players are charting a macro course.

"In the Field":

* Players are making consequential leg-based:

* Role decisions (who is doing what).

* Course charted decisions (from a menu of choices I provide they choose how to "attack" and hedge risk with regard to the topography/potential threats and hazards/potential discoveries...or they give me an "off-menu" option and we nail that down and go with that).

* Role intra-move resolution decisions (choosing options based on their move results).

* Extra-Role move decisions (like Forage or Find Shelter) and resolving those.

* Dealing with the fallout of their moves (finding Discoveries and exploring them or dealing with Dangers/Hazard scenes as they emerge as a result of move resolution).

* Dealing with Make Camp related decisions and the if danger/discovery manifests in the night.

EDIT - @darkbard , @Nephis . Contrast the below 5e DIA with our Journey loop for your DW and ST games. @hawkeyefan , @Ovinomancer , contrast with our Blades Transport play loop or ST Journey loop. @AbdulAlhazred , @kenada , @niklinna , contrast the below with either our Journeys or our Wilderness Adventures in Torchbearer. "Not much there" doesn't quite do it justice, yeah?

---

That is a hell of a lot of "play" and it isn't even close to the primary point of play (whereby, in Hexcrawling, its the biggest overall piece of the pie of play or at least equal to Delving)!

By contrast, that Avernus "procedure" is a giant nothingburger of mostly non-play! Maybe we're missing a whole swath of chunky play in the loop...but that looks like the most tacked-on, barely qualifying as vestigial Journey play loop that I could conceive of. Its bordering on GM Prompt territory.

Regarding hexcrawl, the pieces are in DMG, but the framework is in ToA. [Agreed it would be better to see the whole framework in one place!]

Regarding DiA, yes, that was rather my point. The Alexandrian suggests journey was consciously excised from DiA. I cannot say to what ends, having never played through it.

 

[Aldarc]

Based on having DM'd both start to finish, and a recent review of the texts, my opinion is that the 5e hexcrawl in ToA is improved over X1. Hardly surprising given all that has been learned in between, and the possibly larger budgets.

So what concrete rules make ToA more "replete" than X1 for running hexcrawls? What are the procedures and loops in ToA that make it better than X1 (or B/X) for running hexcrawls?

 

[clearstream]

So what concrete rules make ToA more "replete" than X1 for running hexcrawls? What are the procedures and loops in ToA that make it better than X1 (or B/X) for running hexcrawls?

Sensing a hostile brief, I will just provide references.

For mechanics used in hexploration, you can find the Expert rules on pages 20 and 21, and X1 pages 4 and 5. The 5e rules are in DMG chapter 5 and 8, in PHB chapters 7 and 8, and ToA chapter 2. Also the PHB appendices for conditions.

For me, a criticism of the 5e rules here is that you have to know virtually the whole game text to know what is available in the system!

If setting content is also at issue, the rest of X1 is relevant, while I'd say only chapters 1-5 and part of the introduction in ToA. (The Tomb being self-contained.) Both have maps, items, NPCs, and creatures that can be compared.