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

[Aldarc]

Sensing a hostile brief, I will just provide references.

Basic questions asking for concrete examples constitute being "hostile" now?

You say that ToA is more replete than X1 and the Cook/Marsh Expert Box set. This is your argument that you put forth. You say that you have read and ran both. I am taking you on your word that this is true and that you have valuable insights and arguments to make in defense of that argument. All I am asking is for you to substantiate your own argument. What in particular makes the hexploration rules of 5e more replete than those of B/X?

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.

These are page and chapter numbers that I or anyone else could find on our own, but these aren't concrete examples of rules that demonstrate that one is more "replete" than the other in regards to hexploration. However, implicit in this is the idea that "repletion" is determined by page count rather than the cohesion, clarity, or quality of those rules in cultivating the experience of hexploration.

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.

Would you mind comparing them for us then? Do you have concrete examples in mind from these relevant sections about what makes one more replete than the other? Or to frame it in another way, if that would be easier, what in particular about the hexcrawling rules and tools in X1 or B/X do you find to be a clear improvement in 5e DMG or ToA? How does 5e DMG/ToA demonstrate an improvement from X1/BX?

 

[clearstream]

Basic questions asking for concrete examples constitute being "hostile" now?

I can attest only to how your last couple of posts felt to me. I strive to listen to other views and offer principled arguments in return. (Not always successfully.)

Shall we just acknowledge that we have differing opinions and move on?

Perhaps you will eventually find time to review the sources and we can continue.

 

[kenada]

Perhaps you will eventually find time to review the sources and we can continue.

The problem I have with this is it puts all the work on the reader to understand your reasoning, but if they are (like I am) already familiar with what the PHB and DMG have to say, they’ll have already drawn a conclusion. I don’t think rereading that material is going to prove enlightening in that case.

When I look at the DMG and PHB, I see a bunch of disparate rules for handling travel and related situations (like getting lost). What I don’t see is a procedure tying all those things together. Unlike B/X, it’s left to the DM to synthesize something out of that.

I can’t comment on ToA because I don’t have that book, and I’m not buying it just for the sake of discussion. It may be that ToA does provide the missing structure. I find it rather irksome that important procedures may be hidden away in an adventure book.

Edit: Be less combative. I find this style of response frustrating.

 

[clearstream]

This isn’t how arguments work. If you make the claim, it’s on you to substantiate it. A reader can only assume by your refusal to do so that it is either false or being made in bad faith.

Ah, I see. So from my perspective I read some very bad faith takes on what I wrote earlier, so have no confidence that saying more will be productive. The chorus of likes to those takes contributes to feeling not at all likely to enjoy the process.

I was "rebutted" with adages, mottos, page counts (a facile strawman), and implied doubts as to my integrity.

As a way forward, you could identify your top priority from @Manbearcat's list, and we can compare the sources on that dimension.

 

[kenada]

As a way forward, you could identify your top priority from @Manbearcat's list, and we can compare the sources on that dimension.

I revised my post because I thought it was unhelpfully combative. See above. The part I’m missing is the procedure that ties things together. It’s something that made the Alexandrian quote on the prior page interesting because he’s criticized the lack of these procedures in 5e before, and adding structures to play seems to be a frequent theme in his adventure remixes.

 

[Aldarc]

Ah, I see. So from my perspective I read some very bad faith takes on what I wrote earlier, so have no confidence that saying more will be productive. The chorus of likes to those takes contributes to feeling not at all likely to enjoy the process.

I was "rebutted" with adages, mottos, page counts (a facile strawman), and implied doubts as to my integrity.

If you want to accuse me of "bad faith takes," then maybe don't make your own bad faith takes about mine, okay? Okay. Now imagine how it must be like on my end to be accused of hostility and "some very bad faith takes on what [you] wrote earlier." I can attest to my own lack of hostility towards you, though these accusations against me certainly put that to the test. It has left me feeling pretty flabbergasted and frustrated by the whole thing.

Consider this exchange:

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?

Sensing a hostile brief, I will just provide references.

Woah! That escalated quickly out of nothing! You established that you have run both from start to finish and reviewed both texts. You claim that one is an improvement over the other. I follow that up by asking you for examples of what concrete rules and play procedures make it an improvement. Then you jump to accusing me of being hostile from that?

But going back to an earlier post, my point with the adages and state motto (quoted in-part because of a certain degree homesickness for my homestate) is that just because something "seems" more possible/plausible that it should be more replete, doesn't mean that it "is." I get that one has a higher page count than the other. It should seem plausible/possible (our word choice here varies), but that tells us nothing concrete about the quality of the respective systems regarding hexploration or how one would be an improvement over the other. We need to investigate the claim so that we see how it is rather than how it seems. And we do so through concrete examples of the play procedures, rules, and tools in these respective games.

I can attest only to how your last couple of posts felt to me. I strive to listen to other views and offer principled arguments in return. (Not always successfully.)

If you strive to listen and offer principled arguments, then I would start by not reading hostility where there is none when I ask you for some concrete examples of what you mean by ToA being more replete than X1 and then mock me by saying that you have been "rebutted" in quotation marks with your own string of bad faith takes on my posts. I also have no earthly idea where I have implied doubts as to your integrity. When you do all that, you are far more likely to generate hostility out of nothing than defuse hostility that may have been there.

Shall we just acknowledge that we have differing opinions and move on?

Perhaps you will eventually find time to review the sources and we can continue.

It's much as @kenada says. I thought that the intent of my "last couple of posts" was pretty clear. We may have differences of opinion. We may not. I have even suggested as much earlier. We can't get around to determining that, however, because of the dancing around vague notions of the more "replete" game without concretely comparing any actual concrete rules or tools between the two. As you are the person who wants to argue that one is more replete than the other and have actual experience with running both, I'm curious about why you think so. Simply pointing to chapters and pages isn't helpful, again much for the reasons that kenada has stated. Simply pointing to chapters or pages suggests that the argument should be self-apparent. I don't think that it is. I have read the 5e PHB and DMG. I am less familiar with ToA: I have a copy, but I haven't run it.

If you want a way forward, I would suggest reviewing the below without the urge to read hostility in my post.

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?

You say that ToA is more replete than X1 and the Cook/Marsh Expert Box set. This is your argument that you put forth. You say that you have read and ran both. I am taking you on your word that this is true and that you have valuable insights and arguments to make in defense of that argument. All I am asking is for you to substantiate your own argument. What in particular makes the hexploration rules of 5e more replete than those of B/X?

These are page and chapter numbers that I or anyone else could find on our own, but these aren't concrete examples of rules that demonstrate that one is more "replete" than the other in regards to hexploration. However, implicit in this is the idea that "repletion" is determined by page count rather than the cohesion, clarity, or quality of those rules in cultivating the experience of hexploration.

Would you mind comparing them for us then? Do you have concrete examples in mind from these relevant sections about what makes one more replete than the other? Or to frame it in another way, if that would be easier, what in particular about the hexcrawling rules and tools in X1 or B/X do you find to be a clear improvement in 5e DMG or ToA? How does 5e DMG/ToA demonstrate an improvement from X1/BX?

I suspect any "chorus of likes" for these posts has far more to do with my genuine desire to move our hexploration discussion towards comparing concrete rules, tools, and play procedures between the two respective systems and aforementioned adventures using actual examples without accusations of hostility than any self-perceived slights against your own person.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You described the play in question like this:

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.​

Unless I've misunderstood, you are talking about the GM making a suggestion to the players, and the table working out how to implement it (including any revision of the existing gamestate to reflect temporal aspects) in a transparent fashion.

I think you're assuming a more interactive process than I've usually seen it to be. There's a degree of advise-and-consent present, but its usually far more top-down than your response implies. It is usually transparent (though honestly, in some cases not all that much--but that's less based on attempt to conceal than simply perception of all concerned that the improvised process is handling an element that isn't very core to what's going on so the GM decides something, and unless the player objects to the process, they do it and move on).

The main difference between this and a lot of other approaches, is its always assumed that if it violates the game-process expectations of the player(s) that its legitimate to bring up and debate the matter, rather than it being a sign of "bad play". But how much the table bothers to interact with it varies considerably as to its significance and whether they consider it to seriously damage their ability to be effective in what they're doing. "The table working out how to implement it" usually overstates how much most players will bother. Similarly, while occasionally someone will point out they wouldn't have done X if they'd have known why, there's usually no need; if the change in process is significant, its not exactly a mystery to the GM that this needs to be addressed. The only time the whole group needs to be involved is when it requires a significant roll-back needed, and its often just a case where everyone will chose to just move on.

Again, even a group with a heavy gamist preference can have multiple aims at the same time, and they'll color the degree of involvement they care to engage with questions about given on-the-fly rules addition or adjustment.

I've used that approach (in Rolemaster), mostly for rules but occasionally for information about the fiction that ought to have been conveyed but - for whatever reason - was not.

Given that it involves the GM pooling information and decision-making with the whole table, I see it as the opposite of GM-as-glue.

When actually engaged with that way, you're correct. But it being an option doesn't mean its always engaged with that way. In particular, in peripheral cases, its usually indistinguishable from GM-as-glue to a neutral observer who's not familiar with the specifics of the game culture.

 

[Thomas Shey]

* 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).

This, IME, is where hexcrawls and related outdoor experiences tend to go on the rocks; its not easy for a game system to make this part actually engaging, and in particular, to make it connected with each individual character and thus interesting to each player as an individual.

 

[Manbearcat]

@clearstream I like your most recent series of posts, but I agree with @Aldarc on both counts. I don't sense his hostility. I think you're maybe sensing incredulity? There is that (I share it), but no hostility.

I'm incredulous (like Aldarc and @kenada ) because of the following:

* I have run a metric effton of B/X and RC hexcrawls from the mid 80s until 1999 playtest of 3e (and I've run probably 400 hours or so in the last 23 years since) so I'm very, very, very acquainted with what makes that play go and with what cuts against the grain of that play and what makes that play entirely dysfunctional (when inventory and gear stop mattering and attrition starts becoming irrelevant mostly because spellcasting becomes so prolific and potent...the starting point for 5e).

* I too have read 5e's core books cover to cover (multiple times and cited them).

* From 15 through late 17 I intermittently ran 5e (as a stand-in for a flaky GM) so I got a healthy peak at its play through most all levels (and honestly...probably more true to what is in the rule system than most 5e GMs out there); albeit only with a Rogue, Fighter, and Diviner.

* I have run an attempted 5e "hexcrawl" (that is what the GM that I subbed in for was running) and it was a mess because of all the reasons I listed above. I watched this GM that I subbed for run his "hexcrawl" in his intended way and it was exactly as I described in my #3. It was basically a Force-fest + Vignette-fest + Random Encounters (awful tables filled with combats...I created my own table for his game) randomly used or not and very little in the way of gears and teeth system and a through line of integrated, consequential decision-points. His GMing looked 100 % like the GMing of 2e that I witnessed and nearly all of the testimonials of the heavily GM-directed and/or AP play that I see on ENWorld.

Resultantly, I don't see how 5e's core game can even attempt to provide functional, challenging hexcrawl play (again, to start with, overpowered low level spellcasting cuts hard against the grain of functional wildneress hexcrawling) so I'm very curious about what you're pulling from in the various APs or Setting books or whatever to provide functional, integrated hexcrawl play. I'm curious how they deal with prolific and potent spellcasting from the word "go" + how they make gear/inventory/loadout a hefty decision-space + how they frame charted courses and moves made to create a dynamic and vital gamespace + what clock they use (if any) to keep pressure up on the PCs + incentive structures to encourage exploration and discincentivize "overexploring" or engaging in resource-ablating combat + how this all deals with 5e's very sensitive Adventuring Day dynamics to ensure class balance and Team PC : Team Monster balance.

If you say its out there in supplement/setting/AP-ville then I'm here for the course correction. I'd love to know (a) what the individual puzzle pieces are and (b) how they fit together to make a consistently coherent and Gamist-chunky play loop. Yes, incredulity is my default position (given the above), but I'm more than willing to be shown that I just don't have the full picture of things. But I need you to give me the full picture (like...I've written out so_so_so many excruciatingly detailed play posts that discuss what happened, how it happened, why it happened from...you're going to have to do something like that to help me understand).

EDIT FOR TS- RESPONSE

This, IME, is where hexcrawls and related outdoor experiences tend to go on the rocks; its not easy for a game system to make this part actually engaging, and in particular, to make it connected with each individual character and thus interesting to each player as an individual.

I agree that it is not easy.

Hence why I adore certain systems that pull it off (the ones I've mentioned) and the particular ways in which they do so.

The other thing is that GMs need to work on their game when it comes to this stuff. You need to understand what the stresses are to trekking and hiking and climbing and hunting and finding/making shelter. I'm lucky that I've been a part of most all of that culture at various points in my life. But you don't have to have engaged with it directly. You can absorb enough information, watch enough consequential documentaries and media to get your brain locked into the OODA Loop of someone who is dealing with all the various hazards and stresses and needs of the untamed wild. Once you've gotten your brain around the profound variety of hardships that are faced (what they look...what it feels like to be there), you can provide a compelling, dynamic gamespace for players (assuming you've got a system that functionally supports that stuff...without it...you're left to just vignette and Force and cosplay your way there...and...well...that ain't it!).

 

[Campbell]

Tomb of Annihilation does not have hex crawl procedures. It has Survival checks to get randomly lost for a day or two. It recommends using random encounters as a pacing tool and even suggests the DM just choosing when the PCs should level. The adventure is fairly linear, although not as linear as most 5e adventure modules. The hex crawl bits ape old school hex crawls, but mostly feel more like a theme park MMO (which are a lot of fun) more than they feel like X1.

I should stress that I really like both theme park MMOs (subscribed to World of Warcraft, FFXVI, and The Old Republic) and think Tomb of Annihilation is one of Wizards better offerings. It's just not a sandbox.

I think it is a really well-designed adventure for what it is - one focused on storytelling and setting exploration (particularly setting exploration).