Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8639352" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I think these posts are liable to misunderstanding, and so I wanted to say something in response and by way of elaboration.</p><p></p><p>I feel that the key point that you make is that, in exploratory play, <em>The only way for the situation to fundamentally resolve is because the GM decides it has based on their understanding of the setting and other characters.</em> Your examples in the first quoted post of the GM ignoring their prep, or GM-facing mechanics like a NPC/creature stat block, is essentially a special case - in some contexts, but by no means all, a degenerate case - of the key point.</p><p></p><p>Your point is the same reason why <a href="http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html" target="_blank">Vincent Baker said the following</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you crack the safe?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Which is important to the resolution rules: opening the safe, or getting the dirt? That's how you tell whether it's task resolution or conflict resolution.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Task resolution is succeed/fail. Conflict resolution is win/lose. You can succeed but lose, fail but win.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">In conventional rpgs, success=winning and failure=losing only provided the GM constantly maintains that relationship - by (eg) making the safe contain the relevant piece of information after you've cracked it. It's possible and common for a GM to break the relationship instead, turning a string of successes into a loss, or a failure at a key moment into a win anyway. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">That's, if you ask me, the big problem with task resolution: whether you succeed or fail, the GM's the one who actually resolves the conflict. The dice don't, the rules don't; you're depending on the GM's mood and your relationship and all those unreliable social things the rules are supposed to even out.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Task resolution, in short, puts the GM in a position of priviledged authorship. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">"I fight him!" "Why?" "To get past him to the ship before it sails!"</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Task Resolution: do you win the fight (that is, do you fight him successfully)?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Roll: Success!</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">"You beat him! You disarm him and kick his butt!"</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">(Unresolved, left up to the GM: do you get to the ship before it sails?)</p><p></p><p>Harper's diagram illustrates the same phenomenon. So does [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s discussion, upthread, of the GM having the authority to decide whether, when the "big bad" is killed by the PCs, a lieutenant steps up into the big bad's place.</p><p></p><p>Particularly in "living, breathing worlds" the difference between <em>changing prep</em> ("I didn't prep a lieutenant") and <em>adding to prep</em> by following the logic of setting and/or genre ("Of course the bad guy would have a number two who fills the power vacuum!") can be a pretty slight one.</p><p></p><p>Ignoring or adding to a stat block might seem more outrageous, but consider that - in some approaches to D&D, at least - the stat block includes the NPC's equipment. Adding a length of rope, or some small change, or a parachute, or whatever, because "it makes sense that they would have that!" is pretty similar to adding the lieutenant, and I think is not at all unorthodox on mainstream approaches to RPGing.</p><p></p><p>See my examples just above. I think you're underestimating the scope and force of [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]'s point, and confining your attention only to degenerate cases.</p><p></p><p>I think this misses [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]'s point. He is not talking about the lumpley principle - ie that system is established by agreement.</p><p></p><p>He is talking about <em>the nature of the system that is established</em>. And his point is that any system that depends upon the GM deciding when the situation resolves is one in which the player-side mechanics lack real teeth. They might decide things in a moment of play - to use Baker's examples, whether the safe gets opened or whether the duelling PC disarms him and kicks his butt - but they don't decide which way the situation resolves. The GM has to decide that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8639352, member: 42582"] I think these posts are liable to misunderstanding, and so I wanted to say something in response and by way of elaboration. I feel that the key point that you make is that, in exploratory play, [i]The only way for the situation to fundamentally resolve is because the GM decides it has based on their understanding of the setting and other characters.[/i] Your examples in the first quoted post of the GM ignoring their prep, or GM-facing mechanics like a NPC/creature stat block, is essentially a special case - in some contexts, but by no means all, a degenerate case - of the key point. Your point is the same reason why [url=http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html]Vincent Baker said the following[/url]: [indent]In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you crack the safe? In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain? Which is important to the resolution rules: opening the safe, or getting the dirt? That's how you tell whether it's task resolution or conflict resolution. Task resolution is succeed/fail. Conflict resolution is win/lose. You can succeed but lose, fail but win. In conventional rpgs, success=winning and failure=losing only provided the GM constantly maintains that relationship - by (eg) making the safe contain the relevant piece of information after you've cracked it. It's possible and common for a GM to break the relationship instead, turning a string of successes into a loss, or a failure at a key moment into a win anyway. . . . That's, if you ask me, the big problem with task resolution: whether you succeed or fail, the GM's the one who actually resolves the conflict. The dice don't, the rules don't; you're depending on the GM's mood and your relationship and all those unreliable social things the rules are supposed to even out. Task resolution, in short, puts the GM in a position of priviledged authorship. . . . "I fight him!" "Why?" "To get past him to the ship before it sails!" Task Resolution: do you win the fight (that is, do you fight him successfully)? Roll: Success! "You beat him! You disarm him and kick his butt!" (Unresolved, left up to the GM: do you get to the ship before it sails?)[/indent] Harper's diagram illustrates the same phenomenon. So does [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s discussion, upthread, of the GM having the authority to decide whether, when the "big bad" is killed by the PCs, a lieutenant steps up into the big bad's place. Particularly in "living, breathing worlds" the difference between [i]changing prep[/i] ("I didn't prep a lieutenant") and [i]adding to prep[/i] by following the logic of setting and/or genre ("Of course the bad guy would have a number two who fills the power vacuum!") can be a pretty slight one. Ignoring or adding to a stat block might seem more outrageous, but consider that - in some approaches to D&D, at least - the stat block includes the NPC's equipment. Adding a length of rope, or some small change, or a parachute, or whatever, because "it makes sense that they would have that!" is pretty similar to adding the lieutenant, and I think is not at all unorthodox on mainstream approaches to RPGing. See my examples just above. I think you're underestimating the scope and force of [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]'s point, and confining your attention only to degenerate cases. I think this misses [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]'s point. He is not talking about the lumpley principle - ie that system is established by agreement. He is talking about [i]the nature of the system that is established[/i]. And his point is that any system that depends upon the GM deciding when the situation resolves is one in which the player-side mechanics lack real teeth. They might decide things in a moment of play - to use Baker's examples, whether the safe gets opened or whether the duelling PC disarms him and kicks his butt - but they don't decide which way the situation resolves. The GM has to decide that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top