Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8648876" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I was interested in a few questions based on (i) your prior postings and (ii) your exchange with [USER=70468]@kenada[/USER] :1)  What exactly is the "consequence resolution" you're envisioning?2)  How is it differentiated from Fail Forward (as that is what it looked like you were envisioning)?3)  How does it comport to 5e's action resolution order of operations?4)  And, because this thread is about "Is D&D Gamist(?)", I was hoping to use your responses as a springboard for subsequent conversation.  That subsequent conversation would entail:* What is the cognitive workspace inherent to your multi-layered 5e rulings (because they're multi-layered when it comes to GM role in mediation) because how you think and how that thinking is integrated with the rest of system is a huge tell on what play priorities that thinking is serving.* How can the player's "move" be leveraged for subsequent (skillful) play?* What play priorities does that leverage (or lackthereof if its ultimately just color) support?[HR][/HR]So, to that end, I invite you to revisit the initial post 1966.  There are a S-ton of questions.  Its not a single question.  Its a lot.And again, it was just an opening to start a discussion on the matter to get to subsequent, collective introspection on these issues.But what ended up happening was multiple posters (yourself included initially - though you resolved it later) stated that the exercise couldn't be performed "without context." Now that response alone tells me a lot. It tells me that yourself and the other posters are orientated toward a cognitive workspace that serves and demands Simulationism priorities. You can't engage with the exercise because you're running games based (in large part or wholly) on some formulation of GM conception of and extrapolation of setting + hidden or revealed backstory +fiction to date + causality.  So what I did next is I wrote a significantly detailed post using RC's game engine/procedures to not only (a) answer my own question but then (b) going that extra step (which is where the conversation would have gone next if my initial several questions would have been answered) to show how Gamism emerges and is leveraged in play to discern skillfulness of play.I can do that because my orientation to running games and talking about games isn't tethered to GM conception of and extrapolation of setting + hidden or revealed backstory +fiction to date + causality.  Its tethered to game engine/procedures and how that creates the playing of the game.And I think this distinction illuminates why a lot of folks on ENWorld et al typically decline these types of conversations and say things like "this is all white room theory."  Its because their orientation to thinking about play and actually running games is tethered to GM conception of and extrapolation of setting + hidden or revealed backstory +fiction to date + causality rather than game engine/procedures and how that creates the playing of the game.My guess is this also explains why overwhelmingly people on ENWorld don't find any use in post-mortem of detailed play excerpts.  Because they aren't talking about TTRPGs (and D&D in particular) as games/game engines/play procedures + the play that those things produce (or fail to produce).  They see TTRPGs as the experiential quality of "being there" with respect to the simulation/setting/metaplot (if you're the player) or (if they're the GM) GM conception of and extrapolation of setting + hidden or revealed backstory +fiction to date + causality .Finally, I think this neatly shows the divide on "system matters" vs "system (mostly or wholly) doesn't matter."</blockquote>

Verification