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: 8650041" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>There are two main ways of ensuring this "iconic part of any plot".</p><p></p><p>Here's one:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]249646[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>To elaborate: the GM exercises their authority over content to declare that the safe is empty. When the players succeed in their declaration <em>I open the safe</em> - which might be in virtue of a successful roll, or might be because the GM just says "OK" - the GM announces the safe is empty.</p><p></p><p>Here's another:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]249647[/ATTACH]</p><p>To elaborate, by reference to the first grey bubble and the green "situation resolves":</p><p></p><p>In the first scene, the PCs shake down an informant. An appropriate check is made, which succeeds and thereby resolves the immediate conflict: the players establish that the dirt is in the safe. (There are a variety of systems that can apply here: Classic Traveller-style Streetwise; Marvel Heroic RP resource creation; Apocalypse World-style Go Aggro or Seduce/Manipulate; 4e skill challenge; etc.)</p><p></p><p>In the second scene, the PCs break into the safe. An appropriate check is made, which fails and thereby resolves the immediate conflict: the players open the safe but find it empty - the documents have been moved! (This is what Apocalypse World would call a <em>hard move</em>. It is feasible in a variety of systems.)</p><p></p><p>Now the situation pertaining to the dirt in the safe is resolved. It's been moved - the players will have to have their PC try a different way, or else will have to start again from scratch to try and find the dirt.</p><p></p><p>Notice how the approach modelled in this second diagram doesn't permit the "iconic part of any plot" to occur <em>if the players succeed on their check to have their PCs open the safe</em>. Which is Vincent Baker's point in his contrast between conflict resolution and task resolution.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This claim is just wrong. Campbell has explained why:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Substituting "Harper" for "Baker" in Campbell's statement doesn't change its truth.</p><p></p><p>What those two are saying has nothing to do with what is in game texts. It has nothing to do with <em>what is written down</em>. It is about the actual techniques, processes, expectations etc that operate at the table.</p><p></p><p>In the example of the safe, <em>if the players are not able to exercise content authority</em> at some point, in some fashion, then the resolution of the situation - of the "conflict" - depends on the GM making a decision that will resolve it. <em>That</em> is what is represented by the purple <em>GM fiat</em> component in the diagram. There are various points at which the GM's decision might be made (eg in advance, as part of preparing a map and key; or in the moment, by making a decision about what the PCs find in the safe). But it has to happen at some point.</p><p></p><p>This is the <em>privileged authorship</em> that Baker refers to.</p><p>.</p><p></p><p>Yes there is! To quote the bit where you deny Campbell's point: "Harper's right-hand diagram is adduced toward a conclusion about the second arrangement; i.e. that resolution is correlated with player intention only if the game text includes system and principles." That's a denial of the fact that Harper and Baker are not talking about texts. They are talking about the ways actual people actually do stuff.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think this understates the point.</p><p></p><p>A chess player who knocks over the board when they are losing is not cheating, and is not making a move in chess. They are just wrecking.</p><p></p><p>Suppose instead of knocking over the board, they just shift the square their king is in, so as to improve their position. That would be cheating if they first distract the other player ("Look, what's that over there!") and then hope the player won't notice what they've done. Though it's pretty crude cheating, unless the other player is very inexperienced and hence can't remember the position of the pieces on the board after just a few seconds of looking away.</p><p></p><p>Done flagrantly in front of the other player, it's not <em>cheating</em>. It's wrecking or in some contexts perhaps pleading or supplication or asking for a do-over. However exactly we describe it, it's not a move in the game of chess.</p><p></p><p>Turning from chess to RPGing: If an exercise of content authority by a player has established that certain documents ("the dirt") are contained in a certain safe, and then the GM subsequently purports to narrate that the safe is empty of documents, the GM is not cheating, nor making a move in the game. They are wrecking, or pleading, or supplicating. They are asking everyone to agree to a change in the shared fiction not on the basis of any process of play but just because the GM wants the fiction to be different.</p><p></p><p>It's a type of pathology in the analysis of RPGing that some people seem to look at that sort of behaviour from GMs differently from how they would look at it in the context of chess.</p><p></p><p></p><p>We can unpack the purple <em>GM fiat</em> step in the right-hand diagram in various ways (say, running ToH compared to running Dead Gods).</p><p></p><p>But no one in this thread seems to be advocating a classic dungeoncrawling approach to play; the closest I've seen is [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s articulation of classic D&D hexcrawling.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8650041, member: 42582"] There are two main ways of ensuring this "iconic part of any plot". Here's one: [ATTACH type="full" alt="1653949241925.png"]249646[/ATTACH] To elaborate: the GM exercises their authority over content to declare that the safe is empty. When the players succeed in their declaration [I]I open the safe[/I] - which might be in virtue of a successful roll, or might be because the GM just says "OK" - the GM announces the safe is empty. Here's another: [ATTACH type="full" alt="1653949341064.png"]249647[/ATTACH] To elaborate, by reference to the first grey bubble and the green "situation resolves": In the first scene, the PCs shake down an informant. An appropriate check is made, which succeeds and thereby resolves the immediate conflict: the players establish that the dirt is in the safe. (There are a variety of systems that can apply here: Classic Traveller-style Streetwise; Marvel Heroic RP resource creation; Apocalypse World-style Go Aggro or Seduce/Manipulate; 4e skill challenge; etc.) In the second scene, the PCs break into the safe. An appropriate check is made, which fails and thereby resolves the immediate conflict: the players open the safe but find it empty - the documents have been moved! (This is what Apocalypse World would call a [I]hard move[/I]. It is feasible in a variety of systems.) Now the situation pertaining to the dirt in the safe is resolved. It's been moved - the players will have to have their PC try a different way, or else will have to start again from scratch to try and find the dirt. Notice how the approach modelled in this second diagram doesn't permit the "iconic part of any plot" to occur [I]if the players succeed on their check to have their PCs open the safe[/I]. Which is Vincent Baker's point in his contrast between conflict resolution and task resolution. This claim is just wrong. Campbell has explained why: Substituting "Harper" for "Baker" in Campbell's statement doesn't change its truth. What those two are saying has nothing to do with what is in game texts. It has nothing to do with [I]what is written down[/I]. It is about the actual techniques, processes, expectations etc that operate at the table. In the example of the safe, [I]if the players are not able to exercise content authority[/I] at some point, in some fashion, then the resolution of the situation - of the "conflict" - depends on the GM making a decision that will resolve it. [I]That[/I] is what is represented by the purple [I]GM fiat[/I] component in the diagram. There are various points at which the GM's decision might be made (eg in advance, as part of preparing a map and key; or in the moment, by making a decision about what the PCs find in the safe). But it has to happen at some point. This is the [I]privileged authorship[/I] that Baker refers to. . Yes there is! To quote the bit where you deny Campbell's point: "Harper's right-hand diagram is adduced toward a conclusion about the second arrangement; i.e. that resolution is correlated with player intention only if the game text includes system and principles." That's a denial of the fact that Harper and Baker are not talking about texts. They are talking about the ways actual people actually do stuff. I think this understates the point. A chess player who knocks over the board when they are losing is not cheating, and is not making a move in chess. They are just wrecking. Suppose instead of knocking over the board, they just shift the square their king is in, so as to improve their position. That would be cheating if they first distract the other player ("Look, what's that over there!") and then hope the player won't notice what they've done. Though it's pretty crude cheating, unless the other player is very inexperienced and hence can't remember the position of the pieces on the board after just a few seconds of looking away. Done flagrantly in front of the other player, it's not [I]cheating[/I]. It's wrecking or in some contexts perhaps pleading or supplication or asking for a do-over. However exactly we describe it, it's not a move in the game of chess. Turning from chess to RPGing: If an exercise of content authority by a player has established that certain documents ("the dirt") are contained in a certain safe, and then the GM subsequently purports to narrate that the safe is empty of documents, the GM is not cheating, nor making a move in the game. They are wrecking, or pleading, or supplicating. They are asking everyone to agree to a change in the shared fiction not on the basis of any process of play but just because the GM wants the fiction to be different. It's a type of pathology in the analysis of RPGing that some people seem to look at that sort of behaviour from GMs differently from how they would look at it in the context of chess. We can unpack the purple [I]GM fiat[/i] step in the right-hand diagram in various ways (say, running ToH compared to running Dead Gods). But no one in this thread seems to be advocating a classic dungeoncrawling approach to play; the closest I've seen is [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s articulation of classic D&D hexcrawling. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top