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
With the Holy Trinity out, let's take stock of 5E
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: 6468682" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I find the comparison to Mastermind quite unhelpful. Mastermind is, literally, a code-breaking game: the "referee" creates a hidden pattern, the "player" takes goes at guessing it, and is given strictly-defined feedback by the GM after each attempt.</p><p></p><p>D&D differes from Mastermind at almost every point. The GM does not literally create a hidden pattern, but rather draws a dungeon map and writes up a description of it. The players do not try and <em>guess </em>the GM's dungeon map. Rather, they describe their PCs entering and exploring the dungeon, and the GM is obliged to describe what the PCs can see. There is no need for the PCs to try and reconstruct the map from oblique clues (as in Mastermind).</p><p></p><p>when a player declares thats/he has rolled a 6 on the initiative die, what pattern is being deciphered?</p></blockquote><p>The distributive pattern of a 6-sided die roll is being learned.[/quote]Nonsense. A person doesn't learn ("decipher") the distributive pattern of a die roll by checking for initiative. You learn that by reading a maths textbook, or from Gygax's discussion of dice probabilities on pp 9-10 of his DMG.</p><p></p><p>Rolling for initiative isn't about deciphering any sort of pattern. It's about determining a mechanical game-state, in this particular case for the distribution of turns within a combat. An analgoue is found in the late-70s Toltoys boardgame "Battlestar Galactica", that I have been playing recently with my older daughter. In that game, when you launch laser torpedoes against your opponents, you roll a d6 (or, if your gameboard is still intact, you spin the spinner with numbers 1 to 6) to see how many shots you get. That is not "pattern-recognition" either - the pattern-recognition already took place, when you decided that now was a good time to spend your <em>laser torpedoes</em> card.</p><p></p><p>This simply illustrates that not all games are identical in their underlying structure. Some do not have randomly-determined game states (eg chess, Mastermind). Some use randomisation to determine the parameters of the players' moves (eg backgammon, ludo and many other race games) - choosing moves involves "pattern recognition", but rolling the dice isn't an exercise in pattern recognition. Some games use randomisation to allocate turns - rolling for initiative, or to see how many shots of laser torpedoes are permitted, is like this. It's not pattern recognition either.</p><p></p><p>As I have asked before, where does this "code" come from? Who writes it? When?</p><p></p><p>And, as I have stated before, the number of permissible player action declarations is, for practical purposes, unlimited. Hence it impossible for the GM to write, in advance, a "code" for resolving all of these.</p><p></p><p>I've given several examples upthread where the rulebooks do not provide any "code": using a hammer and piton to smash a winch so that a portcullis will quickly drop down; hurling a mug onto a floor so that it shatters, making a noise; jumping a 10' wide pit.</p><p></p><p>Here is another example: a player turns up with "bag of knucklebones" written on his PC sheet. The GM has never before thought about the significance of knucklebones in the game. Then the player's PC meets a goblin, ends up in freindly conversation, and challenges the goblin to a friendly game of knucklebones for a silver piece stake. How do we work out who wins the game of knucklebones. Where is the relevant "code" to be found?</p><p></p><p>I think the first instinct for many GMs would be opposed DEX checks (or a straight DEX score comparison). But what is the DEX of a goblin?</p><p></p><p>Many people, including me, describe this as <em>action resolution</em>, meaning the resolution (= determining the outcome of) a player's action declaration.</p><p></p><p>With what authority do you assert that Gygax is breaking the rules, when he wrote them? What rule is he breaking? Where is this rule stated?</p><p></p><p>No. You said all these things will be on the referee's map. I asked you to point me to a map containing a piton or a mug. Heck, point me to a map with a portcullis that also indicates where the portcullis winch mechanism is located.</p><p></p><p>I don't admit that purely imaginary things exist: that would be straightforwardly contradictory. They are not "their own actuality" (whatever that is meant to mean). They aren't real.</p><p></p><p>There is a very extensive technical literature on reasoning about imaginary things: the literature on counterfactuals; the literature on paraconsistent logics; the literature on fictionalism. But we don't need to engage with that literature to see what is going on in typical RPG play.</p><p></p><p>I gave an example in a talk I gave at a conference earlier this year: speaking to my audience, I said - Suppose that this room was quite a bit smaller than it is; and suppose that there were a hippopotamus in it. Then either there would be fewer of us in the room than there currently are, or alternatively some of us would be squashed.</p><p></p><p>That is an example of reasoning about the imaginary - an imaginary hippopotamus filling an imagined room. It is very commonplace for human beings to engage in that sort of reasoning. D&D referees, in particular, have to be quite good at it if they are going to do their job well.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6468682, member: 42582"] I find the comparison to Mastermind quite unhelpful. Mastermind is, literally, a code-breaking game: the "referee" creates a hidden pattern, the "player" takes goes at guessing it, and is given strictly-defined feedback by the GM after each attempt. D&D differes from Mastermind at almost every point. The GM does not literally create a hidden pattern, but rather draws a dungeon map and writes up a description of it. The players do not try and [I]guess [/I]the GM's dungeon map. Rather, they describe their PCs entering and exploring the dungeon, and the GM is obliged to describe what the PCs can see. There is no need for the PCs to try and reconstruct the map from oblique clues (as in Mastermind). when a player declares thats/he has rolled a 6 on the initiative die, what pattern is being deciphered?[/quote]The distributive pattern of a 6-sided die roll is being learned.[/quote]Nonsense. A person doesn't learn ("decipher") the distributive pattern of a die roll by checking for initiative. You learn that by reading a maths textbook, or from Gygax's discussion of dice probabilities on pp 9-10 of his DMG. Rolling for initiative isn't about deciphering any sort of pattern. It's about determining a mechanical game-state, in this particular case for the distribution of turns within a combat. An analgoue is found in the late-70s Toltoys boardgame "Battlestar Galactica", that I have been playing recently with my older daughter. In that game, when you launch laser torpedoes against your opponents, you roll a d6 (or, if your gameboard is still intact, you spin the spinner with numbers 1 to 6) to see how many shots you get. That is not "pattern-recognition" either - the pattern-recognition already took place, when you decided that now was a good time to spend your [I]laser torpedoes[/I] card. This simply illustrates that not all games are identical in their underlying structure. Some do not have randomly-determined game states (eg chess, Mastermind). Some use randomisation to determine the parameters of the players' moves (eg backgammon, ludo and many other race games) - choosing moves involves "pattern recognition", but rolling the dice isn't an exercise in pattern recognition. Some games use randomisation to allocate turns - rolling for initiative, or to see how many shots of laser torpedoes are permitted, is like this. It's not pattern recognition either. As I have asked before, where does this "code" come from? Who writes it? When? And, as I have stated before, the number of permissible player action declarations is, for practical purposes, unlimited. Hence it impossible for the GM to write, in advance, a "code" for resolving all of these. I've given several examples upthread where the rulebooks do not provide any "code": using a hammer and piton to smash a winch so that a portcullis will quickly drop down; hurling a mug onto a floor so that it shatters, making a noise; jumping a 10' wide pit. Here is another example: a player turns up with "bag of knucklebones" written on his PC sheet. The GM has never before thought about the significance of knucklebones in the game. Then the player's PC meets a goblin, ends up in freindly conversation, and challenges the goblin to a friendly game of knucklebones for a silver piece stake. How do we work out who wins the game of knucklebones. Where is the relevant "code" to be found? I think the first instinct for many GMs would be opposed DEX checks (or a straight DEX score comparison). But what is the DEX of a goblin? Many people, including me, describe this as [I]action resolution[/I], meaning the resolution (= determining the outcome of) a player's action declaration. With what authority do you assert that Gygax is breaking the rules, when he wrote them? What rule is he breaking? Where is this rule stated? No. You said all these things will be on the referee's map. I asked you to point me to a map containing a piton or a mug. Heck, point me to a map with a portcullis that also indicates where the portcullis winch mechanism is located. I don't admit that purely imaginary things exist: that would be straightforwardly contradictory. They are not "their own actuality" (whatever that is meant to mean). They aren't real. There is a very extensive technical literature on reasoning about imaginary things: the literature on counterfactuals; the literature on paraconsistent logics; the literature on fictionalism. But we don't need to engage with that literature to see what is going on in typical RPG play. I gave an example in a talk I gave at a conference earlier this year: speaking to my audience, I said - Suppose that this room was quite a bit smaller than it is; and suppose that there were a hippopotamus in it. Then either there would be fewer of us in the room than there currently are, or alternatively some of us would be squashed. That is an example of reasoning about the imaginary - an imaginary hippopotamus filling an imagined room. It is very commonplace for human beings to engage in that sort of reasoning. D&D referees, in particular, have to be quite good at it if they are going to do their job well. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With the Holy Trinity out, let's take stock of 5E
Top