Assuming fixed dynamic range, resolution results from a combo of the # bits used to quantify each digital signal amplitude value captured and how frequently (the frequency with which) the signal is quantified.
So a finer definition of amplitude contributes to higher POTENTIAL or maximum real resolution assuming the maximum dynamic range stays the same.
How much resolution is actually achieved is a different story that depends on how well executed the implementation is but more bits used will enable more resolution, all else held constant.
Alternately, increasing the dynamic range and quantifying using the same # of bits will result in lower potential or maximum resolution because the same # of possible digital values must now be used to represent a larger variation in amplitude.
So yes, theoretically smoother amplitude levels can occur. Whether these are audible or not still depends on other factors and makes things more challenging to model accurately.
"sample" is really not an accurate term to apply in the digital signal processing scenarios because a sample is a statistical concept as well and in stats means a small but representative subset of a population.
Whereas with digital audio and video the intent is to quantify the entire signal as completely as possible, not 'sample" it, which is different.
Maybe this is part of why there are so many misconceptions about digital audio?
