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 Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
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="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5994758" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>[MENTION=6696705]Underman[/MENTION],</p><p> </p><p>My view is that on some of these questions being explored here, there is no substitute for experience. And in my case (and a at least a couple or more of the others here), our experience has taught us that the process-sim mindset is often (though not always) the default mindset. Moreover, this experience has been replicated outside of games.</p><p> </p><p>As a software developer that has frequently met with customers to develop specifications and requirements--or even in some cases was specifically brought in to solve a problem with a business process that wasn't working--I've seen it over and over. It's practically endemic that some people will insist on fidelity to process even as it consistently produces results that cause them all kinds of trouble. And I've also seen people do this in their personal lives with mowing their yards, washing their clothes, etc. So no, the blind spots aren't created equal here. There is something special about the "process sim solves all ills" blindspot that, practically speaking, isn't replicated across other techniques so forcefully.</p><p> </p><p>I don't really know why this is so. I can only say that in over 30 years of paying attention to it in a variety of activities, I've found it replicated. I don't know how widespread or pervasive my experience is across all of humanity, but the characteristic has certainly been commented on by many people that I've met--and nearly all with a professional experience with the matter.</p><p> </p><p>One of the lessons that my first employer used to pound into its people was that you must always remember that the customer may demand a computer process for an activity that shouldn't be automated and is not a process. The desire to "push process sim far enough and it will solve our problems" is so strong that some people will pay you good money to complicate their lives instead of solving their problems, and that you'll have to gently fight them so that they get something better for their expenses. </p><p> </p><p>That said, my guess is two-fold on why this might occur, and is based on these observations and my own early experience being a hard-core process-sim all the time guy. (Or maybe I'm just a "reformed smoker" now. You make the call. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />):</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It's natural for an ordered mind to adapt process-sim first, use it well in a lot of activities, and grow accustomed to it before there is much need of anything else. So the other options are learned skills that some people simply don't need for awhile.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">No matter what else you do, you always need some process-sim, if only at a very micro level or for an odd bit. So it's not like you ever really abandon the technique entirely.</li> </ul><p>But in my particular case, I know process sim has fatal flaws as a universal solution for the simple reason that I tried to make it one for several years, in enough activities, that I finally proved to myself some ways in which it could not work--i.e. something like a geometrical proof for the problems I was trying to solve. This didn't cause me to reject process sim as a technique. That would be nuts! It did cause me to reject process sim as an automatic answer to any given problem. Now it's merely another tool in the box.</p><p> </p><p>Since then, I've also observed that almost all people whom I come into personal contact with that are completey happy with some complex process sim--upon investigation<strong> do not follow the process</strong>. This is also way beyond games. For every DM making it "good enough" with fiat, there are hundreds of clerks in an office keeping the business running because their bosses looks the other way when the clerk evades the process to get the job done. So for me this is empirical evidence to back up the conclusion of my personal proofs.</p><p> </p><p>Ergo, my conclusion when confronted with a D&D fan sure that the way to D&D Nirvana is more process sim and more fidelity to it--is that said fan doesn't really understand the limits of process sim (probably due to lack of broad experience, but could be something else) or isn't being objective in evalution of the processes as actually practiced at his table (i.e. they are evaded in order to work). Nothing anyone has said on this board in the last 4+ years has changed this opinion one whit. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p><p> </p><p>Now more "simulation" in general in D&D? Sure, you can get that a bunch of ways, especially with modules, and there will certainly be places where process-sim is not only useful but absolutely necessary. That's because other techniques are not perfect either. It's just that their limitations are not the same limitations as process sim, and thus where they work or fail is different. And a good thing, too, as it means we have not only multiple good tools, but tools that thus cover a wider range of needs. </p><p> </p><p>You might say that my objection is not process-sim, per se, but rather an objection to the failure inherent in the solutions of the process-sim purist. If I stopped a six year old from trying to cut cheese with a chainsaw, no one would object that I therefore disliked kids or dairy products or dangerous power tools. But I most certainly object to tools used badly. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5994758, member: 54877"] [MENTION=6696705]Underman[/MENTION], My view is that on some of these questions being explored here, there is no substitute for experience. And in my case (and a at least a couple or more of the others here), our experience has taught us that the process-sim mindset is often (though not always) the default mindset. Moreover, this experience has been replicated outside of games. As a software developer that has frequently met with customers to develop specifications and requirements--or even in some cases was specifically brought in to solve a problem with a business process that wasn't working--I've seen it over and over. It's practically endemic that some people will insist on fidelity to process even as it consistently produces results that cause them all kinds of trouble. And I've also seen people do this in their personal lives with mowing their yards, washing their clothes, etc. So no, the blind spots aren't created equal here. There is something special about the "process sim solves all ills" blindspot that, practically speaking, isn't replicated across other techniques so forcefully. I don't really know why this is so. I can only say that in over 30 years of paying attention to it in a variety of activities, I've found it replicated. I don't know how widespread or pervasive my experience is across all of humanity, but the characteristic has certainly been commented on by many people that I've met--and nearly all with a professional experience with the matter. One of the lessons that my first employer used to pound into its people was that you must always remember that the customer may demand a computer process for an activity that shouldn't be automated and is not a process. The desire to "push process sim far enough and it will solve our problems" is so strong that some people will pay you good money to complicate their lives instead of solving their problems, and that you'll have to gently fight them so that they get something better for their expenses. That said, my guess is two-fold on why this might occur, and is based on these observations and my own early experience being a hard-core process-sim all the time guy. (Or maybe I'm just a "reformed smoker" now. You make the call. :p): [LIST] [*]It's natural for an ordered mind to adapt process-sim first, use it well in a lot of activities, and grow accustomed to it before there is much need of anything else. So the other options are learned skills that some people simply don't need for awhile. [*]No matter what else you do, you always need some process-sim, if only at a very micro level or for an odd bit. So it's not like you ever really abandon the technique entirely. [/LIST]But in my particular case, I know process sim has fatal flaws as a universal solution for the simple reason that I tried to make it one for several years, in enough activities, that I finally proved to myself some ways in which it could not work--i.e. something like a geometrical proof for the problems I was trying to solve. This didn't cause me to reject process sim as a technique. That would be nuts! It did cause me to reject process sim as an automatic answer to any given problem. Now it's merely another tool in the box. Since then, I've also observed that almost all people whom I come into personal contact with that are completey happy with some complex process sim--upon investigation[B] do not follow the process[/B]. This is also way beyond games. For every DM making it "good enough" with fiat, there are hundreds of clerks in an office keeping the business running because their bosses looks the other way when the clerk evades the process to get the job done. So for me this is empirical evidence to back up the conclusion of my personal proofs. Ergo, my conclusion when confronted with a D&D fan sure that the way to D&D Nirvana is more process sim and more fidelity to it--is that said fan doesn't really understand the limits of process sim (probably due to lack of broad experience, but could be something else) or isn't being objective in evalution of the processes as actually practiced at his table (i.e. they are evaded in order to work). Nothing anyone has said on this board in the last 4+ years has changed this opinion one whit. :D Now more "simulation" in general in D&D? Sure, you can get that a bunch of ways, especially with modules, and there will certainly be places where process-sim is not only useful but absolutely necessary. That's because other techniques are not perfect either. It's just that their limitations are not the same limitations as process sim, and thus where they work or fail is different. And a good thing, too, as it means we have not only multiple good tools, but tools that thus cover a wider range of needs. You might say that my objection is not process-sim, per se, but rather an objection to the failure inherent in the solutions of the process-sim purist. If I stopped a six year old from trying to cut cheese with a chainsaw, no one would object that I therefore disliked kids or dairy products or dangerous power tools. But I most certainly object to tools used badly. :D [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top