D&D 5E Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

[Ruin Explorer]

[MENTION=2656]Probably true. It is, however, your mistake to make as a DM.

What does that mean, though, in this context?

DM fiat of the kind Aenghus describes is usually fairly obvious, and usually bad for the game in both the long and short term. Do you mean it like "it's your funeral!"? DMs who use fiat like Aenghus said should honestly not expect their game to last long. If it does, that's luck (or player desperation), not judgement, I'd suggest.

 

[Ahnehnois]

What does that mean, though, in this context?

It means that the rules exist independently of their operators. One can DM well, or not well, and it's still DMing either way.

DM fiat of the kind Aenghus describes is usually fairly obvious, and usually bad for the game in both the long and short term. Do you mean it like "it's your funeral!"? DMs who use fiat like Aenghus said should honestly not expect their game to last long. If it does, that's luck (or player desperation), not judgement, I'd suggest.

That may be. However, in practice I think it's not only possible, but far more likely, for a DM to fail because he doesn't exercise the power of his position.

Even where some rules may be poorly written, gameplay problems will arise only when the DM fails to act.

If the PCs are low level nothings smelling of manure, my default is they don't get a diplomacy check, they'll be turned away at the gates.

If they are obviously rich high level PCs, my default is they get the diplomacy check (or may automatically succeed depending on their approach).

This is of course modified by preestablished history and context, and most importantly by the actions of the players.

For example, this is the sort of ruling that keeps mechanics under control. It may be that "Diplomancy" is too broadly written or the DC's are not appropriate or modifiers are too easy to pump, but that won't matter if the DM uses the skill in a rational manner, rather than just allowing the player to say "I Diplo him" and receive the benefits of the skill regardless of the situation.

The weaker PCs, even if they load up on synergy bonuses and get a ridiculous Diplo mod, will not suddenly take over the game world, because by and large they are not that powerful, and the world recognizes their status. Conversely, high-level PCs may very well be treated as if they are important, because they are. Thus, their opportunities to influence people will be broader. None of this is stated in the text for Diplomacy, but it is common sense.

I would tend to say that a ruling that is arbitrary, unilateral and ignores relevant context is a bad ruling.

And so what we have here, the conclusion that I've alluded to above, is that this is really what people mean when they say "fiat". Not an exercise of power, but an exercise of power accompanied by a negative value judgement about the motivations behind it.

So, even if the player rolls a natural 20 on his attack, and the DM declares that the attack misses, that isn't "fiat" if he has some good reason for it. Conversely, even if he's just applied a circumstance bonus to something, or made a player use Bluff instead of Diplomacy, it may very well be "fiat" if that decision wasn't warranted by the situation. The distinction is not between process and outcome, it's between wisdom and foolishness.

And in that sense, there is "fiat". DMs make bad decisions all the time. The solution is not to say that they shouldn't be the decision-maker, but to communicate and give feedback and push them towards making more informed and more sensible decisions.

This is further confounded, of course, by the assumptions that certain posters make that DMing is essentially in bad faith, and they like to use this "fiat" term to make blanket judgments about DMing decisions they don't like, but which aren't objectively wrong (and indeed in some cases are quite wise).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But even if such an experiment does make sense, the inhabitants of my gameworld are not undertaking any such experiments. In my gameworld, what is observable is the loosing of arrows, the killing of their targets, etc. The use of powers, the rolling of dice, the subtraction of hit points from tallies - none of these is part of the gameworld.

As an objective fact, it does not rely upon the experiment in order for it to be true. Such experiments, if performed, would only confirm the underlying reality.

 

[am181d]

As an objective fact, it does not rely upon the experiment in order for it to be true. Such experiments, if performed, would only confirm the underlying reality.

I think the two of you are simply stating the distinction between the gamist and the simulationist view.

From a practical standpoint D&D (and indeed most RPGs) contain an awkward mix of explicitly gamist and simulationist elements. Stating a preference for one approach versus the other is certainly fine, but doesn't make much of a difference in terms of rules or gameplay.

 

[pemerton]

That would be another one of those meaningless distinctions. Situations are not themselves inherently framed as anything. If a player says he wants to use some particular mechanical ability, and the DM doesn't think it's appropriate, there's a disagreement. You've noted who has the final word in any such disagreement.

No. I stated that the GM is the one who has the final say on the mechanical framing - is this a skill check, a skill challenge or a combat? (Those being the mechanical options in 4e.)

That is not saying that the GM gets to decide whether or not a mechanical ability is appropriate.

An additional complexity is if there is confusion or disagreement over fictional positioning - for instance, a player declares a Diplomacy action but, as the GM understands the situation, the relevant NPC/monster is out of earshot. Or the player declares a Diplomacy action, but the words s/he indicates his/her PC is speaking seem intimidatory rather than diplomatic.

4e assumes that the GM has ultimate responsibility for managing fictional positioning, but this is not about "authority" or "fiat". For instance, the player can declare that his/her PC moves closer to the NPC before speaking; or can clarify his/her PC's words to make it plain how they are diplomatic and not intimidatory.

There is no basis, in the 4e mechanics, for the GM vetoing a Diplomacy check if the player declares an action for his/her PC which is a speaking of diplomatic words to an NPC.

Even where some rules may be poorly written, gameplay problems will arise only when the DM fails to act.For example, this is the sort of ruling that keeps mechanics under control. It may be that "Diplomancy" is too broadly written or the DC's are not appropriate or modifiers are too easy to pump, but that won't matter if the DM uses the skill in a rational manner

Luckily for me, the ruleset I use doesn't have this sort of problem.

In my experience, that point can be generalised. It is possible to design mechanical systems which produce results that are acceptable within play without the need for GM suspension of or fiating of action resolution mechanics. 3E may not be such a system, but it is not the only system out there.

 

[pemerton]

As an objective fact, it does not rely upon the experiment in order for it to be true. Such experiments, if performed, would only confirm the underlying reality.

I think the two of you are simply stating the distinction between the gamist and the simulationist view.

Quite.

The non-simulationist denies that hit points, or attack rolls, or other mechanical elements and manipulations, correspond in any discrete fashion to elements and events within the shared fiction. Simply asserting that they nevertheless constitute objective facts thereof, although no inhatibant of the gameworld ever cognises them, nor frames his/her actions in relation to them, nor explains any ingame events in terms of them, is just reiterating a simulationist preference.

Reiterating that preference doesn't do anything to suggest that other ways of setting up and running a gameworld are inconsistent. I suspect that Tolkien's Middle Earth was as consistent as any fantasy world, and Tolkien diesn't set it up using RPG mechanics. He set it up, and developed it, applying principles of history (including philology) and literature (especially myth and mediaeval romance). A D&D gameworld can be done the same way, with the mechanics like hit points, attack rolls etc being confined to the determination of action declarations made by the players for their PCs.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The non-simulationist denies that hit points, or attack rolls, or other mechanical elements and manipulations, correspond in any discrete fashion to elements and events within the shared fiction.

In that case, the non-simulationist is most likely mistaken about something. A game-ist can tell that one attack deals more hit point damage, as a game element. A narrativist can tell that one attack results in unconsciousness, as a story element, where the other does not.

I cannot conceive of a method of viewing these two powers such that they are not different within any consistent objective reality, which could theoretically be a problem with my ability to think of it, but is probably not.

 

[Ahnehnois]

No. I stated that the GM is the one who has the final say on the mechanical framing - is this a skill check, a skill challenge or a combat? (Those being the mechanical options in 4e.)

That is not saying that the GM gets to decide whether or not a mechanical ability is appropriate.

Are you suggesting that there is a difference between choosing one mechanical framework and another, or one mechanical framework and none? Not that this distinction would be applicable to either of the examples under discussion, but I still see no relevance to making it.

I think it's fair to assume that almost all in-character actions in any rpg are accomplished through freeform narration, without the use of any game mechanics. The mechanics are reserved for specific situations. As the 3e DMG notes, you could roll a Dexterity check to tie your shoes every morning, but why bother? Roll one when you really need to roll one.

Given that, I'd say that freeform narration is just another paradigm for action resolution, merely one that the rules kind of inherently don't have much to say on.

There is no basis, in the 4e mechanics, for the GM vetoing a Diplomacy check if the player declares an action for his/her PC which is a speaking of diplomatic words to an NPC.

I find that unlikely. Even if it were the case, there certainly is a basis for doing that in 3e, a rather important bit of text that notes that the DM decides whether a check is impossible or not.

There are an infinite variety of circumstances where this could be the case. Trying to negotiate with someone who refuses to speak to you on principle is one pretty routine example.

It is possible to design mechanical systems which produce results that are acceptable within play without the need for GM suspension of or fiating of action resolution mechanics.

Possible? Perhaps. Has it been done it any version of D&D? No. Would it be a desirable goal? I don't think so. The DM's role is a good thing. Removing it is unnecessary.

 

[pemerton]

Are you suggesting that there is a difference between choosing one mechanical framework and another, or one mechanical framework and none?

Perhaps. Choosing no mechanical framework is either "Saying yes" or "Saying no".

I think it's fair to assume that almost all in-character actions in any rpg are accomplished through freeform narration, without the use of any game mechanics.

<snip>

As the 3e DMG notes, you could roll a Dexterity check to tie your shoes every morning, but why bother?

These aren't really action declarations in the sense I was intending. That's barely even a case of saying yes.

It is possible to design mechanical systems which produce results that are acceptable within play without the need for GM suspension of or fiating of action resolution mechanics.

Possible? Perhaps. Has it been done it any version of D&D? No. Would it be a desirable goal? I don't think so. The DM's role is a good thing. Removing it is unnecessary.

First, accepatable results are relative to need and desire, so I don't think one can say as a blanket matter that it has not been done. For instance, 4e does it for me, in so far as the mechanics yield results that meet my needs and desires for play without the need for GM fiat.

Second, it is a very narrow conception of the GM's role that limits it to fiating action resolution. I personally can't see why mechanics that don't require the GM to suspend or fiat them would therefore make the GM unnecessary.

 

[pemerton]

A game-ist can tell that one attack deals more hit point damage, as a game element.

I cannot conceive of a method of viewing these two powers such that they are not different within any consistent objective reality

The objective reality in which the powers are different, and in which hit point damage is dealt, is the real world. The powers are differentiated in rulebooks and on character sheets. Hit points are tracked on a tally that goes up and down in accordance with the rules of action resolution.

A narrativist can tell that one attack results in unconsciousness, as a story element, where the other does not.

This does not quite make sense. I think you mean that "one attack does result in unconscious whereas the other would not". And that is also a claim about the real world, not the gameworld. In the gameworld the counterfactual, "Had Joe been attacked with Twin Strike rather than Biting Volley Joe would not have fallen unconcious" is not true, at least as I run my game. This is in part because the counterfactual refers to things - like Twin Strike and Biting Volley - that don't exist in the gameworld.

In the gameworld, there is simply the fact that, having been shot with arrows, Joe fell unconscious. There are true counterfactuals about this - eg had Joe not been shot he would still be conscious, or had Joe been luckier he would still be conscious, or had the archer who shot him been less skilled Joe might have ducked, or caught the arrow on his shield, or whatever.

But these true counterfactuals in the gameworld are true in virtue of properties of the gameworld. They are not connected to game-mechanical features - like those things written on character sheets - that exist only in the real world as part of the apparatus of playing a game.