The Crimson Binome
Hero
D&D is one of the simplest process simulations out there, which is one of the reasons why so many people enjoy it. It is strictly a process simulation, though; it doesn't care about abstract goals, in the way that Apocalypse World (for example) does. Every action in the game actually does correspond to a single process within the game world.But for me, at nearly every point where questions of importance for simulationist play arise (ie what is actually happening in the fiction, given that the rules tell me to roll these dice) D&D doesn't answer them (eg when I roll to hit, what is happening?; when I roll damage dice, or a saving throw, what is happening?; when I make a check to find a secret door, what is happening?; when my PC loses hit points, what is happening?; when my PC moves 30' on my turn and then, in the same 6 seconds, is able to drop a 25' R AoE centred on his/her starting position and not be caught by it, exactly how fast did s/he move?; etc).
[...]
Consider the observations I've just made about D&D - its resolution procedures are often excellent for establishing outcomes in the shared fiction (eg is the PC or the orc the winner of the sword fight? do the PCs find the secret door?) but tend to leave the actual ingame process as an exercise in narration within the mechanically-established parameters. Those rules don't model ingame processes.
If you undergo the mechanical operations of "The orc attacks with its sword, it hits, and you take damage"; then the in-game reality which corresponds to those mechanics is just "The orc attacks with its sword, it hits, and you take damage". They may not be as detailed as some systems would have, but there is no doubt anywhere that the orc actually hit you with its sword and that it caused damage. (In any edition prior to 4E, I would add that damage meant there was definitely some amount of physical injury involved, but that doesn't really hold up in recent editions.)
If you move 30' feet in six seconds, and then cast a spell 25' feet away, then that's what actually happened - you moved at an average rate of five feet per second, for six seconds, and then finished casting a spell which takes effect more-or-less instantaneously. It may not be as detailed as you could get with GURPS, because it sacrifices a little of its granularity in favor of playability, but it's not abstract by any stretch.
Meta-gaming is always an evil, even if it is sometimes the lesser of two evils. When your assassin agrees to not backstab the paladin, because it's a PC, then that is one of those rare cases where meta-gaming might be justified. It's still jarring to the players at the table. The better solution is to simply not play a character who would be put into such a situation.And yet players make decisions all the time having regard to metagame considerations - from agreeing to join or stick with the party because otherwise the game can't work; to choosing option A rather than option B because it will be more fun at the table - and the game doesn't come to a halt. And the players don't feel that there was no point in playing.
If the player chooses option A instead of option B, because A would be more fun even though the character would honestly probably do B instead, then that's just poor role-playing. It might be acceptable, particularly if B would involve other players sitting out of the game for an extended period of time, but it's definitely not ideal. Any supposed-RPG which tells you to take the fun option rather than the RP option is bad at being an RPG (whatever its other merits may be).
Yes, part of the issue is that some players don't understand what role-playing is, or don't actually care about role-playing, but insist on playing an RPG anyway. Some game designers don't understand role-playing, or do not actually enjoy role-playing, but insist on labelling their games as RPGs when they aren't actually about role-playing.Part of the issue is that the conceit of an RPG, at least as many play it, is not that the player is an elf; but that the character is an elf and that the player has a special relationship to the character. Broadly speaking, this is a duty to declare actions in the course of play that further the ends or goals of the character.
Role-playing is making decisions as your character would. If you make decisions beyond the scope of character agency, then you're not role-playing; you might be game-playing, or story-telling, or otherwise exerting agency within the game world (depending on the specific circumstances). If you are furthering the goals of the character by exerting this agency, then you compromise the integrity of the world, and you're back to deus ex machina territory.This can often require the player to "inhabit" the character. But it doesn't require the player to forget that s/he is playing a game. Spending a fate point or an inspiration point to boost a roll - which at least in some systems doesn't correspond to anything distinctive happening in the game but is a pure mechanical manipulation - doesn't stop the player inhabiting the character. (After all, players of D&D spell casters often don't have to roll dice at all to find out whether or not they are able to cast spells - they just declare it - and so how can spending a chit to improve a die roll be a problem yet having the ability to declare the fiction thus-and-so by fiat not be?)
The difference between rolling dice for damage, and choosing to spend an inspiration point (where it doesn't correspond to anything in-game), is that the latter is actually a decision which the player makes. Role-playing is only about the decisions which the character makes - which the player makes while pretending to be the character. Rolling dice isn't a decision; it's just administrative overhead, like talking, or writing something down on your character sheet.