Search results

Let's consider an extreme case. You know Calvinball, right? It's a game whose rules are made up as one goes. In a sense this provides the players with an extreme level of agency. I can introduce a new rule--I've got the Calvinball! Everyone else has to move in slow motion. This gives the players...

Isn't it? Maybe the phrasing isn't quite right. My experience is that trying to succeed at a task in these games becomes a game of "what is the maximally beneficial thing I can say to the GM that they will find credible". Or "how can I convince the GM that my fictional positioning allows me to...

Yeah, certainly. I think the narrative systems give players more agency, separate from their characters, to change the fiction, and I see why this seems less GM driven. The disconnect is that I think giving the players power in this way actually gives them less agency in-character. Their...

It's true, that game would not work for me. What I'd say is that trad gaming can work for me, under the condition that the GM is faithfully presenting a fixed world which they attempt to imbue with internal logic. If that logic isn't perfect by my standards, that's ok. If it's way off, no...

I want to pull out this example, because I think it is even more clear than the cook one and comes from actual play. I get what you are trying to do it. But I don't think I can enjoy any game that uses this kind of adjudication. The problem is that nothing is fixed here--the player could just...

Ok, yes. I don't love your use of 'shared fiction' because I think it presupposes an approach towards gaming I don't share...but yes, the important thing is that in this case, something external constrains the decisions the GM is allowed to make. It doesn't just constrain them to 'what could...

Ok, this is a good start. But, I think you are missing the point of why we're choosing this example. It's illustrating an extreme case to show that the principles behind the technique are not, in our opinion, sound. The GM is trying to create an illusion of verisimilitude--but they are doing so...

I get your point, but I don't think it is true. I don't see why the simulation has to simulate something at that level of detail to be verisimilitudinous. In my experience that isn't true.

This is exactly what I mean when I say the conflation of "simulationism" and "accurately simulating reality" muddies things. I think it is a failure of language. "Verisimilitudinism" or something is probably a more accurate term than "simulationism". Anyway, the desire to have a fictional...

How do you see it as changing the shared fiction? There are specific hours when both skilled and unskilled thief avoid the cook and hours when both unskilled thief and skilled thief have the cook in their path. Separately, the skilled thief is better at picking the lock and moving silently...

I'm not asking for you to nitpick the example. I notice you are doing that rather than answering the question. I know no one runs things exactly like this. But suppose they did. Do you see how it differs, in that the cook's presence is fixed regardless of success or failure? I don't think...

It's really getting tiresome to see this example mangled the same way. I looked at these in more detail before-- But it seems rather than respond to them, we are just misinterpreting when people are specifying (2) or (3). In the kitchen specifically. We talked some about random rolls, and how...

Respectfully, there have been maybe a dozen comments clarifying that the issue is not the cook's presence in the kitchen in the abstract but the cook specifically being there on a failed roll but not a successful one. If the cook is always present, fine. If the cook is in the next room and comes...

There's no insistence that these things can't be connected...people have repeatedly stated they are ok with it when the noise alerts an already existing cook. Casting the complaint like that makes it seem ridiculous but doesn't engage with the actual concern...which is the cook's existence.

You can recast that system as fixed DCs with skill bonuses, though. E.g., Steven has a STR of 10. Margaret has a STR of 14. They both try to open the door--Steven needs 10 or under, Margaret 14 or under. Compare: DC = 20. Steven has a +9 bonus and needs an 11 or better. Margaret has a +13...

I don't see how this whole conversation suggests an unwillingness to try new things. The goal of play seems pretty clearly defined imo. Agree with @AlViking above. To satisfy 'simulationism' in the sense I'm interested in, the important thing is that characters are able to interact with an...

Ok, we are just repeating ourselves at that point. If you have anything precise to say about the specific examples above, then I would be interested. But this doesn't engage with the core premise, and until your posts do I don't think there is anything to add.

But on a success, they are not deciding not to open the door because someone is there...it just turns out that no one is there. I went through these cases before:

How precisely does a thief "making their own luck" result in an unknown cook sleeping soundly?

Ok. Forget quantum for the moment. We get the independence. Do you see why the dependence in what you call "player driven" bothers some people? If not, do you at least understand they are responding to the real independence/dependence divide?