Search results

The word you keep missing here is ANY It has to show ANY information. For something to be diegetic, it must inform the narrative. You point your gun in an FPS and the bullet travels along a path to the enemy which is hurt. You can see every step of the simulation played out. While you...

Nice shifting goalposts there. Why did you fall? What happened? You failed the climb check and fell. The mechanics are entirely silent about why you fell. Why did you take damage? Maybe magical falling pixies stabbed you on the way down. Prove me wrong. And what does the fall damage...

The level of irony here is amazing.

Oh totally agree. It was a mistake to do it this way. That’s why they don’t do it this way any more. 🤷 What do you want? The question was asked and answered and we’re still waffling on about the example because of not picking and pedantry. Can we move on finally?

No. That’s the straw man you keep insisting on. A simulation in no way must mirror reality. A simulation MUST reveal ANY information about how the resolution of the simulation was reached. Since DnD never reveals any information about how a result occurred, simply that a result did occur...

Which is fair to play that way. Perfectly fine. But nothing in DnD actually supports you. That dragon may have died because of wounds or it might have despaired and died of a broken heart. Nothing in DnD contradicts either interpretation. You can choose your interpretations. Of course and no...

This has come up a number of times, so, I'd like to pull this out once again. It's not about giving "detailed" results. It's about giving ANY information at all. It doesn't have to be massively detailed or whatnot. But, simulation must tell the user SOMETHING. If the only thing we get is...

Which is the point I keep harping on. That might be a definition that you are using, but, that definition is WRONG. That's not what that word means. And insisting on using that word only makes communication impossible. Because NOTHING about what you described is actually part of the D&D...

I totally agree. The fact that people completely ignore the fact that D&D in no way supports any "simulation-like" activity because at no point do D&D mechanics EVER simulate anything. Let's work it from the other direction. Let's take something that is 100% simulation. MS Flight Simulator...

Oh my god. RTFM The fourteen modules that make up the Dragonlance saga are meant to be one adventure, same as if you had bought a WotC or Pathfinder AP. IOW, you are meant to have read all of them before you start play. Remember, this is the early 1980's. Organization of material is all new...

Sigh. This conversation would be so much better if people would actually simply have the common courtesy to accept that some of us know stuff that we read. The reason you couldn't find that is because the DM information is listed in DL 5. Which you would know if you were any sort of familiar...

Not even a little. That is not pure sim at all. Because, now, you're not simulating anything, you're actually doing it. Lacking any structure or mechanics, there's no actual simulation. It's simply "can I convince my DM". Again, a simulation has to SIMULATE something. That's the whole...

Like I said earlier, we're not really having a conversation in this thread most of the time because there is such a lack of common understanding of terms. And, honestly, I'm not really sure there is any way around that. To me, there is no difference between one completely abstract roll...

Oh please. TSR-era D&D was about as far from simulation as you could get. It was pure wargame. Good grief, your character can't even jump without house rules. There are very, very good reasons why other games of the era - Rolemaster, Warhammer Fantasty, Chivalry and Sorcery - all went with...

Why was the cook there? Because it was uncertain whether or not the cook might be there. When there's uncertainty, the DM sets a target DC. Because that's how abstraction works. See, no actual difference. In a simulation system, you need at least some idea of how things work. The system...

Not necessarily. The character might have fallen because magical pixies made him trip. He might have fallen because the rock face crumbled. There might have been a tiny earth elemental that pushed him. We have absolutely no idea. All we know is that he fell. Why he fell, what caused the...

But the actions you take in the game world are not connected in any way to the mechanics of the game. That's the point you keep ignoring. They are not abstractions. They are completely divorced from anything inside the game world. When someone fails a climb check by X amount, they fall...

No. YOu just keep insisting that your misunderstanding of how things work is the only true definition.

This is the part that has always baffled me about the whole "I play D&D as sim" crowd. Why would you insist on playing a system that is so hostile to your stated goals? D&D is not a sim. Like, at all. There's a REASON that sim games exist. It's because they aren't D&D and anyone who is...

If my character is in the desert, unless I'm next to an oasis, if there's quicksand in that desert, I'm calling shenanigans. Quicksand doesn't form in the desert. It can't. :D