Search results

I think these are distinctions without a difference. Here are some definitions (Oxford Languages via Google), which show that ordinary usage basically doesn't draw distinctions between elves, faeries, sprites, pixies etc: elf: a supernatural creature of folk tales, typically represented as a...

Which ones? When I Google "diegetic definition", I get Oxford Languages telling me: (of sound in a film, television programme, etc.) occurring within the context of the story and able to be heard by the characters. So we're talking about something that occurs in reality (say, sound) that is...

Interesting - is that the standard view among critics? My thinking was that, for the audience, there is a sound (the voice). But in the fiction there isn't one. Your Princess Bride example is clear (but as you say layered/convoluted). Another one is the introductory (and concluding?) monologue...

No. "Diegetic" does not just mean "depicted event". It is about the interplay between what is real and what is imagined. I'm not a very sophisticated critic of movies or radio plays, but I think the notion is reasonably clear. When the shark bites the leg of the swimmer, that is an event in the...

When the player had a hope for the runes, that was the player playing their character. So that hope is actually diegetic in the sense of the word as @Hussar and I are using it (which is the standard usage as best I'm aware): the hope was evident in the fiction as well as to the audience.

I actually referred to faerie gold, taken from the dark elves in my MHRP game. MHRP doesn't rate treasure in the same way that D&D does: it was a persistent asset, with a die size that I can't recall. On your remarks about "faking a simulative experience": I'm not sure what you're suggesting...

Right. AD&D, up to and including UA, is really pretty thin on resolution mechanics despite its many many pages. There are thief abilities, which don't generalise in any clear fashion to other characters (eg the notorious how do I resolve my fighter's attempt to climb or hide?), and don't...

I have taken that to be a premise of the exercise that you and @clearstream are engaged in, of discussing what makes RPG play "simulationist". Experiences occur during moments of play. If some extended period of play is supposed to be simulationist, in virtue of the experiences that it...

The character in the fiction did interpret the runes: they studied them, and worked out what they said. At the table it's true that the GM didn't just tell the player what the runes say: rather, a resolution process was used. But if you are agreeing that this matters to the diegetic nature of a...

Huh? How do the PCs perform actions without the "outside" influence of the players declaring them? How do the PCs form beliefs about their surroundings without the "outside" influence of the GM telling the players what their characters can see? Etc.

As I posted upthread, In addition, here are some of the relevant relations: *The GM has announced a "strange runes" scene distinction: this makes the runes salient. *Reading the runes is obviously related to the runes being salient. *The runes being interesting is also related to the runes...

How is reading runes unrelated to the presence of strange runes on a wall? How is runes revealing a way out of a dungeon unrelated to those runes being in a dungeon? I mean, strange riddles and clues on dungeon walls goes back to the earliest days of D&D. (Like the poem in Tomb of Horrors.)

I'm following the general direction of the thread in its account of "simulationism". As I think you're alluding to, there's a fairly well-known account of what simulationism is that includes Hickman-esque play. But on that account, there's no reason why the strange runes episode of play I...

I posted it upthread. (And have posted it many times on these boards over the years.) It's not mysterious: If D&D gets classified as "simulationist", then what RPG doesn't? If "simulatinionism" is to be a meaningfully analytical category, I assume it has to mean more than supports the creation...

Yes, I know. The structure of your play includes the GM using secret information to establish secret fictional positioning which is then used to resolve declared actions that involve looking, searching, wondering, etc - what one could very broadly call actions of "knowing" or "learning" about...

In the same way that the classification of animals requires attending to more than one or two species, so it seems to me that the classification of RPGs requires attending to more than just one or two approaches to play.

Multiple posters in this thread have pointed to examples of play from Burning Wheel as not being simulationist. You appear to do so here, with your reference to Circles tests and Wises tests. But by @Enrahim's and @clearstream's accounts in this thread, those episodes of play are simulationist...

I don't understand what this means. I've never posted anything about a wyvern attacking; nor about an unrelated event occurring on a failed test.

So just to be clear: you are allowing that the play of Cortex+ Fantasy (hacked from MHRP), where the player has their PC read the strange runes and thus identify a way out of the dungeon, can be simulationist RPGing?

But that is neither diegetic - the roll of the dice is not something that the characters in the fiction are aware of - nor simulationist. It's just stating that if a player fails a climbing roll, their PC falls.