Search results

Sigh. You have a+4 climb check and a DC 15 climb. You roll a 10 and fail the climb. You do not fall, because you didn't fail by 5, but, you make no forward progress. What narratives are disallowed here? If you roll a 5 or less, you fell. What is the narrative? How did you decide that...

How so? In earlier D&D, if you failed a skill check, it's because you were not skilled enough to succeed. Full stop. That's why retries are not allowed. Same in GURPS. Your chances of success are based entirely on your skill. Which means that success or failure is informed by the...

No. It simply makes the simulation more plausible for you. Me too actually. But, it doesn't make it more simulationist since the trade off here is that by adding in all these extra elements, you force the DM to create a justification post hoc. Which makes the resulting information...

But, you don't modify the difficulty or the roll in GURPS. Not typically. There might be extreme examples where you do it, but, the vast majority of time, the roll is made vs skill only. It is very rare that any adjustment is made to the roll.

WAHOO!!! Someone actually gets it. Now, tiny step here. How is a system that provides ZERO information about the causal process diegetic?

No. They are not. Because if the climb mechanics are bound within the act of climbing, then the climb mechanics would provide some information about how the result was achieved. They don't. All they do is tell you the result and force the DM to then backfill the details without any guidance...

But, I was told, repeatedly in this thread, that that is not simulationist. That making things up on the spot - like the meaning of runes - is not simulationist. You must not improv setting details if you wish to run simulationist games, goes the argument. Note, I do not agree with that, but...

That's not true. Any game which has mechanics which provide information as to how a result is achieved satsifies diegesis and any reasonable definition of simulation. I've provided numerous examples of both. You're just unhappy because the definition doesn't include what you are doing.

Sorry. Nope. That's not how they work. The DC is set by the skill of the character. Not by the task. It might be modified by the task, but, generally it isn't. If you are setting the DC by the task in GURPS, you are not playing the game as it is meant to be played. Same with early era...

I'm assuming the map that you printed is meant to be the same as the map that exists in the game world. It doesn't have any information on it that would be impossible for someone in the game world to have? ((As in, number keys, as an easy example)). So, yes, the map is certainly diegetic...

I'm not really all that familiar with SKills and Powers to be honest. It completely passed me by. But, there's a lot of 2e before that. And things like kits, even though they may have gotten some benefits at higher levels, still didn't give you any real choices. You picked yoru class at 1st...

Hang on though. IN order to have a "highly detailed situation", you would need to do lots of preparation, no? I've been told REPEATEDLY that that isn't the case. That you can improv your way through a sandbox with a bare minimum of preparation. What was the claim? A couple of hours...

The mechanics in and of themselves don't actually need to be diegetic in order to produce a diegetic result. Most of what goes into a movie or novel isn't diegetic - the writer writing, drinking a glass of wine with his/her editor, etc - none of that is diegetic. But, the work produced is...

Oooh, I like this tangent. My gunpowder rules said that dragon dung is needed for gunpowder. So, it's possible to get, but, requires you to follow a dragon for a while, thus making it prohibitively expensive. When my PC's found an island populated by wyverns, they learned that wyvern guano...

Ohhhh, we're back to claiming that simulationistic must reflect reality now are we? I thought that simulationistic didn't have to follow real world realism. Or is that only when it's convenient to the argument. Simulationist simply has to provide some information that informs how the result...

Sort of. The mechanics themselves? As in the physical rolling the dice and whatnot? Sure, that's not diegetic. But, what those rolls actually represent can be. If the roll provides information about how a result was achieved, then that information is diegetic - it is known and knowable...

Whooosh. That is the sound of a point soaring WAYYYY over your head. The actual die isn't important. However, that the die ONLY REPRESENTS SKILL is the important part. That's why it's diegetic.

What definition? That the audience needs to be able to know what the characters in the story know? That's the definition of diegetic. You still have failed to show a single example of something diegetic where the audience would have no idea how it happened. I've shown repeated examples of...

He fell because he was not skilled enough. Why can't he try again if the rock crumbled? Why can't he get another rope and try again? That's the part you're missing. No retries. You failed because your skill was not enough. Heck, I don't even NEED a rope to climb. You've just added that in...

I'm actually going to agree with you here re: @pemerton's examples. A shark bites a character's leg off. The audience see it. That's diegetic. It exists in the world and for the audience. I agree. Now, what people are claiming though is that mechanics which do not provide any narrative...