Search results

In what way is "a simulationist system must provide any information about how the result was achieved" incoherent? In what way have I made any sort of qualitative statement about what would be a better or worse system?

This is so frustrating in this thread. I say this three times and I'm told I'm 100% wrong every time. You say it once and everyone agrees. :erm: :hrm:

Except that we have accepted that simulation does not require ANY causality between the mechanics and the result. The mechanics are entirely silent as to causality because they provide no information as to how a result occurred. How can there be any any causality when there is nothing to link...

Umm, you are mistaking the method of the simulation with the fact that the simulation is providing a very clear amount of information to inform the narrative. How that information is generated isn't really the point. The fact that none of it is "real" isn't the point. It is a simulation after...

Really? You don't narrate scenes unless the players specifically tell you that they are looking? They just wander around completely blindly until they ask to be allowed to see something?

Yup, in that case, you can say that it was skill that granted success. Absolutely. Nice corner case where the mechanics do actually tell us something about why you succeeded. Of course, in that case, we also don't bother with any sort of checks since it's automatically a success - which kinda...

Again, no it doesn't, unless you think that a skill roll invokes no luck at all. There's no element of chance in a roll? Only skill? That seems rather strange considering the HUGE variation from the die. I mean, I well skilled character with a +7 or +8 skill bonus still ranges from a 9 to 28...

Really? Those decisions don't involve you at all? Don't you provide any information about what could potentially be found in either direction? Or are they just blind choices? Where did that ogre den come from? Didn't you put it there? Where did that potion come from? Didn't you put it...

What design direction is that? I mean, I'm currently running Out of the Abyss - a very early 5e module - pretty much unmodified using the 2024 rules and I'm not seeing a whole lot of differences. Sure, there's a few bits and bobs that work differently - some spells have been tweaked, and we...

Like any character, there's been a million takes. The old Bill Bixby Banner wasn't particularly angry at all. Heck, he wasn't even all that repressed. But, his trigger was usually because of the relentless hounding and pursuit he was facing. Otherwise, he was just a normal guy. And, as...

I find the notion that 4e is not a 5th generation game somewhat baffling. @mearls' definition, as I understand it, is that 5th gen games are ones that make things as simple as possible to run. 4e D&D was a DM's dream. It is literally the easiest version of D&D to run. I mean, when you can...

I believe because you weren't actually playing the game as written, but, rather misunderstanding how the game was supposed to work. It's been a rather common thread throughout this discussion. I mean, can one lean D&D into simulation? I suppose. You can lean any game into simulation. But...

You're actually surprised by this given the history in this thread?

Ahh. This would explain why you failed to understand the blog. That is not the definition of diegetic. Or, rather, that's only half the definition. It also must exist for the audience as well. IOW, how can falling exist for the player if the player has no idea what caused the character to...

Really? When you point your gun in a video game and click the mouse to shoot it (or controller depending on the system), do bullets (or whatever) not shoot out of that gun, traveling along a path to a destination? You cannot follow the path of the bullets? You have no idea why that bad guy...

I suggest you learn what diegetic means. After all, for something to be diegetic, it must exist both in the real world and in the fictional world. It is impossible for something to be a diegetic simulation without having some correlation to what is happening in the real world. Thus, the...

Except that the actual argument is that there is no difference between the implied servants existing in-potentia, and a random encounter roll, and a sharp rock cutting my rope on a failed check. In all three cases, a random die roll determines the reality of the world. There's no difference...

So, it's nonsensical for anyone or anything to be on the other side of a door? Established how? By whom? Since, presumably, the PC's haven't been in the kitchen before, how, exactly, would you establish that? From the player's POV, there is absolutely no difference here. And, again, I'd...

Ahh, this nails down the issue here. I am in no way making any sort of qualitative judgement about better or worse. I'm not. I'm in no way saying that RuneQuest (for example) would be a "better" system to use for simulation. No. I'm saying that mechanics which do not provide any input into...

Well, considering he responded already and said that he agreed with me, perhaps you didn't understand his point