Search results

But, if we're using the rules the way they are supposed to be used, and it requires the DM to step in and curate those rules in order to address a more sim approach, doesn't that mean that the rules aren't really supporting a sim approach? In DW, agenda and principles are pretty clearly...

Way up I was asked about a system that would explain how a character fell. Well, a very simple system would be: Fail by x or less: character missteps and falls. Fail by x+1 or more: character falls due to environment factors. Poof. Instant simulation mechanics. Heck, you could bake that...

That is an impressive list of strawmen and complete mis statements of the problems. No wonder you feel attacked if you actually believe any of the above is what is being argued.

Actually, no rules in D&D tell you how far you fell. No matter what, you hit the bottom at the end of the round according to the rules. You can fall ten feet or ten thousand feet and you will take exactly the same amount of time to hit the bottom, and you will ALWAYS hit the bottom before 6...

I gotta admit, I'm not seeing the issue here. I've seen LOTS of modules which state something like, "if the party makes noise here, there is a one in X chance of a random encounter". That sort of thing is hardly new or unusual. It's been in adventures for many, many years. So, why would a...

But it doesn't simulate the process of falling. It only tells you the result that you fell down. That's it. It could be gravity or it could be anything else. Heck, I could have teleported really hard to the bottom. The point is, we don't know. And, please, don't just focus on the one...

You are right that the rules don't need to give me that information. 100% agree. Simulation rules, OTOH DO. The rules are, in no way, simulating the process of falling, any more than they are simulating my knowledge of arcana or my ability to sing. I make my check, I get a result. What...

Again, this is perfectly fair. Totally agree. But, "unique combat system" is not part of simulation, it's an example of simulation. An easy example that everyone knows. It's not meant to be exhaustive. Do you not agree that a simulation system needs to inform the narrative though? If your...

Let's stick with the notion of First Person Shooters (FPS) games for am moment. Now, the mechanics of the game will determine how the attacks in the game work. Each enemy will have a "hit box" where the player has to aim at in order to damage the enemy. The player's character also has a hit...

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...