Search results

It's in the SECTION YOU QUOTED!

Because the d20 roll is undefined. The largest part of the check is 100% undefined and, if it was defined, in any way, then it would exclude potential narrations. But, it isn't. Even the abiliity+skill isn't really defined.

Umm, you missed the part where "and narratively interesting" has been added. Which I pointed out earlier. It is a pretty significant change actually.

And that's where we part ways. If all simulation means is being able to post hoc justify a result, then the term is meaningless. So long as the narration must only come from the DM, then that's not simulating anything other than one person's understanding of how the world works. The whole...

I'd point out though that that's not the issue. No one, especially not me, has had any problems with the mechanics giving you results. That's fine. That's what mechanics are for. So, "You fall, take this much damage" is perfectly fine. Why did I take damage? Sudden deceleration trauma. No...

And here we have exactly what I was talking about. The players can either accept the DM's narration or they can leave the game. Doesn't matter if the DM is right, wrong, an expert or pulling nothing out of his petoot. The player either accepts it or leaves. Not exactly all about the...

Fair enough. But, just to be clear, while I have used "Pixies" as the go to example, it's not really meant to be exactly that. My point has always been that since the narrative is not informed by the mechanics, any post hoc justification is equal. Whether it's pixies or anything else, it...

The problem is, the only judge of the narrative is the players and the players are told never to contradict the DM because challenging the DM's narrative is considered poor play. If the players have no problems with magical pixies, then there is no problem at all. There's no difference. The...

This, to me, is a MUCH more interesting conversation and gets to the heart of things. Because, from where I'm standing, it almost looks like, "Well, I like this, so, it's okay" but, "I don't like that, so, it's bad".

The DM can put in whatever he wants so long as he doesn't disrupt the game. It's a subtle but very important distinction. So long as the players don't challenge the interpretation (which in your words has never, ever happened in your experience) then whatever the DM invents is perfectly fine...

Yes, but this only works if you interpret the d20 roll to only mean skill. We are not going to agree on that. That's just not going to happen. And, I'd point out that 2024 doesn't agree with you either. Nor does any TSR version of D&D. So, yeah, I'm not going to buy that interpretation...

But you can see why I have a problem calling that simulationist right? How is your example any different than magic pixies? That's the point I've been making all the way along. One implausible outcome is simulationist simply because the DM and players don't know any better, while the other is...

Whereas to me, the skill mechanics don't tell you anything. We have no idea why you succeeded or failed. And the fact that you can make narrations that change the game world and it works perfectly fine - adding sharp rocks, causing rocks to be unstable, etc - means that the mechanics are not...

See, but here's the problem. What do you do when the player rejects the DM's narrative. When the player finds the DM's post hoc justification to be not simulating the world? For example, let's use the rope example. You talk about the rope being cut by a rock. Now, I've done some climbing...

IOW, you don't want simulationist mechanics. Why is that hard to admit? You want the simulation to come from the DM. Great. No problem. But, what you don't want are mechanics that are simulationist.

Why does everyone take what I'm saying to the most extreme level? ANY. Must provide ANY information. Doesn't matter how small. Doesn't matter how accurate. It just has to provide ANY information to guide the narrative. How is this "extreme"? How is that "clearly spells out"? This is...

Not sure I agree with that part, although I do agree with everything else you said. But, then you're talking more about genre simulation, which isn't really a topic I've ever approached. But, to me, if we're relying on non-explicit communications (as in the DM makes stuff up), then, unless the...

Sorry, going to break my answer into two parts because I have two different answers for you @Faolyn. The more personal answer is that I do appreciate sim systems. I LIKE them. I've played a lot of them. GURPS, Palladium, Warhammer Fantasy, even a brief stint of Harn. And these systems...

I'd point out that I'm not the only one in this conversation, so, it's obviously important to more than just me. But, for me, the point of the conversation is to determine what differentiates simulation from just playing the game. Every RPG has situation resolution mechanics. Every RPG has...

I would question that any simulation that is based on a complete ignorance of how certain results occur isn't much of a simulation. I mean, sure, I can say that it's going to rain tomorrow, but, I think it's probably better to listen to the weather people about their prediction. The reason we...