Search results

I’d meant to say thanks for giving the needed background detail on the mechanic.

I thought I’d jump off here. Perhaps the elements I most consider ‘good sim’ or essential for sim from an rpg perspective aren’t granular mechanics governing combat, climbing, runes, etc, (I think those things can be described as ‘more sim’) but the essentials are world independence (the runes...

Are you saying it’s not happening at all or that the amount @Crimson Longinus suggested it’s occurring was hyperbolic?

Sure that’s what I was getting at. I think that what elements make for ‘good sim’ depends on what you want to simulate. I think it also depends on whether there are other major game components that interfere with whatever you want to simulate.

I’m not sure if you or I am misunderstanding here, but there’s quite a bit of denial that such a difference even exists. Hard to have different play stem from something which is the same in both games. Yet we all agree there are playstyle differences so their must be some rules/mechanics...

D&D is a bit of a moving target. Do you mean d&d played as a simulation, if so then I’d disagree. Do you mean d&d played in one of the myriad of other styles, if so then I’m sure it can be.

To be fair there are probably alot of simulation elements in those games. I don’t dispute that. What I say is that if this kind of runes-like procedure is common then that part devalues the rest of the simulative elements. It’s basically the elephant in the room at that point. If it’s not common...

I will note in d&d players don’t say ‘I kill the orc as an action’. They may say ‘I attack the orc’ or the dm may say they kill the orc, describe how you did so. Etc. Seems important to point out. This is the player conforming their action declaration to the mechanics.

You just need to find some runes and hope they indicate an exit ;)

It’s a bit ironic for me in that I normally wouldn’t call myself a simulationist because I don’t prefer games with really granular simulation systems. But compared to narrativist games I like alot more simulation than i find in them.

Sure. I use the shorthand d&d to refer to certain d&d play styles because I don’t know what else to flipping call them that won’t take 100 pages of description. It’s not perfectly accurate, but for this discussion it really should be sufficient.

Seems like an unproductive distraction to me. At best you show d&d can be played in more ways than I propose. So just add the needed adjective to the front of d&d to narrow the scope and then the point we make still remains. There is no need to take this discussion to defining all d&d play.

I think your use of ‘significant’ is a major weakness. How is significance determined? That is, if I assert the meaning of runes are significant but what causes a fall is not then is that process sim?

Even if they are internal instead of text based that doesn’t mean I’m cherry picking anything? That is there can be additional non-text based rules to how I and other players the game, to the point that we are essentially playing different games depending on how different those additional rules...

What is the actual difference between simulation and process simulation. That’s not a distinction I’m particularly familiar with.

I don’t think I agree but let’s assume I’m wrong for a moment. At best all this does is show d&d can be played in a larger variety of ways than I initially gave it credit for. But since my point is really that d&d in X playstyle doesn’t do this, then I’m not sure how this counterpoint has any...

How is simply declaring what runes mean (contingent on a success) actor stance instead of author stance? How is poking and prodding at the GMs world author stance instead of actor stance?

Differences abound. 1) the significance of the details being ‘filled in’. For example - What the runes mean is a huge detail whereas what causes you to fall is an extremely minor one. 2) how the GM in d&d chooses the specific narration is done with the whole probability space in mind and if...

Why do you assume there is?

It’s not even if the player is mailing it in. Experts can conjecture what something means with no evidence, and in such instances they are likely to be wrong. What makes this a case of the expert conjecturing with evidence as opposed to without, because I see no evidence for the basis for this...