Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6680351" data-attributes="member: 996">Now we're getting into the philosophical.  The old tree falling in the forest when there's no one there to hear it.  Nature of the observer & the observed.  Even IRL, where most of us, children of a scientific age, have no problem believing there's an objective reality, the power of expectation and perception to shape how we experience that reality is well-known.For an imaginary world, so much the moreso.  If the DM hadn't thought about a detail, and a PC goes looking for it, the DM could decide, on the spot, whether it was there to be found.  Or, he could let the PC make the check, and, only if he succeeds, make that decision (because the detail remains irrelevant if the PC doesn't notice or interact with it in any way).  To the player, there's no difference between either of those and the DM deciding beforehand. That's mainly a matter of style, not of the game, itself.      Very much a matter of style & opinion, especially with regard to RP.  A player might well want to fill in gaps in his character's backstory long after chargen, for instance, so as to best RP the character.    Frankly, anyone who would leave the table over something like that (whether because they feel 'forced' into the stance, are are whinging over being forced out of it) should leave the table whether they encounter the issue or not - and try an alternative to TT, because they just don't play well with others.   How a successful parry is described may be well within the realm of 'player authorship,' and even whether it does can depend on the player using a resource the PC may not have direct control over or awareness of (like 'luck').  And, though I'm getting tired of saying it, the character still doesn't exist - at most, you might assert that the resolution mechanics 'control' the outcome of an action. I'm pleasantly surprised that you grok that.  First half of that statement is false, the DM may not have made any prior determination of such a detail. Second half, OTOH, sure, the imaginary character has no control over the imagined nature of the imaginary armor.Again, it depends.  In 5e, ultimately, everything is under the DM's control.  In other eds & games, maybe not so much.  But, even in 5e, the DM can cede some of that control to existing or improvised resolution systems, or, indeed, to the players.   Simulationism is an attitude toward games.  Simulationist may like games that sacrifice playability the way actual simulations do, but that doesn't make the game 'simulationist,' and no game can be held to that philosophical extreme.  Certainly not a game as far pre-dating the concept, and as murky in it's beginnings, and as intentionally inclusive to a wide range of styles in it's current incarnation, as D&D. Narrativism and Simulationism can certainly both ruin a game if taken too far, because they can go and sacrifice the things that make a game at all playable ('gamist' considerations).  But, that's more a matter of how a game is played, than what the game is.  A game is a game, and RPG is a specific kind of game, but a simulation and a narrative are not games, at all, nor or they mutually exclusive.  An historical re-enactment, for instance, is both a simulation and a narrative.</blockquote>

Verification