Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8612623" data-attributes="member: 71699">Our fictional position was that the ants were intent on biting M, and M indeed died of a series of rolls for said biting. To go from there to "died of embarrassment" is deliberately perverse. What follows is always up to the group.Suppose in RQ a broo rolls a hit to M's head and deals enough damage to equal or exceed the HP there. If we wish, we can narrate that M falls unconscious and dies two turns later from humiliation at the way the broo looked at them. We don't do that, because we are committed to a gameful narrative, where we will employ a kind of extended language - with a prior assumption of sincerity - and associate M's death with the ant bites or broo hit to head because that follows from our conversation.How much of our narrative do we need prescribed for us by written game rules? The FKR movement would argue for very little. What you are saying amounts to a denial that FKR play can produce valid narratives, even though FKR adherents self-report that they find their narratives more intense and just as valid as those dictated by pre-written rules. The presence or absence of rules doesn't alone amount to success as a simulation: is it realistic that every time a person has their chest HP equalled or exceeded they will fall and be too busy coughing blood to do anything? No exceptions? Every. Single. Time.Addy "Oh, there's Jo again, down on the ground busy coughing blood."Fitch "Yeah, that always happens. Weird no one ever collapses to their knees, swaying and gasping."Addy "Yeah, that's weird isn't it? I wish I could sometimes go to my knees and..."GM "Well you can't, so let's move on."Once one has committed to a world consisting of a single dungeon, any following constraints cannot mar the plausibility. But 5e does not envison that the game world consists of one dungeon; nor even that said dungeon be generated randomly. It would be better to read the many pages of material in the earlier sections of the DMG to grasp the facets a GM is guided to consider for their world.That missapprehends what a simulation is. So long as the dungeon is predictably like a dungeon - itself a highly artificial "world" - the simulation is successful. For background, a simulation exists in two parts: the model and the rules. A simulation is successful if when executed it predicts (produces outcomes) that map to a reference well enough to say useful things about that reference (things what will often-enough prove to be true).A random dungeon generator is a successful simulation if it reliably produces dungeons of the expected type. That means that the model contains the features desired for the dungeon, and executing the rules results in a dungeon usefully alike the reference (of being a dungeon of that type.) You can probably see that for something artificial like a random dungeon, it's trivially and tautologically true that the simulation is successful. It would only be unsuccessful if the reference were dungeons in some other world. There are no dragon-containing dungeons in our world, and the dungeons in at least some possible worlds will be successfully predicted by the generator.I hope it's clear that my point isn't to dismiss your arguments, but to point out that there is something else going on, and a risk of picking-and-choosing what we accept as a simulation based on our preferences and experiences, and not based on anything objectively right about what counts as a simulation.The world generator is predicated on PCs living in a space-opera of the Traveller type. Hence the roll for a scout base for every planet in the galaxy. Because the planets are tailored to fit the envisioned play for the envisioned PCs.</blockquote>

Verification