Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8672246" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I don't agree that it is insipid. Your lead post says:* &quot;NOTE: I am using the term in its most natural definition, not necessarily in its jargon definition. I am talking about, loosely stated, &quot;presenting rules ina way that sort of look like how things actually work, if you squint.&quot;* [USER=99817]@chaochou[/USER] had a great post on page 1.* You made a post immediately thereafter lamenting a bunch of 5e tropes (both fictional tropes and tropes born of game engine design) that you felt were &quot;simulation-jarring&quot; to you.So I'm just doing the same there (lamenting tropes/design).&nbsp; There is an entire legion of them that are simulation-jarring to me (much like your post lamenting 5e tropes and pacing as &quot;simulation-jarring&quot;), but I'm not going to enumerate all of them (beyond the dragons and dragon : epic hero relationship I mentioned HP and recovery of HP and Armor Class abstraction...those are only a small number).The reality is that D&amp;D simulation works toward being comprehensible sufficient to play a game.&nbsp; Can a player functionally navigate their decision-space to affect the gamestate (and the shared imagined space) in a way that is predictable and rewarding?&nbsp; Yes?&nbsp; If so, good enough job to play the game.The problem is that this isn't what a significant cross-section of the D&amp;D user base (or at least a significant vocal portionof it) mean when we talk about it over the years.&nbsp; They mean all the other stuff.&nbsp; And they've used that other stuff to gatekeep the hell out of D&amp;D in the last decade and a half (keep your epic martial tropes out of my D&amp;D...keep your HP as not-meat out of my D&amp;D...keep your damage-on-a-miss out of my D&amp;D...maintain spellcaster supremacy...maintain GM control over Adventuring Day pacing, over the overall gamestate and the trajectory of play because they are exclusively the arbiters of &quot;what is simulation-worthy&quot; and therefore &quot;gamestate-legitimate-moves&quot; because of the GM-facing aspect of action resolution and the ever-present GM veto).So I don't agree that it is insipid and it doesn't look to me that your lead post and your post on page 1 supports &quot;its insipid.&quot;&nbsp; You've got your lamentations.&nbsp; I've got my lamentations.&nbsp; And the bold above (what is actually relevant to D&amp;D sim) and the italicized above (what is relevant to a certain person looking for a certain brand of immersion....and then weaponizing that to gatekeep D&amp;D culture and design) aren't the same thing...but they're often conflated rather than separated and discussed as two very separate things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8672246, member: 6696971"] I don't agree that it is insipid. Your lead post says: * "NOTE: I am using the term in its most natural definition, not necessarily in its jargon definition. I am talking about, loosely stated, "presenting rules ina way that sort of look like how things actually work, if you squint." * [USER=99817]@chaochou[/USER] had a great post on page 1. * You made a post immediately thereafter lamenting a bunch of 5e tropes (both fictional tropes and tropes born of game engine design) that you felt were "simulation-jarring" to you. So I'm just doing the same there (lamenting tropes/design). There is an entire legion of them that are simulation-jarring to me (much like your post lamenting 5e tropes and pacing as "simulation-jarring"), but I'm not going to enumerate all of them (beyond the dragons and dragon : epic hero relationship I mentioned HP and recovery of HP and Armor Class abstraction...those are only a small number). The reality is that [B]D&D simulation works toward being comprehensible sufficient to play a game. Can a player functionally navigate their decision-space to affect the gamestate (and the shared imagined space) in a way that is predictable and rewarding?[/B] Yes? If so, good enough job to play the game. The problem is that [I]this isn't what a significant cross-section of the D&D user base (or at least a significant vocal portionof it) mean when we talk about it over the years[/I]. They mean all the other stuff. And they've used that other stuff to gatekeep the hell out of D&D in the last decade and a half (keep your epic martial tropes out of my D&D...keep your HP as not-meat out of my D&D...keep your damage-on-a-miss out of my D&D...maintain spellcaster supremacy...maintain GM control over Adventuring Day pacing, over the overall gamestate and the trajectory of play because they are exclusively the arbiters of "what is simulation-worthy" and therefore "gamestate-legitimate-moves" because of the GM-facing aspect of action resolution and the ever-present GM veto). So I don't agree that it is insipid and it doesn't look to me that your lead post and your post on page 1 supports "its insipid." You've got your lamentations. I've got my lamentations. And the bold above (what is actually relevant to D&D sim) and the italicized above (what is relevant to a certain person looking for a certain brand of immersion....and then weaponizing that to gatekeep D&D culture and design) aren't the same thing...but they're often conflated rather than separated and discussed as two very separate things. [/QUOTE]

Verification