D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Enrahim]

@Enrahim

My current theory. The simulation is what causes the illusion of the existence of a world outside ours. I've noticed that narrativists usually shy away from such language and maybe that's because without the major simulation elements there's no sense of a world that exists outside our own. Mostly thinking aloud, curious on your thoughts.

I sort of agree to that theory, and that is why I would be careful to introducing the simulation term into the discurse. The problem is that while simulation can reinforce the illusion it is not essential to it. The tolkien fan can easily discuss blue wizards without introducing any simulatory mechanics.

Hence my preference to focus on the illusion, as I think that concept is more fundamental. The simulation term also come with a lot of distracting bagage in the form of a history of bad implementations.

I do think most narativists indeed do maintain an illusion of an independent fiction, even if at least some of them might be claiming themselves to fully see trough it. My theory is that this illusion is arrising from automatic processes in our subconcious predictive system, and that a key to the enjoyment we get out of engaging with this is from the reward system associated with these unconcious predictions proving right get stimulated. As such it is a illusion that is hard to fully escape from. My theory about those with a more narrativistic tendensy is that they prioritise the experience gotten from the fiction resonating with their emotional system, and are as such more accepting to occasionally have to "suspend disbelief" in order to acheive this.

And in this light it makes full sense that they definitely are not interested in investing their time in fildeling with simulation techniques. It might be strenghtening a pleasant experience, but they sort of already have that experience. And this experience is secondary to their primary motivation to engage with the activity.

I hope this answer was on the level you hoped for? Mind you I am not a neural-scientist, just a neural-enthusiast. So don't take any of my theories as authoritative.

 

[pemerton]

In the abstract, avoiding having "nothing happen" is a good thing because it has the decided benefit of helping prevent play bogging down.

Game mechanics and/or GMing techniques that prevent a "nothing happens" outcome, however, do work at cross purposes with the players' in-character efforts (if any) at risk-mitigation. Specifically, players trying to maximize the chances of their characters succeeding at their longer-term goals have an incentive to try to limit the potential in-fiction consequences of any risky actions they elect to take along the way--in other words, such players are actively trying to drive the downside risks as close as possible to "nothing happens." That doesn't (or possibly can't) play nicely with game mechanics and GMing techniques that seek to prevent that outcome.

Perhaps it depends what is mean by "risk mitigation" and "maximising the chance of succeeding at longer-term goals". But what you say here doesn't seem to me to be borne out by my experience.

For instance, as someone (@FrozenNorth, maybe) already noted upthread, 4e D&D uses - or largely uses - "fail forward". That did not stop the players in my 4e game having their PCs take a bag of lime with them when they went off to confront a purple worm. And at an appropriate point one PC poured the lime down the worm's throat, thus reducing the damage its stomach acid was doing to another PC who had been swallowed.

In a different context, one reason that Aedhros puts up with being bullied about by Thoth (in one of my Burning Wheel games) is because he doesn't want Thoth to hurt or kill Alicia, who is lying in Thoth's workrooms recovering from a mortal wound. That's also a type of risk-mitigation in pursuit of a long-term goal. As a player, what I am doing is not declaring actions for Aedhros that would stake Alicia's wellbeing while in Thoth's custody.

But maybe these aren't the sort of thing that you had in mind.

 

[pemerton]

My theory about those with a more narrativistic tendensy is that they prioritise the experience gotten from the fiction resonating with their emotional system, and are as such more accepting to occasionally have to "suspend disbelief" in order to acheive this.

I don't find this sort of psychological conjecture very plausible.

Especially because, while in this thread I presumably count as one of the "narrativists" (which seems to have been repurposed as a label for people rather than an approach to RPGing), I suspect I have more experience with serious simulationist play than many posters in this thread, having GMed 1000s of hours of Rolemaster over the course of nearly two decades (1990 to 2008 inclusive).

 

[Enrahim]

I don't find this sort of psychological conjecture very plausible.

Especially because, while in this thread I presumably count as one of the "narrativists" (which seems to have been repurposed as a label for people rather than an approach to RPGing), I suspect I have more experience with serious simulationist play than many posters in this thread, having GMed 1000s of hours of Rolemaster over the course of nearly two decades (1990 to 2008 inclusive).

Yes, this is strongly speculative on my part. But it is based on what I have heard from others.

I would be extremely interested to hear what you feel is not matching your experience?!

I can add that I think there are ways to play the game where these concerns are not in conflict with each other, and might even reinforce each other. Might that be a thing you are reacting to? My statement was meant as a commentary to why I think we are observing the kind of arguments I have often see around potential conflicts, and hence conflict was assumed.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was going to say. Not a fan of Watchmen? Personally I loved that they did that.

As a once-in-a-VERY-long-while subversion, maybe.

More than once in a single campaign? No, absolutely not going to "love" that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not nearly as hardcore a simulationist as others in this thread. I definitely have other concerns and accept certain things in the name of gameplay. And from what I've read, they do too, just less of it than me.

I agree! How many times do I need to say that for you to believe it?

All I have to say is that in this particular case, what you propose to give up for gameplay concerns would be too much for me. That in this particular case, I weight what would be gained from the gameplay you propose as less than what would be lost on the simulation side FOR ME.


I really don't because that's not my position. If you prefer the more gamist mix, go for it!

This is simply untrue. As explained above, all that is necessary is that for me in this particular case the benefits of your gamist methods are less important than the amount of simulation I'd be giving up.

And finally some advice, you may have gotten better discussion if you hadn't tried to paint me into some weird box and told me a bunch of things 'I have to do' but instead just asked 'what do you see as being given up on the simulation front by doing this specific thing?'

So...

The amount of simulation you lose from removing "random, unknown time limits that have a pretty decent chance of either not mattering at all, or completely screwing you over"? That amount of simulation is worth an absolutely $#!+-awful experience for anyone who isn't as simulationist as you?

Because no, I don't really buy that. I don't buy that this is somehow a deep and integral part of your experience such that "no random time limits you could never possibly have known because literally NO ONE knew them until the GM revealed it afterward" is a bright line you demand everyone must respect.

 

[pemerton]

I believe the big issue with this approach lies on a metaphysical level that is very hard to both recognise and express. This is more similutionistic in nature. It is about how for players has the concept of a paralell fantasy world with a sort of "existence" outside of ours are central to their core enjoyment of the game.

When tolkien enthusiasts try to reason around what could have happened with the blue mages, they are (normally) not trying to make up anything as dramatic as possible. They are trying to use what is known to deduce what they think would have happened as if something actually did happen with them in this fictional space. I presume everyone involved in such activities are very aware they are talking about a fictional setting, and I guess most assume Tolkien himself had not settled on an answer to this. So we are talking about people exploring a fictional space that is in one way not in anyones head, but still is atributed a sort of independent "existence"

In TTRPG we allow ourselves to go visit one of these fictional worlds trough "inhabiting" one of the creatures in that world. We get to see trough their eyes, and to some extent control their actions. This is an inteference of our world with the fictional world that I believe all TTRPG players accept. But note I stated the player controls the character to some extent. In many groups, If a player has a character behave in a way that is inconsistent with what that character is believed to be in this seperate fictional world, that is a foul. That is the player overreaching their divine duties to not interfer directly with what is happening in this fantasy world. They are bringing aspects of the real world (player actions) into the fantasy world in a too overt maner, hence tainting the experience.

I don't quite know what sorts of "interference" you have in mind.

But I already posted upthread, that I think that typical D&D-esque play has a lot of "author" stance action declarations, pertaining especially to (i) keeping the party together even though there is little in-character rationale for this, and (ii) following the GM's leads as to what might be interesting to do (in AP-ish play this is just about taking the hook; in more sandbox-y play it is about fitting into the situations the GM is presenting as options for play).

And this lead me to the critisism against the weirdly entangled quantum that I do not think can be easily brushed off as conservatism or misunderstanding the entire deal: This is clearly a more overt case of something happening in the real world affecting the fictional space, than a player acting a bit out of character. Indeed it is so bad it is seriously threatening the entire integrity of the fantasy as having any sort of independence from the group that is playing.

Here is your "entangled quantum":

This forest is known for having a particularly ferocious Ogre roaming it. What are possible approaches to decide if the group encounters it as they move through the forest?

<snip>

7: The weirdly entangled local quantum: If a character is declared to “be alert” while moving through the forest, the player rolls a D20. On a 6 or higher the Ogre is on the path. If no one makes such a declaration it is not on the path.

I don't immediately recognise this as part of RPGs I'm familiar with, unless it means simply that, if a player is hoping to have a certain sort of encounter/experience, and is looking around for it, then they can declare their PC's hope in that respect, and roll to resolve it. The first RPG I know of to have a version of this is Classic Traveller with its patron encounters (Book 3, p 20):

In a single week, a band of adventurers may elect to devote their time to encountering a patron. They may frequent bars, taverns, clubs, perhaps the Travellers' Aid Building, or any other likely places. One throw is allowed for the entire band: a result of 5 or 6 on one die indicates a likely patron has been found.​

(When Carousing skill is introduced in Book 5 (1980) it grants a +1 to the chance of such an encounter occurring.)

My reason for mentioning this example is because anything that was found in Classic Traveller in 1980 probably doesn't count as radical in RPG design.

 

[Gimby]

More to the point, how often do bears wander into locked kitchens in the middle of the night?

Often enough, it's a minor sub-genre on Youtube

 

[The Firebird]

I think it is important to understand why a result "feeling unrelated to" the check is a really bad thing in a certain style of play.

In the abstract, avoiding having "nothing happen" is a good thing because it has the decided benefit of helping prevent play bogging down.

+1 to both of these posts (I just quoted the start), which together make a pretty exhaustive case against fail forward. I'm not sure there's more to be said about it.

But saying that the consequences are unconnected or unrelated makes no sense. Because it's false, and obviously so. Because the consequences and the action are connected/related: there was an incipient threat or promise, and the action was performed, and now that threat/promise is paid out. That's a connection! And a pretty straightforward one.

Another way to frame it is to consider what is on the character sheet and what it represents. In fixed world games, it's the characters ability at a task like lock picking. In the fail forward case, its that, but it's also the extent to which fortunate circumstances happen to occur while this character is lock picking. That's a more distant connection and one I prefer not to make.

In my experience, one obstacle to talking clearly about these preferences is that some posters assert that certain RPGs satisfy these desiderata, when according to their rulebooks and frequent practices they actually don't. For instance, I don't think it's uncommon for GM's to narrate failed climb checks as involving crumbling ledges or handholds; but that crumbliness is introduced as part of the resolution, not as part of a prior determination of the state of the purchase-points on the cliff.

Now this, I think is an interesting example, but I don't buy your framing. Go back to the lockpick case -- I think most trad players would be fine with the result being narrated as "the lock has an intricate mechanism" or "there is a hidden turn in it" or something of the sort--for the DM to describe something about the lock causing the failure. This may be hinted at by a DC, like a crumbly cliff, even if not stated outright.

That said, this is clearly different from the cook case because it is directly related to the task resolution. My character sheet gives my skill at lockpicking or climbing, so obstacles related to lockpicking or climbing are ok. Obstacles like a cook having insomnia are not.

Your comment about "story telling" is also strange to me. As if the only two things one might do with a fiction is (i) use it to set up an arena for overcoming external challenges or (ii) tell a story. What about (iiI) finding out how it unfolds? And things can unfold in ways other than the overcoming of external challenges.

I know some people have pushed on this phrase before but I will again. How is "finding out what happens" not a characteristic of both (i) and (ii)? It seems confusing to set it up as a separate category. What I understand it as trying to get across is something like "we are telling a story improvisationally but we include explicit mechanics to guide how we respond to certain statements. Therefore we are both authors and audience and discover as much as tell".

That seems to me like it falls neatly into (ii).

 

[Enrahim]

I don't quite know what sorts of "interference" you have in mind.

But I already posted upthread, that I think that typical D&D-esque play has a lot of "author" stance action declarations, pertaining especially to (i) keeping the party together even though there is little in-character rationale for this, and (ii) following the GM's leads as to what might be interesting to do (in AP-ish play this is just about taking the hook; in more sandbox-y play it is about fitting into the situations the GM is presenting as options for play).

Yes, author stance is in no way incompatible with the idea of a idea of an independent world you have limited and well defined ability to interact with. The allowance for such an interaction is what I pointed to as an essential difference between TTRPGs and theorising around middle earth.

Here is your "entangled quantum":
I don't immediately recognise this as part of RPGs I'm familiar with, unless it means simply that, if a player is hoping to have a certain sort of encounter/experience, and is looking around for it, then they can declare their PC's hope in that respect, and roll to resolve it. The first RPG I know of to have a version of this is Classic Traveller with its patron encounters (Book 3, p 20):

In a single week, a band of adventurers may elect to devote their time to encountering a patron. They may frequent bars, taverns, clubs, perhaps the Travellers' Aid Building, or any other likely places. One throw is allowed for the entire band: a result of 5 or 6 on one die indicates a likely patron has been found.​

(When Carousing skill is introduced in Book 5 (1980) it grants a +1 to the chance of such an encounter occurring.)

My reason for mentioning this example is because anything that was found in Classic Traveller in 1980 probably doesn't count as radical in RPG design.

Patron encounters would be category 4 local uneven random quantum. The probability of meeting the patron is dependent on the action the players are taking (in this case devoting time to search), and the location of the patron is not determined by the resolution if not found (hence local). It is not weirdly entangled (7), as the difference in probability is easily understood as following from what happens in the fiction.

I have never myself encountered anyone using a weirdly entangled encounter as a procedure. The only place I have ever seen this proposed is as a hypotetical possibility to resolve the cook in kitchen question from a pick lock skill, that has plagued this thread the last dozens of pages. Someone seem to think that is a valid and relevant interpretation of the fail-forward principle. Surely you havent missed this?