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

[clearstream]

Not to nit-pick the example, but it seems to me that this would be a violation of both simulationism and narrativism.
For simulationism, the GM acts as the PC's senses (this is also the case outside of simulationism, but not strictly relevant) and so they should have established the ambient noise as part of simulating the world when setting the scene.

I don't take

That background noise is established as a part of the fiction now to explain something that happened in the fiction back then.

to necessarily breach Sorensen's principles for neosim just so long as they were designed as abstractions to secure that something true of the imagined world is afforded for play. How they should achieve that isn't prescribed.

@pemerton I think it quite possible I've lost track of your line of argument, but is it right you were thinking of this

Outside of diegetic in-character actions, players cannot change the world. The world is sacred: it is apart and cannot be altered except by those forces from within the fictional world. At no point should the world change simply because the rules dictate it so. (Sorensen.)​

​

The argument then goes that the result of rolling for surprise changes the world in a non-diegetic way. Say, in the case where no one has narrated background noise into the fiction.

While each possible cause of surprise could be detailed, with a matrix and factors of time for recovery from the condition calculated to a nicety, the overall result would not materially add to the game - in fact, the undue complication would detract from the smooth flow of play. (Gygax.)​

​

All rules are abstractions of a larger, more complex fictional reality. They exist to ease complicated processes into something that can be more easily played with—and nothing more. (Sorensen.)​

Eliding detail isn't at issue -- it's accepted -- all that's forbidden is that a mechanic should introduce non-diegetic change (which I assume covers both introducing and altering world-fiction.) I think there are two solutions to this. The first is to demand that before someone rolls for surprise they must narrate its causes into the fiction. That can be neatly taken care of by fail-forward systems, which secure that someone has presented a cause just before the ambush or whatever happens. But even simple-fail systems only require a player to say something like "It'd be easy to be surprised in these narrow, winding alleys."

An alternative approach is to observe that an interpretation of "diegetic" that comes from traditional linear modes of fiction won't do for games. Players are actors, authors and audiences; game mechanics are tools furnished them for their play. That results in game processes themselves becoming diegetic in some circumstances. So when surprise is rolled, the world hasn't changed simply because the surprise rules made it so: the surprise rules represent something known to be happening in the world that the characters are aware of only abstracted to ease play (just as Gygax described.) What seems demanded is that players know those rules and it is allowed that their characters know that they inhabit a world imagined to have such features as those abstractions represent.

 

[Maxperson]

But now you're agreeing with me - there is no in-fiction reason that has been established prior to the rolling of the dice.

Er, they are being stealthy and sneaking up on the party. That's an in fiction reason established prior to the rolling of the dice. You don't roll the dice and then if someone is surprised, the other side must have been stealthy.

 

[Faolyn]

Ok, first, your language is a bit confusing, as a trad sandbox adventure is not explicitely expressing what is happening. Rather it is explaining what is there.

We're not talking about sandboxes here, though.

 

[Faolyn]

It's not a question of how far in advance it has to be made up, it's a question of what's made up remaining the same regardless of what the players roll and-or how they interact with it.

If you place a cook in the kitchen between 2 am and 6 am then there's a cook in the kitchen at that time no matter whether the PCs unlock the kitchen door, fail to unlock the door, or decide to go in through an upstairs bedroom instead.

Sure, OK, but... how often do you think GMs in general are going to plot out the schedules for every single occupant of the house? Do GMs even need to go into that much level of detail? I can see coming up with a schedule for patrolling guards, maybe, but for house staff?

 

[Faolyn]

If you have a specific issue with how I said I ran the game then please offer it. Otherwise a general "you are just bad at this" is not helpful. But given you're still misstating the issue I have...

I'm not saying you're bad. I'm saying you're inexperienced. Those are very different things.

The issue has nothing to do with the timing.


And I repeat, the issue has nothing to do with the timing. I'm not going to clarify this in detail again because this is what, the fourth time I've had to correct your presentation of my views?

Where have you corrected it even once? You said it felt like cheating, but you haven't said how actively planning it out ahead of time in a typical adventure is any different.

 

[Faolyn]

So let me get this straight. The only reason @The Firebird didn't like your preferred game was because of ignorance? Are we not allowed to have our own opinions on things? It is not butter brickle ice cream's fault that I don't like it nor is it mine. Some people also don't like pineapple on their pizza, I enjoy it sometimes.

We all have different preferences and I will never tell you that if you don't play my way it's just because you don't know any better. Saying they didn't like it because they weren't used to it is the same as saying that your way is better and anyone who disagrees is just wrong.

I'm not talking about preferences here or ignorance. I'm talking about experience. Narrative games run differently than trad games. If you try to run one just like you run a trad game, it's not going to work well.

 

[AlViking]

I'm not talking about preferences here or ignorance. I'm talking about experience. Narrative games run differently than trad games. If you try to run one just like you run a trad game, it's not going to work well.

The clear message sure seems to be that if they were experienced they'd like it just as much as you. That's the problem.

Because we can't just have an understanding of how something works to form an opinion. What, then is the threshold? Playing a session or two at a con and spending a couple hours watching streams? Or do we have to play a 100 hours or more? Heaven forbid we just read up on something, discuss it to get a clearer understanding and realize it's just not for us.

Why is it so hard to accept that other people have different preferences and know what they want?

 

[Micah Sweet]

In my view, "If we roll to populate a hex the players just entered" then it is obvious that "everything is being made up for the PCs." The player saying "My PC enters this hex" and the player saying "I only rolled 1 success" are both the players doing things, that are then prompting the GM to author something. Neither is independent of the player; though, if what the GM is prompted to do is roll on a table, then the particular table result is independent.

There is a difference of process between disclaiming decision-making (eg by rolling) and not (eg by doing the job that a GM has to do in Burning Wheel). But the fiction has the same metaphysical status.

So I don't see the difference that you assert is there. And if it just a matter of feelings I think that is enough to show that it is not a metaphysical difference.

Then we are back at preference and feels. Can we all just accept that and move on?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The clear message sure seems to be that if they were experienced they'd like it just as much as you. That's the problem.

Because we can't just have an understanding of how something works to form an opinion. What, then is the threshold? Playing a session or two at a con and spending a couple hours watching streams? Or do we have to play a 100 hours or more? Heaven forbid we just read up on something, discuss it to get a clearer understanding and realize it's just not for us.

Why is it so hard to accept that other people have different preferences and know what they want?

I have a theory. In their view we are misunderstanding the process / goals / philosophy in some way. We have to explain that we understand Narrativist games to their satisfaction and still don't care for them for them to be satisfied.

 

[AlViking]

I have a theory. In their view we are misunderstanding the process / goals / philosophy in some way. We have to explain that we understand Narrativist games to their satisfaction and still don't care for them for them to be satisfied.

What makes it particularly difficult is that it seems that we also need to use the terminology used by their specific game. Except then someone who uses a different game or has a different implementation of a phrase just gets riled up because we aren't using their version. Then we're dumb enough to try to address or correct the issues that have been covered many, many times. Round and round it goes.