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

[EzekielRaiden]

So it would be more realistic if bad things happened whether competent or incompetent people took the lead? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Indeed, this would seem to be precisely the opposite of "resembling reality" or "having the semblance of truth".

Because good things happen more often and bad things happen less often when competent people are leading, when compared to incompetent people leading. That's why we care about the competencies of our leadership IRL. (Or, at least, in theory that's why we care, recent history notwithstanding...)

 

[AlViking]

D&D though, tries to be all things to all people, so it’s not going to tell them how they should interpret the world.

But you can’t really prove the real world independently exists, and some people believe it doesn’t. “I think therefore I am” as Descartes said, everything else is up for grabs.

Totally unrelated to anything but it reminds me of a bad joke

A horse walks into a bar and orders a drink. The bartender recognizes the horse and says "Aren't you afraid you're an alcoholic?" The horse responds "I don't think I am." and disappears.


The joke is based on knowing that Descartes declared "I think therefore I am". I could have reminded people of what Descartes stated ahead of the horse saying "I don't think I am" but that would have been putting Descartes before the horse.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

"Quantum" again! I thought we had settled this long time ago now. The issue isn't if it is "quantum" or not it is all about what kind of "quantum". The kind depends on why the roll was made.

The thread up to this point has made it pretty clear that "quantum" is the enemy, whatever form it might take.

But even if we grant your "there is a taxonomy" thing, I do not understand why the GM throwing the die makes any form of (alleged) quantum-ness, whatever form one picks out, 100% perfectly acceptable and good and even necessary, while the player throwing that die makes it utterly unacceptable and horrible and even ruinous.

Why is it that the player's hand throwing the die makes something verboten, while a GM's hand throwing the die makes it good and right and true?

 

[AlViking]

I'm just saying that D&D is not a very good simulationist game. That's why I GMed Rolemaster for 19 years.

I'm saying that I approach it as a simulation of a magical world with action movie logic. It's not attempting to simulate the real world or anything like it, that doesn't mean it's not a simulation. Also, you don't get to tell me how I view my approach to the game.

 

[CellarHeroes]

Totally unrelated to anything but it reminds me of a bad joke

A horse walks into a bar and orders a drink. The bartender recognizes the horse and says "Aren't you afraid you're an alcoholic?" The horse responds "I don't think I am." and disappears.


The joke is based on knowing that Descartes declared "I think therefore I am". I could have reminded people of what Descartes stated ahead of the horse saying "I don't think I am" but that would have been putting Descartes before the horse.

So, I guess this is how I'm starting my week....

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm saying that I approach it as a simulation of a magical world with action movie logic. It's not attempting to simulate the real world or anything like it, that doesn't mean it's not a simulation. Also, you don't get to tell me how I view my approach to the game.

The thing you quoted said nothing about your views.

It said that the game under discussion--D&D--is not a very good simulationist game. As in, the claim that its rules are not well-constructed for the purpose of simulating things with granularity and precision, but instead relies significantly on things that are opposite to simulation, such as genre conventions, thematic or dramatic considerations, and gameplay contrivances that could very easily have been less contrived.

 

[Enrahim]

The thread up to this point has made it pretty clear that "quantum" is the enemy, whatever form it might take.

But even if we grant your "there is a taxonomy" thing, I do not understand why the GM throwing the die makes any form of (alleged) quantum-ness, whatever form one picks out, 100% perfectly acceptable and good and even necessary, while the player throwing that die makes it utterly unacceptable and horrible and even ruinous.

Why is it that the player's hand throwing the die makes something verboten, while a GM's hand throwing the die makes it good and right and true?

I guess noone would mind the player rolling the wandering monster with their hands. The problem come when the player for some reason is applying an unrelated skill modifier of their character to that roll, and/or that roll determines more than just the wandering monster.

 

[FrogReaver]

I understand "independent of the player". That's why I call the RPGing "GM-driven" or "GM-centred".

A living world sandbox compared to a traditional railroad is not very GM driven. There’s more to GM driven than ‘independent of the player’ world.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I guess noone would mind the player rolling the wandering monster with their hands. The problem come when the same player for some reason is applying a skill modifier to that roll.

So DMs never factor in, for example, the party's stealthiness for what results might come up on a wandering monster roll? I can literally say I have seen more than one DM apply such a thing (e.g. the party scout's Stealth bonus reducing the result of a wandering-encounter roll so that lesser or even empty encounters are more likely). So like...even that isn't the absolute hard-and-fast line you seem to think it is.

 

[The Firebird]

I understand "independent of the player". That's why I call the RPGing "GM-driven" or "GM-centred".

I assert that, if the trigger for introducing some content into the shared fiction is a die roll, it doesn't become less "quantum" because the GM rather than the player rolled the die.

Ok. Forget quantum for the moment. We get the independence.

Do you see why the dependence in what you call "player driven" bothers some people? If not, do you at least understand they are responding to the real independence/dependence divide?