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

[Faolyn]

That framing makes it worse from the d&d sim perspective IMO.

I don't see how. The house is one that there would be a cook in it who would be in or near the kitchen. The cook is not a monster or high-level NPC who is going to fight; they're just a cook. You open the window but there's a complication--you drew the attention of the cook.

OK, so I haven't been paying all too much attention to the discussion here on GNS, so I'm just going to use the wikipedia definition: Simulationism is a playing style recreating, or inspired by, a genre or source. Its major concerns are internal consistency, analysis of cause and effect and informed speculation. [...] Many simulationist RPGs encourage illusionism (manipulation of in-game probability and environmental data to point to predefined conclusions) to create a story.

it's internally consistent and genre-consistent for there to be a cook in/near the kitchen in this house. There's distinct cause and effect here (your lockpicking attempt was poor enough to draw attention). It creates a story.

 

[Thomas Shey]

GMs typically run the sort of game they want to play, so if there's something they value as a player, they're going to use techniques that facilitate that when GMing. It's perfectly understandable for an individual to talk about what they're aiming to deliver player-side from the GM-side.

I realize you used "typically", but I'm not 100% sure how broad that is; while I run games that seem interesting to me, there are a lot of games I'd find interesting I don't even present as options because I know more than one of my players would be not interested and potentially actively put off. Maybe I'm an outlier here, but I'm not sold on that.

 

[JConstantine]

You can recast that system as fixed DCs with skill bonuses, though.

Right, but it's not about the maths, it's the perception. On an intellectual level, I know it's illogical, but roll under feels different to me than roll over in terms of the objectivity of the world. I was wondering where that line was for others.

 

[AlViking]

-nm-

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right, but it's not about the maths, it's the perception. On an intellectual level, I know it's illogical, but roll under feels different to me than roll over in terms of the objectivity of the world. I was wondering where that line was for others.

I realize I wasn't who it was directed at, but I can't say I'd feel any difference when the probabilities and approach were otherwise similar. A skill roll defined as a bonus against an average DC and a default roll-under skill roll are functionally identical in any way I care about.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right, but it's not about the maths, it's the perception. On an intellectual level, I know it's illogical, but roll under feels different to me than roll over in terms of the objectivity of the world. I was wondering where that line was for others.

I assumed by roll under you meant roll under your stat or similar. I wouldn’t like that. If it’s just roll under vs roll over and all else the same I don’t care either way.

 

[JConstantine]

That blog post was quite empathicaly argued against in this though: Broken RPG Theory: The "Six Cultures of Play"
So I think it might be a poor idea to assume that as a commonly accepted language.

Firstly, I'd not seen that until now, so thank you for bringing it to my attention.
I also had my own misgivings about the Six Cultures of Play, much like I do GNS theory, but until we actually have a unified theory that everyone agrees on, we're stuck with these various inaccurate models and language, etc. so either use them as shorthand, or laboriously explain what precisely we as an individual mean each and every time.

 

[Umbran]

I realize you used "typically", but I'm not 100% sure how broad that is; while I run games that seem interesting to me, there are a lot of games I'd find interesting I don't even present as options because I know more than one of my players would be not interested and potentially actively put off. Maybe I'm an outlier here, but I'm not sold on that.

I'm similar. I run the games that please my players. There's a ton of stuff out there I'm interested in playing that my usual players aren't.

 

[Enrahim]

I don't see how. The house is one that there would be a cook in it who would be in or near the kitchen. The cook is not a monster or high-level NPC who is going to fight; they're just a cook. You open the window but there's a complication--you drew the attention of the cook.

OK, so I haven't been paying all too much attention to the discussion here on GNS, so I'm just going to use the wikipedia definition: Simulationism is a playing style recreating, or inspired by, a genre or source. Its major concerns are internal consistency, analysis of cause and effect and informed speculation. [...] Many simulationist RPGs encourage illusionism (manipulation of in-game probability and environmental data to point to predefined conclusions) to create a story.

it's internally consistent and genre-consistent for there to be a cook in/near the kitchen in this house. There's distinct cause and effect here (your lockpicking attempt was poor enough to draw attention). It creates a story.

Again there is no serious problem if the lockpicking merely drew attention. The problem arises if there on the success was no cook there for the attention to be drawn at all. This is also not an immediate problem if the success outcome is unknown for the player, but if used extensively it can cause problematic patterns to be recognized.

Also sim play was unpresise. The exact type of play where this is a problem is play where the illusion of an independent world is important - usually because exploring and manipulating this world is central to what the players find interesting in the game.

 

[Gimby]

Right, but it's not about the maths, it's the perception. On an intellectual level, I know it's illogical, but roll under feels different to me than roll over in terms of the objectivity of the world. I was wondering where that line was for others.

I think this is pretty common - Save for Half is, essentially, identical to Damage on a Miss - the only difference is who rolls the dice