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

[clearstream]

I have mostly been responding to assertions that a "fail forward" resolution approach is distinctively "quantum" or involves "conjuring beings into existence" or involves "unconnectedness" between cause and effect.

If I've followed what you say about this correctly, I agree with most of it.

Taking a counter-factual (modal or possible worlds) approach to causality, a fairly obvious difference can be drawn between the cases (where F is the failed lock pick attempt, C is the cook in the kitchen, T is a table for townhouse occupants and locations)

in the absence of F necessarily not C​

in the absence of T necessarily not C​

T's doing a bit of work there, because it could cover all sorts of causes just so long as those don't include F. The cooks appearance is no less conjured into the fiction by T than by F, but the causal attribution is easily differentiated. If one dislikes F as a cause but likes T, then one ought to disallow narrating C just because of F.

(The above is a gloss: one can complicate the explanation without impinging the conclusion by proliferating and amalgamating causes of C.)

 

[clearstream]

I think the key there is ‘for you’. Not for everyone.

Yes, and if it is possible to satisfy a desire for verisimilitude in the absence of what one identifies as "simulationism" that leaves open removing what one desires from that identity. However, that leaves only a narrow path, or none at all, between on the one hand rejecting creative agendas as telling us much about play and on the other hand a notion of games as tools. Surely some intention drives the woodcarver's hand?

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, and if it is possible to satisfy a desire for verisimilitude in the absence of what one identifies as "simulationism" that leaves open removing what one desires from that identity. However, that leaves only a narrow path, or none at all, between on the one hand rejecting creative agendas as telling us much about play and on the other hand a notion of games as tools. Surely some intention drives the woodcarver's hand?

I’m not following this at all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

it's not more realistic if complications happen less when competent people are performing the task, the world doesn't care who is performing the task or how skilled they are, be it the three stooges or james bond, if the cook is going to be on the other side of the door then the cook is going to be on the other side of the door regardless of who is opening it.

Failures happen less when someone competent is taking the lead, Complications are entirely independent.

Is that actually true? I don't grant that it is. Like I genuinely seriously do not grant this claim.

"Complications" that you can't deal with are independent. But having a competent person at the helm genuinely does mean fewer things become complications at all.

 

[Enrahim]

Your example is not active scene-framing. The players are trying to take an action - a low-stakes one ("stay awake outside the cell hoping the assassin might talk in their sleep) - so that the GM can give them more information about the backstory the GM has prepared. It's basically the anithesis of active scene-framing.

Here's a thread about scene-framing techniques used in D&D: D&D 4E - Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

I'll say something about some of the episodes of play that I've talked about upthread:

When resolving Aedhros's night-time activities in Hardby, or Thurgon's reunion with Rufus, my goal as a player is not to learn how the guards in Hardby (as imagined by the GM) treat nocturnal singers or to have the GM tell me about Rufus. These are not puzzles to be solved, or challenges that I will solve via choosing an optimal set of maneouvres. As you say, it's about visceral experiences that make me feel like I'm there as my character, experiencing hopes and failures.

Ok, chore's done, so I think I have some time to engage directly with this as I think it points to an extremely important clarification.

You have made claims you know very well how sim play works. You have quoted extensive time playing Rolemaster and experience with 4ed to support this. If combining 3ed and 5ed I am pretty sure I have played over 1000 hours of WotC era D&D DMing way more than half of it. I have absolutely no clue about encounter balancing, high level 5ed play or effective builds. All of these quite central to many that is playing D&D but just have not been relevant to the kind of game I have been playing.

I think I know a thing or two of how to make the world feel alive and organic given the feedback I have gotten from players, though.

So the question I want to ask is: What kind of sim play do you have extensive experience and competence in? I think someone else might have asked you something similar, but I have not observed the answer, so sorry if you feel I ask you to repeat yourself.

To highlight what I am talking about, consider the scenario I proposed previously: Alexander the great at the height of his military power is time traveled to 0AD Greece. Consider these two games:
1: The players are curious to find out how this scenario play out on a grand scale. Will the roman more evolved tactics obliterate the army? Would Alexander manage to use the leverage to position himself into some important political position? Which established political character of that age is most likely to have needed to concede power to Alexander in that case?
2: The players are curious to find out how this situation would feel from Alexander's viewpoint. How would he come to terms with finding the empire he built had fallen? How would his first meeting with a Roman emissary play out? Would he feel like he was among his own people when walking the streets of his home town?

Both of these games would from my understanding be very likely to give sim dominated play according to GNS from my understanding. But I think it would be clear to everyone that can think for themselves that these two experiences are wildly different, and that focus on one set of questions by necessity would steal time from focusing on the other set of questions.

What you appear to describe is that active framing can be a effective tool for the second kind of game. I completely agree. And if you manage to clarify that this is all you have meant to say all along, I think this is indeed very uncontroversial. However the way you have formulated yourself has made it very easy to interpret your claim as being that the techniques you have proposed are useful for all kinds of sim, including the first example. I think this is where the push back is coming from, as that is at least far from obvious to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think @Maxperson covers this, but I'm talking about the case when reshuffling saves to attacks on defences. This is nearly identical mechanically, takes precisely the same fictional inputs and delivers precisely the same fictional outputs. The only mechanical difference is who physically rolls the die. I can equally well swap AC into a save equivalent that works the same way by changing an attack roll into a defence roll.

No issue with player rolls or dm rolls. I think I’ve been very clear about that.

This should show (hopefully!) that the only difference between damage on a miss and save for half is semantic as attack rolls and saves (in 3/5e era D&D at least) are essentially the same thing.

And here I thought we were talking about miss for half damage. That’s a different fictional outcome than miss for no damage.

Miss has a semantic meaning. That is important. If Miss ceases to mean Miss then you’ve rendered the meaning that word is imparting to the simulation meaningless as well. It’s about more than just the mechanical structure.

Note: 2024 d&d has damage on a miss in the game already with the graze weapon mastery.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

From discussion here and elsewhere, simulationism seems to label game play characterised by i) giving the imagined world precedence and ii) addressing it as if it were independently real. Tenacious differences of view in this thread may well be down to acceptance or rejection of that mental model.

I like both Tuovinen and Sorensen's concepts of simulationism, while on the whole accepting Baker's current view of GNS. Where I might differ from Baker is in seeing "simulationism" as having currency as a broad label for multiple modes of play / things games can do. Which likely commits me to reading Tuovinen as describing six things a game can do, rather than one.

Games needn't be doing just one thing at a time, and as regards what they do they can differ in degree. Referring to my notion of games as tools, the ways a group of players uses a game adjusts their play. And note the silence in my proposed characteristics on what should be counted important about the imagined world and how that should be treated.

This does not seem to comport with what as being said; as noted, the imagined world was allowed to not have precedence if genre convention would say otherwise, which...pretty much seems to fly in the face of everything you've just described here.

For instance, a game can meet both of my proposed characteristics without worrying about "fidelity to the physical processes of a world" if those physical processes aren't counted important enough to receive treatment for play. "Simulationist" games do not have to be about every possible feature of the imagined world! They can focus on some features over others. And they can render some features with fidelity while glossing or ignoring completely others.

Does this mean any person can declare any game to be "simulationist" if they simply choose not to care about very many things? Because that seems to be the implication of this line of reasoning.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The level and focus of contrivance has varied significantly over the editions, I would note.

Not particularly?

Hit points, saving throws, heck even to-hit rolls (including the everpresent 1-in-20 chance to crit) have been there from the very beginning. Every edition brings its own bits and eliminates bits from previous editions. We might be able to say, in a very loose way, that some are slightly moreso and others slightly less so, but they all share several common core bits that are innately and overtly "rule contrivances to make a playable gaming experience" or "thematic/dramatic contrivance because not doing that would be less interesting", most of which get grandfathered in.

One should think that if "simulation" were the top priority, the parts that rub most strongly against that--even if they are basal elements--would get a lot of criticism. I don't see that happening...ever, really. Instead, D&D is presented as being not only highly compatible with simulationism, but among the best for it, which....only really holds up if a person has very little experience with other, much more simulationist TTRPGs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't factor that into the roll. I might factor it into whether or not there is a roll, or how often. But what might be there has nothing to do with how sneaky the PCs are.

Then you are still employing it. It still matters, it still affects the roll. Sure, it doesn't affect the specific number in a direct mathematical equation. But the character's characteristics still affect the result. The alleged distinction, that a player rolling something with their stats involved is utterly and completely unlike a GM rolling a die vs a table of results? Not present. It's dramatically more complicated than that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the dice come up "encounter" then there's an encounter; the party's stealth then has a lot to say about the course that encounter takes and-or whether it is completely bypassed.

DM: <on rolling a random encounter> "On your quiet way through the forest you notice a Dire Wolf not far ahead, on a low ridge. It clearly hasn't noticed you yet."
Player(s): "We back off a bit then sneak around it on the downwind side."
DM: <does a bit of rolling> "Looks good - you're past the wolf and it still hasn't noticed you. Carry on."

Which is a lovely description, and a non-sequitur.

The person I was responding to declared a bright line, a line in the sand: GMs (of the style being discussed) would not EVER factor in a character's stats into a roll they made about whether an encounter might happen.

I have seen this happen. Personally and directly, multiple times, with GMs explicitly saying that that was a thing they did, in games aiming to be simulation-focused, both in system design and in campaign style. Perhaps not 100% precisely the same style, but at very least an adjacent one with a great deal in common.

The alleged bright-line distinction doesn't exist. It is a fuzzy, messy boundary--if a boundary exists at all, rather than a smooth continuum with no stops along the way.