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

[AlViking]

Yes. Given that there are - for practical purposes - infinite lotteries I can take part in, from the school raffle to the Italian lotteries that Australian lottery agents will sell me tickets for, I don't see this as a problem.

Except you aren't playing infinite lotteries. You're playing one specific lottery and choosing the prize. Nice for the contestant, I just don't understand why you can't admit it. It's your game, not mine but the player is crossing a line here. They aren't filling in some lore details from their past like some games allow, they're given a chance to alter a future declaration.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So what? I mean, in theory, anything a player does in a session of play may serve an unlimited number of different player-goals at the same time.

...

Thus, often metacurrencies aren't really "gamist", in that they aren't in line with the fun of playing a game. They are in line with other goals players and GMs have.

(Edit to add: I personally have no issues with meta-currencies! Someone asked about them, and I gave an answer as I have gleaned it over time. I typically turn to other types of games when I want to scratch my gamist itch, so non-gamist elements of RPGs are cool by me!)

The problem with this logic is it doesn't recognize that managing the metacurrancy is, itself a game. Its never unlimited, so deciding when to use it has a strategy of its own. Sometimes that strategy is about producing a better story, but sometimes its just about success and when the success matters most.

(This is why metacurrency that is really there to produce genre trope or story purposes bakes that into either how you earn it or under what circumstances you're allowed to use it in, not the metacurrancy's function itself in most cases. Because basic metacurrency such as Savage Worlds bennies is very agnostic about what functions you use it for.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

It depends on what those aspects are and what game they're in. And if the PC can create aspects, then that does not contradict with "only using the abilities that PC has at their disposal" because creating aspects would be an ability they have at their disposal.

The other thing, as has been said, is that the game assumes that you are working within the fiction and not trying to play on godmode. So if the player can create aspects--again, whatever they are in this game--then they are doing so within the boundaries of their PC's abilities, background, etc.--which to me still counts as only using the abilities the PC has at their disposal. And as I said, the ability to decide or create things wholesale, like what the runes actually mean, is not necessarily a common ability in these games.

Though this does turn very strongly on the player's understanding of those abilities and the aspects they're creating being coherent, not only to them but to other people. I'd hardly take that as a given with an average group of players. (In fact, it was one of things, combined with my need to adjudicate it, that very quickly drove me up a wall in my limited attempts to run Fate).

 

[Maxperson]

"a subject" which could mean playing Pendragon in a way that increased appreciation of Le Mort D'Arthur.


Yes, and remembering that this is supposed to be a creative agenda, it's describing a purpose for play. It seems feasible that one could play with that purpose in mind. That games could be designed to serve that purpose is an assumption behind proceduralism (persuasive games) and only occasionally challenged.

If simulationism is just appreciation and understanding of a subject, then someone could pick narrativism as that subject. They would then not be playing a narrative game, but simulationist one instead, since he's trying to achieve elevated appreciation and understanding of narrativism.

That doesn't seem like a good definition of simulationist play to me.

True, so while they are not looking for a world to be exactly like our real world, they want it to appear real on its own terms, i.e. verisimilitude. But what really is the "sense" of realism? What does it feel like? Some earlier simulationists propose that the overriding motive is immersion. Others take a different tack and suggest noetic satisfaction... which isn't far from Tuovinen's take.

I agree that one should get into how "realism" might best be achieved? and when has enough been done to achieve it?

Another question is whether and how realism ought to apply to each game mechanic and ritual of play? John Kim writes that players should use the diegetic means and motives of their characters to drive play, and for this reason should choose characters that are in some respect exceptional.

The problem isn't that Tuovinen's take is "gobbledygook", but that there are so many versions of what "simulationism" is; which drives disagreement about what it applies to and how it should be implemented. As I wrote upthread it suffers from both intensional and extensional problems.

Where D&D stands in this respect depends on what one decides they mean by "simulationism"? Notwithstanding conversation and prevarication (by me) upthread, I suspect that for some proposed definitions, the answer will divide along roughly formalist and non-formalist lines (whether or not folk are resolutely or consistently one or the other.)

The best definition of simulationist play that I've seen is simply that the players and game seek to simulate things with increased realism over say D&D's default level of realism.

 

[The Firebird]

Yes. Given that there are - for practical purposes - infinite lotteries I can take part in, from the school raffle to the Italian lotteries that Australian lottery agents will sell me tickets for, I don't see this as a problem.

This just seems...not at all true. It would be hard to find lotteries for the specific couch you want in your area. You can't win the lottery to direct the next Dune movie. There is no lottery to become mayor of Chicago. Or to be an astronaut. Or for your friend to come back from the dead. Or to learn to surf.

And if you get lost in a cave, you can't play a lottery to find a map. It's there or it isn't.

 

[AlViking]

This just seems...not at all true. It would be hard to find lotteries for the specific couch you want in your area. You can't win the lottery to direct the next Dune movie. There is no lottery to become mayor of Chicago. Or to be an astronaut. Or for your friend to come back from the dead. Or to learn to surf.

And if you get lost in a cave, you can't play a lottery to find a map. It's there or it isn't.

From what I've read there's a ton of variations with PbtA games, which makes sense. A lot of them will ask a player to fill in some details but its always going to be something their character could know. Some piece of history, rumors and so on. But that never changes the state of the world, its never predictive. It just fills in lore and color.

Wishing for a map out, even if its not guaranteed, crosses that line into establishing something about the world the character doesn't know. That's fine, different games make different assumptions. I just don't get the denial or what purpose it serves. I'm not going to play a PbtA game for multiple reasons but if you're going to bring up an example for conversation, be willing to discuss it honestly.

 

[Faolyn]

Though this does turn very strongly on the player's understanding of those abilities and the aspects they're creating being coherent, not only to them but to other people. I'd hardly take that as a given with an average group of players. (In fact, it was one of things, combined with my need to adjudicate it, that very quickly drove me up a wall in my limited attempts to run Fate).

That's why a major part of narrative games is the idea that the players are working together with the GM to create the story, and as part of session 0 discuss you the tone of the game. If you don't want the players going for silly ideas, say that right away.

 

[Umbran]

The problem with this logic is it doesn't recognize that managing the metacurrancy is, itself a game.

Technically, perhaps. But that's a game on the same level of, "I have six chocloate chip cookies, when do I want to eat them." It isn't usually a particularly deep, difficult, or satisfying game.

In some games (say, D&D, with Inspiration) that game devolves into people forgetting the darned thing exists at all. In others (say, Fate, with Fate Points) the metacurrency economy is fairly central to the game's operation, such that the GM is advised to not let players go long without them.

That the metacurrency-as-game is not really itself particularly satisfying suggests that they aren't there for "gamism" per se.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's why a major part of narrative games is the idea that the players are working together with the GM to create the story, and as part of session 0 discuss you the tone of the game. If you don't want the players going for silly ideas, say that right away.

Nice in theory. Sure it works for some people.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Technically, perhaps. But that's a game on the same level of, "I have six chocloate chip cookies, when do I want to eat them." It isn't usually a particularly deep, difficult, or satisfying game.

I don't think managing a limited resource is particularly deep, but given D&D spent literally years based around resource management, I think the rest is a reach; deciding when to use a limited metacurrancy can require the same kind of judgment and risk taking.

In some games (say, D&D, with Inspiration) that game devolves into people forgetting the darned thing exists at all. In others (say, Fate, with Fate Points) the metacurrency economy is fairly central to the game's operation, such that the GM is advised to not let players go long without them.

That the metacurrency-as-game is not really itself particularly satisfying suggests that they aren't there for "gamism" per se.

I think this is a pretty narrow view of what a gamist gets out of such things. Its important enough in Savage Worlds that there's a great degree of debate as to how many to give out.