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

[Thomas Shey]

There are, I suspect, considerably more sim-oriented GMs than there are sim-oriented players.

I was assuming that in my statement, actually (though notice the "centered" in my phrase; there can be people with some sim concerns who are still not focused on it. Depending on the specific game I'm still not completely unconcerned myself, though its years since it was a major focus for me). But I still doubt even counting them they're any significant factor in the modern RPG scene.

 

[AlViking]

That's fair. I wrote those examples in a bit of a hurry and flubbed that one up. Shall we say a sandstorm instead?

To be fair, even quicksand isn't particularly deadly. It's denser than the human body so you don't actually sink.

 

[AlViking]

I was assuming that in my statement, actually (though notice the "centered" in my phrase; there can be people with some sim concerns who are still not focused on it. Depending on the specific game I'm still not completely unconcerned myself, though its years since it was a major focus for me). But I still doubt even counting them they're any significant factor in the modern RPG scene.

I think the majority of people who play TTRPGs don't really care what label you attach to the game.

 

[Umbran]

Perhaps, when a person speaks in the generic, they aren't making a personal attack against you.

Mod Note:
Perhaps, when a person says something insulting in the generic, they are insulting everyone who fits within the generalization they are making.

Insulting folks with a broad brush is a thing. You don't get away from being insulting by being non-specific.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the majority of people who play TTRPGs don't really care what label you attach to the game.

More importantly, I think most people who play TTRPGs would be deeply confused why anyone would care that much about most of the things people who know what "simulationism" and "gamism" and "narrativism" mean.

They just want a game that:

Lets them have a cool (and often, humorous) fantastical adventure
Doesn't require them to memorize too much
Won't induce nasty arguments over stupid Rules Bovine Feces
Lets them come up with a fun and/or funny and/or awesome character
Helps them make that aforementioned character feel good to play
Produces an overall satisfying arc in a reasonable amount of time (presumably, between a few months and a year-ish)

You can see the ghost, the seeds, of what could become a preference for any of those three things (though I personally slice that watermelon a bit differently), if the player becomes especially enfranchised.

But most players? They'd be utterly baffled by the idea that a game needs a "diegetic" connection between the procedures one employs and the events that occur within the game. Probably would also be baffled at the significant level of mathematics that goes into designing a game that works smoothly without hiccups. They don't see those things and don't think about it that hard. They just play. That's a great thing for them--and I mean that very sincerely. It's a great thing that they can just sit down and have fun, assuming the game actually facilitates that. But those nebulous, vague, pure-feeling reactions are also impossible to use as meaningful input for game design, other than at the final-polish level where you already know the final shape, you just need to get it to a mirror shine.

 

[The Firebird]

So why does everyone stand around while others act, according to the repeated ticking of some weird 6-second metronome?

To the extent that this is a departure from Sorensen it is a minor one compared to other examples in the thread. And it is an acceptable one for many players given the complex nature of what is happening.

 

[Micah Sweet]

More importantly, I think most people who play TTRPGs would be deeply confused why anyone would care that much about most of the things people who know what "simulationism" and "gamism" and "narrativism" mean.

They just want a game that:

Lets them have a cool (and often, humorous) fantastical adventure
Doesn't require them to memorize too much
Won't induce nasty arguments over stupid Rules Bovine Feces
Lets them come up with a fun and/or funny and/or awesome character
Helps them make that aforementioned character feel good to play
Produces an overall satisfying arc in a reasonable amount of time (presumably, between a few months and a year-ish)

You can see the ghost, the seeds, of what could become a preference for any of those three things (though I personally slice that watermelon a bit differently), if the player becomes especially enfranchised.

But most players? They'd be utterly baffled by the idea that a game needs a "diegetic" connection between the procedures one employs and the events that occur within the game. Probably would also be baffled at the significant level of mathematics that goes into designing a game that works smoothly without hiccups. They don't see those things and don't think about it that hard. They just play. That's a great thing for them--and I mean that very sincerely. It's a great thing that they can just sit down and have fun, assuming the game actually facilitates that. But those nebulous, vague, pure-feeling reactions are also impossible to use as meaningful input for game design, other than at the final-polish level where you already know the final shape, you just need to get it to a mirror shine.

You're not wrong, but it works both ways. Most players would I think be equally baffled by the principles inherent in many narrative games. How many actual gamers really care about player-authored rising conflict across a moral line, and how many are just doing their best to play the game the GM wants to run?

 

[Umbran]

If my character is in the desert, unless I'm next to an oasis, if there's quicksand in that desert, I'm calling shenanigans. Quicksand doesn't form in the desert. It can't.

If a player nitpicks at a GM over things that don't really matter, I'm calling shenanigans.

 

[AlViking]

To the extent that this is a departure from Sorensen it is a minor one compared to other examples in the thread. And it is an acceptable one for many players given the complex nature of what is happening.

I don't think it's even a departure from what Sorensen says. No TTRPG played by people can be truly simultaneous or particularly accurate. Someone may favor 1 second segments but it's just a preference of how often the fictional state is updated.

For that matter even hardcore racing simulations don't simultaneously calculate all of the variables in real time. They have to look at weight distribution, suspension, car stiffness, friction of the tire in contact with the rode that gets translated into traction. It can't be done on hardware that we have. Various bits may be calculated multiple times per second depending on what that hardware can handle, but we're talking about levels of granularity, not whether or not it's a simulation. Granularity, exact precision on details and how often the current state of the simulated reality is determined does not make something a simulation or not.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're not wrong, but it works both ways. Most players would I think be equally baffled by the principles inherent in many narrative games. How many actual gamers really care about player-authored rising conflict across a moral line, and how many are just doing their best to play the game the GM wants to run?

Do those things get shown to players?

In Dungeon World, the only things actually shown to players are that they need to have Bonds with stuff (typically, but not exclusively, other party members). That's it. Well, that and being told things like "if you want to use a move, talk about what you're doing, and if that's a move, it'll happen," but that's not really a thing "shown to" them IMO.

But, yes, they won't care about the concepts. The question is whether they will notice the practical action.

I'm of the opinion that simulation is particularly abstract as a gaming concept. It's a lovely ideal, and I don't at all fault its fans for being fans of it. (Believe it or not, I actually value a pretty good amount of simulation too! I just don't think that it is categorically more important than "a game that is fun to play as a game" or "experiencing a rich and satisfying story"). Gamism, of the three, is by far the most concrete, because it's...literally, "does it make a good game to play". Hence, that's the one I expect pretty much all of these highly casual players to care about to at least some degree.

They know it's a game (it's right there on the front page!)--so they're going to expect to do gaming, and they're going to expect to have fun, specifically BY gaming.