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

[clearstream]

Gamers can be weird but if we're talking the human population as a whole, maybe half of them. I don't think they'd describe it in precisely those terms though.

I can't claim to have data one way or the other, but the "player authored" part seems needed for narrativism and limits it to gamers.

 

[Enrahim]

Not quite. Why is stuff in DL 5 relevant when PCs would have been dying for 4 modules before the DM ever read that? Half the heroes of the lance could dead by then.

Because it clearly was an "errata". They didnt have the distribution technology to effectively distribute otherwise at that point in time. That way we living in the happy future can take advantage of the superrior way of experience the dragonlance saga, closer to the way the authors intended, than those poor first adapters jumping on the bandwagon before DL5 got published

Now we even are lucky enough that we can learn about this critical improvement from web forums even without having to read trough the entire series before starting play!

 

[Enrahim]

Not even a little.

That is not pure sim at all. Because, now, you're not simulating anything, you're actually doing it. Lacking any structure or mechanics, there's no actual simulation. It's simply "can I convince my DM".

Again, a simulation has to SIMULATE something. That's the whole point. And, if we're just going to free-form role play, that's not simulating anything. It does not take into account anything other than the player. It 100% injects the player into the game and completely ignores the actual character being played.

You are now trying to impose a single definition of "sim" onto a conversation that has shown that there are a lot of understandings of "sim play", most of them hardly having anything to do with the everyday word "simulation". I do believe @Lanefan intended one of these technical terms, and I struggle to see the reading that clearly suggest otherwise.

EDIT: Looked further up, and it seem like it might indeed be @Lanefan that rejects good faith engaging with "simulation" on your sense. Let us just say this seem more like a confusion about language, than any profound difference in understanding of games.

EDIT2: Looking even further up I see this reply thread started with you making claims about the "proper" use of the word simulation. In that post you used the word "simulation" consequently unto a point you switched to talking about "simulationist". This was the switch that made the thing disconnected. "Simulationist" is not the same as "simulating". If you had replaced all occurrences of "simulationist" with "simulating" in your first post, I think it would be non-controversial.

Recognising the distinction between rules that do simulate something (simulating rules) from rules that supports play that revolves around some kind of simulation-like activity (simulationist rules) are critical in context of this thread.

 

[AlViking]

It’s not an attack. But you can’t “not think about your play with deep introspection” and also be expected to be taken as seriously as those who do.

As an example, I have a ton of respect for the individual who made the blog posts about “blorb principles” we discussed a month or so back. And that person is advocating for nearly the exact kind of play you’re espousing here. But I have a strong respect for their opinion because they’ve tried other games, and can discuss those games’ principles with clarify, respect, and often affection.

That writer has a clear understanding that their sim-play is just one particular approach that they happen to enjoy and want to explore further. That’s the mentality I’d like to see as the dominant one here, and other places where TTRPGs are discussed.

So the opinion of someone is worthless if they have not played a wide enough variety of games? Please tell me I'm mistaken because I thought people couldn't get any more arrogant and condescending and that would prove me wrong. You can't just say "It's not an attack" and then in the same breath say "You have no clue what you're talking about and can't possibly have a valid opinion."

People play games they enjoy. I don't need to spend significant amount of time playing games I know I wouldn't enjoy just to prove my opinion "worthy".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You are now trying to impose a single definition of "sim" onto a conversation that has shown that there are a lot of understandings of "sim play", most of them hardly having anything to do with the everyday word "simulation". I do believe @Lanefan intended one of these technical terms, and I struggle to see the reading that clearly suggest otherwise.

EDIT: Looked further up, and it seem like it might indeed be @Lanefan that rejects good faith engaging with "simulation" on your sense. Let us just say this seem more like a confusion about language, than any profound difference in understanding of games.

EDIT2: Looking even further up I see this reply thread started with you making claims about the "proper" use of the word simulation. In that post you used the word "simulation" consequently unto a point you switched to talking about "simulationist". This was the switch that made the thing disconnected. "Simulationist" is not the same as "simulating". If you had replaced all occurrences of "simulationist" with "simulating" in your first post, I think it would be non-controversial.

Recognising the distinction between rules that do simulate something (simulating rules) from rules that supports play that revolves around some kind of simulation-like activity (simulationist rules) are critical in context of this thread.

That final bolded bit is....gonna be a real, real hard sell.

Because now it means that we can functionally call ANY system "simulationist" in the second sense, if ANYONE has EVER used them for the purpose of "simulation-like activity", which is so broad as to be nearly meaningless.

52 Pickup is now a simulationist game if anyone has ever used it for "simulation-like activity".

 

[AlViking]

Like I said earlier, we're not really having a conversation in this thread most of the time because there is such a lack of common understanding of terms. And, honestly, I'm not really sure there is any way around that. To me, there is no difference between one completely abstract roll generating content in the game without any connection to events in the game, and another completely abstract roll generating content in the game without any connections to events in the game.

D&D does not even pretend to be a simulation. It never has. This is some bizarre fixation that a group of very conservative gamers has latched onto in order to block any changes to mechanics in the game. We cannot have damage on a miss because of "simulation" was the cry. We MUST have 11 counting on the battlemap because of "simulation". On and on. Frankly I find it very disingenuous because as soon as those mechanics become somewhat acceptable in the game, suddenly all these cries of simulation go away.

It's almost as if the true definition of simulation is "mechanics I personally like". Has nothing whatsoever with anything to do with actually trying to simulate anything or trying to create mechanics that work as a form of simulation. If simulation actually mattered in D&D, we'd see mechanics that actually influenced the narrative in the game. Simulationist mechanics like the following:

• [1]Hit locations - this is a pretty basic requirement of any game with any sort of sim leaning. [2]Graduated failure. - failing a check by X gives Y result. Failing by Z gives A result. Why a check failed is baked into the check itself. [3] Combat mechanics that are more defined - different kinds of strikes, different defenses. Parry, dodge. That sort of thing. [4] Some sort of social resolution system beyond simple pass/fail. At the very least, a more robust system allowing for multiple time frames.

Simulationist games are more complex. They just are. They have to be. You need that complexity in order to simulate something. A coin flip does not simulate anything. And we see that conflict in D&D play all the time. The simple "Persuasion" check where the player's actual words don't affect the check at all. The player makes his speech and then rolls his check. The check may very well not reflect the speech at all because the mechanics are not actually tied to the narrative of the game in any meaningful way.

I run the game with a simulationist approach. As DM once I establish the details of the world (sometimes with a bit of help from players), everything that happens in the world happens because of actions taken in the world. The fiction of the world takes precedence over what would make the game exciting, narrative control or anything else. As DM I am an impartial referee while I am running the game, I am not changing the fiction of the world to better suit what I wanted I only have it react and respond to the characters. The players only interact with the world, only impact or change it through their characters.

That is the definition of simulation I use. It has nothing to do with "accuracy" because any model we create just has a different arbitrary line of granularity and fidelity. The level of simulation you expect is impossible. Unless of course you just change the lines you draw and say "My game is on this side of this line I prefer and yours isn't."

 

[kayakingpoodle]

I believe the correct preface is "with all due respect", and not "it's not an attack"

Remember if you're not first, you're last. - Ricky Bobby, Inc.

 

[Enrahim]

That final bolded bit is....gonna be a real, real hard sell.

Because now it means that we can functionally call ANY system "simulationist" in the second sense, if ANYONE has EVER used them for the purpose of "simulation-like activity", which is so broad as to be nearly meaningless.

52 Pickup is now a simulationist game if anyone has ever used it for "simulation-like activity".

So you see how I consider the entire notion of "simulationistic game" silly?

Even the conversation about how some rules might be better at supporting "simulationistic play" than others is in my eyes speculative at best, and seem to have born very little fruits.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So the opinion of someone is worthless if they have not played a wide enough variety of games? Please tell me I'm mistaken because I thought people couldn't get any more arrogant and condescending and that would prove me wrong. You can't just say "It's not an attack" and then in the same breath say "You have no clue what you're talking about and can't possibly have a valid opinion."

People play games they enjoy. I don't need to spend significant amount of time playing games I know I wouldn't enjoy just to prove my opinion "worthy".

Worthless? Maybe not, but it's probably not going to carry a lot of weight if they have no experience outside of one or two editions of a single game.

Like, imagine the following examples.

1: Anime
"Sword Art Online is one of the greatest fantasy anime shows ever made."
"Er...what makes you say that? Because it's pretty controversial, and plenty of anime is way more fantastical, both before and after it."
"Well Sword Art Online and .hack//SIGN are the only two anime I've ever watched."
"Wait so like...you've never seen Frieren? Or like Inu Yasha? Or Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood? Hunter x Hunter? Anything from Studio Ghibli???"
"Nope."

2: Cuisine
"Traditional Cantonese sweet and sour pork is one of the greatest dishes ever to come out of China."
"Really? That's pretty basic, have you ever had char kway teow or char siu bao?"
"Never heard of 'em."
"Wait, really?"
"Nope. The only traditional Chinese dishes I've ever had are sweet and sour pork and lo mein, and sweet and sour pork is way better."

3: Novels
"Harry Potter is the best 'young magic user' series ever written."
"Really? Even with all the controversy from Rowling?"
"I mean, I wish she wouldn't spout off about politics..."
"Oh, no I meant how it's super derivative of Ursula K. Le Guin's Wizard of Earthsea books."
"Never heard of 'em."
"Wait, what?"
"Harry Potter and The Wheel of Time are the only fantasy series I've ever read. Well, I only read the first three WoT books, they got too boring to continue."

No one can tell the first speaker in any of these things are things they shouldn't like, because that would be telling them that their preferences are wrong. However, people absolutely can question how much merit, if any, there might be in these sweeping claims about the prominence of some particular thing amongst a field of things they don't actually know anything about.

When the one and only thing you know comes from a single source, out of many, many other sources, it's quite easy to lack context or nuance. Just as someone doing history research prefers to have as many sources (and preferably as many primary sources) as possible, in order to avoid risk of any one source being distorted or biased, someone talking about "simulation" in gaming is....gonna really want to have played at least a few different games that do sim, or at least to have read them even without playing (though play is vastly preferable).

Pure preferences cannot be argued about. De gustibus non disputandum est. But claims about the efficacy or prominence or functionality of something are not merely preference. They're a description of where that thing fits into the broader context. A person making such statements who doesn't actually know that broader context isn't saying very much.

And, unfortunately, it is very very often the case that people who play D&D have never played any other game. Hard to draw any contrast or speak to the effectiveness of D&D when you know nothing about the alternatives, even within a narrow range like "games that place special focus on sim".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So you see how I consider the entire notion of "simulationistic game" silly?

Even the conversation about how some rules might be better at supporting "simulationistic play" than others is in my eyes speculative at best, and seem to have born very little fruits.

But if there is no such thing as "a simulation(istic) game", and no such thing as "supporting simulation(istic) play", then what on Earth have people even been talking about?

Folks here have repeatedly asserted fundamental ideas, whether directly, or as a required element of some other argument, such as:

1. Some rules are better for "simulation" than others, whever we take "simulation" to mean. Hence, some rules achieve the goals of "simulation" more fully than others.
2. There are some rules or processes which are fundamentally incompatible with "simulation".
3. "Simulation" sometimes requires an entire systemic-level design, otherwise a particular game may be incapable of such play.
4. Even given an appropriate system foundation and a lack of incompatible elements, one system may have more point 1 rules than another.

If these things are to be taken seriously, it necessarily implies that rules can support or fail to support some particular type of play-experience referred to as "sim"/"simmy"/"simulation"/"simulationism"/"simulationistic"/etc., that some systems are better for it and others worse, that some playstyles may accept systems which contain fewer such rules and others might require more, etc.

Do you disagree?

Like...this is arguments coming FROM heavily pro-sim folks. These things were points I had understood I was granting to fans of sim, not things I was asserting myself!