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

[AlViking]

We have a language, a dictionary that drives what words mean, and the purpose of all that is to facilitate accurate useful communication. Deciding on your own what words mean is like deciding to speak in a foreign language and expecting non-speakers of that language to understand you.

You can make your own definitions for words but then you aren't communicating in English. At that point it's become another language that only you know and everyone is going to keep arguing with you becuse ite to the English language they'll always go with those definitions when trying to understand you.

I did not "make up" the definition any more than "narrativist" is a made up word. It comes from New Simulationism - Sam Sorensen.

On the other hand, I do think D&D is a simulation of a fantasy world, just a simplified and crude one. Fidelity and granularity will never define what a simulation is and does not with any definition of the word. For example we've had simulations for galaxy formations for decades and as we have more sophisticated tools they hopefully become more accurate. The models we use today are better (but still don't accurately match all observations) than the ones used in the early 1960s, but those early simulations were still simulations.

 

[nevin]

I did not "make up" the definition any more than "narrativist" is a made up word. It comes from New Simulationism - Sam Sorensen.

On the other hand, I do think D&D is a simulation of a fantasy world, just a simplified and crude one. Fidelity and granularity will never define what a simulation is and does not with any definition of the word. For example we've had simulations for galaxy formations for decades and as we have more sophisticated tools they hopefully become more accurate. The models we use today are better (but still don't accurately match all observations) than the ones used in the early 1960s, but those early simulations were still simulations.

So you are using the scientific definition of simulation to describe how to do a role playing game? Does that mean we all need supercomputrs to make our worlds and simulate out what happens with each change? Come on.....but by that definition the person making the simulation gets to decide the complexity, the number of variables etc. . you just made the argument that everyone's opinion and way of doing their game is.correct because they get todecide the variables. What were you arguing about then?

 

[Maxperson]

Not necessarily. The character might have fallen because magical pixies made him trip. He might have fallen because the rock face crumbled. There might have been a tiny earth elemental that pushed him. We have absolutely no idea. All we know is that he fell. Why he fell, what caused the fall? We have no idea. The system does not connect to the narrative at all.

The cook doesn't "Pop in" though. The cook was always there. The reason the cook was always there is because of a failed skill check, which is being used as an abstract means of generating an encounter, in exactly the same way that a random encounter is generated.

The point is, nothing exists in the game world until AFTER it's encounter by the players. It can't. If it did, then we couldn't have things like random encounters. We abstract all sorts of things in order to generate the illusion of a world, but, that's all that is, an illusion of a world. How that illusion is generated doesn't really matter.

The bold portion is simply untrue. If the DM places it in the world, it exists in the game world at that moment, not when the PCs first get there.

Random encounters don't change that fact. In fact, random encounters aren't even an example if what you are saying. You aren't going to go into the arctic wastes and find a random buffalo. The buffalo have been placed into grasslands prior to the players ever reaching that area, and that placement enables the players to randomly encounter one in the plains. That buffalo existed in the game world prior to the PCs encountering it.

The reason why the cook "pops in" is that when the PC started picking the lock, there was no cook inside. It wasn't until success or failure was determined that a cook appeared in the kitchen or failed to do so. The whole, "she was always there because the PC failed the lockpick check" is a weak justification for why she appeared there when she wasn't there if the PC succeeded in the check. Unlike the buffalo who was always in the plains, she was not always in the kitchen or she would also be there if the PC succeeds in the check.

Hell, since the cook being there is based on PC skill and not randomness, if we want there to be a cook in the kitchen, we just select Bob over there who doesn't know how to use thieves' tools and we can guarantee her(since she's the result of this particular failed check) presence. If we don't want her there, we get Pete who has a 20 dex, reliable talent and expertise with thieves' tools to open this lock since he can't fail.

 

[AlViking]

So you are using the scientific definition of simulation to describe how to do a role playing game? Does that mean we all need supercomputrs to make our worlds and simulate out what happens with each change? Come on.....but by that definition the person making the simulation gets to decide the complexity, the number of variables etc. . you just made the argument that everyone's opinion and way of doing their game is.correct because they get todecide the variables. What were you arguing about then?

I'm using the definition as defined by Sorensen that closely matches how I approach the game. I also feel that D&D is a crude, simplified, simulation of a world based on fantasy fiction tropes and ideas.

 

[AlViking]

All creatures are wired to resist change because nature change usually means pain and death. It hard coded into our DNA. Te default reaction to almost any change anywhere is no. You can hate it. but is a part of nature and the human condition.

Some people seek out new experience and are incessant tinkerers. I know people who only consider music they listened to in high school "good". Meanwhile my Spotify list has a separate old school channel for those rare occasions when I feel nostalgic that I rarely listen to. I wouldn't have been successful as a software developer if I hadn't continuously upgraded skills for new tools.

I don't resist change. I also don't seek out change for the sake of change. Saying that people are wired to resist change is true to a certain degree and more true for some people than others. It also implies "If you like <anything I define as old school> it's only because you're too scared to change."

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is blatant One True Wayism. There's nothing holy or inherently better about play that involves deep introspection or a narrative approach. It's just how you prefer to play. It's an opinion and nothing more, so people who don't play that way who have other opinions have opinions just as valid and as serios as your opinions.

When you make statements like that, you come off as very arrogant, having an attitude of superiority about your play and inferiority about the play of others.

I think you've misunderstood. @TwoSix didn't comment on play of any sort being better than another sort. It is in no way a comment that pits one style against another.

It is about how deeply anyone thinks about gaming outside of play. How much they analyze what they are doing and the impact it has on play. All he said was that those who spend more time doing this likely have more that's useful to say about it than those who do not. Which seems pretty obvious.

He even cited that respect and understanding of all kinds of games is pretty fundamental to such introspection. And cited Blorb Principles as an example, which is very much a thoughtful analysis of a style of play. One that's very trad in its approach. It talks about what it wants to do and why without any need to denigrate other types of gaming.

 

[Maxperson]

Why was the cook there? Because it was uncertain whether or not the cook might be there. When there's uncertainty, the DM sets a target DC. Because that's how abstraction works.

See, no actual difference.

Other than one is a rule and the other a house rule. The uncertainty rule is for setting skill check DCs, not determining if cooks are behind doors. That is an actual difference.

 

[Maxperson]

A few auxiliary rules and and systems leaned into simulation to some degree. They kind of stood out in that regard for pretty much the reasons you say.

Gygax said in the 1e DMG that if it didn't interfere with game play, his goal was the highest level of realism(simulation). He just didn't let realism bog things down and make the game boring.

 

[Maxperson]

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."

The bolded portion is key. A lot of folks here think that to simulate something, it has to mirror reality. It doesn't. In fact, it doesn't even have to come close to mirroring reality.

All a simulation does in order to simulate something, is make an attempt to simulate to any degree, something in the real world. That means the the D&D falling rules are a simulation of gravity and falling in the real world, even if it doesn't come close to taking into account all of the various factors that are involved in real world falling.

Every RPG contains simulationism, gamist and narrativism. It's only the degree that differs. If the degree of simulation exceeds the narrative and gamist components, then that game is focused on simulation and is a simulationist game. If the narrative component exceeds gamist and simulationist components, it's a narrativist game.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you've misunderstood. @TwoSix didn't comment on play of any sort being better than another sort. It is in no way a comment that pits one style against another.

"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."

That very clearly says that if you don't think about your play with deep introspection, you can't expect to be taken as seriously as those who do.

It's a judgment that one way is superior to the other. Perhaps @TwoSix didn't intend it to be that way, but that's how it was written.

It is about how deeply anyone thinks about gaming outside of play. How much they analyze what they are doing and the impact it has on play. All he said was that those who spend more time doing this likely have more that's useful to say about it than those who do not. Which seems pretty obvious.

He even cited that respect and understanding of all kinds of games is pretty fundamental to such introspection. And cited Blorb Principles as an example, which is very much a thoughtful analysis of a style of play. One that's very trad in its approach. It talks about what it wants to do and why without any need to denigrate other types of gaming.

I don't need some deep understanding of other games and styles of play to have valid and serious opinions about how D&D plays. I do try to understand other styles from the rules that are quoted here from time to time, and I make an effort not to get them wrong. If I didn't, though, to just dismiss my opinions because of a lack of "deep introspection" would be wrong. I would still know D&D well enough to have valid and serious opinions.