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

[Micah Sweet]

Doing so actually requires you to understand the material (or else produce junk). And to understand the material, you need to think about it.

So do you need to write an essay? No. But that means trad gamers who are actually designing and producing trad game material have put in as much thought as the people who design and produce narrativist game material did. ...Unless you're saying that most trad game material is junk. Which I don't think you're doing.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about and designing content for D&D-like games. I don't use that as a bludgeon to try to convince people my style is superior (all the while telling folks I'm just trying to correct their misunderstandings).

Not that I'm saying you do, but I've seen behavior that feels that way to me from others here.

Instead I just talk about what I like and don't like, or answer questions (mostly the former). I know a lot of other games too, but they're all pretty traditional because that's what and how I like to play. I've always heard a number of fans of non-traditional games talking about how they work and what they prioritize in play (and what they don't), and this tells me I would be wasting my time and theirs sitting at those tables.

I do not need more play experience to form an opinion here. Y'all have given me everything I need.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've already answered this multiple times.

If a GM decides to slam a portcullis down, thus splitting the party in two, they're separating them. It doesn't matter if the actual game is AD&D or DungeonWorld, except that Bend Bars, Lift Gates is a part of Strength in one game and a fighter move in the other.

So...yes, they are the same? What are we all talking about then?

 

[Hussar]

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.

Which is fair to play that way. Perfectly fine.

But nothing in DnD actually supports you. That dragon may have died because of wounds or it might have despaired and died of a broken heart. Nothing in DnD contradicts either interpretation.

You can choose your interpretations. Of course and no one is saying different. But your interpretations are not supported by the system.

 

[pemerton]

The troubleling thing with the conversation is that while 1 and 2 might be right, trying to nail down anything more spesific is so extremely contextual that the conversation stalls on trying and failing to define an aproperiate context. The big one is what we aim to simulate. An airplane simulation are not particularly supported by tables for effect of diseases, while a war simulator probably have little use for an skill for providing sharp art critisism.

Another dimension is that the entire simulation entusiast sphere is split into the mechanics vs rulings lairs dating back to the kriegspeil/free kriegspeil split. Those in the first lair would typically put simulation mechanics in category 1, while the other might rather say they hamper simulation (though maybe not go as far as claiming them to be fully incompatible like category 2 suggest). And this gets even harder when the majority of the players liking simulation isn't even aware of this split, and happily mix stuff from both lairs.

To me, it seems highly relevant to understanding free kriegsspiel that the referee is (or is intended to be) an expert in the activity they are adjudicating (ie the command of units in battle, and whether the commands are effective).

This straight away establishes a stark contrast with most RPGing.

I find it quite amazing how fail roll could be narrated as success without complication seemed to be universally recognised as category 2 among the self proclaimed sim fans in this thread (I don't count myself among them) - but if you look at it the key rationale for this classification differed even among them.

What RPG has a failure narrated as a success without complication?

I also am a bit dubious of the notion of "self-proclaimed sim fans in this thread". I'm a self-proclaimed sim fan - 1000s of hours of Rolemaster; Burning Wheel, which as I've said in much of its PC build, in much of its approach to setting up skill checks and the like, and in its combat resolution is more simulationist than any version of D&D; a lot of Classic Traveller play, which is also a pretty sim-y game. But I assume that I don't get to count as a "self-proclaimed sim fan" because I also have no objections to the startled cook in a game that permits that sort of approach to a failed roll.

 

[Hussar]

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.

No. That’s the straw man you keep insisting on.

A simulation in no way must mirror reality.

A simulation MUST reveal ANY information about how the resolution of the simulation was reached.

Since DnD never reveals any information about how a result occurred, simply that a result did occur, it is not a simulation.

Again a simulation must reveal some information about how the result occurred or it is not a simulation of anything.

 

[Hussar]

Though I was playing and DMing at the time, I don't remember now whether the DL module series all came out in one go or were released over time in tandem with the novels they were tied to (which for sure were not all released at once).

'Cause if the modules were released sequentially over time then @Maxperson has a point: someone keen running the modules as they came out wouldn't be able to see the DL-5 content until DL-5 hit the shelves.

And that said, it's also possible there was a snippet in Dragon magazine somewhere prior to DL-5's release that gave much the same advice as a heads-up.

I'll say this, however: were I to haul those modules off my shelf and start running them, I wouldn't expect to have to wait until the fifth module (!) for the DM-advice section and thus I'd likely only read the module I was about to run.

Oh totally agree.

It was a mistake to do it this way. That’s why they don’t do it this way any more. What do you want? The question was asked and answered and we’re still waffling on about the example because of not picking and pedantry.

Can we move on finally?

 

[Hussar]

Or, quite possibly, it means what it says.

The level of irony here is amazing.

 

[Lanefan]

No, I understand. Why would I need to do a deep delve into how I play in order to be able to have valid opinions about what I like and dislike about my style of play? Why does the deep introspection by someone else mean that I shouldn't be taken seriously?

More to the point, perhaps: if doing some out-of-game deep introspection merely reinforced that I like what I do and how I do it, what then?

Also, at what point does any of this qualify as overthinking that which doesn't need to be overthought?

 

[Maxperson]

No. That’s the straw man you keep insisting on.

A simulation in no way must mirror reality.

That's what I've repeated for years. It just as to simulate something in the real world in some manner.

A simulation MUST reveal ANY information about how the resolution of the simulation was reached.

Since DnD never reveals any information about how a result occurred, simply that a result did occur, it is not a simulation.

Again a simulation must reveal some information about how the result occurred or it is not a simulation of anything.

How did you take the damage from a fall? Gravity pulled you down hard after you let go of the cliff and you impacted the ground hard. That's how it happened.

Besides, you are trying to apply the wrong definition to RPGs. There's the scientific study definition which you are misapplying, but that has nothing to do with RPG simulations. And then there's the definition that's simply, an imitation of a situation or process, which is the definition that RPGs use when they talk about simulating things. The falling example is 100% an imitation of the process of falling due to gravity and hurting yourself upon impact.

That imitation can range from poor to really good, but regardless of quality, it's still simulationism. And no revealed information about how it occurred is necessary.

 

[Campbell]

I've already answered this multiple times.

If a GM decides to slam a portcullis down, thus splitting the party in two, they're separating them. It doesn't matter if the actual game is AD&D or DungeonWorld, except that Bend Bars, Lift Gates is a part of Strength in one game and a fighter move in the other.

The actual process behind it matters. Why are they seperating them? What agenda are they pursuing?