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

[FrogReaver]

To me, this is more about what we call things rather than how people actually play.

It seems odd to expect players to fit neatly into subjective boxes like “simulationist” or “narrativist.” The reality at the table almost always blurs those lines.

So where exactly do we draw the line? When does a player shift from one box to another? If I mix elements of both, am I just lacking deep introspection? Or am I just a casual because I don’t ascribe to either?

It feels like we’re trying to understand why people enjoy the hobby differently, but doing so through labels and categories that rarely fit cleanly.

Maybe the only real way to resolve this debate is to share actual play experiences. But talking about labels is easy, so… carry on.

1) There’s no common language to share play experiences in, nor 2) have I ever seen any shared play experiences of any style really capture much more than the narrative of what happened in the fiction.

 

[TwoSix]

Why?

Why what?

 

[FrogReaver]

but that's a weird shorthand that honestly confuses the issue.

Why?

 

[Hussar]

And just on practical grounds if you were a making a sim game for say regency romance, you might not even bother with a unique combat system at all as simulating fighting is not the focus of the game.

Again, this is perfectly fair. Totally agree. But, "unique combat system" is not part of simulation, it's an example of simulation. An easy example that everyone knows. It's not meant to be exhaustive.

Do you not agree that a simulation system needs to inform the narrative though? If your regency romance system tells you nothing about romance, just that NPC X now loves you, would that be considered simulation? It tells you no other information other than the result.

 

[Hussar]

I don't need to prove you wrong. Those things are not just relevant to RPG simulations. You are still trying to misapply the wrong definition of simulation to RPGs. All that matters is that it is simulating the process of falling. It doesn't have to do it well. It doesn't have to say that you fell because the rocks were wet. None of that. Only that falling deals damage.

And are you really saying that a PC with 10 hit points and falls 50 feet, taking 23 points of damage has not been injured by the rules? RAW specifically says otherwise.

The rules themselves do not need to give you the information you are requesting.

You are right that the rules don't need to give me that information. 100% agree.

Simulation rules, OTOH DO. The rules are, in no way, simulating the process of falling, any more than they are simulating my knowledge of arcana or my ability to sing. I make my check, I get a result. What happened is completely opaque. How I reached that result is completely opaque. ANY narrative I choose to make, so long as it jives with the result, is 100% fine with the mechanics because the mechanics are not, in any way, simulating anything. Because the mechanics are not informing the narrative at all.

After all, you are conflating two mechanics. The Climbing Mechanics and Falling Damage mechanics are not the same mechanic. I can fall without taking falling damage after all. I can fail a climb check and not fall - if I'm at the bottom of the climb and fail the climb check, I don't fall at all and don't take any damage. Why did I take damage? Again, magic pixies appeared out of nowhere and stabbed me. I Fonzie bumped the lock and it sprung open because I succeeded my open locks check. Any narration is equally valid because the mechanics are not simulating anything. Rolling a skill check in D&D is no different than rolling dice in Monopoly. All I get is the result. How did I move from Property A to Property B? No idea. I just did. Because Monopoly is in no way a simulation of anything.

 

[TwoSix]

Why?

Because it makes it seem like a creative agenda is something a player is, rather than something they pursue.

When I play Daggerheart, I’m pursuing a primarily narrative agenda. When I play OSR, I’m pursuing a sim agenda. When I played Pathfinder, I was pursuing a gamist agenda.

I was not any one of those agendas during the games I played. I was simply me, consciously pursuing those agendas.

 

[Maxperson]

Then by this metric, which RPGs would you say are not simulationist?

A lot of them. All of them have simulations within them, but to be a simulationist RPG, simulation has to be the main focus of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Players aren't simulationist or narrativist (or anything else). Play is.

Mmmm, I often simulate being conscious.

 

[Maxperson]

You are right that the rules don't need to give me that information. 100% agree.

Simulation rules, OTOH DO. The rules are, in no way, simulating the process of falling, any more than they are simulating my knowledge of arcana or my ability to sing. I make my check, I get a result. What happened is completely opaque. How I reached that result is completely opaque. ANY narrative I choose to make, so long as it jives with the result, is 100% fine with the mechanics because the mechanics are not, in any way, simulating anything. Because the mechanics are not informing the narrative at all.

After all, you are conflating two mechanics. The Climbing Mechanics and Falling Damage mechanics are not the same mechanic. I can fall without taking falling damage after all. I can fail a climb check and not fall - if I'm at the bottom of the climb and fail the climb check, I don't fall at all and don't take any damage. Why did I take damage? Again, magic pixies appeared out of nowhere and stabbed me. I Fonzie bumped the lock and it sprung open because I succeeded my open locks check. Any narration is equally valid because the mechanics are not simulating anything. Rolling a skill check in D&D is no different than rolling dice in Monopoly. All I get is the result. How did I move from Property A to Property B? No idea. I just did. Because Monopoly is in no way a simulation of anything.

No. Any narration is NOT valid. A narration needs to fit the narrative of what is going on. Unless you are playing some sort of silly humor game, pixies showing up to stab you representing a failed climb check doesn't fit the narrative of climbing a cliff and failing a climb check.

Slipping fits it. A rock coming loose fits it. The rope breaking fits it. A lot of things do fit it, but narrative requirement is just a distraction in any case. Regardless of whether you slip or pixies stab you, you are FALLING. That represents GRAVITY taking over and pulling you down as happens in a FALL. It is in fact simulating falling. Whether you take damage or not depends on how far your fall, much like in real life.

It's a simple simulation, but it is in fact simulating the process of falling. You don't need to know the cause of the fall to simulate a fall.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because it makes it seem like a creative agenda is something a player is, rather than something they pursue.

I think it’s very clear when used that way it refers to people who prefer the one creative agenda over the other.

I guess I could see come confusion if one didn’t understand simulationist and narrativist is primarily meant to refer to play instead of people and maybe there’s been some of that occurring here (not sure), but it’s not weird shorthand or deeply confusing when understood with the right context. IMO.

When I play Daggerheart, I’m pursuing a primarily narrative agenda. When I play OSR, I’m pursuing a sim agenda. When I played Pathfinder, I was pursuing a gamist agenda.

I was not any one of those agendas during the games I played. I was simply me, consciously pursuing those agendas.

On a different note, I don’t think simulationist does a good job of describing a play agenda. My agenda in playing d&d isn’t to simulate, even though simulation is essential to the experience I desire. My agenda is extremely nuanced, in no particular priority and definitely not exhaustive.

1) embody my character
2) make strategic decisions
3) solve tactical puzzles
4) see how my actions/choices impact the world
5) learn more about my character as he faces tough decisions
6) etc

So maybe the notion that simulationist is a play agenda at all is a little off.