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

[FrogReaver]

Or maybe we can stop trying to tell people their playstyle isn't real. Seriously, please stop. It's incredibly insulting.

I am unsure what you are referring to here

 

[FrogReaver]

Don't GMs have goals too though?

Obviously. Do you have a broader point?

 

[FrogReaver]

Edwards ultimately decided simulationism doesn't exist. So...

More seriously, to my reading Edwards gives an interesting analysis of some things that can be done with games that have been gathered under the irredeemably vague label "simulationism". When I read his analysis I take into account his lack of empathy with the experiences players seek under that label, and the probable limits of his sample sizes (e.g. for actual play and testimony to what was experienced).

More importantly, Edwards is not the sole analyst of "simulationism". Other great analysts include Kim and Tuovinen, and we have Sorensen's manifesto (and others of its ilk from the FKR movement) and Baker's critiques. It doesn't matter that Edwards be exactly right or wrong, only that his analysis contributed to the body of theory.

As to what that body of theory says about D&D, above I have made some suggestions.

My proposal, a broad category that lumps together all RPG’s that use simulation as if the use of simulation is a play agenda unto itself isn’t a particularly useful term because the only real commonality between such games is the use of simulation. Anything additional to that which applies to all games like ‘greater appreciation of the subject of the sim’ is just tautological to saying the agenda is simulation.

Yes, games with a heavy dose of simulation exist, but proposing they all share a similar primary agenda is where I think GNS falls flat.

Which is precisely where it and this discussion has went off the rails, postulating that since sim is the primary agenda that all other agendas will subordinate and thus the lines of dialogue around showing that simulation isn’t always the primary agenda (as if players that generally like sim play should disagree with this). The actual play isn’t what’s incoherent here, it’s the underlying assumption that the simulationism label is labeling a primary agenda, when sim play itself is actually built upon a more nuanced multifaceted group of agendas (different play sometimes in the same game typically changing the groupings, priorities and sometimes removing/adding other agendas.) Note it’s these groupings of little agendas, with varying nuances and priorities that I’ve started to refer to as The Agenda.

 

[Maxperson]

But it doesn't simulate the process of falling. It only tells you the result that you fell down. That's it. It could be gravity or it could be anything else. Heck, I could have teleported really hard to the bottom. The point is, we don't know. And, please, don't just focus on the one example to the exclusion of all else. What does it mean when I roll high on a performance check? What does it mean when I roll average on an Animal Handling check? After all, according to you, these are both simulating something. So, you should be able to use the mechanics to come up with a definitive answer. One that excludes other answers. That's what a simulation does. It tells you HOW something happened.

These rolls are not simulating anything. They are simply giving you results. Results without any process. That's not what a simulation is.

This is why it's so baffling to see people champion D&D as a simulationist game. It's so bizarre. It's like watching people INSIST that a Ferrari is a fantastic off road car. I agree that it's a great car. I agree that it's totally fun to drive. But, it is, in no way an off road car (and please don't point to the various off road Ferrari's out there. Please don't be that pedantic.) I get that you want simulation. I love that idea. I love sim games. I think they're great. I have played lots of them and I absolutely adore them.

But none of them have ever been D&D.

First, it doesn't just tell you that you fell down. It also tells you how far you fell down. To have fallen X distance, you had to be falling before you hit bottom.

Second, the game has gravity. If it didn't, the spell couldn't reverse it and the game wouldn't say this in the 5e PHB on pate 195.

"For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy."

Third, you still can't get past the wrong definition of simulation. It's not the scientific one where you would get answers from the simulation. A simulation in an RPG does NOT tell you HOW something happened. That's not the definition used. That's not its purpose. It's just there to imitate a process, which is one of the other definitions of simulation.

Why is it so hard to accept that RPGs use a different definition of simulation than the scientific one?

 

[Hussar]

The whole thing with the cook does strike me as odd (not wrong as such, but if a GM did that I think I would be a bit startled). I think it's largely because of the granularity of the roll to pick the lock on the door.

I gotta admit, I'm not seeing the issue here. I've seen LOTS of modules which state something like, "if the party makes noise here, there is a one in X chance of a random encounter". That sort of thing is hardly new or unusual. It's been in adventures for many, many years.

So, why would a failed skill check be unusual for a random encounter? Or adding an encounter for that matter? It's pretty common practice.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, this is the common counter - and there has never been possible to reach an agreement on where the limit for sufficient competency lies. We have the hardliners on one side that rejects the notion any sort of expertise can justify the removal of mechanics, while the hardliners on the other side seem to think any average human are going to be sufficiently competent to surpass mechanics - especially in the presence of non-mechanical support material.

Most seem to be somewhere between these extremes. A common division line seem to be that most people do not feel themselves competent to simulate combat without mechanical aid, but assume themselves competent enough to simulate basic social interactions better than typically proposed mechanical attempts at simulating this.

Woopsie. (Emphasising the "without" would have been even more helpful, as I misread this at first)

I don't have any objections to it's use in those games either. To me that still doesn't exclude the posibility of this technique falling in under what i thought @EzekielRaiden intended to describe with their category 2?

I don’t get the whole non-expert criticism. Assuming someone is incompetent but consistent then at worst we have an inaccurate simulation, and given all our simulations have inaccurate elements then that shouldn’t be a deal breaker.

What happens in practice is that if a major disagreement about a ruling occurs, it’s talked about typically post session, consensus is attempted to be reached going forward, if it can then great, if not then it’s probably prompted some greater research to be done by the DM and the player disputing the ruling. If that doesn’t solve the issue a ruling is made by the DM (it’s his defined game role) but things like player expertise of the subject should be taken into consideration for his ruling.

 

[Don Durito]

I gotta admit, I'm not seeing the issue here. I've seen LOTS of modules which state something like, "if the party makes noise here, there is a one in X chance of a random encounter". That sort of thing is hardly new or unusual. It's been in adventures for many, many years.

So, why would a failed skill check be unusual for a random encounter? Or adding an encounter for that matter? It's pretty common practice.

I don't really see any need to add anything to what I already said.

 

[TwoSix]

Which mostly just serves to prove you're more flexible than some.

I just don't see any reason why being flexible shouldn't be the norm.

You don't see a ton of people who play exactly one type of video game, or one type of board game. TTRPGs shouldn't be any different.

 

[AlViking]

Why is who separating what?

Why is the GM separating the party? Very often, because it makes things more difficult and potentially more interesting and dramatic. It's an adventuring trope with a long history, after all.

Or were you talking about in-game reasons? I dunno; you'd have to talk to whoever is doing the separating.

As a DM I don't have a goal of separating a party. Once we're in play I don't have any real goal other than to faithfully implement what I have planned or if I'm improvising to create content that fits. The enemy may have many goals, think of many tactics, but as DM I'm running the enemy from their perspective not mine.

If the party gets separated because a portcullis comes crashing down it's not because I'm thinking "How can I separate the party". During my planning I set up a fortification and a gate with a portcullis made sense for the location. During play an enemy that could perceive an opportunity to block some of the characters from entering the inner courtyard also had the means and opportunity to drop the portcullis. But it was done by taking the viewpoint of that enemy combatant and thinking about what they would consider as the best move.

On the other hand I can't remember ever doing that. Cases where the party got split was because of player decisions where they decided to approach the enemy from different directions or they thought they were safe from one of the characters got into trouble. There could be times when what I set up leads to the party being separated such as trying to flee a chaotic situation and they failed some checks to stick together. I think that has happened but then again, I've been running games for a long, long time.

The fact that the GM's roles in both trad and narrative games are built around the principles that range from very similar to actually identical. It's silly to complain about things being written down neatly in one game when it's been part of the rules and expectations of another game that I know you play and seemingly enjoy.

This is where I disagree. Narrative goals are different from my goals. I'm not concerned about setting up moral dilemmas. I don't think dangerous, I'm not going to destroy things if the characters don't intervene simply because the characters did not intervene. I don't ask the players to fill out the fiction of the world* by asking questions and using the answers. I run a mostly sandbox game where I provide multiple opportunities for the players to pursue but I don't have a specific goals other than creating interesting things to choose from.

The end result may be superficially similar and other people likely run their D&D games with the same kind of agenda and motivation as a narrative game. But for my game? My approach for what happens during play is to simply have the words and actions of the characters to have direct and immediate in-world reactions without consideration of any overall story or narrative. In other words, failing to pick a lock just means that the door remains locked and that's all. It's then up to the players to decide what to do next, not me.

*There are rare cases where they can fill in minor details about their background, but anything significant I will do offline.

 

[Hussar]

First, it doesn't just tell you that you fell down. It also tells you how far you fell down. To have fallen X distance, you had to be falling before you hit bottom.

Second, the game has gravity. If it didn't, the spell couldn't reverse it and the game wouldn't say this in the 5e PHB on pate 195.

"For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy."

Third, you still can't get past the wrong definition of simulation. It's not the scientific one where you would get answers from the simulation. A simulation in an RPG does NOT tell you HOW something happened. That's not the definition used. That's not its purpose. It's just there to imitate a process, which is one of the other definitions of simulation.

Why is it so hard to accept that RPGs use a different definition of simulation than the scientific one?

Actually, no rules in D&D tell you how far you fell. No matter what, you hit the bottom at the end of the round according to the rules. You can fall ten feet or ten thousand feet and you will take exactly the same amount of time to hit the bottom, and you will ALWAYS hit the bottom before 6 seconds.

Now, I agree, this is utterly ridiculous. But, that is what the rules say.

It is hard to accept because the definition you are using and the one @AlViking insists that simulationist rules are diegetic. Which means that they actually correlate to what is happening in the game world. For rules to be diegetic, they MUST tell you anything (even the tiniest bit of information would be enough) about how the result occured. That's what diegetic means. I'm simply insisting that you use the definitions that you yourself agreed to.

By your definition ALL mechanics are simulationist. Because all mechanics tell you the result of something and don't tell you how it happened. Rolling dice in Monopoly are simulationist according to you. No matter what, all mechanics are simulationist if simulationist mechanics don't have to actually describe anything other than the result because all mechanics, no matter what, do the same thing - describe a result. The cook popping in after a failed lockpick check is 100% simulationist by your definition. Since there is no need for any causal chain between the mechanics and the result - after all the mechanics in no way describe HOW the result was achieved, thus, there is no need for any causal link between the mechanics and the result - then any result, no matter how farcical - like falling at light speed, but only taking limited damage - is 100% simulationist.