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

[AlViking]

No.

A simulation must provide some information about how a result was achieved. A system that provides only results is not a simulation. That’s not an arbitrary definition I’ve made up out of nothing. That’s what simulation means.

Otherwise any and all systems are simulations. Rolling dice in monopoly is a simulation if we, the players, add a narrative as to why I moved from location A to B. Obviously ridiculous.

You're the only one I know of that insists that the simulation has to provide information on how the result was achieved. Many simulations have black boxes because those aren't the purpose of the simulation. In addition, you've personally decided that a specific range means one thing but not another. So what? Does the rock break free because it was shale? Because it was an aggregate? Was the rock slippery because it was wet, some fresh bird droppings, a dead pixie or was there a patch of unexpected ice? Your explanation still doesn't give any details. Because it can't.

 

[pemerton]

What is actually at stake here in the argument about how rare bad GMs are meant to be?

As far as I can tell, what's at stake is telling people who don't enjoy GM-driven RPGing (whether as players or GMs) that they have deviant or unreasonable tastes. Or are among the rare outliers who had "bad GMs:.

The idea that someone might have had a good GM in a trad approach to play, and yet not want to do that sort of RPGing, seems to be very controversial.

 

[pemerton]

Whenever the players are not having fun the DM is wrong.

I don't like this formulation at all. The GM is not an entertainer, a storyteller, etc - at least not in my experience of RPGing. The GM is a participant in a game, along with other participants. Whether the game is fun or not depends on the intersection between how it plays and the tastes of the participants - this is as true of any given RPG as it is true of bridge or football.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As far as I can tell, what's at stake is telling people who don't enjoy GM-driven RPGing (whether as players or GMs) that they have deviant or unreasonable tastes. Or are among the rare outliers who had "bad GMs:.

The idea that someone might have had a good GM in a trad approach to play, and yet not want to do that sort of RPGing, seems to be very controversial.

Not true. You're welcome to enjoy or not enjoy any style of gaming you want. Just don't try to claim objective superiority of what you prefer, or think that gaming culture should change to suit you, and everyone should get along fine.

 

[AlViking]

Sorry for cutting in. I've been following this thread for a while, and I am intrigued by what you are sharing and I'd like to understand better. I've been throwing around the term "simulation" left and right without much thinking.

Is this definition of simulation you are using a widely accepted one in the context of TTRPG, or a broader context? Would you mind pointing me to a source? Apologies if the source was already provided—it's really hard to search through these posts.

I haven't ever heard of anyone with those requirements either for a game. There are some that will rely on charts and whatnot, whether they matter or make it a simulation or not is a matter of opinion. For that matter most real world simulations make assumptions and create black boxes. The only thing the simulations care about are the output of the black boxes, which makes sense. If I'm building a racing sim I don't care about how the engine works I just care about the horsepower and torque at specific RPMs. Electric motors work a bit differently because you have constant torque but it's still the same idea.

 

[The Firebird]

As far as I can tell, what's at stake is telling people who don't enjoy GM-driven RPGing (whether as players or GMs) that they have deviant or unreasonable tastes. Or are among the rare outliers who had "bad GMs:.

The idea that someone might have had a good GM in a trad approach to play, and yet not want to do that sort of RPGing, seems to be very controversial.

I've not seen this in the thread. I'll say it here and now: your tastes are reasonable and fun! It's nice that your style of gaming exists! Does that help?

 

[Pedantic]

I don't like this formulation at all. The GM is not an entertainer, a storyteller, etc - at least not in my experience of RPGing. The GM is a participant in a game, along with other participants. Whether the game is fun or not depends on the intersection between how it plays and the tastes of the participants - this is as true of any given RPG as it is true of bridge or football.

Oh I don't agree. The GM does not have a comparable role to a player in a conventional game, certainly not in trad play. If the GM is comparable to anything in bridge, it's the cards; they're a human filling in for the state of the game. Generally though, I don't think a lot of people play RPGs as games in the same sense bridge is played at all; they lack a fundamental end state and do not pursue a goal. The players are not doing the same kind of thing I do on my weekly card night. The GM might well be a variant of storyteller or entertainer in those cases.

 

[pemerton]

I wasn't referring to the game system, just the events that occurred as you explained them. Had those events occurred in that way in my game, I would have a problem with it, because I don't play games where those events as they occurred are perfectly fine, like MHR. You obviously do play such games, so there's no problem for you.

Not sure why you're banging on about this.

Because I am frustrated by being told that the play was wrong:

My opinion was about what I see as wrong with the runes example, from the perspective of games I play.

The runes examples was not wrong from the perspective of the play of MHRP or a variant thereof. Nor was it wrong in general. And as I said, it makes no sense to say that "It was wrong from the perspective of D&D".

If all you are asserting is that D&D as played by Micah Sweet is different from MHRP, then you could have said that. But you didn't. You went on about quantum runes and the like.

Given the amount of complaining about trad GMs (and trad GM playstyles) from the Narrativists on this thread,

What does the "complaint" consist in, other than saying I prefer something different. I mean, from the extent of your complaining about the play of (say) Marvel Heroic RP, and you need to describe it as wrong from your perspective, what should I infer about your experiences with it?

 

[The Firebird]

Because I am frustrated by being told that the play was wrong:
The runes examples was not wrong from the perspective of the play of MHRP or a variant thereof. Nor was it wrong in general. And as I said, it makes no sense to say that "It was wrong from the perspective of D&D".

If all you are asserting is that D&D as played by Micah Sweet is different from MHRP, then you could have said that. But you didn't. You went on about quantum runes and the like.

In your games, is it wrong for a player to say "rocks fall, Greg's character dies" without any prompt or a roll? I'm assuming so; it is not a valid move for the player to make. Am I wrong?

That's what it means to say a move is wrong from the perspective of your game.

 

[pemerton]

Just don't try to claim objective superiority of what you prefer,

And who is doing that? Who are you remonstrating with?

or think that gaming culture should change to suit you

Where have I ever suggested this? I don't even know what it would mean - as in, what would it mean for gaming culture to "suit me". What is an "unsuitable" gaming culture?