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

[Enrahim]

How exactly do you think it will work? Can you point to one reputable source that contradicts it?

I guess you made a mistake in saying "everything looks normal" instead of "everything nearby, moving along with you looks normal". The galaxies you swish past certainly would not look "normal", and if you check out the cosmic microwave background you might find a very peculiar directionality.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not to everyone. You are making implied assumptions on how people understands and uses certain words. Mind you, this is formulated so that any dictionary definition you might be be coming up with is irrelevant for the validity of this statement. If you want a demonstrating example of my statement, I hereby provide myself.

I might agree to a certain understanding of line 2 and 4. My understanding of what you seem to try to say in 1 and 3 do not match my understanding of those words.

Okay, well, then folks who are using it that way are using it at wild divergence with both common-usage of the term (consider how one would speak of "dictatorial management" as corporate superiors who throw their weight around and demand whatever they want, even if it's impossible or illegal or whatever) and the technical usage of the term in political science and history (again, the rise of "absolute monarchy" was characterized by a consolidation of all legal authority under one singular monarch who rejected control from vassals, spiritual leaders, or aristocracy; as noted, the only meaningful dispute among historians is whether they actually did exert "absolute power", or whether their power was still conditional because the nobility could rebel).

Folks can have their own private definitions if they like, but when both common usage and technical usage disagrees, perhaps they should reconsider. Especially when they have someone begging, indeed pleading with them to consider any other alternative, as I did with Max in a previous thread. I tried everything I could to get Max to use any other words, anything at all, ANYTHING short of "absolute power". But nothing less than that would do.

Edit: As an aside, here's Dictionary.com's definition for "absolute" in reference to power.

unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic.
an absolute monarch.

"Unrestrained or unlimited by a...counterbalancing group...." Someone who can only act by the advice and consent of another group does not exercise absolute power.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I thought the advisors still where subjects? Where is the dichotomy?

"Advisor" implies courtly position. Delegated authority. No ability to defy (because, again, absolute power), but having subsidiary authority underneath. No such arrangement exists between an "absolute power" GM and her players. The players are subject to the GM's will in anything relating to the game. Whatever they think or feel is completely secondary to the GM implementing her will. Should the GM deign to listen, nothing prevents them from doing so, but nothing whatsoever requires it either. Because that's what exerting absolute power (within a particular domain) means.

Think of it as the difference between a President-and-CEO with her VPs, and a mother with her children. Or the difference between a whole army's general with the officers who directly report to him, and a primary school teacher with his students. In both former cases (Pres-CEO and army-leading general), the secondary parties are still under total requirement to obey their superior, but they still hold personal authority of some kind. Children and grade-school students hold no authority within the associated structure, not even subsidiary authority. (Of course, with all of these cases, there is a higher superseding authority--the law--which could intervene, but I trust you'll allow for the sake of argument that we ignore this.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I did mention it several times in the thread. For example


Numerous other posters have done so as well. It seems to me folks are going out of their way to read preferences other than narrative games, when the reasons for those preferences are stated, as an attack on those systems.

Okay. I don't see that as being anything more than a tiny-tiny-tiny-bit-more-than-neutral response, myself, but whatever. My point was that there is a difference between expressing vague positivity and, y'know, calling people out for being unfair or unkind, which is something I have seen happen A LOT in this thread, and getting pretty much completely ignored by folks claiming to be positive toward others' styles, or worse, getting a bunch of thumbs up.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think depends on the group and rules set i think. Some rule sets would push more to advisers, others to subjects as default.
In our group we tendvto rotate Who is GM or equivalent from campaign to campaign ( and one shots and everything in between) so often we are advising each other, especially when all trying a new ruleset out.
I do feel that dnd as a default would tend to be on the subject side of things based on rules as written, but doesnt mean all tables are like that.
Other rulesets may remove role of DM altogether, e.g. Ironsworn, or may change balance to push towards more adviser relationship as default.

Sure, I don't think that 100% of groups do this. Far from it!

But when you have people who are stridently insistent on the specific term "absolute power", espousing the utter essentialness of a GM completely unrestrained by any form of rule or precedent or anything*, I do think it fair to say that that pushes very hard toward the most extreme end of "subject, not advisor". When one bangs the "traditional GM" drum with such gusto, it's hard to draw any other conclusion.

*I will note here that, for example, although I have clashed with Lanefan on this specific topic many times, he is a rare exception that adamantly insists on precedent being binding, which is something I respect. I have other issues, naturally, but at least on that one specific thing, his commitment to following precedent is admirable.

 

[Enrahim]

Okay, well, then folks who are using it that way are using it at wild divergence with both common-usage of the term (consider how one would speak of "dictatorial management" as corporate superiors who throw their weight around and demand whatever they want, even if it's impossible or illegal or whatever) and the technical usage of the term in political science and history (again, the rise of "absolute monarchy" was characterized by a consolidation of all legal authority under one singular monarch who rejected control from vassals, spiritual leaders, or aristocracy; as noted, the only meaningful dispute among historians is whether they actually did exert "absolute power", or whether their power was still conditional because the nobility could rebel).

Folks can have their own private definitions if they like, but when both common usage and technical usage disagrees, perhaps they should reconsider. Especially when they have someone begging, indeed pleading with them to consider any other alternative, as I did with Max in a previous thread. I tried everything I could to get Max to use any other words, anything at all, ANYTHING short of "absolute power". But nothing less than that would do.

I think a problem here is that you keep giving a description of "absolute power" that indeed matches our understanding of the concept, as here. In such a context it is hard to change terms away from it without miscommunication. It would indirectly imply that I agree there is something in what you just said that make "absolute power" an inaproperiate term. But there wasn't. However then you go on to make claims about what they mean that do not match their intention at all based on an understanding of "absolute power" that in no way matches theirs, and was certanly not communicated in your attempt to clarify. Then when you are called out on that, you are again asking for clarification using completely common language the way you do now.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that the keyword here is required. An absolute monark need to be able to make decissions without consulting with anyone first. This is both the biggest strength and weakness of the government form. The strength is that it is hard to see what can possibly outperform it in terms of pure speed and reactivity in decission making. The biggest weakness is that it has a single point of failure in that it is up to a single person to recognise/decide when a decission do call for consultation. (As a side note, monarchy is also considered really strong in terms of unity of vision and mid-term consistency, but this do not require absolute monarchy. A monarchy required to make certain consultations before reaching a decission while still being the final decider can still reap this benefit)

For governing a society, almost all decissions are so impactful and slow to implement that consulting before deciding is almost always advisable even if not required. So absolute monarchy doesn't seem like a good fit as it cannot really make use of it's biggest potential strength, alongside that in this context the benefits that can be gotten trough pure corruption become so big this single point of failure are facing an enormous temptation to start making decissions clearly not serving the common good.

In the context of an TTRPG however the calculus is different. The value of split second decissions should be obvious in terms of immersion and getting the most fun out of the limited time together. The benefits gained from being corrupt is also very limited. Hence we are in a situation where consultation isn't often advicable. requiering consultation hence seem a bit over-beurocratic. But what do we get if we are not requiring consultation before decission? Exactly what you here describe as an absolute power.

The problem is that you keep dropping required, and instead say just "do not". And this is where the disonance start.

The question of when to call for consultation is a tricky one, and different GMs use different methods to aid them in that decission, because that is that single point of failure: The GM must decide when to just call the shots, and keep things going. The alternative of stoping the action, bring the players out of the fictional world, and pose a question is not an easy choice to make. Some times we get this wrong, that is the problem with being a single point of failure.

And then the question become: Do we get it wrong often enough to change style of game away from one where the GM is not required to consult with anyone? And the answer is no for most of us. Even if the problem sometimes arise, it do not affect most sessions - and we have still to find an alternative that is anywhere near as well suited for providing the experience we want.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

I don't believe there are any "authority figures" who are dictating definitions from on high. And, frankly, it would be a fallacy to quote them anyway. Appeal to authority and all that. But, yes, my definition comes from the fact that every single sim-leaning game in the past 50 years follows the same criteria, and, if you remove that criteria - that the mechanics must provide some information about how the result was achieved - then there is nothing to differentiate a sim leaning game from any other game.

FKR is Free Kriegspiel, yes. And FKR requires an expert judge in order to work. Otherwise, it's just calvinball. Same as any other human judged simulation.

Thank you for taking time to respond.

TLDR. Since my last post, I did a bit of digging around on the usage of the word simulation. Based on my very short searching, I've come to conclude the following:

1. Your definition of simulation is not a standard definition of simulation.
2. I apologize if I sound antagonistic, but it seems you are relying on circular reasoning to support your definition of simulation.
3. I am failing to understand your criteria for "informtaion" necessary to make something a simulation.

I've expanded my points below if you are interested. If not, I understand.

---

Longer version
Here, I've expanded on my points in the TLDR. It's a bit long so I understand if you'd rather not read through them or just drop the conversation altogether.

1. Your definition of simulation is not a standard definition of simulation. By a standard definition, I mean how widely accepted in used—perhaps it's in dictionary, it's used in academia, or it's used in the industry. It is certainly not how I use the term "simulation" or "simulate"—for example, I would say that use random number generator to simulate fair dice rolls—which is why I had asked if this was some industry standard term.

I spend some time poking around the forum outside of this thread, and saw similar arguments show up from a post from few years ago, and saw that there were some disputes about this definition.

FWIW, I don't think it is fallacious to refer to some agree upon authority when it comes to talking about definitions. Definitions typically need to be standardized.

2. Speaking of fallacies—and I apologize if I sound antagonistic, it is not my intent—I think you are using circular reasoning as to why your definition of "simulation" is correct. This is my understanding of our conversation—please correct me if I am wrong:

• Me: Where is your definition of simulation coming from?
• You: Every simulation game in many decades satisfy this definition.

You formulated your definition because all simulation games satisfy that definition. But then how do you categorize a game as "simulation"? You use your definition. But where does your definition come from? The games you've decided are simulation. But then how do you decide if the game is a simulation? You use your defintion, and so on.

3. I don't really understand your criteria for what constitutes "information." You said DND is not a simulation, because it does not meet your definition. But if you look at the rules of DND combat, it seems like there is a lot of information:

1. It tells you which characters were involved in the conflict.
2. It tells you which characters inflicted harm and who received them.
3. It tells you which what resources, if any, were used.

What makes this information disqualifying to be a simulation?

 

[Enrahim]

"Advisor" implies courtly position. Delegated authority. No ability to defy (because, again, absolute power), but having subsidiary authority underneath. No such arrangement exists between an "absolute power" GM and her players. The players are subject to the GM's will in anything relating to the game. Whatever they think or feel is completely secondary to the GM implementing her will. Should the GM deign to listen, nothing prevents them from doing so, but nothing whatsoever requires it either. Because that's what exerting absolute power (within a particular domain) means.

My bolding. Ah! There we have another one! I might want absolute power as a GM, but that doesn't mean I am very keen on exerting that power. There is a crucial difference between having and exerting.

But that is secondary. The players do have subsidiary authority - over their players characters. So it seem like they still fill your criteria for being advisors? (Your further examples seem to confirm this)

 

[Old Fezziwig]

There we have another one! I might want absolute power as a GM, but that doesn't mean I am very keen on exerting that power. There is a crucial difference between having and exerting.

If I'm in a position where I don't have much power and someone else does (absolute or just relatively more than I have), the fact that someone's not keen on exercising that power is not particularly reassuring, certainly not over the long run. The having is the important part.

 

[Enrahim]

If I'm in a position where I don't have much power and someone else does (absolute or just relatively more than I have), the fact that someone's not keen on exercising that power is not particularly reassuring, certainly not over the long run. The having is the important part.

Absolutely! It is not meant be reassuring. It was meant to aid communication.

The challenge with there being a single point of failure that might make poor decissions is there independently of the will to exercise the power is there. And for someone wanting to not rely on a single person this is a problem.

As a side note - when deciding wetter to seek consultation or not it is possible to go wrong both ways. I think most also would feel pretty annoyed by a GM seeking consultation on every little decission point. "What do you guys and galls think what should be behind this door?" "I'm not sure what would be an aproperiate DC for this lock, what do you think?" "Who want to be crushed by the ogre this round?".