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

[Umbran]

If we take it to be the case that A knows that p entails p - and this is a generally accepted truth - then write what you know entails that no one can write confidently about FTL travel.

Yep. Indeed, FTL is hardly the only subject where that applies.

The question one needs to ask oneself is there, "If I cannot write confidently about this... am I sure I should address it?" Is the narrative really better for having the technical discussion in it? It is a pretty basic risk vs reward question.

And, I'm being broad in my application of "technical" - f'rex, sociology is technical, to a sociologist. And while on Trek they reverse he polarity of the neutron flow every other week, many great bits of sci-fi work to avoid the technobabble..

There are cases of deliberate departure from the principle. JRRT, in LotR, deliberately writes a history and sociology that he (given his academic training) would have known makes no sense. He had artistic reasons for doing that.

Every work has its rhetorical goals. You use the bits that serve those goals, and sacrifice those that don't on the alter of prose.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, it has turned out to be a bit hard to reassure when when have not been able to communicate properly..

You got it! It was intended as a caricature!

However, on a more serious note this is what blanket requiering consultation would actually look like. Which mean that I assume you would indeed like the GM to have absolute power over certain domains at least?

No, I would not. Or, at least, this argument has not demonstrated that I would.

There is a significant difference between "absolute power" and "sometimes exercising personal judgment". For example, US Presidents are Commander-in-Chief and thus may give orders to the US military. But they do not have the power to declare war; that power is reserved to the Congress, which passes laws defining how that power may be exercised. Presidents may (and, indeed, should) exercise individual judgment over how the armed forces should operate, but flatly do not have absolute power over the armed forces--it is a power split between different branches, for very good reason.

 

[Deset Gled]

The question one needs to ask oneself is there, "If I cannot write confidently about this... am I sure I should address it?" Is the narrative really better for having the technical discussion in it?

You can go further if you want; the question isn't restricted to narrative. Is the game better? Is it more balanced? Does it better simulate the scenario portrayed?

And the ultimate question: Is it more fun?

 

[Enrahim]

But you want it so that you can use it. Like...you're putting up a smokescreen argument here (almost literally, heh). Your hope is not "I hope I never seek to actuate this device that produces foam." Your hope is, "I hope my house is never on fire." By having the fire extinguisher, you do in fact hope to use it--just in a situation that you hope never comes to pass. But, I imagine, you wouldn't just up and decide to cease living inside your house if you learned that your fire extinguisher was a dud, yes? You might make it a priority to get a replacement--but you wouldn't make it a prerequisite of continuing to live in that building.

That's rather different from the demand for "absolute power"/"absolute authority" as a "traditional GM", no? The clear pattern is that if this authority were somehow lost or damaged, they would immediately stop GMing until it was restored.

That's a pretty critical piece pointing to the fact that it's desired that it may be used.

Ok, I guess I misunderstood how "bloody insistent" you were refering to in your question. In that case I cannot answer as I am not one of those that are that bloody insistent.

A courtly advisor does, in fact, specifically gain authority, prestige, control over meaningful parts of the apparatus of state, even if their choices are ultimately ephemera should their absolute monarch liege decide so. Nothing of the kind occurs under a "traditional GM". Players do not, and cannot, declare anything to be or not be within the world.*

As a player I routinely declare actions and appearance of my character within the world. Is the critical difference you are trying to point out that the real life monarch didn't have a time machine being able to go back and completely erase all effects of an advisors treasonous acts? Again, I still think this analogy chain is really outliving it's value.

 

[Umbran]

No.

Yes. I'm sorry, it isn't great, but yes.

People jumped on my case and told me I was some weirdo who couldn't trust anyone else (usually in the most condescending tone possible), even implying I couldn't form meaningful relationships with others, rather than lifting a finger to talk about how one would try to fix a problem with trust.

Yep. People on the internet are frequently wrong, or at least far less right than they think, and willing to be dismissive and accusative if it means they get to feel like the point they made is defended. This is bog standard human behavior much of the time. It stinks, and is part of why we can't have nice things.

But... I'm afraid that some of your posts are worded in ways that read as similarly... under-nuanced, shall we say?

It was a hell of a lot more than "some people were wrong on the Internet." It was people outright telling me that no, I have to give functionally unlimited trust, and the only other option was "well then you obviously have a horrible GM and you should get out of there as fast as possible."

And they are wrong. As I already said.

Sysiphus no longer pushes a rock, you know. His new job is trying to win arguments on the internet

 

[pemerton]

If it's established in fiction that warp drive works, then it does.

Yes. That was the premise of my reply to @Don Durito that you subsequently responded to. The point I then made was that

The notion of "its realistic until it isn't" won't serve as any guide here; it's just a post-hoc description. The authors of the fiction just make whatever calls they make that satisfy their aesthetic concerns.

So I don't know why you are posting as if you disagree with me, when you seem to be just repeating the point I already made.

 

[pemerton]

A common problem GMs of a certain type of game complain about is how the players are not engaging with the setting. They might have done world building with a deep history, intricate relationship maps and cultural traits that could reveal important information if examined further. But instead of digging into the interesting and convoluted history of the people at the mansion, the players instead took a particular interest in how the tavern keep manage to find and hold such wonderful serving staff - a thing just thrown in as color.

This seem like such a common problem that there should be some solution to it - but I cannot remember actually seeing any. The same technique for indicating nothing interesting is (likely) going to come out of nesting up the staff CV could be used to flag hyperspace or runes or dragon flight as not worth pursuing?

The technique that I use is conversation with the players.

As I posted upthread, this technique is probably not as readily available in games that are focused on solving the mystery or otherwise beating the scenario.

EDITed to reply to this:

I think what I am missing is a way to differentiate between the subtext being: "Cool idea! I really want to flesh this out properly!", or "Uh, I got a bad feeling little good will come out of pursuing this path, could we try so something else?" For hyperspace physics, dragon flight aerodynamics, and waiter CV, the idea was that the subtext would be the latter.

I don't see the need for subtext here. Why not just use text?

 

[Enrahim]

But you want it so that you can use it. Like...you're putting up a smokescreen argument here (almost literally, heh). Your hope is not "I hope I never seek to actuate this device that produces foam." Your hope is, "I hope my house is never on fire." By having the fire extinguisher, you do in fact hope to use it--just in a situation that you hope never comes to pass. But, I imagine, you wouldn't just up and decide to cease living inside your house if you learned that your fire extinguisher was a dud, yes? You might make it a priority to get a replacement--but you wouldn't make it a prerequisite of continuing to live in that building.

That's rather different from the demand for "absolute power"/"absolute authority" as a "traditional GM", no? The clear pattern is that if this authority were somehow lost or damaged, they would immediately stop GMing until it was restored.

That's a pretty critical piece pointing to the fact that it's desired that it may be used.

Ok, I think I now see the context and the misunderstanding.

Again I am not among those that insist on having the power you describe, but I think I can understand where those that might seem like that might be coming from. So let me give you another example I think might be relevant.

I am having a job that require me to sometimes use a computer. If the workplace did not provide me with a computer I might quite simply not have been able to do my job. Indeed I might have to very strongly insist the workplace provide me a computer for me to work for them. Do you from this conclude that I have a very strong intrinsic desire to use computers?

Indeed there are some strong indications that I might enjoy computer use in there. One is that I am having a job that require their use at all. The other being that I am motivated enough to do the job to proactively demand the required tools. However I think you agree that this is not necessarily so.

I am in absolutely no doubt that there is a significant population of power hungry narcissists out there that has entered the GMing role exactly I order to be able to exert the absolute power that is advertised. But I also think there is a significant population of GMs that just looks at this absolute power as a neccessary means for them to be able to do their job. I think looking at insistence of having that tool available is not a good way to try to discriminate between these two populations.

 

[pemerton]

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.

As best I can tell, @Hussar is relying on widespread consensus that RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Chivalry & Sorcery, HERO, GURPS and the like are simulationist RPGs.

They all have quite a bit in common, which mostly reflects how they react against D&D:

*Their rules for PC build tend to produce PCs who are defined in terms that are closer to "total" (ie aspiring to specify everything about this person's capabilities) than the trope-y and limited information provided by the classic D&D class system;

*Their rules for injury involve more than just hp ablation - eg there are rules for wound penalties, knockdown, unconsciousness/"bleeding out", hit locations and the like;

*Their combat rules try to approximate simultaneity of resolution and reduce the abstraction of classic D&D combat while also avoiding the "stop motion" feel of more contemporary D&D combat;

*Their spell rules, if they have them, tend towards power point or exhaustion rules rather than memorisation and/or slots;

*Their overall tone aspires to a type of "seriousness" about the fiction, the setting, etc that is absent from the classic D&D texts (eg OD&D, B/X, AD&D although parts of Gygax's DMG are clearly written in response to and defence against the emerging anti-D&D simulationist aesthetic).​

In terms of my post upthread, these RPGs aspire to (1):

It seems to me that there are (at least) 3 ways of thinking about an episode of RPGing, or an approach to RPGing, as simulationist:

(1) The participants rely (and are able to rely) upon the mechanical system, without needing to inject their own concerns or judgemental opinions, to learn what happens in the fiction. Rolemaster, RuneQuest and GURPS are like this, or at least aspire to be.

(2) The fiction, during play, is generated via a process that doesn't have regard for what anyone hopes it might be. This might require the application of heuristics to support extrapolation from what is already known or mechanically established, but they should be "neutral" ones. This approach won't use techniques like "fail forward" or the approach to deciphering strange runes that I described upthread in the context of MHRP play.

(3) The players, during play, aim to receive the fiction from "outside" of themselves, rather than "inputting" into it (except by having the in-fiction causal consequences of their PCs' actions worked out). This approach does not similarly constrain the GM, who might - for instance - make decisions non-neutrally, eg, "for the good of the story". Many "event-based" modules will only work if this approach is adopted.​

I think that each approach is a special case of the approach(es) with a higher number than its own. That is, (2) is a special case of (3) - because it maintains the approach of (3) as far as players are concerned, but puts additional constrains on the GM. And then (1) is a special case of (2), as it aspires to drop all the non-mechanical heuristics and keep only the mechanics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yep. Indeed, FTL is hardly the only subject where that applies.

The question one needs to ask oneself is there, "If I cannot write confidently about this... am I sure I should address it?" Is the narrative really better for having the technical discussion in it? It is a pretty basic risk vs reward question.

Usually the reason is to set The Rules when important parts of the story are going to turn on How the FTL Works in some fashion (or similar other likely counterfactuals). Sometimes a minimal amount is done just to explain why certain plot problems can't be easily solved (running away from everything at transluminal speeds for example, so you explain that it takes X amount of time to warm up a hyper drive or they can't be engaged too close to a gravity well or whatever). In either case its to serve other elements of the story you're telling.