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

[pemerton]

So what I’d like to say is that I don’t like the heavy GM authority of trad gaming because it makes me feel like I’m being railroaded. But I’m not saying that anyone else’s game is objectively worse because of this.

I would imagine that the above would typically get a reaction out of you, and not be accepted as just an opinion.

I've found that when I say things like what I've quoted, I tend to get a reaction!

Similarly to how, when I've posted about GMing that I thought was bad or even terrible, many posters have replied by telling me that I'm wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

Eh. It might be subjective but it's not arbritrary. People generally have commonalities in their experiences.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I didn't say it was arbitrary, and people sort of have to have some degree of X in common to have a personal line for what is too much, too little or just the right amount of it.

Are you saying that people will generally have exactly the same amount of preference in common? If so, I disagree. It will vary quite a bit, but you will have many people who feel it's too much, too little, or just the right amount. That will make it fairly easy to find a group that likes what you like.

 

[Don Durito]

My friends are not interchangeable widgets.

To be fair I've been reading a lot of the defences of the traditional GM role in this thread and thinking the whole time "you are writing as if players are interchangeable widgets"

 

[Don Durito]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I didn't say it was arbitrary, and people sort of have to have some degree of X in common to have a personal line for what is too much, too little or just the right amount of it.

Are you saying that people will generally have exactly the same amount of preference in common? If so, I disagree. It will vary quite a bit, but you will have many people who feel it's too much, too little, or just the right amount. That will make it fairly easy to find a group that likes what you like.

People have enough in common that we can meaningfully talk about system tendencies.

 

[AlViking]

With respect, I'm not so sure it is that clear at all. I think authoring can be presented such that it is an activity one can become accustomed to without breaking immersion.

The primary element in not breaking immersion to author would likely be that the authoring should in response to something happening at that moment in-game. Like, the sphynx asks your character the title and author of their favorite poem. The GM hasn't handed out a list of poems by author in the game world, so you're just going to have to make something up. It should be possible to do that from the frame of mind of the character, with who they are driving what kind of poetry they'd like, and a title for such a poem.

Another major speedbump to doing authoring in character would be the mental hiccup when faced with the mental habit of, "but I'm a player I don't get to make stuff up". Getting over this one is a matter of breaking an old habit of thought. One would have to do it a few times to stop being disturbed by it, but it should be doable for most folks.

Why do people always feel compelled to tell people that don't like some aspect of the game that they like such as player authoring world fiction that they should just get over it? I have no problem coming up with extemporaneous descriptions when I'm GM. I have no problem jumping from running multiple NPCs to describing the city market. When I'm the GM.

When I'm playing? I don't want to do that. It's not a habit, I don't care if it's "doable". I don't want to. It's as simple as that and please stop telling me that it's just a "me" problem.

 

[Maxperson]

People have enough in common that we can meaningfully talk about system tendencies.

Sure, but enough people feel in common that D&D is sufficiently sim that it qualifies on the sim meter, even if it's near the bottom. Not everyone will feel that way. Some will, and some won't. @Hussar doesn't. I do, but I get the feeling that you are closer to Hussar on this one and don't.

 

[AlViking]

These are clues perhaps, but there is a wide range of abilities here. Michael Crichton is a good acid test. He uses science and technology extensively, his plots often hinge on key details thereof, and big parts of what he presents are wrong in detail. But his novels are certainly stronger for having the technical discussion there. It's a good thing he didn't throw up his hands and say "well, who knows if this amber idea is sound anyway", and a good thing he ignored the fact that it doesn't quite work.

At the time Crichton wrote Jurassic Park, the amber thing was sort-of possible according to the then-current theory. It wasn't until later that they found that the amber had been contaminated by human DNA as it was being handled. So even though we know it's not correct now, just like we now know many dinos had feathers, at the time it was a bit far fetched but still plausible.

 

[Don Durito]

Sure, but enough people feel in common that D&D is sufficiently sim that it qualifies on the sim meter, even if it's near the bottom. Not everyone will feel that way. Some will, and some won't. @Hussar doesn't. I do, but I get the feeling that you are closer to Hussar on this one and don't.

The issue here is what D&D is supposed to be simulating.

(Also I don't understand the Sim-meter comment - all games have secondary worlds therefore, in the common meaning of the world, they have some element of simulation - that's trivially true - it doesn't tell us anything about priorities.)

 

[Hussar]

I don't think I really agree with Hussar's strict criterion in theory but I think he is onto something in practice.

It is very hard to feel that anything is satisfactorily simulated if it is overly abstracted.

This is why simulationist systems are so often a juggle between too complex and complex enough.

I'm sorry, but, "strict"?

Seriously?

Asking that a simultionist system provide any information about how the result was achieved is strict? Note, again, I'm not talking about how much, or the quality of the information. Just that the system provide any information about how the result was achieved.

Isn't that the basic definition of simulationism? If it's not. If there is no need for the mechanics to provide any information about how results were achieved, then what differentiates simulationism from any other system? Whatever post hoc justification the DM makes? Again, doesn't that mean that all mechanics are simulationist so long as the DM uses the "appropriate" justifications?

 

[Umbran]

What hole?

This all started with you asking if it would be weird to have folks talking about the effects of Special Relativity while on a FTL craft. Thus: the hole that Special Relativity saying you cannot go faster than light doesn't speak to what happens when you warp space around you.