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

[Faolyn]

And what are the important differences with respect to the cook's existence here?

How the cook came to be is unimportant. What's important is that their appearance helps move the story along.

 

[The Firebird]

How the cook came to be is unimportant. What's important is that their appearance helps move the story along.

For you it seems. Not for me.

 

[AlViking]

Ahh, this nails down the issue here.

I am in no way making any sort of qualitative judgement about better or worse. I'm not. I'm in no way saying that RuneQuest (for example) would be a "better" system to use for simulation.

No.

I'm saying that mechanics which do not provide any input into how the result was achieved are not simulationist mechanics. Which, really, covers the idea that the DM provides the input. After all, a freeform system where the DM simply provides the narrative is, in a way, a simulation.

But, that doesn't change the fact that the simulation is completely divorced from the mechanics that created that result. The mechanics are simply giving you some sort of result. Which means that the mechanics are not simulating anything. And we know they aren't simulating anything because if they were simulating something, we would have some indication as to how that result occured.

You keep trying to take this to a higher altitude and say, "Well, because the DM is providing the narrative, then the system is simulationist because the system includes the DM". Which, fair enough I suppose. That's a pretty solid argument. But, my arguement is that while the DM might provide the narrative, that doesn't mean that the mechanics are now suddenly simulationist. After all, in pretty much all RPG's, the DM/GM will provide the narrative. But, in some systems, that narrative is generated in part by the system itself, rather than just free form added on after the fact.

And it is those systems, which generate some part of the narrative, which are what I consider simulationist. @AlViking has repeatedly pointed to the blog post that dovetails nicely with what I'm saying. Simulationist mechanics must be diegetic. They must provide some information as to how something happened. That's what diegetic means. Something cannot be diegetic without providing some clue as to how a result was achieved.

I have no clue how you go from the blog post I listed to "This supports my litmus test". It is in no way mentioned, alluded to or even hinted at that a simulationist style of play needs to show how the result was achieved. What it says is that simulations abstract things so that we can play the game. You probably mentioned something above and I didn't have time to figure out what you were talking about. It didn't make any sense then and it doesn't make any sense now.

Meanwhile video game simulations don't show their work in any case I can think of, they only interpret your clicks and cursor position (or input into a steering wheel or other controller) into results that affect the world depicted on the screen. Real world simulations may for a few things but it's not required and it's certainly not complete.

So once again, you're just making up your own line in the sand with no other support as far as I can tell.

 

[The Firebird]

So, it's nonsensical for anyone or anything to be on the other side of a door?

No.

Established how? By whom? Since, presumably, the PC's haven't been in the kitchen before, how, exactly, would you establish that?

By the GM before the attempt was made.

From the player's POV, there is absolutely no difference here.

To some extent. But note--this is the same argument people use for fudging, and subject to the same objections.

Edit: should be quoting @Hussar

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh, and as Sorensen's manifesto has been mentioned several times, I quite like it. I think it outlines the important aspect rather well.

 

[AnotherGuy]

But then they roll a 20, have expertise and a high mod and get over a 30. When I tell them it still doesn't work I get the "Then why did you have me roll?"

But but but...then you (or the table) get to come up with some wonderfully creative thing occur in the narrative, if not a success, then something unique or interesting...you get to flex the creative muscle.

i.e. bard attempts to seduce dragon but instead dragon finds the bard amusing, perhaps decides to keep them as their personal entertainer (Olive Ruskettle - Azure Bonds storyline) etc.

 

[Hussar]

t is in no way mentioned, alluded to or even hinted at that a simulationist style of play needs to show how the result was achieved.

I suggest you learn what diegetic means. After all, for something to be diegetic, it must exist both in the real world and in the fictional world. It is impossible for something to be a diegetic simulation without having some correlation to what is happening in the real world. Thus, the simulation must provide some information as to how the result is achieved.

 

[AlViking]

But but but...then you (or the table) get to come up with some wonderfully creative thing occur in the narrative, if not a success, then something unique or interesting...you get to flex the creative muscle.

i.e. bard attempts to seduce dragon but instead dragon finds bard amusing, perhaps decides to keep them as their personal entertainer (Olive Ruskettle - Azure Bonds storyline) etc.

There are going to be times when an action declaration makes no sense for the current state of affairs. I try to encourage creativity but I think there's a line between creative and goofy. I don't say no often but I don't believe in "always say yes" either.

 

[Maxperson]

Yep. Pink elephants also ride in on little tricycles, while Vecna turns up in a clown car.

I can't believe it's taken you so long to work out what all my RPGing looks like!

Please! Everyone knows that Vecna would ride on one of the pink elephants.

 

[AlViking]

I suggest you learn what diegetic means. After all, for something to be diegetic, it must exist both in the real world and in the fictional world. It is impossible for something to be a diegetic simulation without having some correlation to what is happening in the real world. Thus, the simulation must provide some information as to how the result is achieved.

Diegetic: existing or occurring within the world of a narrative rather than as something external to that world.

The person climbing and falling is diegetic, it occurs within the world of the narrative. The definition is silent on the cause of what happens.