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

[Hussar]

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.

Really?

When you point your gun in a video game and click the mouse to shoot it (or controller depending on the system), do bullets (or whatever) not shoot out of that gun, traveling along a path to a destination? You cannot follow the path of the bullets? You have no idea why that bad guy just fell down?

When your car strikes a something in a driving game, does damage not occur? How did your car become damaged? You don't see the car striking the obstacle and becoming damaged? It's just suddenly damaged without any explanation as to how it got damaged?

Again, you keep insisting on this idea of real world simulation. That's not the criteria. All that is required is for the simulation to provide some (any) information as to how that result occured. In video games, that's shown quite clearly in most games. You know exactly how and why your car got damaged. You can quite possibly replay a recording of your car being damaged. What damage it suffered and how that damage models reality is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are told by the system some information about how that damage occured.

Unlike something like D&D where it's entirely a black box. All that D&D tells you is the result. It would be like a video game where your car suddenly loses a tire. No explanation. No reason is given. Your car just loses a tire. A perfect simulation of driving skill and luck I suppose?

Would you consider a driving game where your tire falls off without any explanation to be a simulation? If not, why would you consider an RPG where you fall down without any explanation to be a simulation?

 

[Hussar]

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.

Ahh. This would explain why you failed to understand the blog. That is not the definition of diegetic. Or, rather, that's only half the definition. It also must exist for the audience as well. IOW, how can falling exist for the player if the player has no idea what caused the character to fall? Sure, again, you can backfill the explanation after the fact, but, that's not diegetic. That's just post hoc justification.

 

[Maxperson]

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?"

Allowing the attemp does not mean they get to roll. If a player wanted his PC to attempt to leap the Grand Canyon with a running start, I'd let him make that attempt. Any roll would be geared towards possible survival from the failed attempt, though. There would be no jump check, because the outcome isn't in doubt.

 

[Maxperson]

It's passive aggressive to say there is no one true way?

I think he's saying that it's passive aggressive to think that failing to hear the louder successful check, while hearing the quieter failure, is nonsensical.

 

[Maxperson]

There was a miniature. It ended up spawning a whole racial group.

I think i saw that movie.

 

[Faolyn]

For you it seems. Not for me.

Then, as I said, you are playing BitD wrong.

 

[Hussar]

Then, as I said, you are playing BitD wrong.

You're actually surprised by this given the history in this thread?

 

[The Firebird]

Then, as I said, you are playing BitD wrong.

How so? My comment had nothing to do with how I played the game. It was about how playing the game as written didn't appeal to me.

 

[Hussar]

How so? My comment had nothing to do with how I played the game. It was about how playing the game as written didn't appeal to me.

I believe because you weren't actually playing the game as written, but, rather misunderstanding how the game was supposed to work. It's been a rather common thread throughout this discussion.

I mean, can one lean D&D into simulation? I suppose. You can lean any game into simulation. But, that doesn't make it simulationist. It means that you are reworking the game to suit your purpose. Which is perfectly fine. But, it's also true to point out that the game isn't built for that purpose and that other systems are.

 

[The Firebird]

I believe because you weren't actually playing the game as written, but, rather misunderstanding how the game was supposed to work. It's been a rather common thread throughout this discussion.

How was I misunderstanding it? I described how I played it, which is how the text says. "I didn't like it" is different from "I didn't understand it".