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

[EzekielRaiden]

I bolded the problem. Here the GM made a claim about the mechanics. I agree that claim is dubious at best. (It might go in a tangent about the ambiguity in the meaning of the word "lying", as the GM might really believe the claim themselves. But I think this is irrelevant for your point, which I grant)

As to FATE - I really think it might be good for simulating what is happening in in certain kinds of drama. The compels in particular seem exelent for supporting a simulation of how the main cast seem to always get in trouble related to the key aspects of their role. The fate point requirement for invoking aspects is obviously a serious hindrance if you want to simulate a set of characters living in a world neutral to their existence and actions. But it can provide a (weak) support for simulating how dramas don't let one of the characters solve all the problems, even in an environement they should have a clear advantage.

And I think the above points to what I think is a key problem in this conversation. Too little effort is made in order to align on what we actually want to simulate.

Much of the conversation seem to assume real world as the baseline. As such while deviations from real world is recognised and accepted in actual play, the idea is that an analysis disregarding these will still be valid. I think it is in this context diegetics has been identified as a favorable trait for mechanics in terms of supporting simulation. And I think this is a good first approximation in general.

However as we start deviating from real world i terms of what we want to simulate, I think the diegetics requirement is similarly lessened. For instance I think me introducing "silly points" as a meta currency would not be considered particularly hindering for a simulation of loony tunes, and indeed might be helpful for the simulation as a way to inspire and motivate approperiate simulative actions and judgement calls.

As for D&D the much bashed upon HP is clearly not good for simulating anything corresponding to real life. But appear at least somewhat simulative of some idea regarding how 70s fantasy heroes don't just randomly die from a stray arrow, while the red shirts definitely do.

See, this shifting meaning of "simulation"--on the one hand, precise and predictable modeling of physical(ish) situations and their consequences, on the other, accurately capturing the conventions and flavor/tone/structure of a specific style/author/genre/etc.--are precisely why I dislike that "process-sim" got lumped in with...I don't remember the term but something like "genre-sim".

I separate these things, and find it significantly easier when we make clear that, though the two have similarities, they're very different beasts with very different goals.

On the one hand, you have process-sim, which I just call "simulation." Specifically, I have a few (non-exhaustive) "game-(design-)goals" which reflect what a game is made for doing. One of them, I call "Groundedness & Simulation" or G&S. Groundedness is the thing we evaluate with, and Simulation is the state or process we pursue. I've already defined "groundedness" here and it seemed relatively copacetic to you, so I won't repeat that. "Simulation", here, is that whole iterative-world-engine concept. It will never 100% perfectly meet that goal, but that's what it's aiming for. The idea being, we sort of build up how the world works. Not quite "from first principles", but that's the ethos behind it, if you will. Naturalistic reasoning is king.

Conversely, we have what I call "Conceit & Emulation". The "conceit" is some kind of imposed structure, theme, concept, etc., because that is the thing the group wishes to explore. "Supers" is one of the most distinct such concepts, but there are others, e.g. "grimdark post-apocalypse" is another distinctive one, or "Redwall-like stories", "Arabian Nights", "Murder mystery", or the like. These are things where it's, in a certain sense, partially "top-down" rather than the pure "bottom-up" approach of G&S. We're here to explore a thematic, literary, or tonal context--so the world needs must suit that context. We expect, accept, and use the Conceit as our guide, and thus seek to emulate some particular space as a result--even if that space is not grounded in the way we would expect a "similar to real life" story to be grounded. Again, going back to Supers, it's pretty silly from a pure-physicalist perspective that titanic strength would result in being able to lift whole buildings by just pulling them out of the ground--that's patently un-grounded, but it's an iconic visual and an enjoyable experience, so it's accepted as part of the Conceit in order to bring about the Emulation we wish to create when we set out to play Supers RPGs.

(There are two other game-(design-)purposes, again a non-exhaustive list as I don't claim to know everything, but they're less relevant in this context.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is not an example of "player actions made within the confines of their PCs in an active game" being vetoed.

How is it not?

The PC described had an established (and GM-approved) backstory of being a distant relative of the royal family, who entered into the priesthood of Bahamut-Horus as a young child and became a temple guardian (=Paladin). Bahamut-Horus had beef a long time ago with Sutekh-Garyx, the guardian-destroyer deity who protects Kemet (faux-Egypt), but that was doctrinally settled and the two priesthoods have worked together many times. When the character went to seek an audience, they were simply stonewalled. Nothing. No possible discussion, at all, period.

From my understanding if what you have written previously, your PC actually got to try to convince the priesthood of Seth to the extent possible within the confines of the PC.

No. They were not even allowed to request an audience. Instant denial. That was the point.

The attempt failed due to not being able to get direct access to the priesthood of Set, due to circumstances outside the confines of the PC.

That denial of access WAS the denial of action. They were not even allowed to make their case.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To me this whole argument seems to be you telling folks that no matter what, the GM needs to accommodate the player's creative desire. That fundamentally, what they want is more important than what you want.

I explicitly said I wasn't doing that. Whereas, from my perspective, you're doing exactly the reverse. The one and only thing that ever matters is what the GM wants. Player desires are completely 100% irrelevant. GM always gets what GM wants, no matter what, always. They will always ignore everything their players ask for if they have any reason--or even no reason at all, just because they feel like it.

I have always, across this thread and every other, advocated for reciprocity. Each side giving and getting. I always--consistently--see people advocate that GMs never concede anything, ever, at all. Nothing. Zip zero nada. GM wants, GM gets. Period.

Is that not true of your position?

That is unfortunate for your interests, and I am sorry no one you know seems to want to run a game you want to play in, but do you think you'll have better luck by trying to convince people to change their play culture the way you seem to be doing?

Yes, I do think that.

 

[Maxperson]

Really? How are they not?

Because the players outnumber the DM and they make tons of decisions. Many of those decisions dont involve me at all.

"Which way do you want to go?"
"What should we do when we get to the ogre den?"
"Let's give the potion of jumping to Cragnok."

Sometimes 20 or 30 decisions get made before they decide something that I need to react to.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Not quite. The definition involves a failure of athletic skill and/or strength. It's not silent. Just very quiet.

 

[Hussar]

Because the players outnumber the DM and they make tons of decisions. Many of those decisions dont involve me at all.

"Which way do you want to go?"
"What should we do when we get to the ogre den?"
"Let's give the potion of jumping to Cragnok."

Sometimes 20 or 30 decisions get made before they decide something that I need to react to.

Really? Those decisions don't involve you at all? Don't you provide any information about what could potentially be found in either direction? Or are they just blind choices? Where did that ogre den come from? Didn't you put it there? Where did that potion come from? Didn't you put it there?

Every single decision that the players take has your fingerprints all over it.

 

[Hussar]

Not quite. The definition involves a failure of athletic skill and/or strength. It's not silent. Just very quiet.

Again, no it doesn't, unless you think that a skill roll invokes no luck at all. There's no element of chance in a roll? Only skill? That seems rather strange considering the HUGE variation from the die. I mean, I well skilled character with a +7 or +8 skill bonus still ranges from a 9 to 28 on a skill check - far more variation than is even possible with skill.

Obviously there is more to the check than simplly a failure of skill and/or ability.

 

[grankless]

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.

this is all 1864 pages of this thread condensed in to a single sentence.

 

[grankless]

Again, no it doesn't, unless you think that a skill roll invokes no luck at all. There's no element of chance in a roll? Only skill? That seems rather strange considering the HUGE variation from the die. I mean, I well skilled character with a +7 or +8 skill bonus still ranges from a 9 to 28 on a skill check - far more variation than is even possible with skill.

Obviously there is more to the check than simplly a failure of skill and/or ability.

just cheat the roll, duh. pure skill in that case.

Really? Those decisions don't involve you at all? Don't you provide any information about what could potentially be found in either direction? Or are they just blind choices? Where did that ogre den come from? Didn't you put it there? Where did that potion come from? Didn't you put it there?

Every single decision that the players take has your fingerprints all over it.

the beautiful world of the Neutral Arbiter Of The World GM declares that these things exist with no relationship to the person who made them. complete death of the author. it relies on the same """illusionism""" that people keep declaring is at play if you don't rigorously pre-define everything and never ever change it

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Again, no it doesn't, unless you think that a skill roll invokes no luck at all. There's no element of chance in a roll? Only skill? That seems rather strange considering the HUGE variation from the die. I mean, I well skilled character with a +7 or +8 skill bonus still ranges from a 9 to 28 on a skill check - far more variation than is even possible with skill.

Obviously there is more to the check than simplly a failure of skill and/or ability.

But whatever number rolled on the dice (possibly not including 1) you can succeed at with sufficient skill. DC 15? Roll a 2? A character with a skill of +15 succeeds anyway.

To quote Gary Player: "The more I work and practice the luckier I seem to get".