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

[Enrahim]

I wasn't saying that the novels were created and then the world was. I'm saying that he developed the legendarium because he felt inspired by the Anglo-Saxon literature (of which he was one of the preeminent scholars of his day, and his translation was held in very high regard for many years; it's been superseded since but is still valuable in its own way). You can, for example, clearly see that he was responding to the weak writing in the prophecies of MacBeth with the Witch-King. "No man of woman born can harm MacBeth" requiring a birth by C-section from a dead woman's body? That's just unnecessary: any woman can kill MacBeth.

I thought this tangent was a dead end, but indeed this one could be fruitful! It is a way to clarify the distinction between world and event. A worldbuilder that is enjoying making a world, but are not into writing novels, are typically adressing the first, but not the second. They might have ideas for grand scale events like how there was once a big empire that crumbled. Or the dwarves drove the drow deep into the mountain. But when it come to the detail level of individual action they either draw a blank, or simply are not interested in fleshing that out on their own.

Writing a novel require engaging on the event level. The details of the witch King's final demise belongs on this level. I would be surprised if this detail was not added during the novelisation phase, just as Tolkien famously got stuck in Moria. When we talk about the world of Tolkien in this context we are typically talking about the cosmology, the relationship between races, and the languages. For Tolkien it is hard to seperate out the more grand world as he indeed had the talent and interest in making up events as well - and these again fed back to his larger world building.

But a lot of these events even if written down appear to never have been intended for publishing - which again brings up another facet of the question if these can have been considered made up for the purpose of novelisation? This question is mainly a curiosity that I am not interested in being pursued further here, though.

What I think is relevant is that typical sandbox trad play has the GM supplying the world, but have no (or at worst a few weak) preconceptions about the events that will play out in this world. This is where the players come in. They are playing the protagonists that informs the events. This is what produces a story - and this is what is needed for any kind of novelisation. (But let us face it - that seem eccedingly rare that it indeed would be worthy of novelisation )

 

[AlViking]

Did I say that? Have I once said that, in this thread?

Why is it that the only alternative to "If the GM arbitrarily vetoes every plan a player has, the player should always submit?" is "If the bard tries to seduce a dragon, the GM should always allow it?"

There are other options. Maybe it's worth considering what can happen when, I dunno, nobody ALWAYS gets EVERYTHING they want eternally forever and the other side must meekly submit???

In the example you gave of not being given a chance at diplomacy, it may have been a bad call on the part of the DM (I assume this was D&D). I don't know, I wasn't there and I can't ask the DM why they did it. But then you extrapolate this one instance of a GM saying no to paint every DM with the same authoritarian dictator making the players puppets dancing to their tune as if it's established fact.

I usually pull a Matt Mercer and say "you can try" or something along the lines of "what are you trying to accomplish because what you just said doesn't make sense because < explain why it doesn't work given the rules of the game or the current situation>". Every once in a great while I'll tell a player "no it doesn't work that way". If I do there's anything arbitrary about it.

 

[Enrahim]

Those are exactly the sorts of questions I would like to answer. Another poster has waved dodging and parrying around as signal mechanics for simulative systems, but one game they identify as "simulationist" lacks dodging, while D&D has both. And there are other problems with their notion, given they seem to think some mechanics fully explain what to narrate into the fiction.

As you know I think TTRPGs should be understood as tools with which players fabricate their play. Like traditional tools (hammers and so on), TTRPG texts don't do the work themselves... placing the text on the table does not result in any play at all unless players interpret and implement it. Tools, being normally teleological, can vary in how well they support various ends, and a similar observation may be made of the whole toolbox... although it is hard to say how much is enough. Do I need both a baiting knife and a filleting knife to fish successfully, or might I make a prize catch with only the rod and line?

I'm thinking of something like, a game text is more rather than less "simulationist" when

the text contains some sufficiency of mechanics productive of a "simulationist" experience of a subject when used in accord with its principles and for that purpose​

This doesn't say anything about how well "simulationist" experiences of subjects can be met outside of text -- the door is left open to FKR -- but it does say how a text may be judged. It caveats on a per experience per subject basis, of course, but that has already been said and I think accepted by most in this thread.

The bolded words are those I suspect are heavily contended, but I can scarcely rule any game out as simulationist if I haven't yet shown with annotated examples from actual texts (rather than vague handwaving) how I identify a simulative mechanic. And said how much is enough.

Indeed. My claim is that simply the "what is an rpg" clause of most rpg would qualify for most subjects in my understanding of those two bolded terms. (Or whereever they describe the basic responsibility distribution). This might be stretching the understanding of mechanics, though. This might point to a potential issue with how working with such a definition might unintentionally limit our thinking about design, by artificially narrowing the relevant scope.

 

[pemerton]

@EzekielRaiden

I haven't followed all the details of your guard-bribing example. But my general experience, which underlies the conjecture I now state, is that when a GM says the guard can't be bribed it's because they have some other action or scene or event that they want to play through. (That is, they are railroading.)

Oh. I agree it is almost certanly railroading. I agree it seemingly breaks with preestablished lore. If this had happened to me I would probably have been hell bent on investigating what sort of loyalty the guards had - as it certanly wouldn't seem to be towards the tennets of Sutekh-Garyx (Unless one of their strong tenets was regarding requirements for gaining access to the priesthood. Good luck getting access to the oracle at Delphi with just words and assurances). I however find it more likely that the other players would talk me out of it than the GM having to bring out their power of explicit veto (which they do have as a potential tool to deal with that kind of problematic player behavior I would have exemplified if I indeed had been ignoring my fellow players pleas to let it rest)

If the GM is railroading, either you play along with it, or it's time to talk about an alternative (or maybe just leave the table. The idea of investigating things as if there's an in-fiction explanation doesn't really seem to fit.

If you want to bring the analogy back to RPGing. You have a world you have worked on for 30 years. You could have kept it for yourself. If you had been a better writer you might perhaps been able to get a novel or two out of it. There is nothing special about the world. Fully generic fantasy with some faux historical places here and there. But it is your world. You could have keept it all in a drawer, Tolkien style. Instead you take the leap to invite some of your friends into it. The friend ask if they can play thiefling. You politely inform them that there are no thiefling in your world. They then go on to play a human fighter. This fighter go out and gather huge treasures, establishes a town and dies fighting the most fearsome dragon in the world.

Your world now has a new town. And a new legend. It is still your world. You have worked on it for 31 years.

This world is not compelling enough to be published. It's fully generic fantasy. How is its integrity, devoid of tieflings, valuable to the players? How does introducing them make it worse, as an artistic creation?

I guess it's nice of the friends to indulge their GM friend's desire to share their world. Equally, it might be nice of the GM to indulge their friend's desire to play a tiefling.

 

[pemerton]

And here the player didn’t decide what if any argument would sway the Maruts.

Having succeeded on the Insight check, the player then decided what the relevant argument was.

the player assigning meaning of the runes via authoring isnt diegetic, unless some in world entity under the players control created the runes (the PC or some other player NPC). Then it would be.

The GM deciding that there are sharp stones that cut the rope isn't diegetic, unless the GM is playing a rock spirit that decides to suddenly become sharp and cut the rope.

But not by the player!

No, it's simulationist if the weather is outside of the player's control. Like it is in the real world.

The weather is outside the GM's control, of course, in the real world. So all I see here is that "simulationism" = the GM makes it up.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The weather is outside the GM's control, of course, in the real world.

Many people believe the GM of the real world can control the weather.

 

[pemerton]

Ok. So let me clarify. The player decided that as the alternative of thiefling was not on the table, they rather wanted to make a new human fighter character. This using the normal rules of the game with no extra limitations from the DM in terms of mechanics. The player then decided to go treasure hunting. The player actions, prepared content and rules resolution over several sessions of play put the character in posession of significant funds. The player then decided to put these funds toward establishing a new town. Having accomplished this the player decided to seek out the legendary dragon that had been mentioned as part of some random lore dump far earlier in the campaign. They succeeded in finding the dragon, but the stats of this important entity (established years ago) alongside the rules of the game established the character's heroic demise.

I find spelling this out to border on writing the infamous "what is roleplaying games" found at the start of every "stand alone" rpg. I really did not expect that would be neccessary to do to someone with more than 26700 reaction score on an RPG forum. If this is the kind of misreading that has prompted some of your previous replies, then I really can understand how that can cause some major confusion.

So is this an example of RPGing per se, or of simulationist RPGing?

you are appear to be willing to make decissions that might be problematic in terms of what you are trying to simulate

What do you have in mind?

 

[pemerton]

Many people believe the GM of the real world can control the weather.

There is no "GM of the real world". The real world isn't a leisure activity involving imagination distributed across asymmetric game-play roles.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There is no "GM of the real world".

That's a matter of theology, and therefore not something we can discuss here.

I mentioned real world belief systems being an important factor (which we cannot discuss) much earlier in this thread.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

They added a town? And the dragon was indeed on the line (just to clarify that). But fair enough, this is what I expected now. Still good to check to confirm.

And for the second question?

Again I do not see any desire for belonging. I see "experience this thing I made." I have already said why "have an experience over which I have total control" does not, to me, look even slightly like seeking belonging. This is just a different flavor thereof, where it's an abstract assemblage rather than a physical toy made of plastic or whatever material.

Like, one of THE greatest problems with the human need for belonging is how much it results in people experiencing the brutal consequences of enforced conformity. Belonging arises heavily--almost totally, I would say--out of submitting oneself to the judgment, and thus control, of others, unless it specifically takes the form of acceptance, where a person is allowed to belong with very minimal judgment. But even in that situation, acceptance, it requires the person receiving it is showing vulnerability. I don't see vulnerability in this--at all. I see control. I see a world criscrossed by those "bright lines" I mentioned in a recent reply to someone else. I see a person who..."expects prompt and uniform acquiescence", if you will, since my terminology is apparently disliked...which has nothing whatsoever with showing vulnerability to others, with desiring to connect with others.

To quote one of the best-written (but, as I've seen recently, not the best-coded) video games of all time: "The human being created civilization not because of a willingness but because of a need to be assimilated into higher orders of structure and meaning." We seek belonging-ness because we need it, and because we need it, we kinda get a little bent out of shape about it--in both directions. Someone exerting this much power over others isn't doing that to seek belonging-ness. They might, potentially, be trying to communicate, but that's a very different thing.

Connecting with others requires respecting them as peers--not ensuring the strict and perfectly enforced hierarchy where I'm on top and everyone else is beneath me. (There are some very evocative parallels I could draw here, but I don't think they would be appreciated. Suffice it to say I think this specific thing is an incredibly, cosmologically important concept here in our own real world.)