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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Then suffice it to say:

If there is a GM of the real world, their existence, nature, behavior, and rules are a matter of EXTREMELY INTENSE debate...

...so it is by far the best for us to argue as though there simply is no such GM to discuss, and thus not touch the discussion thereof, one way or another.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't see how this answers my questions about T&T and TB2e.

 

[Enrahim]

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

No? I do not think there are enough info about the detailed processes of play to make any judgement about that according to any framework of labeling I am aware of?

What do you have in mind?

Your rune example has at least appeared to many to break with a notion of simulation they per default seem to have assumed being at play.

I do not think I myself has made a claim your play is not simulationistic. I also cannot remember any spesufic instance of anyone making that claim. I however found it plausible that someone might make such a claim based on this example, and I hence this was the assumed situation I had in mind. It might be you had some other incident in mind, in which my answer might not apply. In that case I am sorry for jumping to conclusions!

 

[AlViking]

@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.)

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.

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.

There are many other reason it may not be possible to bribe someone for reasons other than railroading. It can be anything from blind loyalty that we see all the time in the real world to the bribe simply not being sufficient. If someone is fearful enough of consequences there may be little you can do to bribe someone. It's really insulting to always jump from "The GM does something I don't like" to "The GM is a railroading control freak".

I remember a game where a character offered a servant 20 GP to betray her employer. To the player this was an enormous amount of money, to me it would have likely been equivalent to something like $500. Admittedly a large amount of money but look at it from the servant's perspective - the character was asking them to do something that meant they would have to immediately flee the city. Assuming they could even get out of the city without being caught which was not likely since the NPC would have had no connections or know of means to do so, they would have had to leave everything they knew behind. No more family, no friends, no loved ones, no connections at all. Set adrift in a dangerous world, there was a reason that banishment was one of the most extreme punishments possible. It likely would have been a death sentence for most people. If the bribe had been larger it just would have made her even more of a target for thieves.

So no, I don't think bribes will always work. It depends on who you're trying to bribe. A bouncer not particularly loyal to the owner of a dive bar? Sure. A royal guard who is proud to be 3rd generation protector of the realm, who's whole identity is tied to his loyalty to king and country? Probably not. Somewhere in-between? Roll for it but it's not a guarantee. Not because I have some plot in mind (I don't think that way) but because I've made a judgement call on whether it's possible based on the current situation.

 

[pemerton]

If there is a GM of the real world, their existence, nature, behavior, and rules are a matter of EXTREMELY INTENSE debate...

There is no "GM of the real world". The real world is not an imaginative leisure activity with role-differentiated participants.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@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.)

Yes, that was why I constructed the example. I don't think reading my turgid prose is necessary. The simple point was that I had constructed an example where I, the author, knew that the GM wasn't railroading (or, at least, wasn't trying to), at least by the standards other posters in the thread had used. However, even with that established, also establishing that even by those standards, it would be entirely possible--easy, even--for the GM to do things that look indistinguishable from railroading. Thus, showing ways it is possible for a GM who genuinely means well to damage trust between player and GM.

IIRC, I originally constructed this example in order to show that yes, actually, it's really really good to have answers for the question "what should GMs do to build trust?" "What should GMs do to rebuild or repair trust if it is damaged?" "What should players do if their trust is wavering and they want to prevent that from actually breaking?" Etc.

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.

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.

Excellent points.

 

[pemerton]

Your rune example has at least appeared to many to break with a notion of simulation they per default seem to have assumed being at play.

How? As in, how does it break with a notion of simulation?

And how is the runes episode an example of making a decision that might be problematic in terms of what you are trying to simulate?

 

[Enrahim]

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.)

This is soo interesting! I myself having a hard time seeeing something more vulnerable than showing of my baby creation of 30 years, opening myself to the potential critisism - maybe even ridicule of how stale and cliche it is. Maybe outside eyes are going to see hundreds of minor inconsistensies where my blind eyes of love has only seen perfection?

Not to mention me putting Tredorar the Terrible on the line! That is a tough pill to swollow, but they have deserved a fair shot. And at least the integrity of my world would still be intact, even if it's frighfull history shaping presence might now become but a memory.

How can two persons look at the same situation and see somewhat so diemetricaly different? Even to the point that you didn't seem to be able to produce my vision when even prompted about it?

 

[clearstream]

I don't see how this answers my questions about T&T and TB2e.

That's right. I was agreeing that you raise some pertinent questions, and proposing that a step in answering them will be to

identify what makes a mechanic productive of simulationist experiences of a subject; which could differ per experience, per subject​

​

identify what counts as a sufficiency of such mechanics; given folk seem to be partial to some and not other mechanics​

I haven't ruled out the possibility that simulationist experiences of subjects are only identifable in play, and can't be identified in texts!

(Although I would prefer to imagine that my notion a game text can be identified as more rather than less "simulationist" when it contains a sufficiency of mechanics productive of a "simulationist" experience of a subject if used in accord with its principles and for that purpose, is right.)

 

[Enrahim]

How? As in, how does it break with a notion of simulation?

And how is the runes episode an example of making a decision that might be problematic in terms of what you are trying to simulate?

I believe at that point it was mainly the notion that simulation should produce result independently of certain things. There was seemingly a dependency that broke this independence (the exact nature of this has been the topic of pages worth of posts as far as I could see and I am not sure how it concluded).

In simpler words, the presence of a map there just seemed awfully convenient.