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

[clearstream]

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?

FWIW I don't find the runes example to break with the notion of simulation, in general. Rather it exemplifies a particular route to getting there.

Some posters could have in mind experiences they equate with "simulation", that the particular example in some way impinges on.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Did you see the conversation above with @Gimby and @TwoSix where they testified to deciding things about the imagined world in a way that didn't impinge their acceptance of that imagined world. This has come up before, and there seems to me good reason to believe that at least some folk (Tolkien was one, per his letter to Auden) are able to sustain an authorship that is in some way separate from their role as actor and audience.

 

[Gimby]

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.

For this case in particular, no aspect of the world is under threat. Even if the GM/Author runs a game in the setting, they are under absolutely no compulsion to incorporate the events of the game into it. Even if the characters slay Tredorar the Terrible, it still exists in the notes and the GM/Author is fully at liberty to continue to write fiction based on it's future actions or for the GM/Author to run another game starting over from the same starting point as the first campaign. I know it's possible, I've done it (though for a rough sketch of a world, rather than a 30 year Magnum Opus)

 

[Enrahim]

For this case in particular, no aspect of the world is under threat. Even if the GM/Author runs a game in the setting, they are under absolutely no compulsion to incorporate the events of the game into it. Even if the characters slay Tredorar the Terrible, it still exists in the notes and the GM/Author is fully at liberty to continue to write fiction based on it's future actions or for the GM/Author to run another game starting over from the same starting point as the first campaign. I know it's possible, I've done it (though for a rough sketch of a world, rather than a 30 year Magnum Opus)

There is a difference between a rough scetch of a world, and a 30 year magnum opus in this regard

Edit: There also is a difference in mindset. The mindset I portrayed here was a mindset I could easily see myself have. And that would indeed involve the dragon being irrevokably slain.

 

[Gimby]

There is a difference between a rough scetch of a world, and a 30 year magnum opus in this regard

Not really. Neither I or the 30 year creator are required to incorporate fiction arising from the game into their world.

 

[Enrahim]

Not really. Neither I or the 30 year creator are required to incorporate fiction arising from the game into their world.

Formally, no. But see my clarifying edit to my previous post. I think it is much more likely someone will have that mindset toward a 30 year magnum opus than a scetch. Largely because I would really believe we are then well past the fameous point where the world has started feeling like it has taken on a life on it's own.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

It is not simulation as the causality is messed up. We have PC with some rune reading skill value or such (and possibly some DC or similar for the task?) and then from this we derive odds of something completely unrelated, namely the runes being beneficial or bad news. Furthermore we have the player of the reader decide the potential outcome, yet their character is not deciding it. This is almost total disassociation between the mechanical process and the process that takes place in the fiction, thus it is not a simulation.

 

[TwoSix]

Formally, no. But see my clarifying edit to my previous post. I think it is much more likely someone will have that mindset toward a 30 year magnum opus than a scetch. Largely because I would really believe we are then well past the fameous point where the world has started feeling like it has taken on a life on it's own.

I would think the 30 year creation period would make it more resistant, not less.

I mean, a fictional place is like a computer file. It can be copied and edited as often as needed. What changes a gaming group do to a setting only carry over to other instances of that setting if the people want to.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

But they won't, and can't, because as has already been established, the players can't criticize or comment. Anything they might have a problem with is on them, not on the GM. If that wasn't established, I don't understand why we led with the toy-owning child vetoing any and all things they think could cause harm. Poking at the inconsistencies of the world would clearly be harmful. It won't be permitted.

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.

I was under the understanding that the GM--like the toy-owner--would not allow anything they think even might be bad. Hence, they must not think very much of Tredorar the Terrible. By your specific instruction, if the players ever tried to do anything the GM would consider harmful, it would be prevented, and the players would instantly obey without comment or opposition of any kind. Had it actually made the GM vulnerable, had it put them genuinely at risk, they would have stopped it. Because they have that power and use it, per your own instructions.

Allowing yourself to be vulnerable before others means, y'know, not just being able to instantly--and without any response--nix anything the other person might do. You have to be willing to risk someone doing something you'd dislike. By your own statements, this GM never permits something they would dislike.

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?

Well, it seems to me that the biggest problem is that you aren't applying the same rules as you set out in the original example. You're now describing a GM who is in fact willing to accept radical, even detrimental changes to their world. They might recognize that a change would be something that could harm their future enjoyment of the world...but don't have the ability to demand instant and no-criticism/no-commentary abandonment of any such effort. They are willing to accept actions that would reveal problems with the toy (such as, for example, revealing poor construction of said toy...or said world), or potentially even change the toy to such an extent that they can't enjoy the toy the way they used to (such as breaking or losing some part of said toy...or said world.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?"

Which of the ways that you've designed and made decisions about.

"What should we do when we get to the ogre den?"

The den that you decided exists and will decide what it contains. The ogre you decided exists and decided its behavior.

"Let's give the potion of jumping to Cragnok."

The potion you decided to give them and the obstacle you designed requiring the use of a jump potion.

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

And those 20 or 30 decisions are made based on elements that you have decided and designed, largely ahead of play, but also during play.

The GM makes the vast majority of decisions.