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

[AlViking]

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?

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!

I would say the rune example is not simulationist because the meaning of the runes was not based on preestablished fiction, the meaning of the runes was defined by a player statement and a successful roll.

It's fine that in this particular game the player can contribute to the design of the world, but even as DM I wouldn't introduce fiction into the world because it would be helpful (or harmful). I may fill in all sorts of details as I go along, but it's always going to be descriptive, nothing that significantly changes the fiction established before the session started. If there are runes on the wall, I'll know what they are before play actually starts. If I added them in at the last moment, it will just be filling in details such as historical knowledge or some insight into why the place was built.

That's a big difference I see between narrativist and simulationist approach. In narrativist play the fiction of the world to varying degrees is being built as the game is played. Simulationist approach starts with the world and the players and GM are beholden to that world. There are gray areas of course and I don't claim my game is 100% simulationist because I often have to rely on improvisation when the characters go in a direction I had not anticipated, but even then I will try to build upon preestablished lore.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except it has been repeatedly said that this is so. Consider what bloodtide wrote, just a little ways above this.

Strangely enough, I'm not Bloodtide. Very few people are. Just one, really.

 

[Umbran]

This is almost total disassociation between the mechanical process and the process that takes place in the fiction, thus it is not a simulation.

So, with respect, simulation in general does not require that association.

That association is specific to what is usually called "process simulation" - it is an added requirement that may not be relevant to all folks who want simulation.

For example, folks looking to simulate a fictional genre often don't need the association, which is good because genres are often not differentiated from the real world by identifiable processes.

 

[FrogReaver]

So anyone that says "I played it, I didn't like it" can just be dismissed by "You played it wrong"? Because that's the answer to everything. I've read up on and watched a couple hours of streams, had numerous discussions around narrative games. I've never had the opportunity to play DW, but I can still form an opinion that it's not for me. All we ever get is "If you really understood it you'd like it as much as I do". It's BS.

We all have preferences, things we like and don't like. Why can't people just accept that?

It’s also the answer given for bad d&d play. ‘You did it wrong, or your DM did it wrong’. Etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is an aspiring author trying to force people into playing out their novel by only doing the correct things. They should focus on publishing a novel, which they can absolutely do, rather than trying to squeeze a game out of it when that isn't what it's built for.

Are you sure your position isn't, "if the players wants to play something that isn't in the world the GM made and is running, the GM should just let them regardless of their feelings on the matter"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’m not sure simulation is a purpose. Simulation may underlay and underpin a purpose and set of preferences, but I’m not sure that most players or games have that as their primary purpose. Maybe none, but I’ll leave that door cracked because it’s the internet.

In an ideal environment, simulation would be my purpose. Creating/exploring a consistent imaginary world diagetically is my goal. For me, that the primary.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But that definitely won't ever result in being told you're wrong because the setting bible says so.

Y'know. The setting bible you aren't allowed to see because it contains spoilers.

We already had that argument to death, a thousand or two posts ago.

True. Did you win? Because I believe the question is still out there.

 

[FrogReaver]

In an ideal environment, simulation would be my purpose. Creating/exploring a consistent imaginary world diagetically is my goal. For me, that the primary.

To me that reads that your activity requires simulation but your purpose is not simulation. It’s to explore. Which is what I’m saying.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, with respect, simulation in general does not require that association.

That association is specific to what is usually called "process simulation" - it is an added requirement that may not be relevant to all folks who want simulation.

For example, folks looking to simulate a fictional genre often don't need the association, which is good because genres are often not differentiated from the real world by identifiable processes.

I really do not like lumping genre emulation etc with simulation, as that point the term becomes so broad it is basically meaningless. Every RPG to some way or another emulates something.

 

[Enrahim]

Now we are getting somewhere! Here there are indeed a load of unstated assumptions coming to light

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.

This is seriously a WTF moment for me. If you think this has been established by anyone I think we might just as well have been reading different threads. I have not seen anyone even remotly indicating they would stop, or claim power to stop any kind of critisizm except for possibly while actually playing (The idea being that this stuff should be done after session). Some might even claim to "ignore" the critizism as well in terms of it's effectiveness to produce changes.

But I have heard absolutely noone claiming they are stones that are unable to be hurt by critisism.
Nor anyone claiming the social superpower of stoping critisism outside of play. I cannot completely exclude the possibility you at some point might have come across someone juvenile enough to claim they would chase away a player that was critising them out of game. But let me just say that I am not interested in spending more time on that edge case than state a complete agreement that this is (mildly put) poor conduct. This kind of phenomenom is definitely not supposed to be at play in anything I have said in this thread.

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.

Nothing that might damage. The exact limits of allowance was not tested in the kids example. The kid might have found the idea of getting a lot of stainy fingerprints all over their shiny new toy unpleasant, but it is a sacrifice they are willing to make. This is within the possible parameters of my example. I asked if you could see any possibility the scenario might be based on seeking belonging.

In the more relevant ttrpg example it was established before your answer to the second question that the dragon was on the line. It was nowhere stated what was the perceived value of that dragon. You made an assessment based on unstated assumptions. The possibility of the dragon being highly valued was purposefully kept open when I formulated my example. Indeed world's most powerful dragon in a 30 year in the making world would normally make me think that would go without saying. But seemingly not in this case.

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.)

I have not changed my example at all. I wrote a situation with my interpretation actively in mind. Your reading added on at least a few unstated assumptions. This leads you to visualise a radically different situation than I had in mind when I wrote my example.

I fear that is might have gone in a lot in this thread. People describe what they are doing in a similar maner as I gave this example. You add in a few assumptions you think are correct given context and maybe some previous statements that was meant to be unrelated. You hence produce a vision of something that everyone would indeed find deplorable. However you then go on and make claims about how people have been defending these deplorable actions. Chaos ensues as people that is being accused are trying to defend their position rather than seek clarification, as they think you have indeed the same vision as them about what has been said. This lead to a vicious cycle.

There is a crucial difference between wanting absolute power as you know it might be needed in order to cause irreparable damage to something you hold very dear indeed - and wanting absolute power to protect oneself from any kind of unpleasantness.

I think everyone still active in this thread running living sandboxes has seen and accepted a lot of garbage from the players that they have not cared much about. This while having never given an inch on their absolute power to strike it down.

They need to answer for themselves if they have a story to share if they ever have gotten to the point that they have sacrificed something dear to them in-fiction in the name of the game. I can think of at least one such moment myself, but I find that too personal to share here.