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

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.

Yeah, this is my biggest objection to the "toss everything left into sim" element of GNS; it lumps together two things that I don't think go together at all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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

Seriously though, I prefer to treat the sub-creation of the setting as real for purposes of the game. As the author of every part of that setting except the PCs, they control what happens there, either directly or through the mechanics of the game everyone is playing. The PCs are analogous to the people living in the universe, doing what they want there within their own ability to do so (like in the real world). The GM is analogous to the universe, representing and adjudicating everything outside the control of people in the universe (like the weather, or physical laws, or people who aren'tthe PCs), again either directly or through the game mechanics. That's the game I like to play.
 

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.


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.


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.)
So long as those changes are being made through in-fiction means, I have no problem with them.
 


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.
True, process sim and genre sim are quite different. My priority has always been on process sim (though I'm happy to sim genre if it doesn't interfere with process), and I think many of the lengthy debates here have been argued as process sim issues on the trad-leaning side.
 

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"?
Quite sure.

I'm just also sure that, as much as the GM is entitled to a reasonably limited number of bright lines, players are entitled to a few too. The GM is, almost certainly, entitled to slightly more than the players are, even taking al the players collectively. But the clear throughline from you and several other people is that the very idea of bright lines for players is that the GM is entitled to as many as they want, which may be flicked on or off whenever they feel like, and the players get absolutely none, no matter what.

True. Did you win? Because I believe the question is still out there.
I mean, I felt I had succeeded at arguing the point that the "GM can do whatever they want, whenever they want, as much as they want, solely because they have a prewritten justification they won't share" position was not particularly tenable in general. It requires substantially more justification than just that. That there are--and indeed must be--restrictions on what is acceptable behavior from the GM.

Strangely enough, I'm not Bloodtide. Very few people are. Just one, really.
My point was not that you are them, nor that anyone else is them.

It was that the position is in fact real, and actually held, by at least one real person in this thread. It cannot be dismissed as a boogeyman, a fiction, a strawman, a mockery, an exaggeration. It is, in fact, real and demonstrated before our very eyes.
 
Last edited:

Quite sure.

I'm just also sure that, as much as the GM is entitled to a reasonably limited number of bright lines, players are entitled to a few too. The GM is, almost certainly, entitled to slightly more than the players are, even taking al the players collectively. But the clear throughline from you and several other people is that the very idea of bright lines for players is that the GM is entitled to as many as they want, which may be flicked on or off whenever they feel like, and the players get absolutely none, no matter what.


I mean, I felt I had succeeded at arguing the point that the "GM can do whatever they want, whenever they want, as much as they want, solely because they have a prewritten justification they won't share" position was not particularly tenable in general. It requires substantially more justification than just that. That there are--and indeed must be--restrictions on what is acceptable behavior from the GM.
Of course there are. People don't play in games where the GM's behavior is unacceptable to them.
 

Of course there are. People don't play in games where the GM's behavior is unacceptable to them.
Seems like it's rather wasteful then, to characterize all GMs as either perfect angels, someone whose behavior not just isn't questionable but cannot be questioned, and horrible devils, someone whose behavior is utterly and horrendously unacceptable.

Seems like it might be much more useful to recognize that there are degrees of acceptability. That there are techniques available to fix gaps. That a showing of genuine respect, rather than an enforcement of absolute hierarchy, can be incredibly helpful.

And that maybe it's possible for a GM to screw up, and get called out by a player in a non-campaign-destroying way, and then fix their behavior. Rather than the insistence that the GM is always right up until the point you've got conclusive proof that they're a monster.
 

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.
I think causality is often messed up if we are thinking just about what we do at the table. Resolving hit locations in RQ being a clear example. Within world, causality is fine.

That said, it seems worth making a list of proposed features identifying simulative mechanics, I've now

association between the mechanical process and the process that takes place in the fiction​
provides information about how the result was achieved​
results are not defined by a player statement and a successful roll​
abstractions of a larger, more complex fictional reality​
ease complicated processes into something that can be more easily played with​
non-playful​
change the fictional world to reflect character actions​
Those last four are from a quick parsing of Sam Sorensen's "New Simulationism".
 

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

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.

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.

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.
I don't feel I added any assumptions. I took you at your word with the toy example, and expected symmetry. The toy-owner was exerting such an extreme degree of control over the toy, the other children could do very little with it other than, if we presume it's an action figure for example, moving its arms around and doing that "toy bouncing around to pantomime speaking/acting" thing. If it were a racecar, running it over relatively smooth surfaces or along constructed tracks carefully reviewed by the toy owner. If it were, I dunno, a squirt gun, getting to stand still and squirt it at something (since running around could plausibly damage it, and thus would not be permitted).

I applied the same logic to the GM with their setting. Nothing harmful would be permitted. If the GM ever thought, for even a moment, that anything potentially harmful were to occur, it would be nixed instantly. The players would have zero chance to respond in any way to this; their one and only acceptable response would be instant acquiescence. That much you did specifically say, albeit in different words. You were very clear that anything the toy owner opposed would immediately cease, and the other children would do so without even a hint of question or comment. Such instantaneous acquiescence is not a behavior I expect from children, I admit, and indeed not behavior I really expect from any human in general, other than maybe soldiers receiving orders, but I granted it because it was your example and you set the parameters.

That's why I said you were changing the parameters now. Now it is acceptable to comment or criticize. Now it is acceptable to, as you say, "leave fingerprints". Now it is acceptable to run the racecar over rough surfaces, even if that might nick the paint or scuff the tires a little. Previously, nothing--not one thing--even potentially harmful would be permitted, and the other children had to be eternally vigilant for any sign of denial. Now that vigilance is not required. This feels like a frustrating shift, to me. Perhaps you did not intend that--but I took your words as they were said. Here is the post, with the relevant lines bolded:

Now I think we are starting to tickle the real subtlety of "absolute power".

A school kid come to school with their new cool toy. They let their friends play a bit with it. This sharing is a nice bonding exercise. All the while though, the kid owning the toy provide clear instructions about what they find ok to do with the toy, and rapidly shoots down any idea the friends might have that they are worried might damage their toy. The friends, being good friends do not question or push, but immediately defers to the owner of this toy whenever they voice any opinion regarding this toy's use.
Of particular note: "clear instructions", "rapidly shoots down any idea...that they are worried might damage their toy"; the friends "do not question or push, but immediately defer", and they do so "whenever they [the owner] voice any opinion" on the subject.

Any opinion gets instant deference. The friends do not question or push--at all. No question, no commentary, instant acquiescence. Any and all such behavior is "rapidly [shot] down". There are "clear instructions" about which behaviors are acceptable; anything else is presumptively unacceptable.

Were these things not what you intended me to be operating under?
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top