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

[Micah Sweet]

As I posted, in Classic Traveller it's identified as a procedure for GM-less play. (Traveller calls that playing without a referee.)

Ok, that's an unusual set up though, no matter how old it is, and not one I can speak to. What about the other games?

 

[Hussar]

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.

Except that we have accepted that simulation does not require ANY causality between the mechanics and the result. The mechanics are entirely silent as to causality because they provide no information as to how a result occurred. How can there be any any causality when there is nothing to link the result with the action?

 

[Hussar]

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".

This is so frustrating in this thread. I say this three times and I'm told I'm 100% wrong every time. You say it once and everyone agrees. :hrm:

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Except that we have accepted that simulation does not require ANY causality between the mechanics and the result. The mechanics are entirely silent as to causality because they provide no information as to how a result occurred. How can there be any any causality when there is nothing to link the result with the action?

We have not accepted that, nor are D&D mechanics like that. It is merely something you keep repeating, as is your whole incoherent definition of simulation.

Mechanics of D&D (and many other games) use values which represent the character's competence in given area (a diegetic quality) and a DC which represents how challenging a given task is (also a diegetic quality) to determine the odds of the character succeeding in the given task. This simulates more competent people being better at things and more difficult things being harder to succeed at. Amazing, I know!

It is utterly wild to me, that you seem to think that for example Rune Quest is somehow significantly different, like having a percentage roll for skills instead of die+modifier would matter!

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is utterly wild to me, that you seem to think that for example Rune Quest is somehow significantly different, like having a percentage roll for skills instead of die+modifier would matter!

Well, I think RQ is significantly different at least in selective areas, but for different reasons than Hussar.

 

[AlViking]

Umm, you are mistaking the method of the simulation with the fact that the simulation is providing a very clear amount of information to inform the narrative. How that information is generated isn't really the point. The fact that none of it is "real" isn't the point. It is a simulation after all. None of it is "real". Realism isn't the point at all.

The point is that the narrative - the wheel of your car fell off because you hit the wall in the game - is made perfectly clearly by the game. Again, you failed to answer my question. Would you play a video game where the wheel of your car falls off the car without any explanation or cues from within the game as to why?

Because that's what D&D is. It's the wheel falling off the car - the result - without any explanation provided.

Again, considering others have also corrected your misunderstanding of diegetic, I would suggest you go back and look up what diegetic is.

You're the only one that says diegetic must show how it works*. As for the rest, there's nothing new to say.

*pemerton is the only one I saw bringing it up and he has a different take on it than you.

 

[Hussar]

We have not accepted that, nor are D&D mechanics like that. It is merely something you keep repeating, as is your whole incoherent definition of simulation.

In what way is "a simulationist system must provide any information about how the result was achieved" incoherent?

It is utterly wild to me, that you seem to think that for example Rune Quest is somehow significantly different, like having a percentage roll for skills instead of die+modifier would matter!

In what way have I made any sort of qualitative statement about what would be a better or worse system?

 

[Hussar]

You're the only one that says diegetic must show how it works*. As for the rest, there's nothing new to say.

*pemerton is the only one I saw bringing it up and he has a different take on it than you.

How can something exist for the audience without the audience being able to see any information about how a result occurred?

Again, would you play a video game which provided zero information about how the wheel fell off your car? WOuld that be simulationist in your opinion

 

[pemerton]

If the runes have no meaning when the PCs see them (assuming they either fail or never try to read them)

The runes mean something when the PCs see them. But perhaps the PCs don't know what that is (eg in the actual play episode, when they first saw them, they didn't know what they meant). And of course perhaps the authors of the fiction, who have written in the strange runes, haven't yet authored any meaning for them (eg in the actual play episode, the authors of the fiction - that is, the game participants - agreed on the runes' meaning as part of the outcome of resolving a declared action).

what do they say if-when the NPC baddies secretly following the party try to read them?

I don't know, as it never came up. If I as GM wanted to write in some runes read by some NPCs, I could do that. But I didn't, so I didn't.

I can think of situations where the pre-determination of the runes' message could make a pretty big difference. The baddies succeed in reading the runes wehere the PCs failed, then they assume the PCs also read them and expect the PCs to be heading out of the dungeon. Baddies take a shortcut to cut the PCs off, and there's no PCs because, having failed to read the runes, they went another way and thus unintentionally shook off their pursuers.

But if the runes are still in Schroedinger state when the baddies try to read them and succeed, how on earth do you determine what they say and, in extension, what the baddies do next?

This all assumes a process of play that was not being used in the episode of play that I described.

 

[pemerton]

How can something exist for the audience without the audience being able to see any information about how a result occurred?

Again, would you play a video game which provided zero information about how the wheel fell off your car? WOuld that be simulationist in your opinion

Just to add to this, and to address some comments about skill systems (which have come from @Crimson Longinus and @Don Durito):

Here is the entry for Climbing skill in Burning Wheel Gold Revised (p 264):

This skill allows the character to navigate sheer surfaces using rope, harnesses and really strong finger muscles. In addition, rougher surfaces can be scaled with bare hands.

Obstacles: Easy climb (a rocky hill, a tree or a fence), Ob 1. Moderate climb (inclined rock wall, a treacherous tree), Ob 2. Difficult climb (straight rock wall), Ob 3. Dangerous climb (sheer rock wall), Ob 4. Impossible climb (ice climbing), Ob 5. Suicidal climb (bad conditions, overhangs, etc), Ob 7.

FoRKs: Knots, Rigging

Skill Type: Physical

Tools: Yes, expendable.​

This is what I expect a classic simulationist skill entry to look like: it identifies what the skill bonus represents (ie skill with climbing gear and/or strong fingers); it locates it within the broader context of possible actions (this is a physical skill, and it is aided by skills such as Knots and Rigging - Fields of Related Knowledge); and it characterises obstacles that the skill might be used to overcome (like different sorts of slopes and surfaces) in game-mechanical terms (the list of sample obstacles).

A contrast could be drawn with the 4e D&D skill system, which identifies the relevant sorts of activities the skill pertains to but uses a pretty different sort of framework for establishing difficulties, and is much more open about what the skill bonus represents (eg suppose that an Epic tier Wizard has a +15 bonus to Athletics - it is really up to the player and the rest of the table to decide what that tells us about the character, and given that most of that bonus will be a level bonus there is no expectation to describe the character as having strong finger muscles).

The process of establishing a BW character's climbing bonus, and of working out what the difficulty is for a climbing attempt, strikes me as "diegetic" as that term gets used in RPG analysis: in the fiction, there is this character with these fingers and this degree of mastery of rope and harness, standing at the base of this (near-, semi-)vertical surface that poses this degree of challenge, hoping to ascend it. And the audience is in the same sort of relationship to these game elements like the bonus and the obstacle.

Whereas in 4e D&D it is not a diegetic process. The PC has a climbing bonus, but the number on the sheet doesn't tell us a great deal about what this character looks like, or does, when they try and climb. And there is a (near-, semi-) vertical surface but its in-fiction properties are not the main consideration in determining what obstacle to set.

I don't know whether 5e D&D, as typically played, is closer to BW or to 4e D&D.