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

[Hussar]

However it can still support simulation, even if it in itself doesn't have a form that do anything simulative.

See, this is where you lose me. How can something be said to support something that doesn't actually do that thing? Not actively stopping something is not supporting it.

 

[Enrahim]

See, that's where the problem came in. I ONLY said my way was faster and easier. I in no way, shape or form said it was the only or even superior way. I know it's the way I'll do it in the future, but, again, hey, if you want to walk a thousand miles, go right ahead. I'm certainly not going to stop you. But, I would suggest taking a car instead.

While I instead of suggesting you take a car, would cheer you on and praise you for what good thing you do for the community (assuming there in this analogy also is some positive community effect like some charity payout per mile on this 1000 mile treck)

 

[AnotherGuy]

I can’t speak for @EzekielRaiden, although I think we share similar sentiments on this issue. My take is that generally a GM shouldn’t attempt to author highly specific settings and then look for a group to play them, because that specificity causes more harmful issues than it adds positive additions to play.

If you like to solo worldbuild for fun, go for it. If your group has been together since the Pliocene like @Lanefan’s and is cool with you building out a highly specific setting, great. Otherwise, I think it’s a poor idea.

What is the distinguishable difference between the two?
Custom a well-known published setting or building a setting from scratch?

I could run the Principalities of Glantri during the lycanthrope epidemic (where halflings and dwarves were blamed and hunted), I could run Forgotten Realms sans monks or I could run my own made up world where cantrips do not exist and magic beyond 2nd level spells doesn't exist.
I do not see a distinguishable difference that would cause more or less issues.

 

[Enrahim]

See, this is where you lose me. How can something be said to support something that doesn't actually do that thing? Not actively stopping something is not supporting it.

Data can support me in making a decission. Data does not make a decission itself.
A random roll might support me in making a more neutral narration. The roll doesn't make the narration itself.
My role as a GM supports me in having my simulative judgment calls be accepted into fiction. This role as GM doesn't introduce anything into the fiction in itself.

Need more examples?

 

[CreamCloud0]

What is the distinguishable difference between the two?
Custom a well-known published setting or building a setting from scratch?

I could run the Principalities of Glantri during the lycanthrope epidemic (where halflings and dwarves were blamed and hunted), I could run Forgotten Realms sans monks or I could run my own made up world where cantrips do not exist and magic beyond 2nd level spells doesn't exist.
I do not see a distinguishable difference that would cause more or less issues.

IMO pretty much the only real difference between them is how widely known they are, and given i know pretty much absolutely nothing about Glantri or Forgotten Realms or the rest of them then it's as much of a blind plunge for me to go for official settings as it would be for their original setting, and between the two i'd wager my GM is going to be more invested in their own setting.

and if dragonborn don't exist there well then, how important is REALLY for my character to be one? what fundamental aspect about their character REQUIRES them to be that species? is there truly no options in the GMs setting which could serve as an adequate alternative for them?

 

[clearstream]

I mean, it seems fairly obvious - doesn't it? - that simulationist experiences of subjects are only identifiable in play. Given that the experiences that are being referred to are play experiences, how would they be otherwise identified?

To check understanding, will you call a game mechanic "simulative" that does not produce simulationist experiences in play?

Perhaps we could predict that a certain rules text, if followed, would lead to simulationist experiences, but that doesn't seem the same as identification.

Why not? The quality a certain rules text has of predictably producing simulationist experiences identifies it as a simulationist mechanic. Otherwise, I must entertain the possibility of mechanics that I will identify as simulative that do not produce simulationist experiences in play. @Enrahim pointed out that problem upthread.

Designable features of rules should contribute to that quality; but I strongly suspect those assessments will stand only in relation to specific preferences regarding experiences, subjects and treatments. So I could say that certain features of a mechanic suit some preferred treatment in delivering target experiences of a subject. That would be useful, but it wouldn't enable me to make the broader claim that those features exclusively identify what is "simulationist" across all possible TTRPGs.

 

[clearstream]

See, this is where you lose me. How can something be said to support something that doesn't actually do that thing? Not actively stopping something is not supporting it.

Do you mean, how can rolling dice support clonking someone with a heavy piece of flanged metal, given rolling dice isn't actually doing that thing?

 

[Enrahim]

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

I saw this now. I think I might have a relevant point before diving to deep into this rabit hole.

I would claim neither text nor play is able to identify simulationist experience. I present chess as a case study. It can be experienced as a battle simulation. It can also be experienced as a purely abstract game. It is not possible to recognise what is experienced by the participants by examining game text or play.

As far as I can see, self reporting is required to identify this simulative experience.

I am sceptical if there are any setup that can ensure the activity qualifies as a simulative experience in this sense.

 

[Emerikol]

I think it's pretty rarely "done right", so that's probably why I have a difference of opinion.

The most common occurrence, and I think the approach that causes the most issues, are the DMs who make a pseudo-"kitchen sink" setting, which has like 10 races but doesn't seem to have room for any other ancestry because the DM doesn't like those.

I think good DMs are rare period.

Well, if the DM goes to the trouble of building an extensive and deep campaign, I think we should at least respect that. And if a DM does not like something then he should absolutely ban it. Things which irritate and demoralize a DM are not helpful. The players if told in advance the nature of the campaign can choose another so they aren't being forced to do anything. Trying to use the rules to box in a DM is just going to result in a bad campaign in the long run.

 

[Emerikol]

See, that's where the problem came in. I ONLY said my way was faster and easier. I in no way, shape or form said it was the only or even superior way. I know it's the way I'll do it in the future, but, again, hey, if you want to walk a thousand miles, go right ahead. I'm certainly not going to stop you. But, I would suggest taking a car instead.

I'm probably one of those that think building a detailed campaign world is the way to go. That doesn't mean that word isn't reusable. So it's not 6 months per campaign necessarily. I will admit I have the world builder bug so I do it a lot more than others. Some people even use store bought settings and modules to lighten the load. I've used modules extensively and long long ago I used Greyhawk. I learned but then I started building my own worlds.

If your players are happy Hussar then I'm happy for you and them. I just don't think I'd be happy in a player/DM build as you go approach.