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

[Enrahim]

So are you now saying that those who don't value playing in highly GM-curated settings are suffering a cognitive deficiency?

No, absolutely not!!! I see my mistake! I am sorry! For some reason I had an image in my in mind about the way wine tasters and music enthusiasts appear to be able to recognise subtle differences other's cannot when I was writing this. But that is a completely wrong image in this case! I think the distinction is larger than what is at at play in those cases, and my sentence would have been mutch more correct if I had removed "know how to".

Thank you for bringing this to my attention so I can correct! I will edit my post.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes. I would be ok with working out something that looks like a thiefling and works like a thiefling. That still isn't a thiefling. You are still limiting away part of the defining lore. How do you know it is not this flavor the player is interested in? I would indeed find that incredibly more likely than that they just want to play something with darkvision and horns.

You don't know that though. You can't. Because, again, there are a zillion reasons.

I have a player who plays (but is on hiatus) a tiefling. Said player does not care about the hell stuff in the least. It's purely the aesthetic, and to a certain extent, the distance between the character and the rest of the world that that aesthetic induces.

And what put me in the position to be the one to permit it, if it wasn't my authority as a GM? And I though it was this authority as a GM you sought to (severly) limit. So if you remove the GMs ability to make lines, who is then in a position to not permit something?

You have not just put in an assumption unsupported by what I said. You have outright ignored what I explicitly said, and which you had previously quoted and replied to.

Remember, I both said limited bright lines--so some, but not free rein to do whatever one likes indefinitely--and specifically said almost surely more than any of the players, and probably even more than the players combined. The only way that could be true is if they have that power, and the number is (for example) greater than five (presuming five players and just one allowed "bright line" for each player). In other words, my explicit words indicated that the only possibility is that they have that power. Why would you think I meant them to have no such power at all, having specifically responded to the post where I said these things?

Yes, indeed there are. You know how munchins, murder hobos and certain kinds of power players have a bad reputation? I am of the belief that with aproperiate constraints and nurturing players that would otherwise have been inclined to drift in these directions could indeed be a lot of fun to play with. I do not like the idea of excluding someone from the hobby if there might be known accomodations that would allow us to play well together.

You know how there are "DMPCs" and "killer GMs" and certain kinds of power GMs have a bad reputation? I am of the belief that with appropriate constraints and nurturing, GMs that would otherwise have been inclined to drift in those directions could indeed be a lot of fun to play with.

The scythe cuts both ways.

I struggle a bit with getting what you are trying to say here. I think I agree in the spirit. I am just not sure how it look like in practice.

Let me put it like this.

Stealing things from your parents is bad.
Listening to Nine Inch Nails while your parents are trying to relax after work is also bad.

I think it is very, very unwise to treat the first idea as being precisely the same kind of thing as the second. It turns "Do not steal" into a mere preference, rather than a basic and fundamental rule of behavior that people should follow (barring extreme extenuating circumstances etc., etc.)

Instead, "Do not steal" should be treated separately and much earlier. It is part of the bedrock foundation, something that needs to be established in order to have a family unit that functions and can support its members. After that "this is the absolutely essential bedrock of having a family" step is established, then we can set the bright lines, which are based on preference. That doesn't mean the preference-based ones should be ignored. But it properly emphasizes the difference between the two restrictions. Some things are restrictions in order to have a foundation to start from. Other things are restrictions for...call it "daily life" within that built structure. If you don't like the NIN example, replace it with something like "tracking mud all over the house" or whatever else, something that clearly causes problems, but also isn't on the same fundamental-bedrock level as "Do not steal".

 

[Hussar]

I don't know why I got a flat tire, I just did. I don't know why the gasket on my sink wore out and had to be replaced, it just happened. I don't know why my cat decided to barf on the couch, but it still happened. I start up my phone, I don't really understand how it works. All sorts of things happen that we don't understand. Meanwhile nothing in the word diegetic says anything about providing information on how a result occurs. I can always provide a description as GM that is just as relevant, just as useful, just as accurate as any pre-written chart. The only thing that changes if I make it up on the spot is that I can tailor it to the situation instead of relying on the author of the rules to provide a generic explanation that may or may not fit the current scenario.

But there's really no reason for me to answer this, you'll just ignore my response and ask the same question yet again.

Really? You got a flat tire and there is absolutely no way you could know how it happened? There's no puncture in your tire? No damage? The tire is just flat? Wow, that's interesting. You start up your phone. Sure, I have no idea how it works either. But, if your phone was just started, all on its own, without you doing anything, would you be perfectly fine with that? There's a direct causal chain here. A pretty simple to follow narrative. You picked up your phone. You turned it on. Seems like the narrative pretty much writes itself.

In D&D, your tire is flat. You have no idea why it's flat. You failed your driving skill check, and you now have a flat tire. The system tells you absolutely nothing to link those two things. And, as it was just pointed out to me, the DM is FORBIDDEN from adding any new information into the fiction. So, how does this work?

Good grief. LEARN THE WORD. For something to be diegetic it MUST EXIST for both the audience and IN the fiction. The easiest example of this is music where the audience can hear the song, the character in the movie turns off the radio and the music stops. Why did the music stop for the audience? Because it's diegetic - turning off the radio in the fiction turns off the music for the audience. IOW, for something to be diegetic, the audience MUST KNOW how a result occurs. They can see, on the screen, right in front of them, playing out in full color, the character walking over and turning off the radio and the music stops. That's diegetic.

So, yes, for something to be diegetic, the audience and the characters in the world must be able to follow the same causal links. You can't have post hoc justifications in a diegetic system. That doesn't work because you can't have post hoc justifications for the audience. Is that clear enough?

 

[Hussar]

It took me approximately a day to come up with a brand new campaign world for D&D for a sandbox campaign. Came up with basic concept, did a bit of a writeup, generated a city online, used a random generator or three and bingo new campaign setting. I still haven't gotten around to make a map of the island (when does an island become a subcontinent?) it's set on but I haven't needed the level of detail for that.

The amount of prep a game takes depends on how you want to do it. I could come up with a starting campaign on the spot if I needed to do so. Meanwhile it takes me less time to prep for a session than it does to actually play while my wife spends more time than the session itself. Just depends on the person and unless everything is just made up as you go I don't see how what system you're using makes much of a difference. Most of my prep time is on locations, factions, names and so on. Those have nothing to do with the rules of the game.

Sorry, but, haven't you repeatedly talked about how your game world is decades old? That you've been building this world for many, many years? I'll admit, there's a lot of names in the thread, and I might have you mixed with someone else. If that's so, sorry for getting you mixed up with another poster.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I dunno. What mechanics are you envisaging?

I mean, upthread lots of posters - @Crimson Longinus, @AlViking, @Micah Sweet, @Faolyn, I think probably you - have described the player in my Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy game as having decided what the runes say.

Are you now saying that all those posters were wrong, and it wasn't player driven at all?

Player decided it, though the mechanics decided who got to decide. On the other hand if there was some "mysterious runes chart" one would roll on based on rules dictates, then it would be fully decided by the mechanics.

 

[clearstream]

I have been asking multiple posters this question for some pages now, but without any clear answer other than that they do not rely on GM narration as the overwhelmingly principal technique for introducing fiction.

When I wrote that "assessments will stand only in relation to specific preferences regarding experiences, subjects and treatments", I felt that might partly explain this sort of observation.

Assessments conditioned that way could not (or at least, should not) be taken to sustain broader claims to have exclusively identified "simulationist" across all possible TTRPGs.

 

[Enrahim]

But "a notion of power guiding their actions" is inherent to what you described.

The toy-owner has that power. Explicitly. You specifically said they gave "clear instructions". That's not just a person exercising good judgment and giving the benefit of the doubt etc. That's one person laying down specifically and exclusively what is and isn't permitted, and everyone else instantly deferring the moment any other opinion is voiced by that one person. That's just...that description simply doesn't fit what "being a good friend" means in terms of human behavior.

So when you are at a resturant and ask for another glass of water - and the waiter happens to be free to immediately and without question fulfill your request, you have exerted absolute power over the waiter?

Or have you by chance at any point in this conversation with me started to respond immediately once you saw one if my questions? Did I somehow exert some absolute power over you in you honoring my wish for you to reply? Indeed I would say you have been very good at following the "instructions" laid out in what the topic of yor texsts should be. But think I can remember you asking once why you should answer something, so I guess my power isn't absolute all the time.

And just in case that is not abundantly clear. I find the perspective expressed in the two previous paragraphs utterly ridiculous. I hope the analogy to what you wrote is apparent.

 

[Hussar]

What does dodging a "successful" attack by a highly skilled attacker look like compared with dodging a poorly skilled one? Without adding any information to the written mechanic, what does Dodge Blow look like in your fiction? An blur of sudden evasive movements irreducible from all possible such movements?

But, unlike D&D, you have a basic answer of "Why did the attack miss"? It missed because the opponent dodged the attack. Again, it doesn'T HAVE to tell you what it looked like. It only has to provide ANY information. And that's exactly what it's done. It's provided a kernel of information. The attack was dodged. You are free to narrate that in a million different ways, but, all those ways MUST fit within the concept of "This attack was dodged".

At no point was that attack parried. And, because the attack was dodged, it would have hit but the defender moved out of the way in some way and no contact was made. That's TONS of information. More than enough to inform a narrative and discount others.

That's why it's a simulationist mechanic.

You folks seem awfully stuck around this idea that the argument is that the system must provide exact, clear, complete narratives. That's never, ever been the point. It's that the system must provide ANY infomation. So long as it provides any information, it satisfies my definition. The reason my definition works is because it makes differentiating between sim and non-sim systems very simple.

Does the system provide any information as to how a result was achieved? Yes? Then it's a sim system. No? Then it isn't. Easy peasy. I'm frankly utterly baffled why this is so contentious to be honest.

 

[pemerton]

I'm frankly utterly baffled why this is so contentious to be honest.

I'm not.

 

[clearstream]

Wow, that's not disingenuous at all is it?

I'm curious how you'd respond to my #18,941?

As for disingenuous, no. I genuinely do not see how rolling dice and following written procedures around a table supports really clonking an opponent over the head with a flanged bit of metal by actually clonking them over the head with a flanged bit of metal.