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

[clearstream]

In my view I have yet to come across an RPG not able to provide me a simulationist experience per my understanding of @clearstream 's description. If that is the defining criteria for "simumationistic", then yes I would consider all RPGs simulationistic.

I would consider them potentially simulationist for some set of experiences/subjects/treatments.

So @Hussar can say that the treatment they want is equal or greater detail in mechanics than the threshold they find to be met by some set of game texts. But they cannot say that excludes some other text from meeting a different preference.

Quite a few times now it's been pointed out that the label "simulationist" is irredeemably vague. Multiple things games can do are lumped under it. It's therefore unsurprising to find different folk labelling different things games can do "simulationist". What is suprising is how tenaciously they contend that their definition is right for all sets of "simulationist" preferences.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That is the stance I’m arguing against, yes.

What is? You think that a Regency romance game using GURPS must allow mechas or you don't?

 

[clearstream]

Again, disingenuous pedantry. If we're going to get that far into the weeds that we need to debate the definition of "ducking" then we're done here. That's so far into bad faith territory that it's not even funny.

Knowing what the thing simulated by the mechanic actually looks like in the imagined world is very far from "into the weeds".

EDIT More generally, my criticism highlights that your chosen threshold is a matter of preference, seeing as we (hopefully) would agree that rolling a successful dodge entitles the player to say that they duck the spear thrust. They (and not the game system) decide that ducking spear thrusts plausibly simulates how dodging can play out in their imagined mythic bronze age world. That can be made clearer by picturing other things they could say, that would avoid the spear thrust, that wouldn't fit the imagined world.

 

[Umbran]

I think I grasp your meaning, but your wording isn't quite right.

Maybe we are stumbling over the word "process", and I am using that word for things that you have not considered a "process" in the past?

If some stuff has to happen to get from one state to another, that stuff is a "process". F'rex, to get from having our teeth be kinda fuzzy to being clean, we go through the process of brushing our teeth.

We're not seeking to simulate processes!

If I want an omelette, I am not seeking to break eggs - the breaking of eggs may not be the actual goal of the activity - but some eggs must be broken, regardless.

And, if every mechanic is associated with some event in the fictional world, and those mechanics determine how that event resolves, then the mechanic is a simulation of the process of that event happening. Hitting an orc with a sword is a process, and we have a simulation for it with rolling a d20...

You require that mechanics be so associated, but without seeking anything about that association? That's an odd assertion. Why require it if you don't actually want it? Like saying, "I don't seek vanilla ice cream, but it must be on my dessert plate."

Miguel Sicart proposed (in the context of videogames) that game mechanics are methods invoked by agents for interacting with the game world.

I won't argue with Mr. Sicart, as I don't know him from Adam, and haven't ever read his thoughts more completely.

But, even if I accept it for now, that's... very broad. I would take it there are many different methods for interacting with the game world - one way might be to directly simulate the bit of the game world in question! I am asserting that, by simple logic, fully associated mechanics are, in effect, simulations.

I think for TTRPG we're also picturing that mechanics can structure the game world.

Sure. But again, there will be many different ways we can structure the game world. One way is to simulate it.

 

[Umbran]

I think you've misunderstood the quote I was responding to.

I think I have a different point to make than the speaker you were responding to.

 

[TwoSix]

What is? You think that a Regency romance game using GURPS must allow mechas or you don't?

GURPS is a toolkit game.

I don’t think D&D should be used as such without careful consideration; I think it causes more problems than it solves.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Have you tried to look deeper, to see if there are any attempt at improved coherence? For instance the profilering of player spieces has caused at least some people getting into the problem that the settings do not feel credible to them anymore. The problem of what a backwater human dominated community should do when a full circus troupe of psaudo antropomorpic animals, and cereatures of myth enters the local tavern seem widely recognised to not have been aproperiately taken into account in GMing advice.

The last AD&D campaign I played in (more than 20 years ago) had no limitations on character creation, and included a minoteur fighter, a celtic inspired centaur druid, a samurai and a power play buildt psion. It was a complete mess.

Limiting things can be done for more noble causes than "I don't like them".

Yes, it may be. But what I've seen is that most often, it's not. Many folks here and many I've discussed with and played with create their own worlds which are not really significantly different from bog-standard D&D except they've eliminated choices that they don't enjoy. No drow, tieflings, and dragonborn, for instance. Maybe there's some valid reason that these races are not available, and maybe that valid reason actually enhances play in some way... but I think that's generally not the case.

This is why I advocate for including the players in the setting creation. This way you get their buy in with such limitations. And the same goes for PC creation... do it together so that everything is coherent and there are no conflicts.

I don't see much of a particular difference between those use cases, no.

My question is more of "Did you, as a DM, spend a lot of time detailing that setting, such that you wouldn't be amenable to changing it or from moving on from the concept if you don't have player buy-in?"

A DM who spends tons of time detailing a setting is a DM who is implicitly stating that their setting details are important, and not just being used as backdrop for play. And I think that desire can have pernicious effects on a game, even in trad play where setting is more of a consideration. I simply find it to be a very rare group where most of the players have legitimate interest in exploring all the details the GM wrote up in the past year that have nothing to do with their characters.

I view that level of worldbuilding as a separate but related hobby. It's primarily the GM's lonely fun. And that's perfectly fine... I used to do this quite a bit in my younger days when I had the time. But there's no reason to limit a group activity based on my personal hobby. I mean, if everyone's cool with it, then great. My players were pretty much fine with the ideas I came up with back in the day, and whenever there was a conflict of some sort, we'd work it out via compromise.

But yeah, when the focus is on the world so much, then the focus of the game is the world. Which is, in a way, the GM's character. And people wonder why I look at this approach as being very GM-centric.

But, see, that's the point. There is no good for the community here. From my POV, people are being encouraged to do all sorts of unnecessary work that makes the job far, far more difficult than it has to be. And the only reason that people are being encouraged to do it this way is largely the conservatism from the fans. They did it this way and apparently suggesting that there is a faster and easier way to do it is badwrongfun. I'm telling people they are having fun wrong by pointing out that their six months and a hundred hours of work could be done in about an hour and then spend the other 99 hours actually playing with your friends instead of playing with yourself.

I'm not really sure what I'm doing wrong, but, apparently, it's a terrible thing that I've done.

Yeah, I'm all for people spending their free time world-building and prepping their game world, assuming they have player buy in or player input of some sort... but what I don't like is when folks treat it as necessary. That it's something a GM has to do. I think that's an unrealistic expectation to place on someone who may be considering GMing.

It's also not necessary to do that level of prep to craft a believable and verisimilitudinous setting. Claims otherwise seem to me to be more about the ability of the person speaking than anything else.

No. D&D is just a game system, which can be used to represent many different worlds. Not every world needs to include everything the game has rules for, any more than a Regency romance game using GURPS needs to include mechas because GURPS has rules for them.

There is definitely a difference between expecting to be able to use an option that appears in the rule book for a game compared to expecting to use an option that does not appear in the rule book.

 

[FrogReaver]

Installing an expert to makes decisions could feasibly be called a mechanic. (I might not call it that myself, but I can see an argument for it.)

What decision making processes go in that expert's mind is what I would not call a mechanic or set of mechanics.

Fair. That’s the perspective I am coming from. I understand you wouldn’t call that a mechanic yourself. I dont really understand why though.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think I have a different point to make than the speaker you were responding to.

Works for me. Thus my initial confusion.

 

[Maggan]

No. D&D is just a game system, which can be used to represent many different worlds. Not every world needs to include everything the game has rules for, any more than a Regency romance game using GURPS needs to include mechas because GURPS has rules for them.

I agree.

This poll asked about the DM excluding things.

G

D&D 5E (2014) Thread 'DM imposed restrictions to the game (+)'

Jan 6, 2024

As a plus thread, please don't put down, dismiss, judge, etc. other peoples' view or comments. Thank you!

From the direction this thread (https://www.enworld.org/threads/we-would-hate-a-bg3-campaign.701844/) took, I became curious about what things different a DM might modify or restrict when they run a game. I'm not talking about modifications or homebrew, but pure restrictions--NOT ALLOWED.

You can choose multiple options, and feel free to explain why you make the choices you make if you care to. If you think of a type of restriction I missed, let me know and I'll update the...

• Guest 7037866
• Replies: 107
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 

Around 90 % of the respondents said it was ok to exklude things. What they thought was ok varied, but it still seems to me many DMs chose what to use and not.