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

[AlViking]

I don't know about that, though. In this thread I've learned that everything can be explained by pixies. All the way down, it's all pixies.

Raining? Pixies ... pis ... crying. Wind? Pixies flapping their wings. Snow ... pixie dust, in all probability. So no bakgrund assumptions, just pixies!

So many pixies!

How do we know this post was not written by pixies?

 

[Enrahim]

The point of noting this is? Are you wanting to pit me against them? Are you just trying to say my definition may be wrong? To show that simulationist is a not well defined and agreed upon term? Because I agree it's a not well defined term that multiple people use different ways.

I'm also fairly certain that both of them are using simulationist more holistically than a single experience. I'm not. I believe we can look down to individual mechanics and instances and determine what if anything they simulate. Though I also believe we could classify a game as more or less simulationistic than another based on how many such mechanics and instances they have (including taking into account the negative space examples (X thing actively hinders simulation), which might be even more important here).

I just wanted to confirm your notion regarding my use, ref

I do not want to be associated with that claim.

I also wanted to say I believe it might be possible to look at certain instances of play, and look for simulative value in them. I am afraid we are far from having the kind of framework needed in terms of common langue to get good traction on that project, tough.

My notion of looking at how rules can support a given simulation was an attempt at starting a conversation I tought might lead in a direction usefull for such a purpose, but that didn't seem to resonate much here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, you can absolutely do it, but then it is pointless to insist that playing "an elf" or "a dragonborn" without the context of what those words mean.

Not necessarily. Bloodtide has painted things in extremes. Extremes are rare. Deviation, variation, and reinterpretation are all very much in the same wheelhouse, but rejected by Bloodtide's "it has to be one exact thing only forever" concept.

Like the GM can say that sure you can play a dragonborn, there is the Dragonborn Clan of mountain dwarves, and then hand you the dwarf rules, but would this satisfy your desire to play a dragonborn?

Depends. For me, the two parts that matter most (although I do like breath weapons) are the underlying concept (a dragon person, complete with a culture from which they arise), and the general appearance (being scale-covered, especially with the "dreadlocks" ropy scales, and styled in the form of a dragon, as opposed to a lizardfolk, which is usually styled in the form of a gecko, gila monster, crocodile, etc.)

It wouldn't be ideal to be locked into "a dwarf clan", but if the GM is willing to relent on appearance (e.g. I can play a 190-200 cm, 100-150 kg, scale-covered, sorta-dragon-faced dude, ideally with the ropy scale "hair"), I won't get persnickety about mechanics. Doubly so if they're willing to collaborate with me on this weirdo clan and what it's like. (Notice, collaborate, not "I dictate, GM acquiesces", as so many people are so eager to impugn others with.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not necessarily. Bloodtide has painted things in extremes. Extremes are rare. Deviation, variation, and reinterpretation are all very much in the same wheelhouse, but rejected by Bloodtide's "it has to be one exact thing only forever" concept.


Depends. For me, the two parts that matter most (although I do like breath weapons) are the underlying concept (a dragon person, complete with a culture from which they arise), and the general appearance (being scale-covered, especially with the "dreadlocks" ropy scales, and styled in the form of a dragon, as opposed to a lizardfolk, which is usually styled in the form of a gecko, gila monster, crocodile, etc.)

It wouldn't be ideal to be locked into "a dwarf clan", but if the GM is willing to relent on appearance (e.g. I can play a 190-200 cm, 100-150 kg, scale-covered, sorta-dragon-faced dude, ideally with the ropy scale "hair"), I won't get persnickety about mechanics. Doubly so if they're willing to collaborate with me on this weirdo clan and what it's like. (Notice, collaborate, not "I dictate, GM acquiesces", as so many people are so eager to impugn others with.)

No, they’re perfectly normal Tolkien dwarves in appearance, they are just called Dragonborn clan. They wear drake and dragon pelts though!

 

[TwoSix]

No, they’re perfectly normal Tolkien dwarves in appearance, they are just called Dragonborn clan. They wear drake and dragon pelts though!

I think it would be fairly obvious in this case that the player and GM aren't in alignment.

So the interesting question here is "What now?" And does either party have more or less of an obligation (not moral, but out of politeness/courtesy) to compromise or bend?

 

[Emerikol]

I think it would be fairly obvious in this case that the player and GM aren't in alignment.

So the interesting question here is "What now?" And does either party have more or less of an obligation (not moral, but out of politeness/courtesy) to compromise or bend?

I think the burden is on the player and if no compromise can be reached then the player leaves or accepts the DMs decision. This is of course the last recourse.

 

[AlViking]

I think it would be fairly obvious in this case that the player and GM aren't in alignment.

So the interesting question here is "What now?" And does either party have more or less of an obligation (not moral, but out of politeness/courtesy) to compromise or bend?

Does the GM who puts far more work into creating the world and running the game (even if they enjoy it, like I do) change their world to accommodate every possible species? Does the person pick a different species that does fit the setting because species for most people comes down to abilities along with perhaps personality traits that can work for any species?

I know where I fall whether I'm running the game or playing.

 

[TwoSix]

I think the burden is on the player and if no compromise can be reached then the player leaves or accepts the DMs decision. This is of course the last recourse.

How would you, personally, compromise in this hypothetical?

Assuming I was the DM in this case, I would probably say that the Dragonborn clan of dwarves actually does have some dragon blood in their clan ancestry, and that occasionally that ancestral blood comes through more strongly and some dwarves are born larger and scaley (per the player's aesthetic desire). They're culturally "dwarves" but biologically dragonborn. Whether or not such individuals are celebrated or shunned I would leave up to how the player wants to present the character.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, it looks like it's supposed to be a "gotcha", about how the game will break (and similar posts were made upthread in response to the runes example, and over the years as well as 1,000,000 gp I've seen holy swords and other D&D-esque goodies). But as I already posted, in the same game as the strange runes the rune-reading PC succeeded in a roll to establish, as an asset, the dark elves' stash of faerie gold, which he ran away with, leaving the other PCs stuck in a fight at the bottom of the dungeon. The action declaration wasn't ridiculous, and its resolution didn't break the game.

And to bring this back to "simulationism": why is what I've just described not simulationist? The game participants had a conception of the dark elves at the bottom of the dungeon, Vault of the Drow style. That conception was explored and developed; one of the participants introduced as part of that the idea of them having a stash of gold; and then the game system allowed that idea to be given concrete form in play. That is "heightened appreciation" of a subject matter. (As per @clearstream's conception of simulation in RPGing.)

Where is this notion of breaking the game coming from? My notion is that such instances here was only that they were not simulationist and that I dislike the mechanic for that reason.

Also, thanks for another great example. I've said before that simulation is about intent. That we could have 2 ficitonal outcomes be identical and one be simulation and the other not. So the first question is, what simulative intent did your player have for establishing the stash of gold? I would count something like extrapolating that Drow likely have a treasure stash as simulative. It would be akin to asking the DM the question of, do I see a Drow treasure stash here, a detail he may have not considered (likely should have) and thus could correct if it was deemed extremely probably such a thing should exist given the rest of the fiction/genre/etc. As an example of what I would not count, trying to establish the existence of the treasure so the character could have a cool defining moment in running off with it.

The second question though is how the mechanics map to the fiction. In this case the mechanic is one of simply authoring. On a success the player authors X where X can be any of a broad array of possibilities that falls within some relatively small set of constraints. The runes could have summoned a powerful ally. The Drow may have taken prisoner some powerful being. Etc. Attempting to enumerate ways mechanics map to the fiction

A) External cause - if the goal of play is to simulate the player being their character then they should as the player only effect the fiction through their character. While reading the runes would count, establishing what they runes mean (or influencing that by establishing it on a success) would be out. Making a single ability that essentially does both is as far as I can tell design intended to obscure that this is actually occurring. The more External Cause occurs the more simulative the game is.

B) Specific fictional result - More simulative mechanics specify not just that something happens but what that thing is. This goes toward success with complication implementations. Random encounter roll came up Orcs, as opposed to random encounter DM choses for some non-simulative intent. And yes, this also applies toward hp, hp is not as simulative as many non-hp systems (but 1. hp isn't devoid of all simulative properties and 2. some aspects of 'more simulationist' can in practice be sacrificed for gameplay concerns while still maintaining a high degree of simulationism).

C) DM as Mechanic - this can be either, it wholly depends on the DM's decision process. His decision process may either be simulative or may not.

D) More than Plausible - a minimum to simulation (and maybe rpging in general) is the low bar of plausibility. Greater simulation would entail either weighting the probabilities appropriately or if choosing an event then choosing the one that is by far one of the most plausible.

E) Mechanic Description Matches Fiction - Example: a skill for your characters ability to pick locks should only directly affect whether you pick locks. If employing that skill does more than that then it's less simulative than one that does.

F) Intent - I spoke about this above but why you are doing something matters, not just what

G) Accuracy - Mechanics/processes that are more accurate in their results (actual and probabilistic) are more simulative.

Can anyone think of any others?

I would say that games featuring more features having more of these properties are more simulative than ones that don't.

 

[Emerikol]

How would you, personally, compromise in this hypothetical?

Assuming I was the DM in this case, I would probably say that the Dragonborn clan of dwarves actually does have some dragon blood in their clan ancestry, and that occasionally that ancestral blood comes through more strongly and some dwarves are born larger and scaley (per the player's aesthetic desire). They're culturally "dwarves" but biologically dragonborn. Whether or not such individuals are celebrated or shunned I would leave up to how the player wants to present the character.

Well, I didn't want to chime in on this specific because it would make me seem intolerable in general. If it is in the packet that I sent you head of time, then coming to the table wanting to change it is a no go for me. Just don't come to the table. I'm not forcing anyone into a campaign. I suppose if no one shows up I will propose another campaign idea.

There are though other things that are more nuanced. For example, a special background. Even a connection to some famous NPC would be okay to figure out. Those are all things that can fit into the existing concept.

I find players that show up already opposing the campaign idea are people best bypassed.