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

[clearstream]

Diegetic music: the characters in the film an also hear it. So? The character falling off the cliff also knows they're falling.

Show me one definition, one explanation, one blog post, anything at all anywhere other than your repeated statements that support your addition. Just one. Shouldn't be hard since you believe it is the definition.

I agree with you. It cannot be a requirement that if something only exists in the narrative and not external to the work, then it is not diegetic. It's diegetic because it exists in the narrative.

Alternatively, one can distinguish between narration and the fiction, where the former is contributing candidate facts to the latter. When I narrate a gun it becomes diegetic if everyone accepts it into the fiction. Thus, there indeed is something (the narrating) "external to the work" (the fiction) that creates it.

Supposing the only game texts and modes of play one counts into "simulationism" are those meeting some standard for "process simulation" then one could argue that everything significant that is diegetic must have an element of an external mechanic associated with it. Everything else imagined true of the fictional world must then presumably be epiphenomenal colour. Something I think makes that particular commitment unsustainable.

 

[pemerton]

The separation I have in mind is one conjectured to exist between the lusory-means for simulating (whatever that is) and the simulative-experience itself. In your #18,028 you lay out three ways such separation may be achieved.

If simulationism is understood simply in terms of the experiences you've talked about - immersion, noesis, investigation, etc - then I don't think I see any need for separation in all cases.

Investigation may require separation - although we could say that the Traveller players explore the galaxy (via their PCs), and they are the ones who roll up the worlds and make their choices about where their PCs "jump" to.

And immersion and noesis don't seem to me to require separation at all. There might need to be some distancing from the decision, but the mechanics in the RPGs that I play seem to me to be enough.

 

[clearstream]

The widespread view in this thread appears to be that, of necessity, those episodes of play could not be or involve simulationism because of the role of the player in contributing to the shared fiction.

It's interesting that your view is different!

One post that may help explain my views on this is my #18,378 where I propose an addition to your #18,028.

(4) The players, during play, author the fiction from another side of themselves, separate from their agents/agency within it (except by having the in-fiction causal consequences of their agents' actions worked out); prompted by foregoing fiction and sometimes cues from a text.​

 

[FrogReaver]

If simulationism is understood simply in terms of the experiences you've talked about - immersion, noesis, investigation, etc - then I don't think I see any need for separation in all cases.

Investigation may require separation - although we could say that the Traveller players explore the galaxy (via their PCs), and they are the ones who roll up the worlds and make their choices about where their PCs "jump" to.

And immersion and noesis don't seem to me to require separation at all. There might need to be some distancing from the decision, but the mechanics in the RPGs that I play seem to me to be enough.

Wouldn’t rolling up the worlds be a separation?

 

[AlViking]

The character in the fiction did interpret the runes: they studied them, and worked out what they said.

At the table it's true that the GM didn't just tell the player what the runes say: rather, a resolution process was used. But if you are agreeing that this matters to the diegetic nature of a resolution process, then I think you are agreeing with @Hussar: diegesis concerns the relationship between events the audience experiences, and events in the fiction.

Here is how Oxford Languages, via Google, defines "diegetic":

(of sound in a film, television programme, etc.) occurring within the context of the story and able to be heard by the characters.​

The general concept pertains to a thing that is experienced by those who are observing/experiencing the fiction (the audience) that also occurs within the fiction. @Hussar's example has been music in a movie that is coming from a radio. That contrasts with music that is not part of the fiction - eg most of the music in Star Wars.

I think the best example of a diegetic RPG resolution process that's been offered is Hussar's example of the map, or the puzzle square, being handed by the GM to the players. This is something the "audience" - the players - are experiencing which is the same as what the characters are experiencing (they, too, are studying the map or the puzzle). Rolling dice can never be diegetic in any literal sense, as the players experience the dice but the characters don't. Because of this, I'm not 100% sure how the metaphoric extension of "diegetic" to RPG mechanics is supposed to work, but clearly it has to pertain to the relationship between the game participants (and their real world experiences) and the events in the fiction (and whether those real world experiences are in some fashion part of the fiction).

Clearly, the resolution process for the reading of the strange runes isn't "diegetic", in that (a) the process of authoring the fiction, that works by having the participants accept the output of a resolution process, is (b) not something, nor a correlate or representation of anything, that the characters in the fiction experience. But then neither is a GM's decision that, as a result of a failed climb check, a PC falls or their rope is cut by a sharp rock or whatever: that decision, which is an event in the real world, is not something that correlates to or represents anything in the fiction. Which is at least part of what I take to be @Hussar's point.

My post was not about in-fiction causal dependencies; just about the dice rolls. In particular, that bundling two things - one dependent on a skill and one independent of a skill - into a single roll adjusted by the skill is not an unusual thing in a RPG.

I don't assert that it is a simulationist mechanic. But by some measures - eg the idea that simulationist play is about a certain sort of experience - it is consistent with simulationism, that is, the focusing of attention on a particular bit of the fiction.

On the "supplanting": I go back to the spear case. Once the spear is in flight and on target (as determined by the skill of the thrower), the chance of the intended victim to dodge is not a function of the thrower's skill. It depends on their reactions/reflexes and their speed/agility. (I'm deliberately choosing a spear rather than a gun shot for this very reason - because the spear can be dodged once in flight. I'm not sure either way about arrows.) Yet in most versions of D&D, the two things - accuracy of throw, and success of dodge - are bundled into a single roll.

It also produces some variations from other systems. Let's suppose that skill bonuses are a (rough) measure of skill. So +8 to hit is twice as skilled as +4 to hit, etc. In D&D, if the bonus to hit (added to the roll) and the bonus to dodge (subtracted from the roll) are equal and are both doubled, the chance to hit remains the same. Whereas consider RQ: a 40% bonus to attack and to dodge produces a 2/5 * 3/5 = 6/25 chance to hit. Double those to 80%, and the chance to hit is 4/5 * 1/5 = 4/25. That is, the chance of a hit has reduced by a third (from 6 to 4 chances in 25). This is why RQ can tend to produce whiffy combat. But it also shows that the idea of a simple correlation between the numerical bonus and "how good" a character is at a thing doesn't work - it depends on how the bonus is factored into the details of a resolution system.

The character in the fiction had no way of knowing what the runes would say before they interpreted them. The odds of the runes being what they hoped for were a million to one. Because they rolled well (with odds far less than a million to one) it was indeed, directions on a way out. The player changed the outcome in a way that was not have possible for the character to achieve in the fiction. That's what non-diegetic means.

 

[clearstream]

If you use the term "diegetic" simply to label something that is part of the fiction, without attending to its reality, then all fictional elements are necessarily diegetic; while all non-fictional events (like rolling dice, or players saying things like "I pick up the backpack") will be non-diegetic. Which then makes it pretty hard to talk about "diegetic mechanics"!

Or quite easy, if we just say that game mechanics processed around the table aren't diegetic. Only things that players can pretend their characters know are diegetic.

 

[clearstream]

The character in the fiction had no way of knowing what the runes would say before they interpreted them. The odds of the runes being what they hoped for were a million to one. Because they rolled well (with odds far less than a million to one) it was indeed, directions on a way out. The player changed the outcome in a way that was not have possible for the character to achieve in the fiction. That's what non-diegetic means.

Isn't it the case though, that the character expressed hope rather than knowledge? The odds may be a million-to-one I win the lottery, but I can hope that I win the lottery.

EDIT To explain myself better, I am working from a view that " game mechanics processed around the table aren't diegetic. Only things that players can pretend their characters know are diegetic." That means that I can ignore what happened around the table and focus on what happened in the imagined world.

 

[AlViking]

I'm not going to argue criticism with you - my handle on it is modest.

But if by "diegesis" we mean simply what happens in the world of the fiction, then by definition there can be no diegetic mechanics. And there will be very few diegetic resolution processes even if they're non-mechanical - eg as soon as a player describes their PC doing something, the mechanics creates or constitutes an event that is not part of the world of the fiction.

But then that would mean that diegetic has no meaning because in any fiction, there is an author of the fiction. Probably no simulations either because the only thing that would be considered diegetic would be the real thing.

If you have to define things down to that level to prove your point all you've done is prove that your definition is not useful.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When play has a preexisting subject, I suppose one could 'test' appreciation by seeing what players feel and know about it. When play has an incomplete imaginary subject that is to be completed as part of play, how can one 'test' appreciation? What if some narration seems at odds with the imagined subject to everyone else at the table?

If someone lays claim to a simulative experience following processes one discounts from being "simulationist" then are they to be suspected of "faking" that experience? One worry I have about @Hussar's definition is that if D&D processes are excluded then must I say that every D&D player who tells me they have simulative experiences is lying to themselves?

Well, there are at least four possibilities.

They are incorrect because they are mistaken about what "simulationist" means; they had an experience, it just wasn't that kind.
They are incorrect because they are mistaken about what they experienced; they understood "simulationist" but applied it wrong.
They are incorrect because they have some kind of flaw in their ability to perceive or reason that invalidates their conclusions.
They are correct because it is false to claim that D&D flatly doesn't simulate--a more nuanced understanding is needed.

Other possibilities could exist; I've know idea if these are jointly exhaustive. But I'd say they cover the majority of the possibility space, at the very least. None of these require that someone be lying to themselves, in the sense of intentionally obfuscating or suppressing things they don't want to think about.

I ventured a description upthread of what that might amount to (rephrased here)

One way [to understand a game mechanic] is to deconstruct the mechanic picturing that each element is assoicated with something in the imagined world. Processing the mechanic can then be pictured to track with diegetic objects and events.​

​

Phenomena felt to matter to subject ought to receive treatement this way. An element of a mechanic should be associated with each significant feature. The result of enacting the mechanism ought to depend on each such element at the point and to the extent that whatever it is associated with is intended, predicted or observed to bear upon it. How that goes is then available to be revealed in narration.​

​

RQ combat attempts that sort of arrangement. A hit location table is associated with each creature. Modifiers to things like dodging are associated with what characters are carrying. Strike ranks are associated with weapons and actions. But no one should picture that just because statement of intent and movement of non-engaged characters are processed before melee, missile and spell resolution, that's how combat plays out in the world.​

​

I don't see why that needs to be muddied by worrying about what is done with those mechanics in play. What if they fail to be productive of simulative experiences? One of the challenges for process simulation has always been the cost of achieving it. I found the "Redbook" magic rules for C&S nigh-unplayable due to the effort demanded to bring them to the table, but I wouldn't rule C&S out as a landmark in process simulation.

How do we judge whether a mechanic associates to something? How do we judge the degree to which a mechanic is "pictured to track with diegetic objects and events"?

It seems to me that the only possible way to do this is by actually using the mechanics--playing them, in other words. The question is empirical. Sort of like how you can read the code for (say) a solitaire game, but unless you actually execute that code, you can't actually tell if it correctly implements the rules of solitaire.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Moving back to this because this caught my eye.

If you want a more sim leaning example of skills from D&D, you'd have to go back to 2e Non-weapon proficiencies or thieves skills (either would work). The reason you fail a check on either of these is because you lack the skill to succeed. Your thief is climbing a wall and you roll the percentile check - a failure means that that wall is too difficult for you to climb. You don't get to reroll in most cases. We are told, by the system, why you failed - you were not proficient enough to succeed at this task. Until your skill increases, you may not try again.

No crumbling rocks. No cut ropes. No being hungry. You failed because your skill wasn't high enough. And note, it's only a measure of your skill because typically, there are no modifiers to the check. If you want to open a lock, or climb a wall, or move silently, you have a percentage chance of success that is entirely from your character. Success or failure is 100% (or at least 99%) because of the skill level of your character.

That's what a simulationist leaning skill system looks like. It actually provides some information about why you succeeded or failed and doesn't require the DM to simply "make naughty word up" to justify success or failure after the fact.

Mate, no, just no. This is less simulationistic as it is not affected by the difficulty of the task, thus failing to simulate that part of the game reality. Frankly, you seem to have no idea what simulating something even is.