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

[pemerton]

This is from the Sorensen manifesto:

2. Restrict the non-diegetic means by which the world can be changed.
Characters and systems can, obviously, affect the fictional world. As they move through and act upon the world, the world changes to reflect those actions. These changes can occur as a result of both the players’ characters and the GM’s. Likewise, diegetic systems of the fictional world—law, magic, weather, economics, and so on—can change the world, too. Let these run wild! Embrace the unexpected, the unpredicted, the unknown. Allow your world to shine in its transience!

Outside of diegetic in-character actions, players cannot change the world. The world is sacred: it is apart and cannot be altered except by those forces from within the fictional world. At no point should the world change simply because the rules dictate it so.

3. The GM is a referee, not an author - they too are subservient to the fictional world
The GM is a player. Accordingly, they are restricted in their non-diegetic ability to change the world, just like every other player.

If the GM is also author, designer, and creator of the fictional world, they must adhere to the fictional world created before play begins. Once at the table, the world cannot be changed except by purely diegetic means.

When you as GM are struck with the urge to alter the fictional world outside of your diegetic methods, resist the temptation!

4. Rules, systems, and mechanisms are abstractions of the fictional world, not structures or orders for players.
All rules are abstractions of a larger, more complex fictional reality. They exist to ease complicated processes into something that can be more easily played with—and nothing more.​

Whether or not this is a full account of simulationism, I think it is recognisably an account of one sort of simulationism. And it is very demanding:

*The only permitted resolution systems are those which model in-fiction causal processes [4];

*No resolution or other process may involve a change in the fiction except for to the extent that it models an in-fiction causal process [2, 4];

*The GM is as constrained in this respect as the players [3].​

The reason I say that this is demanding is that (as discussed upthread) it excludes non-causal-modelling resolution processes. It also excludes the GM from "nudging" things by decisions about scene-framing or outcomes - scene/situation has to flow from setting via application of ingame causal considerations. I think this is assumed to be via map-and-key play, but perhaps there could be another way of doing this?

In Tuovinen's terms, it maps to mechanical simulation. Storytime is ruled out, due to the constraints on the GM. So is "princess" play that spotlights and celebrates characters. "Dollhousing" is ruled out, as that depends upon non-"diegetic" changes to the world, like adding things into the game via points calculations. Setting exploration is also excluded, I think, unless mechanics can be conceived that will make the setting "run" without the need for any GM tweaking or fudging.

It's not a criticism of Sorensen to point out the demanding nature of his principles. But I think it distorts the conversation to downplay that demanding nature: especially the demands it places on the GM.

 

[pemerton]

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.​

I'm not sure what you mean by "player agency within the fiction". The players aren't part of the fiction, are they? They are authors of it.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "foregoing fiction" - do you mean something like preceding fiction or established fiction?

 

[pemerton]

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.

Sure, but some posters in this thread have posted about "diegetic mechanics": eg

I don't think anyone is objecting to the spirit of what you're saying, but translated to the game, there's no reason any of those consequences have to be connected to the task resolution roll upon which we are basing our arguments. They can instead be handled by other diegetic mechanics, if needed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is it the human-only-ness that really defines GoT? I certainly wouldn't think so.

I rather think it is pretty big part of it, yes. Of course it is not the only defining feature.

Also, note how you are intentionally crossing different fixed settings. That isn't what we were talking about, is it? It's homebrew worlds where space may or may not be left for things. Hence the desire to have space left open, otherwise feeling like one is being left only with a handful of PC-shaped holes to fill.

There is no difference. It is a setting authored by someone other than the players. The only difference is that Ed Greenwood is not at the table with us, so we don't have to care how he feels if we dis his setting.

Which, I dunno about you. Bit I find that harmful to my immersion.

You find it harmful if in the case the fixed setting was written by your friend, but not harmful if it was written by some distant author?
I have always said that different people immerse differently, but this certainly is quite unique!

Well. Two huge differences, that break the analogy you're trying to assert?

First, the setting is written out independent of any of the participants. All of us are coming to it having to accept parts we might not like or lamenting absences we wish were not so. Even the GM. We're on an equal playing field there.

But from the player perspective it is the same, so why does it matter to you as player which it is?

Second, all the information I need is inherently laid out for me to peruse first. It's not "the GM is reality" anymore, is it? There is a separate source. I can read and digest it independently of the GM and draw my own conclusions, including whether or not I want to interact with that setting or not. (You'll be shocked to learn I don't really care for GoT, I'm sure.) Indeed, it is quite possible for me to make a case that the GM was simply wrong about something, by referencing what is there.

Except everyone has said that the GM will provide the setting info at the pitch or at the session zero at the latest. And sure, it might not be multiple volumes of text like for a published setting, but several people have explicitly said that that they do not want to read such, so certainly more concise information format would be preferred?

You have yet to demonstrate that that is actually what's happening. Proof by assertion is not exactly an effective argument.

I mean thankfully it is not happening in games I actually participate, but according to your posts it seems this very much what you would be doing.

Ah, so now it's superficial? Funny how it's incredibly important when it suits you, and utterly superficial when it suits you. Seems like if it's important in one place it should be important in the other...and if it's superficial in one it's hard to see why it's so essential in the other.

It is superficial when the thing is detached from the context of the setting, thus is barely anything.

 

[pemerton]

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.

As I understand it, the term "diegetic" is used to try and talk about the relationship between events that occur as part of a process of narration or performance or (perhaps) authorship and events that occur in the fiction that is narrated/performed/authored.

Some events in the fiction are perhaps implied, but are not narrated/performed/authored - eg the moment of conception of a minor character who appears only on one page of a novel or in one shot of a film- and so are not diegetic.

Some events in the narration/performance/authorship - eg a storyteller clapping their hands to get the audience's attention, or a filmaker using music to establish mood - are not events in the fiction.

Some events in the narration/performance/authorship - eg reciting dialogue, singing a song that is sung in the fiction - are also events that occur in the fiction.

In a literally narrational medium, there are events that are part of the narration/performance/authorship - eg describing what happens - that are not part of the fiction: no one in the fiction is narrating the weather, for instance - eg it rains without anyone saying "it is now raining". But those descriptions correlate to those events.

Are those descriptions diegetic? I defer to @Hussar on the way critics approach this issue: but my intuition inclines towards "no", because if mood-setting music is not diegetic (even though it helps the audience appreciate the story) then I'm not sure how description, the function of which is to help the audience grasp and appreciate the story, is diegetic.

As per my post just upthread, Sorensen's manifesto doesn't talk about mechanics or resolution processes being diegetic. It talks about changes to the fiction being diegetic - ie there is to be no authorship unless it is giving voice to in-fiction causal processes.

That is a very demanding requirement.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

The rune example was not even that though, as the skill was irrelevant, the character was going to read the runes anyway, the only thing being tested was whether the runes were good or bad, which is completely unrelated to the skill of the reader or difficulty of the runes.

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.

I do not agree with any definition of simulation by which this mechanic qualifies.

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.

Indeed, with the odds being determined by attackers offensive capabilities compared to the defenders defensive capabilities, both of which certainly are perfectly relevant.

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.

Yeah, you're in the weeds here. Yes, how exactly numbers are used will affect the odds, and no one has said that twice the bonus directly means the character is twice as skilled in the fiction (whatever that would even mean.) These are system design details largely unrelated to the overall matter we are discussing. And yes, RQ combat is whiffy, which is both unrealistic and boring, so for that reason I do not consider such handling of opposed tests to be very good, but that really besides the point.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is from the Sorensen manifesto:

2. Restrict the non-diegetic means by which the world can be changed.​

Characters and systems can, obviously, affect the fictional world. As they move through and act upon the world, the world changes to reflect those actions. These changes can occur as a result of both the players’ characters and the GM’s. Likewise, diegetic systems of the fictional world—law, magic, weather, economics, and so on—can change the world, too. Let these run wild! Embrace the unexpected, the unpredicted, the unknown. Allow your world to shine in its transience!​

​

Outside of diegetic in-character actions, players cannot change the world. The world is sacred: it is apart and cannot be altered except by those forces from within the fictional world. At no point should the world change simply because the rules dictate it so.​

​

3. The GM is a referee, not an author - they too are subservient to the fictional world ​

The GM is a player. Accordingly, they are restricted in their non-diegetic ability to change the world, just like every other player.​

​

If the GM is also author, designer, and creator of the fictional world, they must adhere to the fictional world created before play begins. Once at the table, the world cannot be changed except by purely diegetic means.​

​

When you as GM are struck with the urge to alter the fictional world outside of your diegetic methods, resist the temptation!​

​

4. Rules, systems, and mechanisms are abstractions of the fictional world, not structures or orders for players.​

All rules are abstractions of a larger, more complex fictional reality. They exist to ease complicated processes into something that can be more easily played with—and nothing more.​

Whether or not this is a full account of simulationism, I think it is recognisably an account of one sort of simulationism. And it is very demanding:

*The only permitted resolution systems are those which model in-fiction causal processes [4];​

​

*No resolution or other process may involve a change in the fiction except for to the extent that it models an in-fiction causal process [2, 4];​

​

*The GM is as constrained in this respect as the players [3].​

The reason I say that this is demanding is that (as discussed upthread) it excludes non-causal-modelling resolution processes. It also excludes the GM from "nudging" things by decisions about scene-framing or outcomes - scene/situation has to flow from setting via application of ingame causal considerations. I think this is assumed to be via map-and-key play, but perhaps there could be another way of doing this?

In Tuovinen's terms, it maps to mechanical simulation. Storytime is ruled out, due to the constraints on the GM. So is "princess" play that spotlights and celebrates characters. "Dollhousing" is ruled out, as that depends upon non-"diegetic" changes to the world, like adding things into the game via points calculations. Setting exploration is also excluded, I think, unless mechanics can be conceived that will make the setting "run" without the need for any GM tweaking or fudging.

It's not a criticism of Sorensen to point out the demanding nature of his principles. But I think it distorts the conversation to downplay that demanding nature: especially the demands it places on the GM.

I think it is actually a very good definition. And yes, it is demanding, but also one does not be 100% sim all the time like one doesn't need to be 100% narrativist all the time. It merely clearly outlines what the thing is, which is helpful.

Tuovinen's ramblings on the other hand are mostly vague mush.

 

[clearstream]

Sure, but some posters in this thread have posted about "diegetic mechanics": eg

I disagree with those posters on that score.

 

[clearstream]

I'm not sure what you mean by "player agency within the fiction". The players aren't part of the fiction, are they? They are authors of it.

I take playing a TTRPG to entail becoming author, actor and audience. Player as actor makes themselves part of the fiction. They make themselves subject to it. I don't take players to author the fiction from within the fiction. On that I think I'm aligned with Sorensen, although our motives for arriving there likely differ.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "foregoing fiction" - do you mean something like preceding fiction or established fiction?

Yes, and that includes inter alia things players as authors may have established.

 

[clearstream]

As I understand it, the term "diegetic" is used to try and talk about the relationship between events that occur as part of a process of narration or performance or (perhaps) authorship and events that occur in the fiction that is narrated/performed/authored.

I am not sure if my take on this equates with yours. Top of mind is that what is diegetic in TTRPG will be different in some respects from what is diegetic in film, just as what is diegetic in film differs from what is diegetic in literature. That's down to players being authors, actors and audiences.

A good first step that should provide plenty to disagree with is to define each of those...

Author players are authors when they change the imagined world other than from within it​

​

Actor players are actors when the pretend to be entities within the imagined world​

​

Audience players are audiences when they receive narratives concerning the imagined world, which in turn makes them audiences of internal pictures they form about what is narrated​

Proposed: diegetic things are those experienced by players as actors and audiences. What they know as authors about those things has no bearing.