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

[clearstream]

Only the bolded portions are steps. The rest is player conversation. You can remove it and nothing would change.

There aren't really all that many non-diegetic mechanics. I had to search for a bit to find the one I mentioned in my last post. Most mechanics are there so that you can play the game in the fiction properly, so are diegetic as they correspond to actions and events in the fiction.

Sure. My point there was to show that it's not really going to take much effort on the part of the players. They don't need to consciously weed out non-diegetic things and focus on the diegetic ones. It just happens.

I also don't see any circular reasoning. The entire fictional world is diegetic, because the players are experiencing it and so are the characters. The mechanics are diegetic because they correspond to those in fiction actions and events, so are part of how the players are experiencing those in fiction actions and events.

RQ combat provides an example

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.​

If we're saying game mechanics are diegetic, which parts of the RQ combat game mechanics are diegetic? Non-engaged characters do move in the fiction (something characters can know) but to ease processing they do that in phase 2., before melee, missile and spell resolution. From the RQ combat mechanics text

It is always necessary to realize that, although these phases are taken in turn, the activities they address occur more-or-less simultaneously​

​

We're not supposed to picture everyone standing frozen, swords raised etc, while non-engaged characters run around. But how do we know which is which? It's because we've already decided on what is diegetic in the fiction, and then because we've decided that we're circling back to the mechanic and annotating some parts of it as diegetic.

And that does no effective work at all, because we never picture that characters are aware of game mechanics! Other than in deliberate parody, characters do not have conversations like "I'm going to roll my Strength (Athletics) to climb this wall." All it means to say that a game mechanic is "diegetic" is that it is associated with something that is diegetic. And that is fine: it is perfectly useful to talk about game mechanics as having more or less abundant, direct, or high fidelity associations with things that are diegetic.

 

[clearstream]

I dunno. But there seem to be multiple posters in this thread who think that the player having the capacity to be the one who establishes these elements of backstory is at odds with simulation: @Micah Sweet, @The Firebird, @Crimson Longinus, @FrogReaver, I think @Maxperson and possibly @Enrahim but maybe not in light of post 19374.

They're not just saying that it would be at odds for them? If the experiences of play depend on our willingness to entertain them, then it can be literally true of some player that they cannot have simulative experiences in certain ways: those they're unwilling to entertain.

 

[pemerton]

Coming back to "I turn around to see what's behind me" why do you say that it doesn't fit with my authorship? It is narration that we agree isn't part of the imagined world, that changes that world (the character turns around.)

You said that authorship is "when they change the imagined world other than from within it" - and so I assumed that descriptions of character actions wouldn't count, as those are changes that result from the position and capabilities of the character within the fiction. If you include things like "I turn around" as authorship, what cases will be left that count as changing the imagined world from within it? Perhaps in-character dialogue?

 

[pemerton]

They're not just saying that it would be at odds for them? If the experiences of play depend on our willingness to entertain them, then it can be literally true of some player that they cannot have simulative experiences in certain ways: those they're unwilling to entertain.

I've taken their claims that it is not simulationist - and related descriptions like "quantum runes" - to be more than just first person expressions of preference.

 

[pemerton]

All it means to say that a game mechanic is "diegetic" is that it is associated with something that is diegetic. And that is fine: it is perfectly useful to talk about game mechanics as having more or less abundant, direct, or high fidelity associations with things that are diegetic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "association" here: the MHRP example of the reading of the runes is a mechanic that is associated with things that are diegetic: the PC's traits (as per my post of the PC sheet upthread); the Scene Distinction (Strange Runes). And also with things that are not diegetic: the state of the Doom Pool.

But most posters in this thread seem to deny that it is a diegetic mechanic.

 

[Enrahim]

I would generally agree with this. Certainly, within the same system (assuming systems that are roughly D&D-shaped), any one group can use either approach, but it is usually inharmonious to attempt both at the same time.

Just thinking out loud; I could hypothesize a game style with narrative-style character focus that frames challenges to the PCs that are always laden with setting specific info to allow the GM ample opportunity to present their authorship. Specific challenges would be indexed to both pressing character needs as well as GM-generated extrapolation of NPC factions. It's lightly trodden ground in terms of games that attempt it, and it would probably be challenging to GM, but probably not impossible.

Just to make it clear: I really do not think these two are the only "stable" modes of RPG play. I however found them interesting to put side by side, as every creative responsibility seem to be reversed.

A very common mode of play would be one where the players create highly detailed characters up front (creative), but the GM also create a highly detailed situation with these characters in mind before play. Then during play the GM is (ideally) being just a referee, while the players are trying to overcome the situations presented based on what they know about their character. That is that actual play is practically devoid of creativity with relevancy to the game. (There might still be creativity with regard to flavorful descriptions and such, but it is as relevant to the game as you describing the architecture of the houses you build in monopoly)

I think this mode of play is very dominating indeed. But in this case, what is the game? Setting or characters? A common analysis actually put the main game outside actual play. Similar to with how in some TCGs the building of the deck is considered the main part of the game, while actually playing boils down to relatively straight forward resolution.

As such the players and GM play different games. The GM play a game where they set up the situation, including the setting. The goal is to provide something that will be challenging for the characters and entertaining for the players. The players play a game where they are building a character. The goal is to make someone able to overcome challenges while being entertaining to play.

When they meet, the outcome of these games are resolved. If everyone have succeeded well in their game, this makes for a highly entertaining experience.

I think also in this mode of play it is highly reasonable for the players to expect flexibility in character creation, as that make the game they are playing richer.

 

[Hussar]

I think I agree with this. But then I want to restate your points about the climb check - which basically I agree with - like this: the climb check isn't representational. And so it does not introduce elements into the narrative (that is, into the diegesis). As per my post somewhere not too far upthread, it's like the film cutting from the character getting ready to climb, to a scene where the sweating, red-faced character pulls themself over the top of the cliff (success) or to a scene of the character tumbling down the cliff to their doom (failure).

This is why I liked your map and puzzle square examples: because these are ones where we don't even need to talk about representation. What the players are doing (poring over the map or the puzzle) is exactly what the characters are doing.

But if we talk about representation, we at least need the mechanics to map to descriptions of processes or events. The Rolemaster Move/Manoeuvre table does a bit of this - eg, here are some of the failure entries, in increasing degree of seriousness:

The mechanics in and of themselves don't actually need to be diegetic in order to produce a diegetic result. Most of what goes into a movie or novel isn't diegetic - the writer writing, drinking a glass of wine with his/her editor, etc - none of that is diegetic. But, the work produced is diegetic, even though the process of producing that material isn't.

So, there's no need for the mechanics to 1:1 correlate to whatever is going on in the game world. Granted, the most easily recognized diegetic elements do have that 1:1 correlation. The player speaks in character, for example, is diegetic. It's easily recognizable as diegetic. It happens in the game world and the audience can see it happening. That's about as diegetic as you can get.

But, since we're not about to start whacking each other with lumpy metal things, we need some sort of mechanic to produce the diegetic results in the game world. To be fair, the success or failure of the climb check IS diegetic. We know, 100%, that that character climbed or didn't climb. But, since the mechanics don't provide any information about how that result was achieved, it's like your jump scene. There's nothing in the middle. That's the point I was making about the Voice of the Narrator (GM/GM) backfilling the scene to justify the result.

That backfilling isn't diegetic. The characters don't have sudden flashbacks to climbing. Heck, we don't even need to backfill and the system still works. A diegetic system wouldn't. Because there's no way for the characters to not know how they succeeded or failed. There would be no need for backfilling if the mechanics produced a diegetic result.

Now, we're still dealing with the fact that we're playing a game, so, the diegetic result might be pretty thin. It might not be a full color 8k video. It's more like a very rough pencil sketch. But, it's still there. And it's enough that you don't need to backfill.

So, for those who are still claiming diegesis in 5e D&D skill checks. Can you give me an example of using the skill mechanics to fail a check where the DM in no way needs to provide any narration after the fact? Where there is no "jump scene" where we go from "You begin your attempt" to "You failed your attempt"?

 

[Hussar]

A very common mode of play would be one where the players create highly detailed characters up front (creative), but the GM also create a highly detailed situation with these characters in mind before play. Then during play the GM is (ideally) being just a referee, while the players are trying to overcome the situations presented based on what they know about their character.

Hang on though. IN order to have a "highly detailed situation", you would need to do lots of preparation, no?

I've been told REPEATEDLY that that isn't the case. That you can improv your way through a sandbox with a bare minimum of preparation. What was the claim? A couple of hours? Something like that. I was told that in no way does a sandbox require a "highly detailed situation".

So which is it?

 

[clearstream]

I'm not sure what you mean by "association" here: the MHRP example of the reading of the runes is a mechanic that is associated with things that are diegetic: the PC's traits (as per my post of the PC sheet upthread); the Scene Distinction (Strange Runes). And also with things that are not diegetic: the state of the Doom Pool.

But most posters in this thread seem to deny that it is a diegetic mechanic.

I would deny that it is a diegetic mechanic, because I deny that any mechanic is diegetic.

That said, the Cortex mechanics explicitly associate dice with things in the fiction that are diegetic, and it uses what is rolled on the dice themselves to say what should be narrated (individual dice can be read as complications and effect strength, and two summed to see if you beat the opposition or resistance.)

That provides a useful example of what I mean by association. When Jane's player pickes up a die for her trait of Seasoned Journalist, I don't picture that Jane knows dice are going to be pooled and rolled to see if she can finish her pitch if she stays up all night! I picture that as a Seasoned Journalist (something that is diegetic) she's confident she can do it (also diegetic.) Even though the die Jane's player picked up is not diegetic, it is specifically associated with something diegetic (characters in the imagined world can know that Jane is a seasoned journalist).

So do the Cortext mechanics have strong diegetic associations? My answer would be yes, and they are built into the dice rolled. Contrast with RQ where I am rolling d100 for everything from boating to parrying to herding. With their latest editions of WHFRP and L5R, Fantasy Flight are going something of the Cortex path, with their custom narrative dice. (And again, I don't picture that any character in WHFRP knows that a die was rolled and came up with a face showing exertion, rather they know that the task was more taxing than expected.)

 

[pemerton]

A very common mode of play would be one where the players create highly detailed characters up front (creative), but the GM also create a highly detailed situation with these characters in mind before play. Then during play the GM is (ideally) being just a referee, while the players are trying to overcome the situations presented based on what they know about their character. That is that actual play is practically devoid of creativity with relevancy to the game. (There might still be creativity with regard to flavorful descriptions and such, but it is as relevant to the game as you describing the architecture of the houses you build in monopoly)

I think this mode of play is very dominating indeed. But in this case, what is the game? Setting or characters? A common analysis actually put the main game outside actual play. Similar to with how in some TCGs the building of the deck is considered the main part of the game, while actually playing boils down to relatively straight forward resolution.

As such the players and GM play different games. The GM play a game where they set up the situation, including the setting. The goal is to provide something that will be challenging for the characters and entertaining for the players. The players play a game where they are building a character. The goal is to make someone able to overcome challenges while being entertaining to play.

When they meet, the outcome of these games are resolved. If everyone have succeeded well in their game, this makes for a highly entertaining experience.

I think also in this mode of play it is highly reasonable for the players to expect flexibility in character creation, as that make the game they are playing richer.

In this mode of play, isn't the character detail often mechanical rather than significantly fictional?

I'm also not sure how important it is for the GM to have the characters in mind before play. AP-type play is probably a fairly typical instance of the mode of play you're describing, and the AP is written without having the PCs in mind.