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

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?
The results of that authorship are diegetic. Contrast

Player "Jane turns around"
GM "Okay, she sees a door behind her"
Player "Phew, I open the door and run inside"

Player "Jane turns around"
GM "Before you can turn or move an inch, the werewolf is upon you!"

The player's candidate change to the fiction was accepted in the first example, not in the second. It thus had diegetic consequences that differed between examples.

What was diegetic? Jane. A werewolf, possibly. A door behind Jane, probably. In the first example, Jane changed the imagined world from within by opening the door. In the second example, the werewolf changed the world from within by leaping at Jane.

Sorensen's constraint on players is that outside of diegetic in-character actions, players cannot change the world. Players must be able to author those actions. The prohibition is against changing the world through any other sort of authorship.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Don't see why you'd need faux-Chinese when you have dwarfs, gnomes, and dozens of other sentient species who have a reason to blow things up and a tendency to experiment with materials and chemicals. And even if they never do it, humans have a tendency to blow things up and experiment with materials and chemicals.

Honestly, I think that if you ever need to come up with racial traits for human beyond a generic "we're good at everything and so get a small bonus to stats/skills," blowing stuff up and experimenting with stuff we probably shouldn't should be our species' hat. Human like big boom.
Fair enough, but I'd really like to avoid having to worry about rules for all the various gunpowder-based weapons; never mind those weapons made earlier weapons obsolete pretty fast.
Problem here is that someone will eventually figure out how to make versions that don't require magic.
And the mages will buy them out and suppress the technology. :)
While Eberron is not my favorite setting, it's honestly the most logical.
Agreed in principle.
D&D magic is not only repeatable but reliable. A spell will always work, and always in the same way (with the very rare exception of spells like teleport). There's no rolls to cast the spells and no problems with miscasts causing problems (except for wild mages, assuming that the edition uses them), and there are no limitations as to who can cast, beyond, perhaps, a minimal Int score or (ugh) racial limitations.
Modern D&D magic is waaaay more reliable than TSR-era D&D magic. There, it could be very easily interrupted, and other spells beyond just teleport had some hazards built in.

Then you get DMs like me who add in wild magic surges to the mix, and magic becomes the high-risk high-reward way to go.
So logically, unless the GM introduces something into the setting that seriously limits spellcasting in some way (either rules or some sort of in-fiction limitation), every D&D setting should be magitech. And if the GM does introduce something that limits casting, then there should be higher levels of real-world tech. Including guns.

(Or you can just go "%&*! logic" and simply not have them in the world.
Yep, that's kinda been my approach all along. :) If I had to, I could just rationalize it by saying the components used to make gunpowder don't react with each other in game-world physics or something; but I've never really had to worry about it.
And if a player wants to create them, well, they're playing with explosives and have to roll really well not not die while doing it. Or simply set your game in the stone or bronze ages, not the iron/medieval/renaissance periods that are typical.)
Stone or bronze age would deny all sorts of other things I'd really like to keep, though, all the way from heavy armour to ocean-going sailing ships to agriculture to etc. etc.

What I do is just mix and match tech levels to suit what I want. Marine tech is up to age-of-sail in some parts of the world even while Norse still use longboats in other parts. Buildings and construction are up to late Renaissance standards even though the designs still echo previous eras in many places. Armour and weaponry is, other than the complete lack of gunpowder, at late-Renaissance level.

I've often toyed with introducing steampunk or similar, but can't think of a way to do so without pretty much eliminating the various faux-ancient cultures I've got.
In thinking about it, it might be better to simply have magic be the real-world equivalent of electronics, not mechanics--let the nonmagical folk create their tech, but they'll be building with clockworks and steam and primitive internal combustion while the wizards have computers with AI (bound spirit) and holographic (illusory) interface that let them hack the world, Mage: the Ascension style. At least that way, if someone magic-less mortal tries to reverse engineer such a device, they'll release the spirits and probably get killed by them in the process.
That could work. I already have magic replicating electronics in a few ways e.g. pairs of items that function just like modern walkie-talkies or scrying devices that function not unlike CCTVs.
 

For those of you debating diegetics, and also for those of you debating simulationism and the various other -isms, some questions (or maybe just another bone to fight over :) ):

But first, the scenario.

Recently, a PC in my game was gifted a treasure map via a Deck of Many Things effect. I hadn't foreseen this and thus didn't have a map right there ready to rock; but during the week I designed and printed out a map, and gave it as a physical object to the player next session; who then showed it to all the other players at the table and lots of other characters in the fiction during post-adventure downtime. They're running a small village worth of characters right now, so the players split 'em up with one group "A" doing the adventure I'm running now while the other group "B" goes off with the map's owner, seeking the treasure. This happens simultaneously in the fiction but consecutively at the table, I'll run group B once group A are done.

So - is the map diegetic because I printed it out for the player(s)? Would it be had I not printed it out but just described it and let the player(s) try to draw it from my description?

Is it simulationist or gamist or what that I printed out the map? Or that the map exists in the fiction at all?

Having the player whose PC got the map design it would IMO run smack into Czege; so is it acceptable that I-as-DM designed it?

What's you lot's take on this?
 

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?
Yes? Such such play described there wouldn't match the mode described in my post? And so what? I didn't use the word sandbox once in that post, and it was certanly not an attempt at describing (all) sandbox play?

It was describing a third mode I thought would be "stable", coherent, and common in real play. The intention being to illustrate how the two I had already presented was in no way meant to be exhaustive.
 

For those of you debating diegetics, and also for those of you debating simulationism and the various other -isms, some questions (or maybe just another bone to fight over :) ):

But first, the scenario.

Recently, a PC in my game was gifted a treasure map via a Deck of Many Things effect. I hadn't foreseen this and thus didn't have a map right there ready to rock; but during the week I designed and printed out a map, and gave it as a physical object to the player next session; who then showed it to all the other players at the table and lots of other characters in the fiction during post-adventure downtime. They're running a small village worth of characters right now, so the players split 'em up with one group "A" doing the adventure I'm running now while the other group "B" goes off with the map's owner, seeking the treasure. This happens simultaneously in the fiction but consecutively at the table, I'll run group B once group A are done.

So - is the map diegetic because I printed it out for the player(s)? Would it be had I not printed it out but just described it and let the player(s) try to draw it from my description?
Neither. You offered a physical prop to help the player visualize. The prop cannot be diegetic because it isn't actually the map, it's a visual. Props are cool and useful things, but unless the map is in fact a sheet of printer paper with (presumably) laser or inkjet printing on it, it's not diegetic.

Is it simulationist or gamist or what that I printed out the map? Or that the map exists in the fiction at all?
Neither, as far as I can tell. Props are orthogonal. When a group decides to run a game in a simulationist way, they can go 100% pure TOTM or extremely detailed props of all sorts of things. A group that decides to run a game in a gamist way...can do exactly the same things.

Having the player whose PC got the map design it would IMO run smack into Czege; so is it acceptable that I-as-DM designed it?
I'm...not sure what Czege means....a person from the Forge?

Whether you as GM designed it is irrelevant, IMO.

What's you lot's take on this?
Stated.
 

I'm...not sure what Czege means...

I think this is what is referenced:


Has been discussed earlier in the thread, but given that the thread is close to 20 000 posts long and contains a multitude of tangents, I’m sure many missed it.
 

In this mode of play, isn't the character detail often mechanical rather than significantly fictional?
Depends on the game. In modern D&D, absolutely. But I think even some of the earliest more story focused play might have stumbled into this pattern without a mechanical focus. To me it sort of seem like this is something dragonlance aspires to do, but sort of misses the point as it isn't the players creating the canonical characters.

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.
I agree that the degree characters is taken into account is a variable in this mode, and it might be that it can be dialed all the way down to 0 without play degenerating down to something qualitatively different. That said, common wisdom for running APs indicate that some creative adjustments to accommodate for the actual characters in play is recommended.
 

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.
Now I think I remember the context in which I would have myself argued the runes example would be at odds with simulation. At that point the idea of wanting to simulate a world fully independent of the players, beyond (limited) control over their character's physical actions was in my understanding the topic explored.

I think the resolution mechanics in the runes example would have hindered such a simulation. I would add that this was not a particular issue with that play, as this property appear not to have been part of what was attempted simulated.

Again it come back to the importance at looking at what we try to simulate.

Edit: For what it is worth. I think handing the players xp for declaring a character to be a old friend or foe seem like an exelent support for simulating the effect of wolverine having been all over the place for a long time.
 

Now I think I remember the context in which I would have myself argued the runes example would be at odds with simulation. At that point the idea of wanting to simulate a world fully independent of the players, beyond (limited) control over their character's physical actions was in my understanding the topic explored.

I think the resolution mechanics in the runes example would have hindered such a simulation. I would add that this was not a particular issue with that play, as this property appear not to have been part of what was attempted simulated.

Again it come back to the importance at looking at what we try to simulate.
I'm not really clear on simulating a world independent of the players. If the 4th wall is not being broken, then necessarily the fictional world is independent of any and all real people, isn't it?

If the players have no authorial control/influence other than the actions of their PCs, that's not a simulation but just a distribution of roles/functions in the play of the game.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top