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

[Maxperson]

You guys keep bringing up, "The character can't see the mechanic" as some sort of proof that mechanics are not diegetic. I would point out that to be diegetic the character has to experience the thing, not see the thing.

If I bring a cherry pie to an isolated tribe in the Amazon and give it to one to eat, he will experience the cherry pie, including all of the components that went into making that pie that he cannot see. He will experience sugar, flour, egg, etc. even though he doesn't see all of that.

The character in the game is experiencing the mechanics involved in D&D climb checks, even though he doesn't see those mechanics. He can't climb without them, so every fictional climb is intertwined with the mechanics. They are the ingredients of the climb check.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I certainly think that this is very good for a feeling of groundedness. But, generally speaking, one does not get a bird's-eye view of oneself looking at something, and then one's own view of it; nor does one see a person looking at something else, and then somehow see from that person's perspective.

It can be fine to look very, very similar to what we as humans would do, if it's not a total PoV jump, but instead standing from more or less the same point, just looking in two directions...but cuts are still instantaneous and that's a bit hard to square with the continuous nature of (conscious) human experience. Unless the things are close enough together, in terms of arc distance, that a mere eye-flick is enough. Then I suppose that could in fact actually correspond to what a real person would actually do. The head movements required for some types of eye match cuts would be a bit too sharp to really be something humans do.

I'm not super-committed to the idea, but it did seem kind of analogous to diegetic sound -- diegetic sound is heard by the audience similarly to how its heard by the characters, so the eyeline match cut would be the audience seeing something in the world of the film similarly to how it's seen by the characters. I'm not sure that I want to go so far as to weigh whether the cut mirrors human experience as a qualification for whether editing can be diegetic (and, really, I'm still inclined to say it can't really be), but this was the one case I could think of off the top of my head.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You guys keep bringing up, "The character can't see the mechanic" as some sort of proof that mechanics are not diegetic. I would point out that to be diegetic the character has to experience the thing, not see the thing.

The character is experiencing climbing, Max.

They are not experiencing dice rolling or modifier checking or arithmetic.

Just like how in most films, characters are experiencing tension, but they are not experiencing ascending collegno arpeggios.

If I bring a cherry pie to an isolated tribe in the Amazon and give it to one to eat, he will experience the cherry pie, including all of the components that went into making that pie that he cannot see. He will experience sugar, flour, egg, etc. even though he doesn't see all of that.

Yes. But you aren't bringing a physical pie. You're rolling a die to determine your character's response to your character eating a pie.

The character in the game is experiencing the mechanics involved in D&D climb checks, even though he doesn't see those mechanics. He can't climb without them, so every fictional climb is intertwined with the mechanics. They are the ingredients of the climb check.

It is intertwined. That doesn't make them the same. And no, I'm sorry, the fact that play cannot proceed simply does not in any way mean that the mechanic IS what the character is experiencing.

It represents what the character is experiencing. But as AlViking just quoted, the dragon being reduced to 0 HP is neither the cause nor the act of killing it. It is solely and exclusively the useful abstraction that helps us know when that event happened. The actual cause, the actual action, is not that abstraction and never will be, unless we elect to declare that creatures know they have HP and "health bars" and such, which I don't think anyone here would be super keen on.

 

[Maxperson]

The character is experiencing climbing, Max.

They are not experiencing dice rolling or modifier checking or arithmetic.

He is experiencing both, because they are one and the same in an RPG with climb mechanics. No mechanics, no climb. Yes mechanics, yes climb.

Just like how in most films, characters are experiencing tension, but they are not experiencing ascending collegno arpeggios.

That there is a False Equivalence.

The tension is caused by something in fiction. The music isn't a part of that tension at all as the tension would happen without it, unlike mechanics which don't allow the climb to happen without them.

Yes. But you aren't bringing a physical pie. You're rolling a die to determine your character's response to your character eating a pie.

There's no roll to determine the response. The mechanics are what allows the climb. The ingredients are what allows the flavor. The response doesn't have mechanics, nor does the success or failure of a climb check. The success or failure is what comes AFTER the mechanics have been used. The mechanics determine success or failure, but success and failure are not themselves a mechanic.

It represents what the character is experiencing. But as AlViking just quoted, the dragon being reduced to 0 HP is neither the cause nor the act of killing it. It is solely and exclusively the useful abstraction that helps us know when that event happened. The actual cause, the actual action, is not that abstraction and never will be, unless we elect to declare that creatures know they have HP and "health bars" and such, which I don't think anyone here would be super keen on.

You have say a 20th level fighters vs. a dragon. The fighters 4 attacks all hit. Each attack represents the fighter swinging his sword AND the mechanics inside that attack. The fighter is experiencing all of that.

A successful attack brings us to the next mechanic. Damage.

Damage and hit points simulate a variety of things, physical well being, luck, skill, etc. The fighter then experiences the result of the damage, whether it's the dragon skillfully deflecting the successful attack and taking skill hit point damage or whatever.

The process then repeats 3 more times. The fighter experiences all of the it again for those successful attacks. If say the last attack reduced the dragon to 0, the dragon dies. It is the last successful attack that is the cause of the dragon's death. No last attack, no death. Cause and effect.

Edit: I somehow lost this.

It is intertwined. That doesn't make them the same. And no, I'm sorry, the fact that play cannot proceed simply does not in any way mean that the mechanic IS what the character is experiencing.

If it's intertwined, then the character is experiencing them both.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

He is experiencing both, because they are one and the same in an RPG with climb mechanics. No mechanics, no climb. Yes mechanics, yes climb.

That there is a False Equivalence.

The tension is caused by something in fiction. The music isn't a part of that tension at all as the tension would happen without it, unlike mechanics which don't allow the climb to happen without them.

There's no roll to determine the response. The mechanics are what allows the climb. The ingredients are what allows the flavor. The response doesn't have mechanics, nor does the success or failure of a climb check. The success or failure is what comes AFTER the mechanics have been used. The mechanics determine success or failure, but success and failure are not themselves a mechanic.

You have say a 20th level fighters vs. a dragon. The fighters 4 attacks all hit. Each attack represents the fighter swinging his sword AND the mechanics inside that attack. The fighter is experiencing all of that.

A successful attack brings us to the next mechanic. Damage.

Damage and hit points simulate a variety of things, physical well being, luck, skill, etc. The fighter then experiences the result of the damage, whether it's the dragon skillfully deflecting the successful attack and taking skill hit point damage or whatever.

The process then repeats 3 more times. The fighter experiences all of the it again for those successful attacks. If say the last attack reduced the dragon to 0, the dragon dies. It is the last successful attack that is the cause of the dragon's death. No last attack, no death. Cause and effect.

Edit: I somehow lost this.



If it's intertwined, then the character is experiencing them both.

Your argument is built on a blatantly false analogy, an intentional rejection of the very simple idea that "the map is not the territory", and this bizarre idea that because two things are interconnected, they are necessarily one and the same.

You are simply, flatly, wrong. The map is not the territory. It represents the territory. A good map accurately represents the territory, and thus is interrelated with it. But that doesn't make the map the territory, and it never will.

A representation is not the thing it represents. Or, if you need Magritte to remind you:

This is not a pipe. It is a representation of a pipe.

A climb check is not climbing. It is a representation of climbing.

The fact that we cannot move forward with the fictional state until the climbing mechanics are used has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whether the character's action of moving arms and legs, gripping handholds, slipping, questioning, sweating, etc., etc., etc. is in any way perfectly identical to the player's action of checking a number, rolling a die, and performing arithmetic.

Representations are not the things they represent. Otherwise, they wouldn't be representations, they would just be the thing itself!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Given that it seems pretty safe assumption that no one thinks that mechanics are concretely part of the fiction so that the characters are aware of numerical values and die rolls, one could generously interpret that when people say "diegetic mechanics" etc, they do not mean that. Rather, they mean that the mechanics simulate diegetic things. Doing otherwise seems rather disingenuous and counterproductive.

 

[Maxperson]

Your argument is built on a blatantly false analogy, an intentional rejection of the very simple idea that "the map is not the territory", and this bizarre idea that because two things are interconnected, they are necessarily one and the same.

More False Equivalence from you. A map is not intricately intertwined with the territory such that the territory cannot exist without it.

You are simply, flatly, wrong. The map is not the territory. It represents the territory. A good map accurately represents the territory, and thus is interrelated with it. But that doesn't make the map the territory, and it never will.

And now a Strawman built on your False Equivalence that you attribute to me. My argument is not "the map is the territory."

A representation is not the thing it represents. Or, if you need Magritte to remind you:

This is not a pipe. It is a representation of a pipe.

Even more False Equivalence! Three for three now.

A proper analogy would be the finish on the pipe that the smoker is experiencing, but does not know contains a cork lining. He is experiencing that cork lining within his smoking experience, but is unaware of its presence and he cannot smoke that pipe without the cork interior being there.

A climb check is not climbing. It is a representation of climbing.

Then you can successfully climb without the using the climb check mechanics after the DM has called for their inclusion, right? If the climb check is just a picture of the climbing or a map of the climbing territory, then the required mechanics are not required as part of the climb, right? Because the map and the picture are not required. They are ONLY representations.

If you cannot make the climb without the climb mechanics, then they go beyond being a mere representation of the climb and become part of it like the cork lining in the pipe.

If you have to alter my argument via False Equivalences in order to argue against it, perhaps stop and consider that you might be wrong about this. Open your mind to what I am saying.

 

[Maxperson]

Given that it seems pretty safe assumption that no one thinks that mechanics are concretely part of the fiction so that the characters are aware of numerical values and die rolls, one could generously interpret that when people say "diegetic mechanics" etc, they do not mean that. Rather, they mean that the mechanics simulate diegetic things. Doing otherwise seems rather disingenuous and counterproductive.

It kinda sorta is. It's not something the characters in the fiction can see, or even divine, but if the act in the fiction literally cannot happen without the mechanic, then the mechanic becomes an intangible part of the in fiction climb. It's the nature of RPGs, like the nature of movies moves the visual representations from mimetic to diegetic. The two things are inextricably intertwined

 

[EzekielRaiden]

More False Equivalence from you. A map is not intricately intertwined with the territory such that the territory cannot exist without it.

But climbing can exist without climbing rules. Your argument is built on a falsehood.

And now a Strawman built on your False Equivalence that you attribute to me. My argument is not "the map is the territory."

Yes, it literally is.

A proper analogy would be the finish on the pipe that the smoker is experiencing, but does not know contains a cork lining. He is experiencing that cork lining within his smoking experience, but is unaware of its presence and he cannot smoke that pipe without the cork interior being there.

Utterly, totally, completely unrelated.

The cork lining is PHYSICALLY THERE.

The climbing check is not. Try again. Show me where the climbing check is PHYSICALLY IN the world--not just a representation OF the world.

Then you can successfully climb without the using the climb check mechanics after the DM has called for their inclusion, right?

Irrelevant. I genuinely have no idea why you keep mentioning this, because--just as with the climb check--the GM is not physically in the world. It's not just that the character is failing to directly observe it. It's that it literally isn't there.

The climb check is not in, nor of, the world. It is simply our abstraction which lets us find out what is. That's what makes it a map, a representation.

If the climb check is just a picture of the climbing or a map of the climbing territory, then the required mechanics are not required as part of the climb, right?

Nope. Again, I have no idea why you keep saying this, because it is completely and utterly irrelevant.

If you cannot make the climb without the climb mechanics, then they go beyond being a mere representation of the climb and become part of it like the cork lining in the pipe.

But you can climb without climb mechanics. OD&D doesn't have them.

Show me where the climb check is physically in the imagined world, and I'll give you this. Because then it actually is the cork lining.

I'm 100% confident you cannot do this, because like every rule of the game, it isn't in the world at all. It is completely separate from the world, simply used to aid our decision-making processes.

If you have to alter my argument via False Equivalences in order to argue against it, perhaps stop and consider that you might be wrong about this.

It's not a false equivalence. You just keep bringing up a completely irrelevant factoid and then using it to assert something that is objectively false.

The climb check isn't in the world. It isn't an action someone takes. The action someone takes is climbing. We--GMs or whomever--choose an abstraction that is not determined by human choices. That doesn't make the abstraction any more physically in the imagined world than any other abstraction is.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It kinda sorta is. It's not something the characters in the fiction can see, or even divine, but if the act in the fiction literally cannot happen without the mechanic, then the mechanic becomes an intangible part of the in fiction climb. It's the nature of RPGs, like the nature of movies moves the visual representations from mimetic to diegetic. The two things are inextricably intertwined

Again, you bring up this thing which simply does not matter.

The fact that WE elected to insert an abstraction which halts play until an event in our world (a die roll) occurs has jack-all to do with whether that abstraction is actually IN the world.

Because--again--it isn't. It can't be. It's an abstraction!