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

[Maxperson]

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

Wrong. We are discussing based on the assumption that 1) this is D&D, and 2) there are climb rules, and 3) this is a situation that's in doubt.

If the situation were not in doubt, we would not be discussing mechanics as it would just happen. If this were not D&D and was a game without climb rules OR the DM changed D&D to have no climb rules for his game, this conversation would not be happening.

There is no falsehood that my argument is built on. In D&D as written if the outcome is in doubt for the climb check, the rules MUST happen for the climb to occur.

Yes, it literally is.

No it literally isn't. Prove to me that a map of a territory is inextricably intertwined with the actual territory such that the territory cannot exist without it. If you can, I will concede this point to you. If you can't, then it cannot be my argument.

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.

It doesn't have to have physicality. Only be present and experienced. This new physicality requirement is a Red Herring. It's a distraction from my point, not an argument against it.

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.

What does the DM have to do with this? That's just another attempt at a distraction. Nobody is arguing the that DM is physically in the world. Although...

And...

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

A third distraction argument. We are discussing 5e mechanics since it involves an athletics check with strength and proficiency. It doesn't matter what a different game does or does not do. 5e has them.

What you are doing here is arguing that because the Titanic doesn't have Dracula, Dracula isn't required in the movie Dracula. Yes he is. Yes the climb mechanics are required in 5e.

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.

Yes it is a False Equivalence because it's not equivalent to what I am arguing. I'm arguing about the mechanics which are inextricably(without re-writing the rules) intertwined with the in fiction climb, and you are talking about something that isn't intertwined, inextricably or otherwise, with maps and pipes. Intertwined is not equivalent to not intertwined. Therefore your declaration that they are is false.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

No, the character is not experiencing both. The character explicitly does not experience non-diegetic things. Saying they do makes the terms diegetic and non-diegetic synonyms rather than antonyms. It renders them useless.

Here’s the original blog by Cavegirl where they introduced this term to EPG analysis.

Diegetic vs. Non-Diegetic

 

[Maxperson]

No, the character is not experiencing both. The character explicitly does not experience non-diegetic things. Saying they do makes the terms diegetic and non-diegetic synonyms rather than antonyms. It renders them useless.

Hence why the mechanics are......................................................diegetic. I'm not making diegetic and non-diegetic synonyms.

Here’s the original blog by Cavegirl where they introduced this term to EPG analysis.

Diegetic vs. Non-Diegetic

She makes obvious errors. She states that attributes, which are 100% diegetic are not diegetic. Like the big muscled barbarian who has a high strength has strength that is not diegetic.

She is also not God. Her opinions are not fact just because she wrote that analysis.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

She makes obvious errors. She states that attributes, which are 100% diegetic are not diegetic. Like the big muscled barbarian who has a high strength has strength that is not diegetic.

I don't find her arguments completely compelling, but I don't think that's her intention. She's arguing that the numerical representation of Str is not diegetic -- the 18/00 or whatever isn't diegetic. That Grog the Barbarian's wicked strong, stronger than puny halflingses, would be diegetic.

 

[Faolyn]

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?

OR! One can be really good at improvisation and make up lots of details on the spot.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Maybe you could think about the game mechanics as like the film mechanisms... the projector, say? No projector, no film. That doesn't lead to saying the projector is diegetic.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe you could think about the game mechanics as like the film mechanisms... the projector, say? No projector, no film. That doesn't lead to saying the projector is diegetic.

No projector, no film is equivalent to no books, no game. It's not what I am talking about. The climb mechanics are bound within the act of climbing in the fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't find her arguments completely compelling, but I don't think that's her intention. She's arguing that the numerical representation of Str is not diegetic -- the 18/00 or whatever isn't diegetic. That Grog the Barbarian's wicked strong, stronger than puny halflingses, would be diegetic.

I still don't agree because of my position in this thread, but that does make more sense for her argument.

 

[clearstream]

No projector, no film is equivalent to no books, no game. It's not what I am talking about. The climb mechanics are bound within the act of climbing in the fiction.

np, only 542 posts to go before I can agree to disagree with a clear conscience

 

[hawkeyefan]

Hence why the mechanics are......................................................diegetic. I'm not making diegetic and non-diegetic synonyms.

She makes obvious errors. She states that attributes, which are 100% diegetic are not diegetic. Like the big muscled barbarian who has a high strength has strength that is not diegetic.

She is also not God. Her opinions are not fact just because she wrote that analysis.

They are the person who introduced the term to RPG analysis. Though as I already said, I don’t think their ideas are without flaw, I think that they have relevant thoughts on the matter.

Mechanics mostly not being diegetic is one of them. That they are representative of something in the fiction does not make them diegetic.

If the mechanic of rolling whatever dice to make whatever skill check in whatever system you’d like is diegetic, then you absolutely are making the terms synonymous. The die roll is not being experienced by the character. It is non-diegetic. Whatever skill is being performed is diegetic to the character.

An example of a mechanic that would be diegetic that they offer is in Vampire; spending a blood point to awaken for the day. While some might debate this (certainly the Vampire character doesn’t think about their blood supply in terms of “points”) the idea is that since the mechanic is an observable resource in the fiction of the world, it is therefore diegetic.

But representational mechanics, and the scores for attributes (not necessarily the attributes themselves as you claim, but rather the scores) are clearly non-diegetic.