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

[Hussar]

Let me try this from a different direction.

In Ironsworn (sorry to bring this up again, but, it fits my example well and ... well... I just really like the system ) there is a mechanic called Ask the Oracle. What happens is when you get a result but you are unsure exactly how that result was achieved, you Ask the Oracle - a series of yes/no questions that may be weighted (instead of 50/50, you could make it 75/25 yes/no) at the DM's prerogative to generate a seed of an idea.

So, in play, the characters fail to reach a waypoint while traveling from A to B. The DM knows that the party is traveling through a magical forest of the elves, but, doesn't really have an idea about why the characters failed. So, Ask the Oracle - Is the problem magical (yes), is it a monster (no), is it a trap (yes) - ahhh, ok, now I've got enough of an idea seed to build a narrative. Cool. No problems.

Now, no one is going to claim that this mechanic is simulationist or diegetic. At least I don't think anyone would. This is simply a mechanic that spurs creativity. That's what it's there for. ((Plus, Ironsworn being primararily a solo-RPG, needs some way to give the player a way to move forward that doesn't solely rely on that solo player)) No problem.

My question is, what's the difference between Ask the Oracle and Ask the DM? After all, in both cases, the DM in question is still using the setting and the "logic" of the world to create a narrative. I ask "Is the problem magical" because the character is traveling in a magical forest. The trap question is inspired by the fact that elves don't like visitors. So, the narrative is very much informed by the setting. But, again, none of it is even remotely simulationist. Even if the results are ultimately diegetic (there really IS a magical trap in the forest in the game world) the means of creating that diegetic element isn't remotely diegetic.

When a DM does the same thing - plonks down a magical trap that causes misdirection while traveling through the magical woods, why does it suddenly become simulationist? The method for creating that magical trap had nothing to do with any in game process. But, if the party got lost and the DM decided that the party got lost because of a magical trap in the magical forest, people are claiming that the mechanics are simulationist because the party got lost using the skill system of the game. In 5e D&D, that would likely be the result of a failed Survival check. Or is the DM forbidden from adding a magical trap in the magical forest in response to a failed check? If the DM is forbidden from doing that, why? What about the mechanics says that the DM must not add a magical trap in a magical forest?

Which brings me back to my original point. To me, neither Ask the Oracle nor Ask the DM is simulationist or Diegetic. In order for the system to be either sim or diegetic, that system MUST provide information to guide the narration of the result. Without that guidance, the system cannot be simulationist.

 

[Maxperson]

No. They are not.

Because if the climb mechanics are bound within the act of climbing, then the climb mechanics would provide some information about how the result was achieved. They don't. All they do is tell you the result and force the DM to then backfill the details without any guidance from the mechanics themselves.

That's the point you keep missing.

I keep missing it because it's 100% wrong. They do absolutely provide some information on how the result was achieved The rules dictate that it was achieved with athleticism and strength, as well as climbing skill. The provide the difficulty that the PC's skill needs to overcome(DC). If the tool rules are engaged, they dictate that ropes or pitons were used to climb.

If the DM ignores those rules and chooses to instead narrate pixies, that's not the fault of the rules. Nor does it mean that the information provided above wasn't provided by the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

You have a+4 climb check and a DC 15 climb. You roll a 10 and fail the climb. You do not fall, because you didn't fail by 5, but, you make no forward progress. What narratives are disallowed here?

Falling. Pixies. Just about anything that doesn't involve the PC's skill not being sufficient to make progress. The roll is by RAW about skill vs. difficulty to achieve success or result in failure.

If you roll a 5 or less, you fell. What is the narrative?

You failed in your skill badly somehow. It's not a lot, but it has to be there somewhere or the DM is ignoring the rules to go rogue with his narration.

Any reason for falling MUST be grounded in the mechanics for the mechanics to provide any diegetic information.

The only time it isn't grounded in the mechanics is if the DM goes rogue and ignores the rules as written. The rules dictate that PC skill is why success or failure happened. Ability checks = skill. Strength = raw talent(skill). Skill proficiency = skill. That skill determines success or failure.

"Each of a creature's abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability."

Note that RAW talks about ability checks being innate talent, training and competence. All measures of skill at something. Nowhere does it mention pixies or anything else being a part of an ability check. Also note that nowhere is there random luck mentioned for the d20. The d20 is also part of skill, but represents that skill isn't always 100%, just like in real life where skill isn't isn't static at 100%, but varies.

Here's another quote from the PHB rules.

"An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge."

The rule provides that the ability check is a test of skill vs. difficulty.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But, you don't modify the difficulty or the roll in GURPS. Not typically. There might be extreme examples where you do it, but, the vast majority of time, the roll is made vs skill only. It is very rare that any adjustment is made to the roll.

I think you're mistaken here. I remember plenty of modifiers for physical skills based on situation at least.

 

[SableWyvern]

I think you're mistaken here. I remember plenty of modifiers for physical skills based on situation at least.

According to GURPS 4e Campaigns, modifiers are applied often. No idea where the idea comes from that this isn't the case.

It then goes onto discuss Task Difficulty (ranging from +10 for Automatic to -10 for Impossible) and Equipment Modifiers (quality modifiers, missing equipment modifiers) as well as more obscure things like cultural and tech level modifiers. And these are just the generic ones; there are plenty of specific modifiers for various specific skills, actions and circumstances.

 

[Enrahim]

Let me try this from a different direction.

In Ironsworn (sorry to bring this up again, but, it fits my example well and ... well... I just really like the system ) there is a mechanic called Ask the Oracle. What happens is when you get a result but you are unsure exactly how that result was achieved, you Ask the Oracle - a series of yes/no questions that may be weighted (instead of 50/50, you could make it 75/25 yes/no) at the DM's prerogative to generate a seed of an idea.

So, in play, the characters fail to reach a waypoint while traveling from A to B. The DM knows that the party is traveling through a magical forest of the elves, but, doesn't really have an idea about why the characters failed. So, Ask the Oracle - Is the problem magical (yes), is it a monster (no), is it a trap (yes) - ahhh, ok, now I've got enough of an idea seed to build a narrative. Cool. No problems.

Now, no one is going to claim that this mechanic is simulationist or diegetic. At least I don't think anyone would. This is simply a mechanic that spurs creativity. That's what it's there for. ((Plus, Ironsworn being primararily a solo-RPG, needs some way to give the player a way to move forward that doesn't solely rely on that solo player)) No problem.

My question is, what's the difference between Ask the Oracle and Ask the DM? After all, in both cases, the DM in question is still using the setting and the "logic" of the world to create a narrative. I ask "Is the problem magical" because the character is traveling in a magical forest. The trap question is inspired by the fact that elves don't like visitors. So, the narrative is very much informed by the setting. But, again, none of it is even remotely simulationist. Even if the results are ultimately diegetic (there really IS a magical trap in the forest in the game world) the means of creating that diegetic element isn't remotely diegetic.

When a DM does the same thing - plonks down a magical trap that causes misdirection while traveling through the magical woods, why does it suddenly become simulationist? The method for creating that magical trap had nothing to do with any in game process. But, if the party got lost and the DM decided that the party got lost because of a magical trap in the magical forest, people are claiming that the mechanics are simulationist because the party got lost using the skill system of the game. In 5e D&D, that would likely be the result of a failed Survival check. Or is the DM forbidden from adding a magical trap in the magical forest in response to a failed check? If the DM is forbidden from doing that, why? What about the mechanics says that the DM must not add a magical trap in a magical forest?

Which brings me back to my original point. To me, neither Ask the Oracle nor Ask the DM is simulationist or Diegetic. In order for the system to be either sim or diegetic, that system MUST provide information to guide the narration of the result. Without that guidance, the system cannot be simulationist.

Ask the Oracle is generally used as a tool to support the simulation. The questions are assumed to be limited to what could be reasonable simulation outcomes. In your example asking "Is it a distracting ice cream truck?" would be a foul for most games of Ironsworn.

Edit: Or are we back to the illusion of independence "simulationism"? In which case there can hardly be any illusion, if you are actively creating the world yourself as you go..

 

[Enrahim]

WAHOO!!! Someone actually gets it.

Now, tiny step here. How is a system that provides ZERO information about the causal process diegetic?

I know this is the major topic discussed right now. So I think I might be really missing the point. But "How is a system ... diegetic" Make absolutely no sense to me. As pointed out a couple of days ago that would mean the characters somehow being aware of a system being at play Order of the stick #1 style. This is sort of the antithesis of the independent world flavor of "sim".

Trouble is that if it is not meant like this, but rather a practical short form for something else, it is highly inpractical. The problem is that there are room for awfully many completely different "rexpansions" like:
"the system alone produces complete narrations assuring it make diegetic sense" or "the system aproperiately used and interpreted produces ideas for narration that could make diegetic sense". I think your use of the word is closer to the first, but not full blown, as I get the impression you allow for some interpretation when it come to inputs to the system. But that you might get push back from someone with an understanding closer to the latter.

 

[Enrahim]

But, I was told, repeatedly in this thread, that that is not simulationist. That making things up on the spot - like the meaning of runes - is not simulationist. You must not improv setting details if you wish to run simulationist games, goes the argument.

Note, I do not agree with that, but, that's what I've been repeatedly told.

Problem with the runes example was not that it was made up on the spot. If the GM had decided on the spot before any roll was made what the runes said, I think noone would have had a problem with it (Edit: OK, if we have some fanatic Soerensen disciples here, that might make an exception). If you think that was the problem you have really missed the point!

Also thinking that the issue is that the player being involved in making it at the spot is also missing most of the point. If the player had been asked on the spot to honestly state what they they would think the runes were most likely to mean, I think several (but not all) that has argued against the runes example being sim would have accepted that as sim.

It is the feature that a player/character wish was the stakes of a check (and that the check is presented to be based on something completely different than the character's "wishing" ability), that seem to be the thing most are choking on.

 

[Enrahim]

Schroedinger's treasure!

Sorensen addresses this, in part at least, in principle 3:

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.​

To me, this is ambiguous as to what the GM is allowed to do during breaks in play. And the more permissive a group is about that - the GM can author the world between sessions, or during a coffee break, or during a five-minute time out called after a card is drawn from a DoMT - then the less meaningful the constraint becomes.

The world cannot be changed as it must be adhered to. This in no way shape or form prevents adding to the world as long as it doesn't contradict adherence.

(Note - this is just how I read the following passage. I do not associate myself with this manifesto beyond being a reader that is barely understanding most of it. This particular secretion was quite readable to me tough)

 

[Hussar]

I keep missing it because it's 100% wrong. They do absolutely provide some information on how the result was achieved The rules dictate that it was achieved with athleticism and strength, as well as climbing skill. The provide the difficulty that the PC's skill needs to overcome(DC). If the tool rules are engaged, they dictate that ropes or pitons were used to climb.

If the DM ignores those rules and chooses to instead narrate pixies, that's not the fault of the rules. Nor does it mean that the information provided above wasn't provided by the rules.

You keep cutting stuff off.

Because you're ignoring the biggest part of that check. The die roll. After all, I can overcome the DC without any sklll at all. Ropes and pitons must be used in all climbs? That's a new rule. I wasn't aware of that one. But, a die roll is required every single time. If a die roll isn't required, then the DC is overcome by skill and ability. So, anything less that your bonus to athletics can be narrated by being overcome by skill and ability. So, what does the die roll represent?

See, you are wrong. The rules dictate that the result was achieved by a combination of skill, ability and an undefined variable that is represented by the die roll which can massively overshadow skill and ability and even make skill and ability not even relevant.

You are the one ignoring the mechanics.