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

[clearstream]

Elaborating on my point not far upthread, that inferences like If X is a disputed proposition of physics, and Einstein conjectured it to be true, then it is more likely to be true than one might otherwise suspect are sound:

The following counterfactual claims can both be true, of the same person at the same time:

(A) If I were to jump out the window, I would plummet to my death.​

​

(B) If I were to jump out the window, I would be fine - because I would jump only had I arranged for crash mats to be placed below it, so I didn't get hurt by the fall.​

The difference between, when evaluated as true, is the degree of time and change over which the evaluation takes place: for (A), the time of evaluation is the immediate context of the utterance; whereas for (B), the time of evaluation stretches back into the past.

(I'm taking the examples from here: https://academic.oup.com/mind/article-abstract/108/431/427/985811)

We can create parallels for the climbing case:

(C) If I were to fall while climbing, I would have lost my grip immediately before falling.​

​

(D) I am strong, so if I were to fall while climbing, it would only be if I had been careless, allowing my rope to run over a sharp edge and thus be severed.​

Which sorts of narrations are permitted in RPGing? How do they relate to the resolution framework?

If time must always run forward in narration as it does in the fiction, then (A) and (C) are OK, but (B) and (D) are ruled out. (C) is OK, because the failed roll can be correlated with the loss of grip, and then the fall occurs and is resolved. But (D) is ruled out, because when the roll is failed D reaches back into the fiction's past, and the way the character has laid their rope, to explain the fall.

It seems like there's a possible temporal straight line

(D') I am strong so if I were to fall while climbing, my rope would have run over a sharp edge and been severed immediately before falling​

​

Arranging crash mats to be placed below implies an earlier action must have taken place. My rope running over a sharp edge is to do with the state of affairs now. Generally, I think (A) contains some unstated terms that account for plummeting to my death, beyond only that I jumped out of the window. For example

(B') If I were to jump out the window, I would be fine - because I live on the ground floor​

​

(A) implies unstated causes like gravity and that the window is high enough that defenestrating oneself would be fatal. Consider

(A') If I were to jump out the window, I would plummet to my death - because I live in a tenth floor apartment and am subject to gravity​

​

(B') and (A') seem equivalent to me, in terms of temporal straight lines.

I don't think the runes example changes temporality. The character expresses an informed hope that the runes will indicate a way out. It turns out that hope was right. Any disconnect is over whether the roll represents their luck or their expertise? I think either can be justified. Both, might be the best answer. As you point out, an expert in such things has a better hope than me of making a conjecture that turns out to be right.

 

[clearstream]

I love this.

I particularly love this because there are plenty of things that happen in "process" sim play that are absolutely in the vein of D. Almost all descriptions of weapon attacks end up working this way, for example.

I pointed out the RQ phasing upthread. It should not be pictured that non-engaged creatures run around while engaged-creatures are held frozen just as they about to strike. That is, time doesn't stop in RQ combat even if to ease the abstraction, the resolution of one thing might wait upon the resolution of another that lacks any causal relationship to it.

 

[Enrahim]

It's the hope arrived by a Solitary Traveller who is a Cunning Expert. His hopes are likely to be accurate - it's not a punt in the dark.

"Hopes being accurate" doesn't make sense.

This is why I find this notion of "reality warping", "wishing ability" etc so frustrating. It is projecting something onto the resolution framework that is not part of it, while ignoring key parts of that same framework.

Nor is this the case in MHRP (and my fantasy hack of it).

The conjecture of a learned, experienced, trained etc person is more likely to be correct than the conjecture of an ignorant, inexperienced person.

The inference, If X is a disputed proposition of physics, and Einstein conjectured it to be true, then it is more likely to be true than one might otherwise suspect is sound. Einstein doesn't cause it to be true: but his genius as a physicist means that his conjectures tend to track the truth.

Likewise in the runes case: the conjectures as to meaning, from that particular PC, tend to track the truth. If it was highly unlikely that those runes in that place could reveal a way out, then the character wouldn't have conjectured that they do.

Exactly. A conjecture. Not a hope.

These two situations are very different: "OH, runes. I think from what I know from before that it might be some map. Hope I am right. Let me try to decipher them." and "OH, runes. Wonder what they say? A map would have been really nice now, fingers crossed".

Your description made it sound like a hope. If it was indeed a conjecture, that indeed might change everything.

----‐---------------
Edit: I went back, and found that the original formulation actually used was "guess"

One of the players (as his PC) guessed that these carvings might show a way out of the dungeon, and made a check to reduce/eliminate the complication. The check succeeded, and this established that his guess was correct.

However in trying to find this I also see that you have repeatedly refered to it as "hope". Maybe most importantly when you introduced this example into this thread:

That was resolved by the player declaring an action to read them, to see if his (and his PC's hope) that they might show a way out was correct.

This likely contributed to confusion, if you indeed have meant conjecture all the time.
---‐---------------------------

Now the runes are back in as "simulationist". After all, the world was "adhered" to.

Come on. I merely pointed out that whatever misguided argument might have been based on that rule 3 is completely invalid for the runes case. You still have a whole a whole barrage of other arguments based on various understandings of "similationist" to handle ;P

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I pointed out the RQ phasing upthread. It should not be pictured that non-engaged creatures run around while engaged-creatures are held frozen just as they about to strike. That is, time doesn't stop in RQ combat even if to ease the abstraction, the resolution of one thing might wait upon the resolution of another that lacks any causal relationship to it.

Well, I was mostly referring to D&D specifically. How one narrates an attack roll often invents an explanation after the fact which projects back into the past. Other similar things (as previously mentioned in this thread) include explanations for perception checks, especially failures.

 

[Enrahim]

That is what making a mechanic diegetic looks like. A milquetoast statement like "when the roll is a success, give narration that makes sense" is....not that. It's not enough. The GM may be speaking diegetically (their narration usually is meant to be accurate to the world regardless!), but the preceding mechanical expression is not diegetic.

I am confused. You seem to argue using the critical roll against the PC as an input to narrate something diegetic into the situation, makes this mechanics diegetic? I thought that was exactly what I tried to propose as the potential intended understanding of the terms?

And this can clearly happen in D&D?

So what isn't that doesn't pass muster? For the record I was contemplating editing the translated D&D example to "Make a diegetic narration that describe the aftermath of a failed climb attempt" to prevent time travel shenanigans, but found that formulation to be too limiting in terms of describing the "here and now" of the situation.

Is it this kind of trouble that make the formulation not pass muster? In that case I think you can easily find other common GM guidance that also indicate something to this effect, that can be added into the translation in order to make D&D recognisably "diegetic"..

 

[AlViking]

That's not true.

Any game which has mechanics which provide information as to how a result is achieved satsifies diegesis and any reasonable definition of simulation. I've provided numerous examples of both.

You're just unhappy because the definition doesn't include what you are doing.

Why would I be unhappy that there is a problem if I use a definition that you, and you alone, use? Unless, once again, you can show anywhere at all that the definition is more widely spread.

 

[Enrahim]

That's not true.

Any game which has mechanics which provide information as to how a result is achieved satsifies diegesis and any reasonable definition of simulation. I've provided numerous examples of both.

You're just unhappy because the definition doesn't include what you are doing.

"Every time a player sneezes (trigger), the torches to go out (result) as the god of fire briefly feints (information of how the result is acheived)"

"Everytime a player with glasses declare their character try to climb (trigger) their character fall down (result) as they are struck by lightning (information about how the result is acheived)"

I absolutely do not see what usefulness you can have in defining these mechanics as "satisfying diegesis", and I am pretty sure I have no problem coming up with a reasonable definition of simulation that these do not satisfy.

 

[Hussar]

If time must always run forward in narration as it does in the fiction, then (A) and (C) are OK, but (B) and (D) are ruled out. (C) is OK, because the failed roll can be correlated with the loss of grip, and then the fall occurs and is resolved. But (D) is ruled out, because when the roll is failed D reaches back into the fiction's past, and the way the character has laid their rope, to explain the fall.

I think this is an excellent point. How can something be diegetic in the game world if time runs backward? If the justification occurs only AFTER the result is known?

 

[clearstream]

Well, I was mostly referring to D&D specifically. How one narrates an attack roll often invents an explanation after the fact which projects back into the past. Other similar things (as previously mentioned in this thread) include explanations for perception checks, especially failures.

Rolling for hit locations in RQ projects back into the past. The furious melee freezes while unengaged creatures move. What players do around the table does not necessarily enforce a timeline for the imagined world. In the world of Glorantha, combat doesn't freeze or rewind to earlier moments.

Taking into consideration something you said above, I take process-simulation to include requirements of the game text (rather than the played-experience.) Upthread I referred to Redbook C&S. Notwithstanding that many of its mechanics are not readily brought to the table, it is held up as a good example of process-simulation.

I don't think anyone yet has offered a deconstruction of actual game text, that explains what it is about the Weather mechanic in D&D, the Weather mechanic in RQ, and the absence of a Weather mechanic in WHFRP, that makes only one of those fall entirely outside the envelope for process-simulation. It seems the presence of text that is / is-not cromulent guarantees neither inclusion nor exclusion as process-simulation.

I suspect that what the standard amounts to is a bundle of requirements: desirable features in some game mechanics are insufficient if they are marred by undesirable features in other game mechanics. And mechanics are not all given equal weight in this judgement.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No. It simply makes the simulation more plausible for you. Me too actually. But, it doesn't make it more simulationist since the trade off here is that by adding in all these extra elements, you force the DM to create a justification post hoc. Which makes the resulting information non-diegetic, and thus poor for simulationist games.

You might like it more, but, it's in no way a "better" or "worse" simulation.

You do not understand what simulation means. Simulation aims to mechanically represent the significant contributing elements that exist in the fiction. By omitting important elements such as difficulty of the task the simulation becomes much weaker.

How so? In earlier D&D, if you failed a skill check, it's because you were not skilled enough to succeed. Full stop. That's why retries are not allowed. Same in GURPS. Your chances of success are based entirely on your skill.

Which means that success or failure is informed by the mechanics. How did you succeed? You were skilled enough to succeed and any narration that is provided must include that information. If you failed? It's because you did not have sufficient skill to succeed. And any narration must include that information.

Even something as simple as Bend Bars, Lift Gates satisfies this. You get one chance to do lift a gate or bend a bar (or other extreme feats of strength and if you fail, you may not try again.

Or learning a new spell. If you fail your check (which is not modified in any way by the level of the spell) then you may not attempt to learn this spell again until you gain a level.

All sorts of examples of mechanics providing diegetic information.

And all of this is true even if you take difficulty into account, it merely means that we now have more information, as we know whether you were skilled enough to succeed in task of this difficulty. @Maxperson explained this in length and with greater patience I have.

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.

Like others have told you, this is simply not true. GURPS aims to be highly simulationistic, so of course it takes account the difficulty of the task and many other factors when calculating the odds of success.

Sigh.

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?

If you roll a 5 or less, you fell. What is the narrative? How did you decide that particular narrative? In what way do the mechanics determine any part of how you ended up falling? Note, you are not allowed, as the DM, in this scenario, to make anything up. Any reason for falling MUST be grounded in the mechanics for the mechanics to provide any diegetic information. You can expand on that information, certainly, but, the core of the information MUST be solely generated by the mechanics.

Otherwise, make naughty word up is diegetic and means that anything you make up is simulationist.

The rules tell what the skill measures and tell you what the DC measures. from these it is pretty obvious what sort of narrations are appropriate and which aren't. It is utterly wild to me that you think a context free percentile roll of paleo-D&D is simulationistic, but a roll that takes the situation into account is not. Like do you understand that you have ended up arguing that old school basic D&D is more simulationistic than GURPS? You have created your own definition which you inconsistently apply to the rules, working of which you do not comprehend. Like at this point you should just stop and reconsider your axioms.