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

[Hussar]

"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.

Wow. Just how much straw are you piling on there.

What mechanics are you referring to? Can you give me an example of a mechanic like that?

See, unlike @AlViking, I've actually provided several clear examples of how diegetic mechanics actually work. He has yet to provide a single example of how his mechanics actually work while creating diegetic information.

In fact, so far, no one has actually managed to produce any actual examples of how post hoc justification where the DM narrates after the result satisfies the definition of diegetic.

 

[AlViking]

Agreed. So what does the die roll represent? It cannot represent skill or ability because those are already represented. Rules of the game say that sources cannot stack. So you cannot count ability or skill twice. So what does the die represent if it's not everything other than ability and skill. And, since it's EVERYTHING else, then magical pixies are back on the menu. Never minding that "crumbling rocks" or "broken rope" are not part of the measurement of skill or natural talent. Those are outside the scope of those criteria. I totally agree that they are within the scope of the die roll. Absolutely. Because the die roll represents everything OTHER than skill or ability.

Which means that the die roll doesn't actually provide any guidance as to why you succeeded or failed. It can't because it encompasses all possible justifications. Why did you succeed? Well, it cannot be just your skill and ability since the die roll was required. What does the die roll represent? Everything that isn't skill or ability. Magical pixies again.

Have you ever played billiards? You know, hit the white ball with a cue trying to hit another ball into a pocket, called pool in the US? I play now and then and even though I'm not as good as I used to be I'm reasonably proficient. There are a lot of things you can do to improve your skill with better techniques for understanding spin and controlling your stroke. All of that greatly increases the odds of success but nobody is perfect.

That's what the skill system in D&D is trying to model. That human baseline aptitude at a task, the proficiency at the task gained through practice and repetition, with a dose of human imperfection and random chance. We attribute shots that work or miss to luck but it's really just how well the shot was lined up and executed. After the fraction of a second the cue tip contacts the cue ball, the table doesn't change the balls don't change, it's all down to physics. We can call it luck but it's really just that humans are imperfect which sometimes works in our favor, sometimes it doesn't. Some things are practically guaranteed to work, sometimes we make a minor miscalculation or error in execution, sometimes we just happen to do it right despite all our ineptitude.

If I miss a shot? I can tell you how easy or difficult the shot was from my perspective. But any explanation for why I missed the shot really just comes down to "I didn't hit the cue ball quite right".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

While true, as I have previously argued, the actual issue with picking a lock is not whether you are capable of doing so. As long as someone is generally well-practiced with picking locks, and they actually do have the tools necessary to pick a specific lock (meaning, they're not being asked to pick a disc detainer lock when they only have standard pin-tumbler/wafer/dimple locks), the only relevant concern is how long it will take them to pick it. An experienced picker focused on speed over all other concerns can pick an unknown lock in minutes, perhaps seconds for very weak locks. An inexperienced picker, or one facing a type of lock they haven't seen before, might take quite a bit longer--but as long as those two criteria are met (have the tools, have the training), nearly all locks are 100% pickable by almost anyone, skill level just determines the amount of time it takes.

Given previous examples explicitly said that the person attempting the pick the lock did in fact have a real chance of picking it, even the alternative notion you're implying is substantially unlike the real world--whereas, in actual practice, what will affect a lockpicker trying to pick their way into a home....is going to be whether someone notices their attempted burglary.

Which, I'll note, was explicitly rejected as being un-simulation-y, even though it is, in fact, more like reality than the idea that a certain lock is simply beyond person A's skills to pick, despite having all relevant tools and training.

I don't think I ever commented the cook example. I do not think that using the roll to measure the time being used is non-simulationistic. Now if the roll also generates someone to be there to notice it, it might get iffy, but I think this is more about the "zoom level" of the game rather than whether or not it is a simulation.

Well. Assuming that the inclusion actually does move closer to the goal of simulation.

As noted above, it is entirely possible for something to feel like a better simulation, despite actually being objectively less like reality. Hence my reference to participant knowledge mattering. If you don't know anything at all about lockpicking, it seems perfectly reasonable that two people of fairly equivalent experience and access to the necessary tools could end up discovering that one lacks some key insight that the other possesses, and thus one can pick the lock while the other can't. Having been exposed to the amateur lockpicking world and dug deeper into this...I know that that's simply, and objectively, false. Two people of similar experience will be able to pick more or less all the same locks--exceptions will be very, very rare, and usually involve locks specifically designed to break or seize when picked, which contravenes the described examples anyway.

I harp on this specifically because it so clearly illustrates the fundamental disconnect between the way (process) "simulation" is talked about, and the way it's actually done in practice. Folks, here and elsewhere, talk about it as though its target were to resemble objective, observable truths and verifiable logic as much as humanly possible. This is false. It would be lovely if it were true, but it isn't. What people actually want is the feeling that it resembles objective, observable truths and verifiable logic. The unkind way of phrasing that is "truthiness"; my preferred way is "groundedness".

Something can be objectively disconnected from how reality works--genuinely in defiance of known, albeit obscure, data--but still feel "realistic" or "verisimilitudinous" because it matches our intuitions and allows us to apply intuitive, naturalistic reasoning to such situations in a (in-the-fiction) consistent way. That's because it feels grounded, even if we later learn that it isn't actually how things work. Groundedness is influenced by IRL truth, but not determined by it. It's mostly a function of intuition and received wisdom.

I actually agree with some of what you're saying here. I think the issue most easily arises in hyper specific systems such as Rolemaster, that go into very great detail about everything and give very specific answers which nevertheless might be "wrong" given the context. This is one reason why I approach more broad-stokes simulation that leaves the details more malleable, so that the mechanic can represent different situations.

Of course, simulation does not necessarily be accurate into the real world realism, as long as it sufficiently represents how the things work in the given fictional setting.

 

[AlViking]

Wow. Just how much straw are you piling on there.

What mechanics are you referring to? Can you give me an example of a mechanic like that?

See, unlike @AlViking, I've actually provided several clear examples of how diegetic mechanics actually work. He has yet to provide a single example of how his mechanics actually work while creating diegetic information.

In fact, so far, no one has actually managed to produce any actual examples of how post hoc justification where the DM narrates after the result satisfies the definition of diegetic.

You've repeatedly stated your definition but have never provided any reference to an external source that supports your definition.

 

[Enrahim]

Wow. Just how much straw are you piling on there.

What mechanics are you referring to? Can you give me an example of a mechanic like that?

I hereby declare the two previously posted mechanics the entirety of my new "game". I call it "The diegetic dumpster fire" (TDDF).

I am refering to the mechanics of the game TDDF. Surely you have heard about it? It isn't very popular though. Might be because the mechanics really stinks to high heaven. I cannot understand why anyone would ever want to make a game like that. But seemingly they did. I guess it must have been to prove a point or something.

See, unlike @AlViking, I've actually provided several clear examples of how diegetic mechanics actually work. He has yet to provide a single example of how his mechanics actually work while creating diegetic information.

And I just gave you two new from my brand new game TDDF! Are you not proud of me?

In fact, so far, no one has actually managed to produce any actual examples of how post hoc justification where the DM narrates after the result satisfies the definition of diegetic.

Of course not! You have defined the only valid justification for something to be called diegetic that the rules said so.

That is if in D&D I declare in advance "To resolve your climb we are now using the following rule: On a failed check your character grabbed a loose rock, and fell. On a success your character avoided all hasards and got to the top. Now roll" Then suddently you have something "diegetic"! And this is completely useless compared with describing it afterward. There are no important difference in what you say before roll and after roll, and hence the ordering of statement and roll is completely irrelevant to what is actually happening in the fiction.

 

[AlViking]

I don't think I ever commented the cook example. I do not think that using the roll to measure the time being used is non-simulationistic. Now if the roll also generates someone to be there to notice it, it might get iffy, but I think this is more about the "zoom level" of the game rather than whether or not it is a simulation.



I actually agree with some of what you're saying here. I think the issue most easily arises in hyper specific systems such as Rolemaster, that go into very great detail about everything and give very specific answers which nevertheless might be "wrong" given the context. This is one reason why I approach more broad-stokes simulation that leaves the details more malleable, so that the mechanic can represent different situations.

Of course, simulation does not necessarily be accurate into the real world realism, as long as it sufficiently represents how the things work in the given fictional setting.

This tangent was taken from discussions of fail forward techniques. There's nothing wrong with those techniques (even if I don't really take them into consideration) but it's basically that if a character fails at the task and the fiction of the world changes so that something happens other than just the task failing. So in the example of trying to pick a lock, the door remaining locked is "boring" and something that should be avoided. The details of how this happens varies depending on the source.

The first page of examples I found when I searched "RPG fail forward":

• Change the fiction based on the failure with no in-world justification such as the cook only being in the kitchen on a failure[1].
• Allow success but apply a penalty directly to the attempt[2].
• Allow the check to work but apply some other penalty not directly tied to the attempt[3].
• Failing should not stop the action but there should be some way of making it interesting by adding some sort of complication, raising the stakes or charging for success[4].

It's not like all of the examples are consistent, other than that whichever one I bring up I'm typically told that I'm wrong and simply don't understand. At least that has been consistent.

The point is that because I try to use a simulationist approach the result of any action is limited to the action attempted. The only thing that happens if a character fails that sleight of hand to open the lock is that the door remains locked. Because I use a sandbox approach there may be a window they may or may not have noticed before attempting to unlock the door. In cases they can't break in and fail to achieve a particular goal and can try something else to achieve the goal or pursue a different goal.

 

[Hussar]

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.




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.



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.



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.

I'm really, really tired of arguing with people about mechanics of games they obviously don't play. Reread the quoted section above from the GURPS rules. They don't actually say what you think they say. But, hey, what do I know? I've only played GURPS off and on for the past thirty years or so. I'm completely off base and have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm sure that people doing a thirty second text search after pulling up a pdf know so much more about how systems work.

 

[Hussar]

Have you ever played billiards? You know, hit the white ball with a cue trying to hit another ball into a pocket, called pool in the US? I play now and then and even though I'm not as good as I used to be I'm reasonably proficient. There are a lot of things you can do to improve your skill with better techniques for understanding spin and controlling your stroke. All of that greatly increases the odds of success but nobody is perfect.

That's what the skill system in D&D is trying to model. That human baseline aptitude at a task, the proficiency at the task gained through practice and repetition, with a dose of human imperfection and random chance. We attribute shots that work or miss to luck but it's really just how well the shot was lined up and executed. After the fraction of a second the cue tip contacts the cue ball, the table doesn't change the balls don't change, it's all down to physics. We can call it luck but it's really just that humans are imperfect which sometimes works in our favor, sometimes it doesn't. Some things are practically guaranteed to work, sometimes we make a minor miscalculation or error in execution, sometimes we just happen to do it right despite all our ineptitude.

If I miss a shot? I can tell you how easy or difficult the shot was from my perspective. But any explanation for why I missed the shot really just comes down to "I didn't hit the cue ball quite right".

Really? The only reason you missed the shot is because you didn't hit the cue right? There is no other possible explanation?

But, again, the mechanics in D&D DON'T TELL YOU THAT. All they tell you is that you missed the shot. They are completely silent as to why you missed the shot. They don't, at any point, provide a single piece of evidence as to why your shot missed. Not only that, but the die roll that we use to randomize attempts DOES NOT REPRESENT ONLY SKILL. Despite @Maxperson's claims, that's simply not true. The die roll includes every possible reason why you missed the shot. Maybe there was a loud noise that distracted you and you missed your shot. Maybe the table is not perfectly true (a very real possiblity in any public venue) and you missed because the cushions are dead. Maybe your cue isn't true - again a very real possibility when playing on a bar table or whatnot.

There are many, many reasons you might miss that shot. That's what the die roll represents. What the die roll doesn't tell you though, is WHICH explanation is true. All you are told is that you missed. And any explanation you come up with for why you missed is just pulled out of thin air. It's not connected to anything because you have no information with which to base your narration off of. A simulationist mechanic actually DOES provide that information. Not all of it of course. Just enough to discount some of the very large number of possible explanations.

GURPS, with it's levels of success and failure rules presents this information in a pretty clear way. Old school D&D does it by saying that the mechanics only give one possible reason and thus retries are impossible. There's a million ways a system COULD provide that information. It's just that D&D doesn't do any of them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm really, really tired of arguing with people about mechanics of games they obviously don't play. Reread the quoted section above from the GURPS rules. They don't actually say what you think they say. But, hey, what do I know? I've only played GURPS off and on for the past thirty years or so.

I've played it a lot. Not for a while though, but I know how it works. You of course do not need to apply the difficulty modifier, just like in D&D 5e the GM can just declare that all skill checks are at DC 15, but that is not how either of these games are meant to be played and would definitely make them a weaker as simulations.

I'm completely off base and have no idea what I'm talking about.

Finally we agree on something, and on this cordial note it might be the best to end this exchange.

 

[clearstream]

Simulation aims to mechanically represent the significant contributing elements that exist in the fiction.

I have only the most niggling of disagreements with your otherwise neat formulation. Process-simulation aims to mechanically represent the significant contributing elements that exist in the fiction.