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

[EzekielRaiden]

I would say the check mechanics do provide some information, if we accept certain GM guidelines is in play. For one thing it has been argued that what the inputs to the check is (skill, particular difficult or simplifying circumstances, magical bonuses etc) should inform the narration. I would argue that what is considered valid inputs to a mechanic is part of the mechanic. The "output" of success/failure is an important modulator, but it isn't the entirety of the mechanic.

I am heading off to bed, but I will at least give a quick reply to this part (have not read much more of this post): I don't agree with this.

I don't see those "inputs" as being part of the mechanic. When we do that, again, it looks like any mechanic which ever involves any amount of in-world information whatsoever....which should be every mechanic, even ones people super duper ultra dislike for not being properly/sufficiently connected to the world....then it's necessarily diegetic and thus anything is diegetic if the designer puts even the tiniest thought to it. That is, now every roll based on any number that comes from a character's sheet is definitionally diegetic, and I don't buy that for a second.

If you like, I see this as now the designer (which one might call "Director's Notes" if we continue the film analogy) giving the proverbial "voiceover" that Jane has heard the music all her life. That is, the designer doesn't get a "get out of design free card" just by having any reference, however trivial, to some input coming from the fictional world. That surely can't be enough, we need not just more than that, but a lot more than that.

 

[clearstream]

Not sure I quite understand what you mean. "Played experience" immersion etc, is very subjective. I don't think that has bearing on whether the mechanic is a simulation or not. More simulative mechanics feel more immersive to many people (to me as well, to a certain point) but that is just a personal quirk, not a quality of the mechanics.

(Emphasis mine.) I agree that one can have a coherent notion of what "simulationism" is, that ignores played-experience. Such notions won't satisfy me because I think that what I label as "simulationism" in the context of TTRPG ought to include played-experiences, and indeed I observe a set of experiences that folk regularly associate with the label. Terminating the design intent at the text doesn't make all that much sense, to me.

I am left wondering what makes the final sentence worth writing if in using "simulationist" mechanics any feelings of immersion are down to personal quirks? One might as well say that during sessions of play using "simulative mechanics" one sometimes enjoys an aged stilton on a salted cracker. I suspect that "many" there does not mean most; not that it needs to.

 

[Maxperson]

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 is literally nothing in the rules to back up that claim. Not one thing. On the other hand, I've shown you the ability check rules that say all of the ability check is based in skill, and when you look at the rules, that includes the d20.

Do you have anything from the rules that backs you up? Because I can't find anything. Even the process of play just says that the DM narrates the results, not the DM can narrate any result he dreams up.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

(Emphasis mine.) I agree that one can have a coherent notion of what "simulationism" is, that ignores played-experience. Such notions won't satisfy me because I think that what I label as "simulationism" in the context of TTRPG ought to include played-experiences, and indeed I observe a set of experiences that folk regularly associate with the label. Terminating the design intent at the text doesn't make all that much sense, to me.

You don't need to terminate the design intent, but that's where I terminate the definition of word "simulation." I you want to have a design intent for immersion, then call it that, but as there is no universal way immersion is achieved, so designing for such is a tad difficult.

I am left wondering what makes the final sentence worth writing if in using "simulationist" mechanics any feelings of immersion are down to personal quirks? One might as well say that during sessions of play using "simulative mechanics" one sometimes enjoys an aged stilton on a salted cracker. I suspect that "many" there does not mean most; not that it needs to.

There is causation with immersion and simulation, it just is a subjective one. There probably is not such with the Stilton.

I think the label is still useful. As I know that I find simulationist mechanics immersive (unless they are too crunchy and bore me to tears like Rolemaster,) if someone tells me that their new rules light game is simulationistic, I know it might be worth playing for me if my goal is immersion (and it almost always is.)

 

[Enrahim]

I am heading off to bed, but I will at least give a quick reply to this part (have not read much more of this post): I don't agree with this.

I don't see those "inputs" as being part of the mechanic. When we do that, again, it looks like any mechanic which ever involves any amount of in-world information whatsoever....which should be every mechanic, even ones people super duper ultra dislike for not being properly/sufficiently connected to the world....then it's necessarily diegetic and thus anything is diegetic if the designer puts even the tiniest thought to it. That is, now every roll based on any number that comes from a character's sheet is definitionally diegetic, and I don't buy that for a second.

If you like, I see this as now the designer (which one might call "Director's Notes" if we continue the film analogy) giving the proverbial "voiceover" that Jane has heard the music all her life. That is, the designer doesn't get a "get out of design free card" just by having any reference, however trivial, to some input coming from the fictional world. That surely can't be enough, we need not just more than that, but a lot more than that.

I agree to the last, but not the first.

I think I am now ready to propose my own attempt at defining "diegetic" in context of mechanics:
For a mechanic to be "diegetic" it is required that all input to the mechanics is diegetic (in-fiction elements, knowable by people in the fiction) + a randomiser. This would for instance exclude dread, where there is a minor player skill element going into mechanics. Player or DM preferences are not allowed to enter it either. Safeguarding against a corrupt referee is generally not practically possible, but if a DM let their preferences affect the mechanics, the result is no longer "diegetic".

Furthermore for a mechanic to be "diegetic" it is required that all possible outcomes from the mechanics must be possible to understand trough a diegetic causality perspective from the inputs to the outputs. This excludes for instance pink elephants coming out of your nose as an outcome from a sneezing table in a setting supposed to simulate reality. In a simulation of a dream world this might be an acceptable outcome, as the dreamer might consider this kind of causality perfectly as expected. However, the output do not need to contain any more information than a simple binary "yes/no".

These two conditions are sufficient for a mechanics to be "diegetic".

And some suggested relations to other relevant terms:
An activity guided only by diegetic mechanisms is a simulation.
A RPG need non-diegetic mechanisms, as otherwise it would hardly count as a "game".
A game with no diegetic mechanisms cannot be called "simulationistic".
Simulationistic play is play dominated by diegetic mechanisms.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I don't know the specifics of what those do, so all I can do is go by the words used as words have meaning. Solitary Traveler is one who travels alone. I have no idea what someone traveling by himself has to do with runes that can literally say anything and be magical or non-magical. Cunning Expert sounds like someone who might be able to read runes, but how does being a cunning expert make it more likely that some guy inscribing runes ages ago is going to inscribe what he hopes to be there? It doesn't sound like he has influence over the guy in the past to make him write what he wants the runes to say.

It certainly sounds like a punt in the dark.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

There's nothing about narrating the result of the action after the roll that indicates time is running backwards. The closest thing to a time rewind in 5e is the shield spell that unwinds an attack that already hit to retroactively make it a miss.

 

[clearstream]

I agree to the last, but not the first.

I think I am now ready to propose my own attempt at defining "diegetic" in context of mechanics:
For a mechanic to be "diegetic" it is required that all input to the mechanics is diegetic (in-fiction elements, knowable by people in the fiction) + a randomiser. This would for instance exclude dread, where there is a minor player skill element going into mechanics. Player or DM preferences are not allowed to enter it either. Safeguarding against a corrupt referee is generally not practically possible, but if a DM let their preferences affect the mechanics, the result is no longer "diegetic".

Furthermore for a mechanic to be "diegetic" it is required that all possible outcomes from the mechanics must be possible to understand trough a diegetic causality perspective from the inputs to the outputs. This excludes for instance pink elephants coming out of your nose as an outcome from a sneezing table in a setting supposed to simulate reality. In a simulation of a dream world this might be an acceptable outcome, as the dreamer might consider this kind of causality perfectly as expected. However, the output do not need to contain any more information than a simple binary "yes/no".

These two conditions are sufficient for a mechanics to be "diegetic".

And some suggested relation to other relevant terms:
An activity guided only by diegetic mechanisms is a simulation.
A RPG need non-diegetic mechanisms, as otherwise it would hardly count as a "game".
A game with no diegetic mechanisms cannot be called "simulationistic".
Simulationistic play is play dominated by diegetic mechanisms.

I suggest amending the text I bolded to

"Simulationistic" game text is text dominated by "diegetic mechanisms".

Either that or say what it means for play to be "dominated" by the mechanisms? Does it mean that most of the time at the table is spent twiddling with them, as most of what happens to characters is covered by them? That sounds like a boardgame rather than a TTRPG. Are you thinking about games like Magic Realm, Heroquest and Gloomhaven?

 

[AlViking]

There's nothing about narrating the result of the action after the roll that indicates time is running backwards. The closest thing to a time rewind in 5e is the shield spell that unwinds an attack that already hit to retroactively make it a miss.

If I don't get the 8 ball in the corner pocket while playing pool, I can look at the result and narrate where I went wrong. No time running backwards required.

Interrupts are a bit weird, but that's just because of the nature of play at the table and compromises made to keep the game flowing.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think we always have some things that are settled in the game world and some things that are not settled. One question that raises is whether it can be a feature of a "simulative mechanic" that it can migrate something from not-settled, to settled? When I reflect on that I wonder how simulative mechanics are to matter to play at all, if their results cannot settle that which was not-settled?

Let’s look at a mechanic without a randomizer for it occurring.

Say falling damage in d&d. If you fall the proper distance it just happens. When did that mechanic (and the ones triggered by enough hp loss) settle what happened?

Did someone have to narrate that for it to be settled or does the mere existence of such a mechanic pre-settle what occurs in that situation?

As such, the whole point of the simulative mechanic is to settle what happens before hand, and so asking at the moment they are invoked if they settle that which was not settled seems to presuppose that their mere existence didn’t already settle that which was not settled absent them.