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

[Faolyn]

Sorry. Nope. That's not how they work.

The DC is set by the skill of the character. Not by the task. It might be modified by the task, but, generally it isn't. If you are setting the DC by the task in GURPS, you are not playing the game as it is meant to be played. Same with early era D&D. The chance of the thief to open that lock is set by the level of the thief, NOT by any external factor. That's why retries are not allowed.

The GM doesn't set the difficulty in GURPS, but the GM can include penalties and bonuses to the difficulty based on external factors (page B345), which is effectively the same thing:

For instance, the Lockpicking skill description states, “-5 if working by touch (e.g., in total darkness).” This means that if you are working in the dark, you must subtract 5 from your Lockpicking skill for that attempt. If your Lockpicking skill is 9, you roll against 9 minus 5, or 4, in the dark.

A specific scenario might provide modifiers to allow for the relative ease or difficulty of a particular situation. For instance, an adventure might state that a lock is +10 to open due to the fact that it is primitive and clumsy. If your Lockpicking skill were 9, you would roll against 9 + 10, or 19. Since the highest roll possible on 3d is 18, it would seem that success is assured. This is almost true, but not quite – see Critical Failure (p. 348)

 

[Faolyn]

You have accused pemerton of persistently engaging in pedantry and now you are saying that he dodges questions like a pro. Could you maybe stop being so hostile and making it personal? You are personally not doing yourself any favors with this sort of behavior.

Edit: To be clear, I am not saying this in defense of pemerton, but, instead, in my hopes that someone I otherwise like would choose to behave better when it comes to how they choose to engage with others.

Look, I keep asking questions. Rather than say something like, "this question is wrong and it actually works like XYZ," he only says this question is wrong" and that's it.

For example, in the past, I have written things like "can the players do X?" and anyone else would understand that I mean the player characters and answer the question. Instead, pemerton says "The players can't do anything; it's the characters who do things." And then he doesn't actually say if the PCs can do X.

This is very much the equivalent of someone smugly saying "I don't know if you can, but you may."

In this case, I'm asking if the PCs would get to roll to see if a sign written in a language they understand means what they think it means (like they can when it was runes they didn't understand), or if he, the GM, has set the sign's meaning ahead of time. Instead of answering the question, he decided to talk about map-and-key gaming, which is completely unrelated to the question.

Especially since I know he's been at least skimming all the posts in this thread, maybe even reading them thoroughly, so he should know that you can completely improvise a sign that says "Exit This Way -->" without having to write it down ahead of time on a map, since that is something that's been brought up many times already.

So yeah, this is him completely dodging the question. I don't need to do myself any favors here because I've been dealing with this from him for over a thousand pages now.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Do you truly believe that all gamers think in exactly the same way? That there can only be one argument for or about it? That because some gamers say it's not simulationist that all gamers think that?

 

[clearstream]

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.

Player or DM preferences are not allowed to enter it either... if a DM let their preferences affect the mechanics, the result is no longer "diegetic".

Here is the text for RQ Dance skill

Dance (10) ​

This skill measures the adventurer’s ability to perform a dance—be it a social, ceremonial, erotic, martial, or sacred dance. The skill includes the knowledge of the different forms of dance known in the wider region (comparable to the Homelands described in this book).​

​

Dance may be used to evoke an emotional or magical response from its audience. For example, a dance may be used to inspire lust, wonder, or even to tell a story. Dance may be used to augment Magic skills or the chance of someone casting a spell. Finally, Dance may be augmented with the Sing skill (or vice versa) to increase the chance of success of either skill.​

​

A successful Dance skill evokes the desired emotional response from its audience. On a special success, the performance is extraordinary and accomplishes exactly what the adventurer intended. On a critical success, the dance evokes an intense emotional response from its audience: awe, lust, sadness, wonder, or whatever else the adventurer intends. The dancer gains a +25% bonus on all Communication rolls with the intended audience for a season.​

​

Dance is in the Communication Skills category meaning that it is modified by INT, POW and CHA. A character who desired to could start with around 40% in Dance. Communication Skills have the following general rule

An adventurer uses such skills to transmit by word or gesture their thoughts and desires to others. Good communication skills usually leave a good impression.​

Is Dance "simulationistic" according to your account? What are players and GM permitted to say as a result of an ordinary success with Dance? What about with an ordinary failure?

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.

However, the output do not need to contain any more information than a simple binary "yes/no".

It is possible in RQ to "Fumble" a roll to Dance.

Fumble​

If an adventurer can succeed spectacularly, they also can fail spectacularly. Such a failure is called a fumble. The possibility of fumbling extends beyond combat and applies to every ability roll made in the game.​

​

The chance of a fumble is equal to 5% of the adventurer’s chance of failure, and always occurs on a roll of “00”. As with the critical success and the special success, the chance for a fumble depends on the modified percentage roll for the situation, not on the adventurer’s normal chance with the ability.​

​

A fumble is the worst possible failure and usually has disastrous consequences. In an opposed roll, a fumble is always worse than a failure.​

​

When a success falls under multiple categories, always use the best result. Similarly, a failure should use the worst result.​

What is player or GM permitted to narrate for Dance on a Fumble? What are the possible outcomes?

 

[Enrahim]

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?

I think the scope of game text is covered to the degree I am comfortable with in the line above.

I agree "dominating" is not well defined, but I wanted to not dive into the details of these secondary terms before at least getting some feedback on the sanity of this approach to diegetic mechanics.

This line was an attempt to tie this proposed concept to the concept that play can be simulationistic. It is as such the simple possible connection I could find. I did not have any particular game in mind.

However I think the board games you describe do not typically qualify anyway. The main issue I see is that many of their mechanics is based on player input, where this input is expected to be based on the player's preference for winning. There is (also) typically a strong acceptance for using information the character would not have available, like distribution of cards in the heroquest treasure deck, to guide decissions.

This reflects how, in ttrpgs, simulationistic play typically assumes the player trying to pay at least some attention to what the character would do and why (hence making the player input diegetic). Could any of the board games be played that way? Possibly. But I think that would require expanding the fiction and characters with sufficient information that the players actually has a basis for more neutral assessing of character actions.

Anyway, I think what you are getting at is the density of mechanics, and I think that might not be important. That is the "dominating" part should be seen as restricted to the parts where mechanics is involved. Play that is not concerned with mechanics cannot really be classified in terms of a type of mechanics, I guess.

 

[Aldarc]

So yeah, this is him completely dodging the question. I don't need to do myself any favors here because I've been dealing with this from him for over a thousand pages now.

My problem has more to do with how you choose to engage him with personal attacks. If you feel that they are warranted, then don't let me stop you, but my prior respect for you is definitely going down as you do it regardless of whether you feel justified in doing it, which is a shame.

This is very much the equivalent of someone smugly saying "I don't know if you can, but you may."

Also you are doing it again.

 

[Enrahim]

Here is the text for RQ Dance skill

Dance (10) ​

This skill measures the adventurer’s ability to perform adance—be it a social, ceremonial, erotic, martial, or sacred dance. The skill includes the knowledge of the different forms of dance known in the wider region (comparable to the Homelands described in this book).​

​

Dance may be used to evoke an emotional or magical response from its audience. For example, a dance may be used to inspire lust, wonder, or even to tell a story. Dance may be used to augment Magic skills or the chance of someone casting a spell. Finally, Dance may be augmented with the Sing skill (or vice versa) to increase the chance of successof either skill.​

​

A successful Dance skill evokes the desired emotional response from its audience. On a special success, the performance is extraordinary and accomplishes exactly what the adventurer intended. On a critical success, the dance evokes an intense emotional response from its audience: awe, lust, sadness, wonder, or whatever else the adventurer intends. The dancer gains a +25% bonus on all Communication rolls with the intended audience for a season.​

​

Dance is in the Communication Skills category meaning that it is modified by INT, POW and CHA. A character who desired to could start with around 40% in Dance. Communication Skills have the following general rule

An adventurer uses such skills to transmit by word or gesture their thoughts and desires to others. Good communication skills usually leave a good impression.​

Is Dance "simulationistic" according to your account? What are players and GM permitted to say as a result of an ordinary success with Dance? What about with an ordinary failure?

I assume you mean "diegetic", as I have not tried to define the word "simulationistic" regarding rules. It might be they can be used interchangeably, but I am not certain given this thread ..

As far as I can see this rule appears "diegetic" as written. Pay in particular attention that the formulations specifies that it is what the adventurer intended that comes to pass on a special success.

It is a bit interesting in that the main success response seemingly affect the fiction with no further narration needed. The desired emotional response need to be specified at some point, and I presume runequest leave it to the player to determine that. The rule text quoted seem to be agnostic to the exact timing of when this desire is established. Further play should take into account this emotional response as input to whatever system is relevant (mechanical or otherwise).

A failure appear to not allow for any narration at all resulting from this mechanics as quoted. The dance has to happen in the fiction, so if that has not been narrated before resolution it might have to be narrated at this point. But no other fictional elements can be narrated as part of this mechanics - however other systems might allow for further narration.

It is possible in RQ to "Fumble" a roll to Dance.

Fumble​

If an adventurer can succeed spectacularly, they also can fail spectacularly. Such a failure is called a fumble. The possibility of fumbling extends beyond combat and applies to every ability roll made in the game.​

​

The chance of a fumble is equal to 5% of the adventurer’s chance of failure, and always occurs on a roll of “00”. As with the critical success and the special success, the chance for a fumble depends on the modified percentage roll for the situation, not on the adventurer’s normal chance with the ability.​

​

A fumble is the worst possible failure and usually has disastrous consequences. In an opposed roll, a fumble is always worse than a failure.​

​

When a success falls under multiple categories, always use the best result. Similarly, a failure should use the worst result.​

What is player or GM permitted to narrate for Dance on a Fumble? What are the possible outcomes?

First an important observation: Worst possible failure is almost certanly to mean in the context of the game, that is that the game do not provide any worse failure category than fumble.

As such I cannot determine from the quoted passages what would be acceptable to narrate on a fumble. If failures mandates or requires narration, the relevant text must be found elsewhere.

If I were to speculate I would guess it might be expressed or implied in some text regarding the GMs responsibilities. I would further expect this text to give broad permissions with regard to interpreting the text. As such I would be prone to interpret this this text as suggesting me to come up with something worse than nothing happens to narrate, and that I am given explicit encurragement (but not requirement) to make this something with disasterous consequences. Whatever I narrate it has to be recognisable as a failure. Moreover on an opposed roll I am required to come up with something that is as objectively as I can worse than what would have happened on a normal failure.

An interesting question is if whatever is narrated need to follow causally from the Dance? I would say the use of the word "consequence" strongly hints at it, though again as the actual mandate to narrate is found elsewhere it is a bit hard to conclude with certanty.

These are all interesting questions, but I am a bit curious why you ask about these possible outcomes? I expect you to not want an enumeration of bilions of posibilities, so did I answer in a way you hoped?

 

[clearstream]

This line was an attempt to tie this proposed concept to the concept that play can be simulationistic. It is as such the simple possible connection I could find. I did not have any particular game in mind.

What does "simulationistic" play look like? What sorts of testimony would amount to it?

 

[Enrahim]

What does "simulationistic" play look like? What sorts of testimony would amount to it?

Ah, thank you for reminding me! As I really like your suggestion regarding simulationistic experiences, I would rather have that as the defining trait of "simulationistic" play. This make the suggested connection between "diegetic" mechanics and simulationistic play not one of definition, but rather a conjecture that could be possible and very interesting to examine further!

 

[Umbran]

So yeah, this is him completely dodging the question. I don't need to do myself any favors here because I've been dealing with this from him for over a thousand pages now.

My problem has more to do with how you choose to engage him with personal attacks. If you feel that they are warranted, then don't let me stop you, but my prior respect for you is definitely going down as you do it regardless of whether you feel justified in doing it.


Also you are doing it again.

Mod note:
Both of you are making this personal.

You have a choice: use this moderation as an excuse to dial it back without losing much face (I am making you retreat, after all), or you can keep it up and we can alleviate the burden of you having to attack each other by booting you out of the discussion.

Your call, folks.