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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Smaller bugs, like some sort of weird-ass mechas. It's skin suits and exoskeletons all the way down.

Edit: added an important hyphen.

No turtles? Bummer, I'll have to change my avatar.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Not so easy, is it. Far easier, and also far more flexible, is to leave it to the DM to fill in those bits as appropriate to the situation at hand. And yet, if the DM does it right, this can still end up very simulationist from the player's perspective (i.e. the perspective that matters)

So, essentially, simulation is just an illusion? So long as the DM maintains the illusion of simulation, and the players don't question it, then it's simulation?

Not sure how much folks would agree with that stance. It's simulation just because the players say so? And if the players disagree with the DM's justification, it's no longer simulation? But, then, the players are never supposed to question the DM right? They are supposed to accept whatever justification the DM dishes out.

Not really a definition of simulation I'm comfortable with.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And what do you think operates the turtles? Bugs.

I wasn't happy with this answer, so I called customer service to complain, and Yog Sothoth answered. In the form of an infinite congeries of turtles filling all of time and space!

 

[Maxperson]

Without a Rosetta stone though, the initial transactions would sometimes require conjecture i believe. This symbol is here often, so more likely a vowel equivalent. This set of letters is often found on toilets, so likely indicates something to do with toilets, and can build from there.
While I have an issue around describing an archeologist as hoping runes mean something, and that driving any likelihood of it being so, I think you could fairly describe an archeologist as conjecturing runes mean something based on context, and it being so.

That's work at translation, though. Not conjecture. They're working on the vowels like you say, and then some consonants and trying to get a translation. Until they do, they aren't guessing at what the whole thing says or what it's about.

Now perhaps once they get a portion solidly translated they might begin conjecture as to the rest, but it's not going to happen as soon as they see the language, like happened with the runes. They aren't going to see something they haven't read or tried to translate and just say, "I think this is a history of Hobbits in the Mediterranean."

 

[Hussar]

That programming then produces output - graphics and numbers - that appear on the screen and to which the user can then react; and it's this output-production phase that's analagous to the DM narrating the how and why of the mechanics-generated result.

No. And that's the problem. It's not analogous. Because it happens BEFORE the results. Why did you crash? Well, your altitude was too low. Or maybe your plane stalled. Or maybe whatever. The program tells you HOW you crashed long before you actually crash. That's the point of a simulation.

What you are saying is that the flight sim would have you crash, then afterwards, tell you that you stalled. Or maybe you flew into a bird. Or maybe something failed on the plane. We can never know since no information is produced before the result. That's why I keep harping on the idea of simulationist mechanics must provide some information beforehand. Not complete information (because I know that canard will get brought up again) but any information.

Heck, I'd even buy the argument about order of proceedure for WOtC D&D skills. I'd actually rather forgotten that there was actually an order of proceedure. So, sure, we can use that to produce some idea about why a check resulted in a failure. Less helpful for success maybe since the die roll comes first and the die roll is undefined, but, at least it's sort of nosing in the right direction.

 

[Hussar]

I would question that any simulation that is based on a complete ignorance of how certain results occur isn't much of a simulation. I mean, sure, I can say that it's going to rain tomorrow, but, I think it's probably better to listen to the weather people about their prediction. The reason we can reasonably predict the weather going out to several days or even weeks, is because of the massive amount of information being input into the model and a much, much greater understanding of what those things mean.

Again, if your car simulation just has a tire fall off the car without any explanation, and then backfills later to tell you why it happened, based entirely on whatever the narrator feels like saying, I'm going to say that's not much of a simulation.

 

[gban007]

That's work at translation, though. Not conjecture. They're working on the vowels like you say, and then some consonants and trying to get a translation. Until they do, they aren't guessing at what the whole thing says or what it's about.

Now perhaps once they get a portion solidly translated they might begin conjecture as to the rest, but it's not going to happen as soon as they see the language, like happened with the runes. They aren't going to see something they haven't read or tried to translate and just say, "I think this is a history of Hobbits in the Mediterranean."

Too much effort for me to try and go back to original one. But I think two differing levels of conjecture, with higher probability:

1. It is known runes , but not instantly recognizable but once take a look, may not be common language but one that thebPC does know at least rudimentarily to be able to form a conjecture and do a rough translation from.
2. It isn't known runes, but various people's have put runes at a similar position in on a wall at an intersection indicating way out, and may be same case here, so go in way one particular arrow like symbol isnpointing an trust it will take you out.

 

[Faolyn]

So, essentially, simulation is just an illusion? So long as the DM maintains the illusion of simulation, and the players don't question it, then it's simulation?

Not sure how much folks would agree with that stance. It's simulation just because the players say so? And if the players disagree with the DM's justification, it's no longer simulation? But, then, the players are never supposed to question the DM right? They are supposed to accept whatever justification the DM dishes out.

Not really a definition of simulation I'm comfortable with.

Simulation is an illusion, because you're just using the ideas the original writer came up with instead of the ideas the GM or players came up with.

My question to you is, why is simulation so important to you?

 

[Hussar]

Simulation is an illusion, because you're just using the ideas the original writer came up with instead of the ideas the GM or players came up with.

My question to you is, why is simulation so important to you?

I'd point out that I'm not the only one in this conversation, so, it's obviously important to more than just me.

But, for me, the point of the conversation is to determine what differentiates simulation from just playing the game. Every RPG has situation resolution mechanics. Every RPG has some sort of mechanic for determining success or failure of an action taken within the game. Whether it's FKR's judge, or a Jenga tower, a magic 8-ball, D-Wayne, or a thousand other ways, they all essentially do the same thing - the player declares they are trying to do something and the mechanics tell us whether or not they succeed.

Fair enough. No problem. But, if sim is just illusionism (defined by the pretense that the DM is doing anything other than just making stuff up) then isn't simulation meaningless? If all I have to do to maintain simulationism in a game is have players who buy my line of justifications, that means that every single game out there is a simulation. After all, presumably @pemerton's players aren't disbelieving him when he declares that the runes are what the player suggested they were. His players are content, so, it's a simulation? Why is anyone contradicting him?

Same with the Lock and the Cook. The players don't have a problem with it, so, it's simulation? But, if the players have a problem, then it stops being simulation? That can't be right.

If simulation is to have any actual meaning, it has to be differentiated from just playing the game. If there's no difference based on system, no difference based on mechanics, but, the only difference is, "Well, it's simulationist because I say it is" then the term is pointless. It's just tribalism. "I like this game. I don't like that narrative stuff, so, what i like must be simulationist." is not a productive definition.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Simulation is an illusion, because you're just using the ideas the original writer came up with instead of the ideas the GM or players came up with.

My question to you is, why is simulation so important to you?

I suspect he's arguing with people for whom it is important that they're kidding themselves. I think that's a bad way to argue, but what do I know, most of the people in this thread seem to be arguing in weird ways to no good purpose.