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

[Enrahim]

I am not quite sure what sort of retrocausality you see happening here. I don't see it. The events that could be noticed, the noticing (or lack of it) and the roll all happen basically at the same time. That we cannot practically do and describe all of them at once doesn't indicate any retrocausality.

I think in one example a Druid was narrated to be busy with a long term acrivity in camp. The perspective proposed would be that the reason they were distracted by this activity was that they didn't spot the aproaching threat. So the start of the activity the druid was busy with happened because of something that happened later. This is retrocausality.

Another way of seeing it is that you have a time period where you don't know what was happening. In order to deduce what happened you take information you have about the world that includes known facts about state after the time period to deduce what must have happened in the time period. In this perspective I would say there are no retrocausality.

I think both perception check and the runes example can be viewed both ways. The runes example however covers a wildly longer time span. It could be hard to argue at what point it became qualitatively different from the perception check case. Though one cut off I have proposed might be time periods that extend further back than the last narration (last time more clumsingly formulated as the granularity of resolution). @EzekielRaiden , do you have any example of perception checks or similar that requires retrocausality beyond the last narrated event? (Assuming we have diciplined participants that do not eagerly but prematurely start narrating before the dice hit the table)

 

[Umbran]

The resulting play may make for 'cool moments' but the pretense that there's anything other than GM authorship happening makes for appalling analysis.

Quite the opposite. It makes for interesting analysis - if your mind is open about what ought to be analyzed.

 

[Lanefan]

Who inscribes runes to show directions to the way out? If the creators are still there, they'd just tell you to take the east passageway. If they are writing their guests directions out on their walls for some bizarre reason, they'd use a common tongue so people could read them.

Maybe that was the common tongue, 5000 years ago......

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe that was the common tongue, 5000 years ago......

 

[clearstream]

I think both perception check and the runes example can be viewed both ways. The runes example however covers a wildly longer time span. It could be hard to argue at what point it became qualitatively different from the perception check case.

How is the timespan longer? What time passes in the imagined world if a step in our resolution establishes something narrated to be ten thousand years prior to 'now' for the characters, versus ten minutes?

Are you familiar with McTaggart's The Unreality of Time? It's not an explanation of time that is at issue here of course, but only to reveal a misstep in casual reasoning in order to unmoor conclusions based on it.

 

[Pedantic]

How is the timespan longer? What time passes in the imagined world if a step in our resolution establishes something narrated to be ten thousand years prior to 'now' for the characters, versus ten minutes?

Are you familiar with McTaggart's The Unreality of Time? It's not an explanation of time that is at issue here of course, but only to reveal a misstep in casual reasoning in order to unmoor conclusions based on it.

I don't understand this angle. All that matters is the subjective experience of the players here, not the immaterial nature of the fiction. Of course we could jump back and establish events from the distant past, and in theory we could go to any point in the timeline, but what bearing does that have on how the player feels about it?

Large jumps increase the feeling of unreality and distance from agency in events unfolding.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think in one example a Druid was narrated to be busy with a long term acrivity in camp. The perspective proposed would be that the reason they were distracted by this activity was that they didn't spot the aproaching threat. So the start of the activity the druid was busy with happened because of something that happened later. This is retrocausality.

Another way of seeing it is that you have a time period where you don't know what was happening. In order to deduce what happened you take information you have about the world that includes known facts about state after the time period to deduce what must have happened in the time period. In this perspective I would say there are no retrocausality.

I think both perception check and the runes example can be viewed both ways. The runes example however covers a wildly longer time span. It could be hard to argue at what point it became qualitatively different from the perception check case. Though one cut off I have proposed might be time periods that extend further back than the last narration (last time more clumsingly formulated as the granularity of resolution). @EzekielRaiden , do you have any example of perception checks or similar that requires retrocausality beyond the last narrated event? (Assuming we have diciplined participants that do not eagerly but prematurely start narrating before the dice hit the table)

Sorry, still not seeing it. Obviously the test can establish whether the character was distracted, at the moment of the test. There is nothing retrocausal about that.

The causal disconnect in the rune case is massive and quite impactful, like I have explained several times. It literally makes the player and character decision space to be completely different. Nothing of the sort happens in case of perception checks.

 

[pemerton]

It's the action of adding to the narrative things that are not justified by the fiction

"Justified by the fiction" here just seems to mean "authored by the GM" or "following more-or-less directly from something authored by the GM".

 

[Hussar]

The stricter a simulation is (whether it's simulating reality, fantasy, etc), the more everyone involved can rely on non-explicit communication from expectations. The looser a simulation is, the more a game will rely on rules, rulings, or other explicit communication so that everyone knows what's going on.

Not sure I agree with that part, although I do agree with everything else you said. But, then you're talking more about genre simulation, which isn't really a topic I've ever approached.

But, to me, if we're relying on non-explicit communications (as in the DM makes stuff up), then, unless the DM is an expert in the topic, I find it less of a simulation since no one actually knows what's going on until the DM tells them. With a tighter simulation, it's explicit what is going on, so, the DM isn't just making stuff up as they go along. We know why something happened because the mechanics in a small way give some guidance as to why.

 

[pemerton]

This basically says that he's able to make reasonable conjectures because he's able to make reasonable conjectures.

And? An 8th level fighter is able to beat Orcs because they're a good fighter. And they're a good fighter because they're a good fighter. No player of a fighter has to specify, in play, all the moves they make; has to factor in descriptions of what the Orc is doing, and respond to it.

Or think about climbing: the GM could present a picture of the wall to be climbed, ask the player to describe their route, and what moves their PC will make to ascend that route. I mean, this sort of planning of a climb is a thing that actual climbers do in the real world. But all the player has to do is roll their d20: and their PC is a good climber because they're a good climber.