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

[pemerton]

It is frustrating how these discussions go:
"I think I'd prefer a tad more simulationism than a game X offers"

See, I generally prefer more simulation that D&D offers, which is one reason why I play and enjoy Burning Wheel and Torchbearer 2e.

Then I get told they're not simulationist, whereas D&D is!

Given that both systems have bucketloads of process sim (in PC build, in action resolution) compared to D&D, I conclude that for the poster in question "simulation" means "backstory/setting only ever flows from GM to players".

 

[Maxperson]

See, I generally prefer more simulation that D&D offers, which is one reason why I play and enjoy Burning Wheel and Torchbearer 2e.

Then I get told they're not simulationist, whereas D&D is!

Given that both systems have bucketloads of process sim (in PC build, in action resolution) compared to D&D, I conclude that for the poster in question "simulation" means "backstory/setting only ever flows from GM to players".

Is this "buckets of sim" like the mechanic you showed earlier and claimed was sim, that was virtually identical to the D&D mechanic that you guys claim isn't sim?

 

[pemerton]

I am not quite sure what sort of retrocausality you see happening here.

The GM calls for a WIS (Perception) check. The player fails, and so their PC fails to notice something. The GM narrates that as "While you were <doing X?" or "Because you were <distracted by Y>".

The PC's activity, which explains why they didn't notice the thing in question, is introduced into the fiction now, although it a fact about the "past" rather than the "now" of the fiction.

The earliest discussion of this I know of is in Gygax's DMG, under the surprise rules - although Gygax doesn't see it as a problem. I think Gygax had a good sense of how demanding strict process-simulation is, and so deliberately declined to insist on it in his own game design.

 

[pemerton]

What are you talking about? I can point to my rogue's hands, feet and rope with the grappling hook as well. And also the rough cliffside full of handholds and nooks for my feet that the DM narrated. Then I will point to his experience which gives him higher proficiency(specialization at the skill) and expertise which makes him an expert climber. Then his reliable talent which makes his roll a minimum of 10. After that I can point you to his 16 dex which gives him natural talent and training for the other two to build off of.

What handholds did your rogue use? Which fingers? What sorts of grips? How did they use their legs, vs their arms and shoulders? I've never seen a climb resolved in a RPG which specified any of these things.

Likewise, I've never seen a fight resolved in a RPG which specified the exact position of a combatant's feet, the alignment of their body, the way they used their hips, shoulders and wrist, etc.

What he did to succeed was climb up the wall using those things.

No. They are specific reasons which make him a better fighter than a 1st level fighter. They aren't some circular reasoning based around some nebulous title like Cunning Expert.

Being 8th level rather than 1st level is no different from being a Cunning Expert compared to a Cunning Rookie. They're just game terms. Being 8th level brings extra hit points and attack bonus. Being an Expert rather than a Rookie gives you a d8 rather than a d6.

In the fiction, the Expert sees things and knows things, and makes inferences, that are beyond the Rookie.

 

[Maxperson]

What handholds did your rogue use? Which fingers? What sorts of grips? How did they use their legs, vs their arms and shoulders? I've never seen a climb resolved in a RPG which specified any of these things.

What did your expert have for breakfast? Who was his mother? Why does he hate his father? What sort of mole does he have on his left butt cheek? Why ask why? Inquiring minds want to know!!

This pedantic questioning for ever smaller details in an effort to win the internet is getting old.

Being 8th level rather than 1st level is no different from being a Cunning Expert compared to a Cunning Rookie. They're just game terms. Being 8th level brings extra hit points and attack bonus. Being an Expert rather than a Rookie gives you a d8 rather than a d6.

In the fiction, the Expert sees things and knows things, and makes inferences, that are beyond the Rookie.

Put up dude. I showed you the mechanics of mine. You show me the mechanics of yours that make you the expert you are.

 

[Hussar]

I do agree, and sim is fine--I always like having some more information, as long as I'm not restricted to that info. It's just that Hussar seems to be taking it to an extreme level. That unless the game very clearly spells out how something worked, it's useless from a sim point of view. It's why I keep pointing out that you can do the math in 5e to show why you failed or succeeded. It's not spelled out, but the info is there. Or like in your example. I'd agree that in a fantasy game, if a character walked off a cliff and didn't fall, I would conclude it's magic (unless, of course, something else has or was about to be established--maybe it's not magic anti-grav, but an invisible bridge). But I get the feeling that Hussar would say that because you didn't specifically say that there was magic involved, even though it was a magical world, that it wasn't sim and that it was just the GM making stuff up.

Why does everyone take what I'm saying to the most extreme level?

ANY.

Must provide ANY information. Doesn't matter how small. Doesn't matter how accurate. It just has to provide ANY information to guide the narrative.

How is this "extreme"? How is that "clearly spells out"?

This is the most frustrating thing about this thread. The ridiculous strawmen arguments that are getting made here.

How many times do I have to clarify my position?

 

[pemerton]

What did your expert have for breakfast? Who was his mother? Why does he hate his father? What sort of mole does he have on his left butt cheek? Why ask why? Inquiring minds want to know!!

This pedantic questioning for ever smaller details in an effort to win the internet is getting old.

You are asserting that you can tell me how your rogue climbed the wall. But you can't! All you can say is that, because the rogue is a good climber, they were able to climb the wall.

Put up dude. I showed you the mechanics of mine. You show me the mechanics of yours that make you the expert you are.

Cunning Expert d8.

 

[Gimby]

But making a declaration about something as immediately helpful as getting out of a dungeon changes the narrative, changes the current state of the fiction. It's a get out of jail free card that gets added, something I wouldn't do as a GM either.

Surely this only makes sense as a concern in terms of challenge base play? All play changes the narrative and the current state of the fiction. I hope you'd agree that the runes could possibly be helpful for one of many reasons - creation of fiction that makes them so is not implausible.

If the play isn't challenge based, then it doesn't matter at all whether the runes provide a benefit to the character - it's simply an advancement of the unfolding history of their actions and the world's reactions. Issues of fairness and mechanical benefit don't matter if we are simply interested in following that history - strokes of what appear to be great good luck are not uncommon in genre fiction.

From what @pemerton has described of this, the player is making good faith action declarations that follow the rules of the game they are playing. No cheating is involved, in so far as there is a mechanical challenge, the player is using their characters capabilities, leveraging an aspect of the environment in accordance with the rules for doing so in order to overcome the peril the character faces. I can see how this might appear to be "cheating", but I suspect it's not possible to get this kind of benefit without a check - so we might postulate a situation where a D&D player leverages some aspect of the environment to overcome a challenge without a check purely by negotiation with the DM (in the classic door spikes and 10 foot poles mode) which would in turn appear to be "cheating" (that is, in this case obtaining a mechanical advantage without a check) to players of @pemerton 's game.

 

[Hussar]

I don't want or need a rock climbing simulation. I want a fantasy novel or movie simulator. Growing up I wanted to play a character that can become Conan, The Gray Mouser or Aragorn. D&D does that for me even if I don't have a "why did you slip on the ice" chart.

IOW, you don't want simulationist mechanics.

Why is that hard to admit? You want the simulation to come from the DM. Great. No problem. But, what you don't want are mechanics that are simulationist.

 

[Maxperson]

Why does everyone take what I'm saying to the most extreme level?

ANY.

Must provide ANY information. Doesn't matter how small. Doesn't matter how accurate. It just has to provide ANY information to guide the narrative.

How is this "extreme"? How is that "clearly spells out"?

This is the most frustrating thing about this thread. The ridiculous strawmen arguments that are getting made here.

How many times do I have to clarify my position?

Yeah. You and I disagree about what constitutes "any," but you've been very consistent about the amount. Whoever you are talking to is off base if they are saying you are asking for an extreme level.