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

[Hussar]

I continue to feel doubts that you've adequately explained what you mean by "how the results are achieved". Can you extract a specific mechanic from one of those games and point to the parts that are telling you that?

I've answered this before but, okay.

A Dodge/Parry roll in combat rules is a simple rule. It clearly demonstrates how the mechanics can inform the narrative. GURPS and Palladium and Warhammer Fantasy all have this mechanic.

The absence of simulationist mechanics in one aspect of the game does not mean that the game lacks any simulationist mechanics. So, pointing to a mechanic where the the mechanics do not inform the narrative does not invalidate the other areas of the game where they do.

 

[Don Durito]

I've answered this before but, okay.

A Dodge/Parry roll in combat rules is a simple rule. It clearly demonstrates how the mechanics can inform the narrative. GURPS and Palladium and Warhammer Fantasy all have this mechanic.

The absence of simulationist mechanics in one aspect of the game does not mean that the game lacks any simulationist mechanics. So, pointing to a mechanic where the the mechanics do not inform the narrative does not invalidate the other areas of the game where they do.

This does to me seem to suggest that a game would only be simulationist when it takes the time to model a specific process like combat which I don't really agree with.

This to me seems to imply that skills systems aren't simulationist - where I don't think that's the case - I think it's just that in terms of skills it's easier to reach what feels like a satisfactory level of Sim in terms of outcomes.

When it comes to things like combat I think there are two things going on:
1) The desire to model the process itself.
2) The need for at least a degree of modelling or process to ensure desired outcomes are achieved - eg that armour works in the right way - and the system does not produce unintended outcomes.

In some cases there is a move away from 1 above because it can actually conflict with 2, or because it can lead to ballooning complexity. For example, a critical hit table provides information, but if I'm attacking with a mace and I roll a decapitation then it suddenly becomes obvious I need multiple critical hit tables or I need to step back a layer in abstraction.

Of course D&D combat neither models the process of combat particularly closely or simulates any particular outcomes (because D&D combat is not simulating anything in particular - unless we allow D&D to be treated as it's own genre and state that it is simulating itself).

 

[Hussar]

Your definition of simulation is that "If the numbers fall here it means X, if they fall hear it means Y" is completely arbitrary. If that works for you, great. For me? It's just an arbitrary and meaningless cutoff point. I don't care if some other games use similar criteria or a random chart, it can't give you the real reason for failure in the fiction because the real reason for failure is that the player didn't hit the correct range of numbers. Any other detail is just adding a meaningless layer of arbitrary made up fiction. I can't provide any examples because it's obvious you'll just say I'm wrong.

Have a good one.

I'd agree if that was actually the point I made.

But, as I have repeatedly stated, that's not the criteria for simulationist games. A sim game MUST provide ANY information about how a result was achieved. That's it. That's the sum total of requirements. Not arbitrary numbers. That's simply a simple example.

So, name two examples of sim leaning games where the mechanics provide no information about how a result is achieved. I've named several that do. So, where's your evidence other than, "I like sim games, I like D&D, therefore D&D is sim game"?

 

[Hussar]

But Einstein's insight into the speed of light and the very nature of what we consider space and time was that if you could travel close to the speed of light that everything would look perfectly normal to you because the speed of light is relative to the observer.

That is 100% wrong. Like, not even close to right.

 

[Hussar]

This does to me seem to suggest that a game would only be simulationist when it takes the time to model a specific process like combat which I don't really agree with.

This to me seems to imply that skills systems aren't simulationist - where I don't think that's the case - I think it's just that in terms of skills it's easier to reach what feels like a satisfactory level of Sim in terms of outcomes.

When it comes to things like combat I think there are two things going on:
1) The desire to model the process itself.
2) The need for at least a degree of modelling or process to ensure desired outcomes are achieved - eg that armour works in the right way - and the system does not produce unintended outcomes.

In some cases there is a move away from 1 above because it can actually conflict with 2, or because it can lead to ballooning complexity. For example, a critical hit table provides information, but if I'm attacking with a mace and I roll a decapitation then it suddenly becomes obvious I need multiple critical hit tables or I need to step back a layer in abstraction.

Of course D&D combat neither models the process of combat particularly closely or simulates any particular outcomes (because D&D combat is not simulating anything in particular - unless we allow D&D to be treated as it's own genre and state that it is simulating itself).

sorry, I just picked the easiest examples off the top of my head. My list certainly wasn't meant to be exhaustive. When I have time, I could very likely find better examples of skill systems where the system provides at least any information about how the result was achieved.

 

[AlViking]

I'd agree if that was actually the point I made.

But, as I have repeatedly stated, that's not the criteria for simulationist games. A sim game MUST provide ANY information about how a result was achieved. That's it. That's the sum total of requirements. Not arbitrary numbers. That's simply a simple example.

So, name two examples of sim leaning games where the mechanics provide no information about how a result is achieved. I've named several that do. So, where's your evidence other than, "I like sim games, I like D&D, therefore D&D is sim game"?

You can repeat your personal requirements for a sim all you want and my answer isn't going to change. It doesn't matter if I named a dozen examples because it's obvious you'll just disagree.

 

[AlViking]

That is 100% wrong. Like, not even close to right.

How exactly do you think it will work? Can you point to one reputable source that contradicts it?

 

[Enrahim]

I don't understand how the first one is subtle or underhanded, since it blatantly says "I don't have anything prepared for here."

You can, of course, combine these two approaches. "I haven't figured it out yet. What do you think the tavernkeeper did to get such staff?"

I think what I am missing is a way to differentiate between the subtext being: "Cool idea! I really want to flesh this out properly!", or "Uh, I got a bad feeling little good will come out of pursuing this path, could we try so something else?" For hyperspace physics, dragon flight aerodynamics, and waiter CV, the idea was that the subtext would be the latter.

 

[Enrahim]

And thus, you failed to understand basic scientific method. The whole point of making you "show your work" is because that's the fundamental underpinning of ALL science. Being able to get the right answer without being able to show your work is useless. That's alchemy, not science.

There's a reason you fail students for this. Getting the right answer is not the point of the exercise and you've very much misunderstood the lessons you were taught.

Are we doing science, or a craft?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So... some people on the internet were wrong.

You present this as somehow remarkable, instead of being about as common as water being wet.

No.

People jumped on my case and told me I was some weirdo who couldn't trust anyone else (usually in the most condescending tone possible), even implying I couldn't form meaningful relationships with others, rather than lifting a finger to talk about how one would try to fix a problem with trust. I even gave a (constructed) example, and several people literally did just say, "Well...yeah. You literally just have to trust the GM, even when they're doing things that actually upset you, leaving you concerned that the GM is not GMing fairly." One poster, Lanefan, even went so far as saying that you couldn't even BEGIN to worry until you'd seen this sort of thing happen for many months first! Some even characterized the (constructed) player as the one in the wrong, with the (constructed) GM being absolutely blameless!

It was a hell of a lot more than "some people were wrong on the Internet." It was people outright telling me that no, I have to give functionally unlimited trust, and the only other option was "well then you obviously have a horrible GM and you should get out of there as fast as possible."

IIRC, only two people even attempted to seriously engage with it, and one of them still ended up on the side of "well...yeah I think the only options are to bug out or just Keep Trusting until it gets better."