Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4026567" data-attributes="member: 30001">In honor of the &quot;death of simulation&quot;, here's a transcript of the last time I'll ever play an RPG:DM:&nbsp; You walk into a tavern and they're selling soup, you're really hungry and if you don't buy some I'll take away Con points.Me:&nbsp; Ok, one bowl of soup it is.DM:&nbsp; That'll be 8,590 gp.Me:&nbsp; That's exactly how much money I have!&nbsp; Whassupwitdat?DM:&nbsp; Oh - I want to explore the theme of poverty and hunger.Me:&nbsp; Well why is the soup 8,590gp?&nbsp; Is it really soup?&nbsp; Maybe it's a bowl full of fairies?&nbsp; Maybe I want to explore the theme of what it would be like to play an RPG that is a simulation.&nbsp; Hey, DM, are you just too lazy to look up the price of soup in the DMG?&nbsp; It's not my fault you flunked history.&nbsp; Are you still angry about that time that someone told you that their character ought to be able to break down that door because they were able to break a board in karate class?DM:&nbsp; Ok, so anyway you see a dragon about to eat a halfling to your right, and a cleric stealing money from a sleeping beggar to your left...Me:&nbsp; Wait a minute!&nbsp; Two seconds ago I was trying to buy soup.DM:&nbsp; Well that was two seconds ago and this is now.&nbsp; What?&nbsp; Do you expect some sort of real world simulation where there's some kind of connection between past and future events?&nbsp; Next you're going to want me to roll on disease tables or something.&nbsp; Get with the time Gizmo!&nbsp; This is 4E!&nbsp; You can ride gumdrop steeds into battle and if you whistle the song that I have in my head right now I'll give your character a vorpal blade.&nbsp; Now stop complaining and roll for initiative against the giant version of yourself that's just appeared...Seriously, I just don't get this narritivist thing.&nbsp; Just because you don't feel like keeping track of gold-pieces, for example (like in an Arthurian knights game or superhero game) doesn't mean that some sort of basic reality on the subject isn't assumed to exist at some level.&nbsp; Every RPG I've ever played has assumed that past is connected to present somehow.&nbsp; Sure, it's nice when a story evolves, but the the story doesn't evolve at the expense of basic plausiblity.&nbsp; So are we really just talking about handwaving certain details?And what does it mean to &quot;explore&quot; a theme in a game like this?&nbsp; So what if my character pays the 8,000 gp for a bowl of soup?&nbsp; Do NPCs then teleport in and tell me how they feel about it?&nbsp; Do I spend an hour telling my fellow players how I feel about it?&nbsp; Do I get to go back in time and change it from a soup to a sandwich?&nbsp; Change it so that I'm doing the selling?&nbsp; How much &quot;exploration&quot; can really go on if you're just going to present one set of circumstances and then move forward based on one chosen reaction?And if a DM is somehow uncomfortable with rules or dice telling them what happens in the game, then how in the world are they doing to deal with players telling them?&nbsp; IME people that complain about &quot;simulationist&quot; stuff do so because they resent their players telling them how things are going to be (ie. &quot;but the rules say the wall is a DC 15 to climb!&quot;).&nbsp; The exact thing that you should NOT have a problem with if you're now going to run the game on the basis of &quot;whatever the players want.&quot;&nbsp; (And why would the rulebook for such a game be more than a page?)&nbsp; I guess my confusion or objections are probably conventional, but I don't even recognize the game that's being described with the narrativist thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 4026567, member: 30001"] In honor of the "death of simulation", here's a transcript of the last time I'll ever play an RPG: DM: You walk into a tavern and they're selling soup, you're really hungry and if you don't buy some I'll take away Con points. Me: Ok, one bowl of soup it is. DM: That'll be 8,590 gp. Me: That's exactly how much money I have! Whassupwitdat? DM: Oh - I want to explore the theme of poverty and hunger. Me: Well why is the soup 8,590gp? Is it really soup? Maybe it's a bowl full of fairies? Maybe I want to explore the theme of what it would be like to play an RPG that is a simulation. Hey, DM, are you just too lazy to look up the price of soup in the DMG? It's not my fault you flunked history. Are you still angry about that time that someone told you that their character ought to be able to break down that door because they were able to break a board in karate class? DM: Ok, so anyway you see a dragon about to eat a halfling to your right, and a cleric stealing money from a sleeping beggar to your left... Me: Wait a minute! Two seconds ago I was trying to buy soup. DM: Well that was two seconds ago and this is now. What? Do you expect some sort of real world simulation where there's some kind of connection between past and future events? Next you're going to want me to roll on disease tables or something. Get with the time Gizmo! This is 4E! You can ride gumdrop steeds into battle and if you whistle the song that I have in my head right now I'll give your character a vorpal blade. Now stop complaining and roll for initiative against the giant version of yourself that's just appeared... Seriously, I just don't get this narritivist thing. Just because you don't feel like keeping track of gold-pieces, for example (like in an Arthurian knights game or superhero game) doesn't mean that some sort of basic reality on the subject isn't assumed to exist at some level. Every RPG I've ever played has assumed that past is connected to present somehow. Sure, it's nice when a story evolves, but the the story doesn't evolve at the expense of basic plausiblity. So are we really just talking about handwaving certain details? And what does it mean to "explore" a theme in a game like this? So what if my character pays the 8,000 gp for a bowl of soup? Do NPCs then teleport in and tell me how they feel about it? Do I spend an hour telling my fellow players how I feel about it? Do I get to go back in time and change it from a soup to a sandwich? Change it so that I'm doing the selling? How much "exploration" can really go on if you're just going to present one set of circumstances and then move forward based on one chosen reaction? And if a DM is somehow uncomfortable with rules or dice telling them what happens in the game, then how in the world are they doing to deal with players telling them? IME people that complain about "simulationist" stuff do so because they resent their players telling them how things are going to be (ie. "but the rules say the wall is a DC 15 to climb!"). The exact thing that you should NOT have a problem with if you're now going to run the game on the basis of "whatever the players want." (And why would the rulebook for such a game be more than a page?) I guess my confusion or objections are probably conventional, but I don't even recognize the game that's being described with the narrativist thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification