Quote from: Phillip;643723In fact, if you are unwilling to do your own thing, that's about as close as you can get to actually "playing the game wrong."

It's odd don't you think to say such a thing to a person who has indeed done his own thing- and managed not just to role-play while doing it, but enhance it.

The stance John and I both take is that a reasonably good simulation of process enhances role-playing by making it natural. People are willing to actually play the game while role-playing instead of avoiding or overriding the system as so many D&D apologists are forced to do.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;643031I mean, doesn't EVERY game which uses dice fail as a Simulation of Process?

"War is the province of chance. In no other sphere of human activity must such a margin be left for this intruder. It increases the uncertainty of every circumstance and deranges the course of events."
Carl von Clausewitz

Quote from: gleichman;643725The stance John and I both take is that a reasonably good simulation of process enhances role-playing by making it natural. People are willing to actually play the game while role-playing instead of avoiding or overriding the system as so many D&D apologists are forced to do.

Forced?!

What a load of crap!

"While roleplaying" is not the same as "while rigidly adhering to a formal system!"

Old-style FRPers are not forced to do that, and you assuredly won't be the one to change that.

Quote from: Phillip;643731"While roleplaying" is not the same as "while rigidly adhering to a formal system!"

Sure it is, I do both. It isn't even hard.

Quote from: Phillip;643731and you assuredly won't be the one to change that.

I could change everything for them, but they won't listen

Quote from: gleichman;643732Sure it is, I do both. It isn't even hard.

You do 'both' because they're not identical!

What's really funny here is the hustle and bustle to "simulate the process" by vigorously ignoring the process in order to devote minute attention to abstractions!

Quote from: Phillip;643736You do 'both' because they're not identical!

The goal is identical in both cases, to represent the reality of a character within a fictional setting.  It is this that defines what you're doing, not the means.

To think otherwise is self-defeating, pitting yourself against half of what makes an RPG.

Quote from: Phillip;643738What's really funny here is the hustle and bustle to "simulate the process" by vigorously ignoring the process in order to devote minute attention to abstractions!

The point of argument is not whether abstractions need to take liberty with the full details present in the actual process but how the abstraction works and whether the relationship between the inputs and intermediate steps relates to their relationship in the real world or does not.  

At a very high level, hit points in D&D abstract what you would expect in combat.  More experienced or more powerful fighters tend to defeat less experienced or less powerful fighters.  On that level it does work as an abstraction.

The problem is that the relationship between the inputs and the intermediate steps do not match the actual process, so if the players or GM need to apply those mechanics outside of combat (e.g., the effects of armor and HP when falling into a pit of spikes, which is something D&D should be able to handle), try to consider other concerns during combat (e.g., the effect of plate armor on a magic user's ability to simply touch a target), try to relate what's happening during combat to typical genre narratives (e.g., how well the whittling down HP to kill on a final blow mechanics relates to what one sees in fantasy fiction and movies), or try to carry out a one-blow kill using the rules (rather than GM fiat) where such a kill makes logical sense (e.g., single-shot assassinations by a trained marksman).

You can argue that the players and GM can do a better job than the rules of simulating and considering the actual process, if you want, but the better the rules do at capturing the process and working as expected, the less need there will be for the GM to ignore the rules and substitute common sense.

Quote from: gleichman;643725People are willing to actually play the game while role-playing instead of avoiding or overriding the system as so many D&D apologists are forced to do.

I think thats an argument based on "reading D&D" not "playing it". In play, there's really not that sort of problem, and I don't think the most successful long-running system of all time really needs "apologists"., I think you're just interpreting it that way when people are simply trying to explain concepts to you. For a new player learning the system in play, its never been an issue.

Quote from: TristramEvans;643849In play, there's really not that sort of problem,

Really?  Then I suppose I'm imaging the game I played in when I was in college where a player's 6th level fighter wound up sucking up most of the lower-level cleric's healing spells because he had vastly more XP than the other characters, who were 3rd and 4th level?  I suppose I was imagining the confusion over how armor works when falling into a pit of sharpened spikes?  I suppose I'm imagining the frustration of it being all-but-impossible to even consider any plan that relies on surprise because it's almost impossible to kill anyone in one shot or blow (quite common in the genre source material) before they can call out an alarm?  Of course I'm also probably also imaging that almost all of the D&D I played back then was also house ruled and had plenty of GM fudging, too.

Quote from: TristramEvans;643849and I don't think the most successful long-running system of all time really needs "apologists".

If it's perfect as is, it doesn't need new editions either, right?  I guess I'm imagining seeing players complaining about Hit Points, AC, and character classes since the early days of the hobby, too, since clearly none of them understood or played the game, right?

Quote from: TristramEvans;643849I think you're just interpreting it that way when people are simply trying to explain concepts to you.

Part of the problem is that the explanations are rationalizations that come off as not unlike listening to a Trekkie explain why the transporter worked under different rules in two different episodes using an in-setting justification when the real reason is simply that the two episodes were written by two authors and their stories required different limitations or capabilities for the transporter.

Quote from: TristramEvans;643849For a new player learning the system in play, its never been an issue.

There are plenty of reasons why new players would not notice or complain about the quirks of D&D when they first play, but such experiences are hardly universal.  One important thing to bear in mind is that there are plenty of people who play D&D once, say, "That was stupid and I didn't like it," and never play again.  If you haven't noticed, we are a niche hobby that's not exactly embraced by the majority of humans out there.  If everyone who had bought Basic D&D at Toys 'R' Us become players, we'd be awash in D&D players.  So basically what you are saying is that it's never been an issue if you exclude everyone who has issues with it.

Quote from: John Morrow;643855Really?  Then I suppose I'm imaging the game I played in when I was in college where a player's 6th level fighter wound up sucking up most of the lower-level cleric's healing spells because he had vastly more XP than the other characters, who were 3rd and 4th level? I suppose I was imagining the confusion over how armor works when falling into a pit of sharpened spikes?  I suppose I'm imagining the frustration of it being all-but-impossible to even consider any plan that relies on surprise because it's almost impossible to kill anyone in one shot or blow (quite common in the genre source material) before they can call out an alarm?  Of course I'm also probably also imaging that almost all of the D&D I played back then was also house ruled and had plenty of GM fudging, too.

I would say that all of those issues you describe began and ended with your DM, especially as you were aware he was "fudging" and "houseruling". I think there's also a viable distinction to be made between your average player and people who eventually get into game design or are going to engage in conversations about rpgs on forums.

QuoteIf it's perfect as is, it doesn't need new editions either, right?  I guess I'm imagining seeing players complaining about Hit Points, AC, and character classes since the early days of the hobby, too, since clearly none of them understood or played the game, right?

Yes and no. Or No and yes. Something like that. Did D&D need a new edition? Of course not, no more than Monopoly "needs" a new edition. New editions don't have to be about changing the rules system completely, as is the modern trend. New editions that clean up rules presentation, offer better production values, etc. however, are all viable reasons for having a new edition that don't make the previous game system extant.

QuotePart of the problem is that the explanations are rationalizations that come off as not unlike listening to a Trekkie explain why the transporter worked under different rules in two different episodes using an in-setting justification when the real reason is simply that the two episodes were written by two authors and their stories required different limitations or capabilities for the transporter.

Any explanation fo anything can be viewed as a rationalization in that light though. In fact, every RPG game system ever is pretty much composed of "rationalizations". Simulation = rationalization, in that any attempt to represent physical activities or otherwise via die mechanics are rationalizations., if one views them in those terms. OTOH, the way you're using it I think is to imply that people who like certain mechanics are "making excuses" for liking them, which is not the case.  A mechanic is only worth as much as how a person choses to look at it.

QuoteSo basically what you are saying is that it's never been an issue if you exclude everyone who has issues with it.

I think there are enough RPG options besides D&D to cater to a person's tastes that you cant place the weight on D&D's shoulders to support what every player could possibly want.

Considering how much more stuff has been published since 1977 (when it already seemed quite a lot of choice to me), maybe D&D can come as close to satisfying every gamer as any RPG at this time can.

The thing is not having the board-game mindset of D&D as Edition X (or Supplement Z) from TSR or Hasbro or Joe Cloner.

Quote from: Phillip;643726"War is the province of chance. In no other sphere of human activity must such a margin be left for this intruder. It increases the uncertainty of every circumstance and deranges the course of events."
Carl von Clausewitz

I was going by gleichman's definition, but you bring up a good point: Is the 'Fog of War' also Simulation of Process? Because it specifically obscures and may be potentially 'lying' about the actual process behind it.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;643915I was going by gleichman's definition, but you bring up a good point: Is the 'Fog of War' also Simulation of Process? Because it specifically obscures and may be potentially 'lying' about the actual process behind it.

Fog of War references a different issue the Simulation of Process.

A sniper knows the process for hitting his target, what he may not know is that his target moved to a different part of the front yesterday because he wanted to see his mistress.

Quote from: gleichman;643950Fog of War references a different issue the Simulation of Process.

A sniper knows the process for hitting his target, what he may not know is that his target moved to a different part of the front yesterday because he wanted to see his mistress.

And the dice decide that? Cause that's what the original comment is in reference to.