A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

In the real world, if I am looking for something no one decides where it is. It just is where it is.

How do you know?

Only if one treats the GM's decision as somehow "impersonal" or radically different from any other participant's contribution to the fiction can the suggestion even get off the ground. But that is exactly the "Mother may I" that the OP in the other thread was wanting to avoid.

There is no Mother May I in D&D, unless you have a really bad DM. Simple Q&A and/or the DM having authority isn't sufficient to rise to the level of that pejorative.

 

[Maxperson]

No, they're not MEAT.

None of them forces a hard decision. None of them puts your values - PC or player - to the test. None generates any pressure here and now.

Yes they are MEAT. I know the values of my PC. I know what will challenge him, even when the DM doesn't. Situations come up that I decide will be a challenge to the PC's values and they have every bit as much pressure as if the DM puts it on me.

Perhaps you need your hand to be held by the DM to get your MEAT. Maybe your players need you to hold their hands in order for them to get their MEAT. I've grown past that need as a player, though. I am fully capable of getting my own MEAT, and sometimes POTATOES. That doesn't mean that the DM can't also add such things from time to time, but just that I don't need that to happen.

This is obviously wrong. Watch Casablanca - drama is the norm. Rick has to make hard decisions (about whether to help the young couple; about whether to support the Nazis; about whether to go with Ilsa; etc). That doesn't make it not dramatic - Casablanca is one of the great dramas of all time!

Okay, but if it was Casablanca at games week in and week out, it would cease to be drama and become, "Oh, look. Yet another dilemma ::" Drama has meaning when it's next to the non-dramatic. If it's the norm, then it's just vanilla normal.

Why normal stuff? And what is "normal stuff" in the context of an adventure-oriented RPG?

What's normal in life? An RPG doesn't have to mirror life, but real life will let you know which kinds of things that are normal.

Going to the library and do research on items that can make me a king doesn't seem very normal to me. Nor does going to the local lord and try to ingratiate myself with him to gain status. The difference between those things, and what I described, is that - on the face of it - those things are safe because nothing is really at stake. It's all maybe and in due course. Which is precisely what I'm saying it has not MEAT.

You've never gone to the library to do reasearch on something? I have. Book reports are pretty normal in school. Sometimes I just want to read about a certain culture's mythology and I'll go to the library and find some books on that.

And if you think that there is no risk in just walking up to a local lord and interacting with him, you don't know much about nobility. There's plenty at stake, including life and freedom with that plan.

 

[Maxperson]

And I’m also not sure I agree that “no one decides” where something is in the real world. I mean, I get what you mean as far as games go....so I understand your point. But I can bring up how my son jammed my keys into the couch cushions last week and we can steer the discussion toward the cognitive funtion of 17 month olds and what would constitute a decision on his part.

I just found something last week that my son lost a year ago when he was 4.

 

[Maxperson]

Eh. In the game, if a player declares they're looking for something somewhere, then it introduces the possibility it is there, which is not something that happens in real life at all. Now you either have a "say yes" moment, where the player is right (not the real world), or you use a mechanic to determine if the player is right or not or it's complicated (not the real world), or you rely on the GM to make the call as if the player is right, wrong, or complicated (again, not the real world).

I've done it in real life. As a kid when I was looking for a friend and his mom didn't know where he was, I would try places he sometimes hung out. There was a real life possibility that he was at one of these places. Sometimes it worked and I found him. Sometimes it didn't and the possibility didn't pan out.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, it's not a Strawman, because it has nothing to do with your argument. It was a response to [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] who tried to falsely attribute my success at pursuing the goals of my PCs as coming from DMs who "align with my expectations," rather than just from gameplay. My response wasn't to you or about you in any way.

Max, you attributed it to your GM. You attributed the impossibility of the GM not acknowledging your attempts to build your own kingdom in a fair manner (which includes letting you try) is based on the social contract at your table. That if the GM did not, or actively blocked your attempts, they would be in violation of that social contract and you'd find a different game. The subtext there, of course, being that it's the GM's game to begin with.

Your success most definition comes as the result of the GM's opinion of it's likelihood of success. You've been arguing this in regard to the cultists being at the tea house for the entire thread. Do you think no one notices you excusing your play from your statements of the GM's authority?

I've done it in real life. As a kid when I was looking for a friend and his mom didn't know where he was, I would try places he sometimes hung out. There was a real life possibility that he was at one of these places. Sometimes it worked and I found him. Sometimes it didn't and the possibility didn't pan out.

No, Max. There were no probabilities. There was objective reality -- your friend was where they were. You looking somewhere he was not did not create a probability of him being in that place; he either was there or was not there.

Probability does not describe the real world. It describes our uncertainty about outcomes in the real world. The real world doesn't care what probability you've assigned to your uncertainty of your friend being in a location or not, your friend is either there or not with no probability of either.

To drag this back to the discussion, if you as a player decide to look for the cultists at the tea house, that introduces the possibility (not probability) of this being true where before it wasn't at all part of the fiction. In the real world, if there were cultists and a tea house, they would be there or not whether or not you thought about it (in the real). This isn't true in the game, where the question of whether or not they are there only arises because someone asks the question. At that time, you start your process of considering if it's likely they are there or not, however you prefer to do so. Specifically, you prefer to analyze what you've already established in the fiction, determine possible fictional causes for presence or absence, and then apply your judgement at to what constitutes the proper mechanic to determine if they are there. That may be "no", "yes", or roll. On a success, the cultist are at the tea house for reasons you've imagined. This is not at all like the real world, where the cultists either are or are not at the tea house,

 

[Maxperson]

Max, you attributed it to your GM. You attributed the impossibility of the GM not acknowledging your attempts to build your own kingdom in a fair manner (which includes letting you try) is based on the social contract at your table. That if the GM did not, or actively blocked your attempts, they would be in violation of that social contract and you'd find a different game. The subtext there, of course, being that it's the GM's game to begin with.

I never said "at my game." If you assumed that, and you were in error. The general social contract for RPGs across the world is "don't be an asshat." I can sit down at a random convention game and it will be in force. In the highly unlikely event that I encounter that very rare bad DM, then yes, I would leave, but that's not a matter of finding someone who meets some personal expectations that I have with regards to my PC's goals. It's that people don't like to play with asshats who violate the social contract.

Your success most definition comes as the result of the GM's opinion of it's likelihood of success. You've been arguing this in regard to the cultists being at the tea house for the entire thread. Do you think no one notices you excusing your play from your statements of the GM's authority?

I haven't excused anything. You really need to stop with the assumptions.

No, Max. There were no probabilities. There was objective reality -- your friend was where they were. You looking somewhere he was not did not create a probability of him being in that place; he either was there or was not there.

There was a chance he might have decided to go there. He didn't. I missed that roll. Him not being there is as objective as the cult members not being at the tea house when the roll is missed. Both are at that point 100%.

To drag this back to the discussion, if you as a player decide to look for the cultists at the tea house, that introduces the possibility (not probability) of this being true where before it wasn't at all part of the fiction. In the real world, if there were cultists and a tea house, they would be there or not whether or not you thought about it (in the real). This isn't true in the game, where the question of whether or not they are there only arises because someone asks the question.

The game world when run organically moves on even when the DM and players aren't thinking about it. Those cultists go to the tea house or don't, and have been since they got to town. Until I actually think about it, though, it's just not relevant. Just as in the real world, mafia members could have been going to the local Shakey's Pizza since they got to town and I wouldn't know about it. Similarly, it's not relevant to me until I think about it. Then I can decide to go down and look for them and see if one is there.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have to say the overall argument here about realism seems very bizarre to me. It seems like people are honestly arguing that the only thing one can describe as 'realistic' is reality. I don't know. We call movies, books, games, etc realistic all the time. It doesn't mean they are a 100% match to the processes that govern the real world. It means they appear sufficiently real. You could seriously undermine just about any assertion by going after terms like this.

 

[Maxperson]

I have to say the overall argument here about realism seems very bizarre to me. It seems like people are honestly arguing that the only thing one can describe as 'realistic' is reality. I don't know. We call movies, books, games, etc realistic all the time. It doesn't mean they are a 100% match to the processes that govern the real world. It means they appear sufficiently real. You could seriously undermine just about any assertion by going after terms like this.

Yeah. The level mental gymnastics being engaged in by some posters here in order to avoid having to say that D&D has some realism or that it can be greater or lesser, is astounding.

 

[Numidius]

To expect the game world to run organically even if players don't think about it, is reasonable. Dw has a protocol in that regard for the Gm to follow.
So, let's say a party of four Pc want to do their own thing separately for a while, instead the Gm wants to run the next dungeon: what happens?
Let's say the Gm comes up with situations and encounters for two of those Pc, but does not have anymore fantasy (like, imagination, strenght of will, time) to bother about the other two: what happens?
After the next dungeon the two remaining Pc still want their own thing, but the story has already taken a different route and splitting the party would compromise things.
Maybe months of real life have passed and you're still waiting for that encounter to take forward your personal story arc, or you just wanted to show off that ability you took in Char Gen, but had not yet a chance to.
What do you do: find another Gm, only because there is not a single RAW that goes beyond "Gm decides" on the authority of framing scenes/establish a situation to explore/do the Pc thing for once ?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Eh. In the game, if a player declares they're looking for something somewhere, then it introduces the possibility it is there, which is not something that happens in real life at all. Now you either have a "say yes" moment, where the player is right (not the real world), or you use a mechanic to determine if the player is right or not or it's complicated (not the real world), or you rely on the GM to make the call as if the player is right, wrong, or complicated (again, not the real world).

Sure, those are the three main options. Of those options, I can understand why someone may describe the third as being the closest to real life. That is not to say that I don’t follow the point that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been making or that you are explaining here. I can agree that none of the methods used to determine fictional elements of a game are any more realistic than others. I understand that whatever method used, a suitable explanation that seems sensible within the fiction can be assigned to the result.

Wher I disagree with pemerton is in his insistence that the casual comparison was actually a criticism of other methods rather than simply someone stating a preference.

What we can say is that the game may seem like it's a believable, internally consistent, internally coherent, believable world where there's fictional causality for things that makes sense. This is also not like the real world, but we can use our suspension of disbelief to believe so.

Right. When folks mention appeals to what’s realistic in these discussions, I tend to assume that this is what they’re talking about. And I think that’s generally the case...although sometimes folks can go waaay too far with it. Or that they don’t understand the distinction being made.

Why it this important? It's, well, not very. It's a bit of an in the weeds talk about how game worlds are constructed and how they work. It's nerdy and detailed. If you approach how games work casually, this is utterly nitpicky and unimportant -- just play what makes you happy. If, however, you're actually interested in how games do what they do, and what they incentivize, then it's very useful to recognize that gameworlds have absolutely nothing to do with the real world, but instead may contain what we think about the real world. Gravity does not exist in your game, but what you think about gravity may. This leads to a better understanding of how fiction works in game, what elements are necessary to maintain coherent, believable worlds and what may be elided entirely, and where the fiction causality determination needs to or may occur.

Fundamentally, I think that this discussion really revolves around whether a person thinks that causality needs to be determined prior to the mechanics or if it can be provided after you have your answer from the mechanics. Those saying that the mechanics need to be more "realistic" are the former camp -- fictional causes need to be fed into or be part of the mechanics engine to be germane. The mechanics then determine the outcome of this. The latter camp is comprised of those that say that the mechanics only need generate a predictable probability curve of success/failure/complication and that the fictional causality will be whatever explains that. In the end, both generate solid fiction, but far be it for me to actually say that the ends justify the means. The only point of saying that the ends are indistinguishable is to say that method of play doesn't really affect fictional integrity at all. It does, however, strongly affect how you enjoy playing.

So, then, to circle back to why care. For those of us actually interested in these things, we've recognized that this knowledge has improved our play by allowing us to better understand what it is we like about the games. And, of course, we like being nerdy about these things. The discussion is part of the enjoyment.

I think your comment on causality and the timing of the decision is indeed the crux of it. Without delving into quantum cats and the like, the location of a thing being determined prior to the results of the search for it seems to be the default expectation for many. Is this because that’s the long standing form of RPG play? Is itbecause itin some basic way mirrors our understanding of the real world? I’m sure the reasons vary, and that there are more that I’ve not mentioned, but I expect that those are the big two reasons.

I think that it’s also likely due to the nature of RPG play. Where the character is very often seen as the avatar of the player in the fictional world. That connection can make things blurry. What thecharacter experiences and what the player experiences are different things, of course, but very often we blur things for the sale of ease.

If we were to step away from gaming, and instead talk about an author and the methods he uses to determine elements he’s going to include in a story, I think the dostinction is clearer. If on one hand, the author decides that the police captain is an older man because of the time and location the story takes place, that seems a perfectly sensible method. If on the other hand, the author needa the captain to be a woman for some dramatic need, that also seems sensible. If the author instead decides to flip a coin to decide, again that’s sensible.

All three methods are equally valid. None is more realistic than the other. Whether we accept this character as plausible depends on the writing, not the way the autntor decided to create the character.