Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[The-Magic-Sword]

Yet, you could now be accused of tarring them all with the same brush. I mean, there are NUMEROUS examples of classical musicians and groups, even symphony orchestras of great repute, playing with rock bands, for instance.

"The" Classical Musicians, not "All"

 

[pemerton]

Yes, but the ethos which PfS arose out of, at least to a degree, was an early form of narrativism! That is, an attempted narrativism of a sort. This theory DID actually require that there were rules which govern, as much as feasible, all aspects of the world. The theory goes something like this: Role Play in then-current, c1980 roughly, RPGs is often flawed. Characters are shallow and motivated only by fairly unrealistic and trivial motivations (IE a lust for gold pieces) or at most conform to simplistic and rather crude models like "lawful good".

This was hypothesized to be an outgrowth of the unrealistic and shallow nature of the milieu, which was largely blamed on the lack of realistic rules which would produce outcomes fairly close to reality. The hypothesis being that the lack of detail and cause-and-effect modeling simply lead to this weirdly distorted world full of bizarre characters (somehow, don't bother to critique any of this, it was nonsense). So, a system like RM was somehow sought which could be so hyperrealistic in at least the areas which touched on the interests of PCs (you can already start to see the problem here) that players would somehow just find that all the incentives would line up to produce some kind of much more fully-realized characters.

This was all huge load of hogwash of course.

I think there is a lot of truth to this. It reflects the still-experimental character of RPGing at that point in time: people had a place they wanted to get to, and were trying different techniques to try and get there without yet knowing what would work.

What happens when we work out that the approach we've adopted won't work?

Here's one possibility - I'm quoting from here, but it describes my own experience (which happened in slow motion from c 1986 to 2009, though speeding up a bit in the last few of those years); the emphasis is added by me:

"El Dorado" was coined by Paul Czege to indicate the impossibility of a 1:1 Simulationist:Narrativist blend, although the term was appropriated by others for the blend itself, as a desirable goal. I think some people who claim to desire such a goal in play are simply looking for Narrativism with a very strong Explorative chassis, and that the goal is not elusive at all. Such "Vanilla Narrativism" is very easy and straightforward. The key to finding it is to stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play. Many role-players, identified by Jesse Burneko as "Simulationist-by-habit," exhaust themselves by seeking El Dorado, racing ever faster and farther, when all they have to do is stop running, turn around, and find Vanilla Narrativism right in their grasp.​

Another possibility is to embrace the purist-for-system simulationist ethos for its own sake - "the right to dream". Some early Traveller scenarios (eg Annic Nova, Shadows) seem to have this character. To me, they're incredibly boring as presented, but presumably at the time someone thought they satisfied some sort of need.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but the ethos which PfS arose out of, at least to a degree, was an early form of narrativism! That is, an attempted narrativism of a sort. This theory DID actually require that there were rules which govern, as much as feasible, all aspects of the world. The theory goes something like this: Role Play in then-current, c1980 roughly, RPGs is often flawed. Characters are shallow and motivated only by fairly unrealistic and trivial motivations (IE a lust for gold pieces) or at most conform to simplistic and rather crude models like "lawful good".

This was hypothesized to be an outgrowth of the unrealistic and shallow nature of the milieu, which was largely blamed on the lack of realistic rules which would produce outcomes fairly close to reality. The hypothesis being that the lack of detail and cause-and-effect modeling simply lead to this weirdly distorted world full of bizarre characters (somehow, don't bother to critique any of this, it was nonsense). So, a system like RM was somehow sought which could be so hyperrealistic in at least the areas which touched on the interests of PCs (you can already start to see the problem here) that players would somehow just find that all the incentives would line up to produce some kind of much more fully-realized characters.

This was all huge load of hogwash of course. I Personally was more of the opinion that it was the milieu which needed depth and substance, and a constantly changing and highly authentic character. Thus the idea of the highly realistic weather system, for instance. It also extended to a vast scripted meta-plot in which it was envisaged that the characters would become significant actors, should they so choose and should fate smile on them. This too was utter rubbish!

I mean, starting in the early '90s I constructed such a campaign, using my existing campaign world that already had 15+ years of continuous play in it by then (so lots of places and details and characters, and lore). I came up with a whole elaborate meta-plot, including a whole bunch of mechanics that could model different things that could happen based on whatever actions the PCs took that would mess with its otherwise appointed course (bad guys taking over the Kingdom). So, it quickly became obvious that the whole idea of such a vast and unwieldy meta-plot was both unworkable and didn't actually matter at all to how the game played out in terms of players role-playing (duh!).

We did play a lot of that campaign, though in a more limited form (the players simply refused to get involved in playing out wars and battles and such, lol). It was fun, but it was still just a typical D&D campaign set in a fairly detailed setting, ala Greyhawk or whatever. 2e D&D did its incoherent "I'm a dungeon crawl game trying to be a story game" thing, etc. I had really fun players that did interesting things, and the characters were certainly pretty decent, by D&D standards. It certainly wasn't going to break new ground though!

So, I looked at 4e with some interest, given its obvious "I am a game first" orientation. Turns out complex characters with deeper stories and more significant interaction with the world ACTUALLY happened when we had much richer detail about the characters themselves, and easy ways to bring together mechanical stuff and the players motives and ideas about the characters. The orientation on challenges (what you want to accomplish, not how) and things like quests really works! Mooks are OK! I guess hit points are somewhat 'plot armor' too. Whatever, it works, and pretty soon I stopped prepping and started just asking the players which way things were going to go!

What is PfS?

 

[The Shadow]

What is PfS?

Purist for System.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

"The" Classical Musicians, not "All"

Labeling the people whom you don't agree with as 'elitist', 'dismissive', etc. is simply failing to address their arguments, it is nothing more than ad hominem really. Not that there aren't people like that, but let them earn the label, we don't have to throw it around.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there is a lot of truth to this. It reflects the still-experimental character of RPGing at that point in time: people had a place they wanted to get to, and were trying different techniques to try and get there without yet knowing what would work.

What happens when we work out that the approach we've adopted won't work?

Here's one possibility - I'm quoting from here, but it describes my own experience (which happened in slow motion from c 1986 to 2009, though speeding up a bit in the last few of those years); the emphasis is added by me:

"El Dorado" was coined by Paul Czege to indicate the impossibility of a 1:1 Simulationist:Narrativist blend, although the term was appropriated by others for the blend itself, as a desirable goal. I think some people who claim to desire such a goal in play are simply looking for Narrativism with a very strong Explorative chassis, and that the goal is not elusive at all. Such "Vanilla Narrativism" is very easy and straightforward. The key to finding it is to stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play. Many role-players, identified by Jesse Burneko as "Simulationist-by-habit," exhaust themselves by seeking El Dorado, racing ever faster and farther, when all they have to do is stop running, turn around, and find Vanilla Narrativism right in their grasp.​

Another possibility is to embrace the purist-for-system simulationist ethos for its own sake - "the right to dream". Some early Traveller scenarios (eg Annic Nova, Shadows) seem to have this character. To me, they're incredibly boring as presented, but presumably at the time someone thought they satisfied some sort of need.

Yes, we had pretty analogous paths, except for SOME reason I just kept my copy of Role Master on the shelf and tried to beat AD&D into doing what I wanted, lol. I think you're right, Traveller can be approached in a bit of a PfS kind of way, though it doesn't nail things down like RM does (say in combat, its hard to say what taking 5 points of DEX damage actually means, though it is suggestive).

 

[pemerton]

for SOME reason I just kept my copy of Role Master on the shelf

As Neil from The Young Ones said - "No one ever listens to me. I might as well be a Leonard Cohen record."

 

[Umbran]

Note his comment was "to be read as" deconstruction, not deconstruction. Deconstruction is usually done to serve one or more specific points, where what he's talking about is actively avoiding the less naturalistic genre conventions....

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that that is still a genre.

"Genres" are not a fixed set. It would be incorrect to say, "It isn't Sci-fi, it isn't Fantasy, it isn't True Crime, Noir Dectective, etc... so it is no genre at all."

"Genre" is more like "identifiable style" - your set of expectations about its characteristics defines it.. So, "Fantasy actively avoiding the less naturalistic bits," winds up as a genre of its own. The fact that we can point to some sim-heavy fantasy games as a group demonstrates this.

As an example, you don't have to pry off too many conventions of the superhero genre before it looks nothing like conventional superhero stories, to the point you'll often get people to refer to them other ways ("people with powers" stories has been popular IME) so as not to have people expect to have people with codenames, costumes, and powers that are more destructive to the environment than to other humans. People-with-power stories are not automatically deconstructions, but they can be, and its easy to read them that way as a default.

That's fine. You can even give the popular name for it - "people with power". Heck I've run some "people with power" games. Totally a genre!

 

[Umbran]

See, your entire argument is the same

No, it isn't. I'm less making an argument, and more asking a question that you get to answer.

Sim is no less valid than gamist or narrative play, no matter what the Forge and Edward's have to say about it.

I'm not saying it is an invalid style. I am no fan of Edward's work. I am on record as thinking that the Forge models of RPGs are extremely flawed, and I don't take a lot of direction from them. So, don't lay that on me.

I am saying, as a medium, RPGs are awkward for simulation, for several reasons. So, if simulation is really the goal, and RPGs are weak on simulation, why are you using them for this purpose?

Or, in a more colloquial way of putting it - why are you using a hammer to drive a screw?

Or, in another analogy - three-legged races are not a good way for people to run as fast as possible. If running really fast is the goal, a three-legged race is a weird choice. People would be naturally confused by this choice.

You now have an opportunity to explain the choice so that we can understand more. If you refuse to explain, folks will continue to not understand, and you will continue to see the same response to that confusion.

 

[pemerton]

I am saying, as a medium, RPGs are awkward for simulation, for several reasons. So, if simulation is really the goal, and RPGs are weak on simulation, why are you using them for this purpose?

I'm not @Micah Sweet (obviously enough), but I think that there are some fairly straightforward answers to this question, which deny the premise.

As a GM, and the author of a setting, if you want to find out what happens when people are "let loose" in your world, then RPGs are quite good for that.

As a player, if you want to find out what happens as you (via your PC-avatar) wander around a world, and you want a type of response that is more nuanced then a computer game might provide, then RPGs are also quite good.

I'd expect that the first of these, at least, is something that Micah Sweet could relate to.