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

hawkeyefan said:

Not to speak for pemerton, but I think that's what he disagrees with. The idea that a GM making a decision yields a more realistic result than other methods.

While you could likely provide examples of a GM making a decision that seemed to result in a more "realistic" (by which I think we mean something like "mathematically likely") outcome, others can just as easily provide examples where a player makes a decision that results in a more "realistic" outcome.

It's a preference that some folks in this thread have, and it's something that makes more sense to them, and that's fine....but it is in no way objectively more realistic than most other methods used in an RPG.

To illustrate, let's look at a basic example. The party is making their way along a path. They come to a fork in the path. Which branch shows more signs of traffic?

In a game like D&D, where the DM knows the surrounding area and its inhabitants and their goals and so on, he may declare the left branch as the more traveled because he has the map and knows that way leads to more populated areas, so common sense indicates that would be the answer. This is "realistic" in the sense that some form of logic is applied to the answer.

But what about a game where the surrounding area and inhabitants are not known by the GM ahead of time, but are instead determined through play? Why would the GM picking the left branch be more "realistic" than the right branch? Perhaps the game calls for a roll from the players, and then based on the results of the roll, the GM narrates things accordingly. The player rolls well, so the GM decides that the character is capable of accurately determining that the left branch sees more traffic.

The "realism" of the result is no different in either example. The "realistic" method used in the first example simply doesn't work for the second. So ultimately, what is being discussed is a preference in game mechanics and how they're applied.

Click to expand...

I think I've said this a few times, already. I wish you more luck than I had with it.

Ovinomancer said:

I think I've said this a few times, already. I wish you more luck than I had with it.

Click to expand...

I'm hoping that perhaps a new and rather stripped down example may help.

I hope this in the same way I hope great big wads of cash fall from the sky and land in my yard.

hawkeyefan said:

I'm hoping that perhaps a new and rather stripped down example may help.

I hope this in the same way I hope great big wads of cash fall from the sky and land in my yard.

Click to expand...

I admire your optimism.

*Furiously googles hawkeyefan's address* I mean it's Hawkeye, how many fans can there be?

Oh snap!

Unfair! We number in the dozens!

hawkeyefan said:

Not to speak for pemerton, but I think that's what he disagrees with. The idea that a GM making a decision yields a more realistic result than other methods.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether he agrees with it or not. If that's his position he is wrong.

While you could likely provide examples of a GM making a decision that seemed to result in a more "realistic" (by which I think we mean something like "mathematically likely") outcome, others can just as easily provide examples where a player makes a decision that results in a more "realistic" outcome.

Click to expand...

If I say that something in the game happens because I saw a pink bunny in my dreams, that's completely unrealistic. If I say the same things happens in the game because of a random die roll, that's less unrealistic, chance plays into events even though the odds will be weighted in the real world far differently than a die roll. If I know in a general way how things usually go in the real world and decide to approximate various chances of the same event happening, and then roll, that's even more realistic. I don't need to know the exact math for these things in order for the above to be true.

There's no way a DM can come up with the real world math for the odds of things happening in the game, but fortunately we don't need to know the math. An approximation is more than enough to provide more realism. It's like gauging crowds. I don't need to know the exact numbers to see that a crowd of hundreds is smaller than a crowd of thousands. Similarly, I don't need to know the exact math to know what is more realistic or less realistic than how things are currently done in the game.

It's a preference that some folks in this thread have, and it's something that makes more sense to them, and that's fine....but it is in no way objectively more realistic than most other methods used in an RPG.

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of what makes more sense. It's a matter of what is more realistic. That things that are more realistic also often make more sense is just happy circumstance.

To illustrate, let's look at a basic example. The party is making their way along a path. They come to a fork in the path. Which branch shows more signs of traffic?

In a game like D&D, where the DM knows the surrounding area and its inhabitants and their goals and so on, he may declare the left branch as the more traveled because he has the map and knows that way leads to more populated areas, so common sense indicates that would be the answer. This is "realistic" in the sense that some form of logic is applied to the answer.

Click to expand...

Right. The decision was based on what is more realistic, which also happens to make more sense.

But what about a game where the surrounding area and inhabitants are not known by the GM ahead of time, but are instead determined through play? Why would the GM picking the left branch be more "realistic" than the right branch? Perhaps the game calls for a roll from the players, and then based on the results of the roll, the GM narrates things accordingly. The player rolls well, so the GM decides that the character is capable of accurately determining that the left branch sees more traffic.

Click to expand...

This is one reason why I tell [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] that he doesn't play a game that's as realistic as mine. This style of play doesn't lend itself well to decisions based on realism. This style of play is also irrelevant to how I run my games and whether or not I am making decisions that intended to be more realistic. In my style of play, I have the additional knowledge to make the informed decision, so when I say I do something to make the situation more realistic, this is a fact. I am in fact making the situation more realistic, which does not mean that I am mirroring the real world. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] looks at how I do things, twists what I am saying into some variation of, "But you can't possibly mirror the real world exactly," and then argues his Strawman.

That's what I am calling him out on. He's not looking at myself or Frogreaver and just giving us how he does things. He is actively twisting our arguments to suit his needs and deflect from the point.

Maxperson said:

This is still a Strawman, as well as a Red Herring. Nobody is saying that it's "like real life." That's you twisting the argument and distracting from the point. We're saying that it's MORE realistic or in the case of Frogreaver, that it's "closer to real life." We are not saying that it is mirroring the real world. How about you respond without twisting arguments and attempting to move the point away from what people are talking about?

Click to expand...

No, Max, it is NOT a 'strawman'. It is a perfectly good solid reasonable argument. In order for your case to hold, 'more realistic' has to be an actual measurable defensible objective thing. So you would need to show how and why, and by what metrics, the GM coming up with a decision is 'closer to real life'. This is what we mean when we (or at least when I) talk about things being 'realistic'. I don't think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] intended the phrase 'not like real life' to be taken in an absolute way, as in "it is different from real life in some arbitrarily small way." Instead I feel reasonably confident (given that he was commenting on my post in which I held that is wasn't AT ALL like real life) that Pemerton meant something similar, that real life and 'the GM deciding' are simply nothing like each other.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that any other way of deciding is MORE realistic than the GM deciding. I don't even think that realistic is an option and THAT IN AND OF ITSELF is the 'strawman', the argument that one way has some realism advantage. Nothing in FRPG play is at all realistic. Some of it has logical cogency with reality on some basic suppositions (gravity works, though even there you can't explain dragons without an exception).

So, fine, you aren't 'mirroring the real world', but this is a red herring, as nobody claimed you said you were. What you said is you're more realistic. I say that this is like saying you're closer to finding the secret of immortality. Nobody is there, nobody has even made measurable progress, we're all light years from the goal and saying you're a few inches ahead or behind someone else is meaningless in that kind of context.

Nothing about RPGs is ever realistic. It isn't even really part of the equation.

AbdulAlhazred said:

No, Max, it is NOT a 'strawman'. It is a perfectly good solid reasonable argument.

Click to expand...

Frogreavers argument was that it was more realstic, not that it mirrors reality. To attribute "mirrors reality" to him and then argue against it is a classic Strawman, not a solid argument.

In order for your case to hold, 'more realistic' has to be an actual measurable defensible objective thing.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It just has to be recognizably more realistic. This idea you have that there must be some measurable number for it is just plain false. I'm sure most people would agree that cold blooded premeditated murder is more evil than theft. What are the measurable numbers for how evil those two things are? If you can come up with them and then prove those numbers to be factually true, I'll start working on numbers for realism. Until then...

So you would need to show how and why, and by what metrics, the GM coming up with a decision is 'closer to real life'. This is what we mean when we (or at least when I) talk about things being 'realistic'. I don't think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] intended the phrase 'not like real life' to be taken in an absolute way, as in "it is different from real life in some arbitrarily small way." Instead I feel reasonably confident (given that he was commenting on my post in which I held that is wasn't AT ALL like real life) that Pemerton meant something similar, that real life and 'the GM deciding' are simply nothing like each other.

Click to expand...

He has been twisting arguments about the realism scale into "mirroring reality" for years and in multiple threads. There is no mistake on my part about this.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that any other way of deciding is MORE realistic than the GM deciding. I don't even think that realistic is an option and THAT IN AND OF ITSELF is the 'strawman', the argument that one way has some realism advantage. Nothing in FRPG play is at all realistic. Some of it has logical cogency with reality on some basic suppositions (gravity works, though even there you can't explain dragons without an exception).

Click to expand...

Almost everything in FRPG play is realistic to some degree. Swords are typically made of steel, have an edged blade, a hilt, do damage, etc. There are trees, bushes, fish, air, etc. All of these things are connected in some way and in varying degrees to reality. That is realism.

So, fine, you aren't 'mirroring the real world', but this is a red herring, as nobody claimed you said you were.

Click to expand...

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has repeatedly made this Strawman argument to me and others. It's not a Red Herring to call him out on it.

Maxperson said:

It doesn't matter whether he agrees with it or not. If that's his position he is wrong.

Click to expand...

So you’re saying that realism as it applies to Action Resolution mechanics in RPGs is not a matter of opinion? Interesting.

Maxperson said:

There's no way a DM can come up with the real world math for the odds of things happening in the game, but fortunately we don't need to know the math. An approximation is more than enough to provide more realism. It's like gauging crowds. I don't need to know the exact numbers to see that a crowd of hundreds is smaller than a crowd of thousands. Similarly, I don't need to know the exact math to know what is more realistic or less realistic than how things are currently done in the game.

Click to expand...

You’re right that you don’t need exact numbers to know which crowd is bigger. But you do need to understand what numbers are and how they work. You can pick out the bigger crowd because you can tell that there are more people. But even though you don’t need to count, if you did, you know you’d be right because of math.

So....when it comes to realism in RPGs, what’s the math? What’s the metric? If we decide to “count the crowds”, so to speak, how do we do so?

Maxperson said:

This is one reason why I tell [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] that he doesn't play a game that's as realistic as mine. This style of play doesn't lend itself well to decisions based on realism. This style of play is also irrelevant to how I run my games and whether or not I am making decisions that intended to be more realistic. In my style of play, I have the additional knowledge to make the informed decision, so when I say I do something to make the situation more realistic, this is a fact.

Click to expand...

No, it’s not a fact. You simply prefer for fictional rationalization of in game events to be determined before hand. This allows you to apply logic and some kind of loose probability to the resolution mechanics. You can determine a DC because you know what the weather is and other relevant factors.

But there’s no reason that such factors cannot be applied afterward. It’s really no different because it’s all just creating fiction.

You have a preferred method for gaming. But it’s no more or less realistic compared to other RPG methods than writing a novel by hand is compared to typing it out.

pemerton said:

This thread is a spin-off of this thread. Its immediate trigger is the following post:


In real life, people move through a physcially-structured environment where events happen in accordance with causal processes. Notions of request, permission, decision etc have no explanatory work to do in relation to real-life causal processes (except for a rather narrow range of phenomena involving interactions between human beings).

At a RPG table, in the situation being described in the posts above, the players give rise to an idea - our PCs find some sect members at the teahouse - and they suggest that that idea should be an element of the fiction that is being collectively created at the table. The GM then decides whether or not that idea actually does become part of the shared fiction, and communicates that decision to the players by telling them what it is that their PCs find at the teahouse.

That causal process has very little in common with the causal processes that bring it about that, if I go to a teahouse looking for members of a particular sect, I find any of them there. The most obvious difference is that whether or not, in real life, I meet any sect members doesn't depend upon whether anyone takes up a suggestion I make about an interesting idea.

Whether or not the GM making decisions about the gameworld, and then conveying that to the players, makes for good RPGing seems a matter of taste. But whether or not such a process is like real life seems a straightforward matter of fact. It's not.

Click to expand...

Running D&D is NOT "like real life". It is like "running D&D". You need to accept that distinction. Comparing reality to D&D is like comparing reality to superheroes.

It Is a GAME.

hawkeyefan said:

I'm hoping that perhaps a new and rather stripped down example may help.

I hope this in the same way I hope great big wads of cash fall from the sky and land in my yard.

Click to expand...

Yeah, judging from the posts between your's and this one, I think your kitten has died (to completely change analogies in mid-stream, but at this point who cares).

Anyway, here's hoping [MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION] will come back and continue with the fun ideas about bootstrapping story now with mechanics. I am not going to talk about whatever it is that killed the kitty, no more no more!