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

pemerton said:

Or watching a film. Or being told a story. There are many ways to learn someone's ideas about something they made up.

Click to expand...

Again these things are fundamentally different from playing in a traditional style rpg... oir any rpg for that matter

pemerton said:

Of coures in RPG it's a series of things that are said to the players by the GM, each triggered by a request (express or implied) that something be said.

Click to expand...

This defintion is so broad and non-descriptive as to be useless unless one is purposefully trying to make no distinction between a variety of things and it would at a high level include your own playstyle as well.

pemerton said:

I'm sure that many people would say that "I am learning how the sect members behave in Bill's world." Like I can say that, by reading LotR, I learn how elves behave in JRRT's world. But learning how elves behave in JRRT's world' is exactly the same thing as learning what JRRT made up about elves.

Click to expand...

We've gone down this road before and this is where the distinction always gets fuzzy. You make a statement like the above... but readily admit you yourself use geography, races, etc. from pre-made campaign settings so again, for at least some parts of your game this also applies to your playstyle.

pemerton said:

They clearly have some things in common that neither has in common with (say) changing a washer on a dripping tap. They clearly are different also - for instance, most of what you are calling "traditional" RPGing (I use scare quotes because Traveller is a very old RPG but doesn't tend to exhibit the features you are fastening on as part of the tradition) involves the solving of puzzles, by putting together clues or prompts that are obtained from the GM by performing the right moves to obtain them.

Click to expand...

Or it could involve negotiation for the answer... or a rolling of the die for an answer...or a known chance for the answer... and I think even your playstyle requires specific "moves" to attain certain results, right? I mean would you allow a player to make an Athletics role to determine what they know about the Red Duke's parentage?

pemerton said:

For instance, in the sect example, to learn where their PCs might find sect members the players the players have to obtain background information about the sect, which they obtain by declaring moves for their PCs which will trigger narration from the GM of the appropriate information - this could be anything from interrogating captives to searchingin libraries to casting Commune spells, depending on how the details of play and of system are interacting with the creative decisions that the GM has made and is making.

Click to expand...

Yes they interact with the relevant fiction to attain their goals... is it different in your playstyle?

pemerton said:

There is a large amount of evidence that many people enjoy solving puzzles as a pastime (eg newspapers the world over carry crosswords and sudokus in large numbers, but not so much poetry or randomly chosen encyclopedia entries), and I believe that this is what some people enjoy in "traditional" RPGing.

Click to expand...

I'm sure some people do...and some enjoy acting in character...and some enjoy combat... and some enjoy exploration...and some, well I think you get the point. Puzzles can be a part of traditional play, but it's not a defining feature or even required for play.

Aldarc said:

Have you considered that "realism" is simply a byproduct of some other game value and not an end value in itself? My contention is that I believe that most proponents of "realism" in TTRPGs mistakenly confuse "realism" as an end value in TTRPGs.

Click to expand...

Realism is what allows you to play an RPG.

You are missing the forest for the trees here.

Click to expand...

Pot, meet kettle.

Or let's go to the longsword. It does d8 damage. Would it be less realistic if it was changed to d6 damage? How about if a hand ax did d8 damage? How do these mechanics connect to any meaningful notions of valuing realism? Again, I don't really think that realism really pushes, pulls, or drives the mechanics of these games. Usually other things get cited instead, such as the designers' desire to have variable weapon types, playstyles, damages, aesthetics, etc. The presence of these things do not make them realistic, especially since they are largely divorced from their actual use in reality.

Click to expand...

So let's look at a game without realism in it. There are no swords, spears, or any other weapon that can resemble an earth weapon. There can be no dragons, plants, unicorns, elves, humanoids, or animals. Hell, there can't even be things with limbs. Nor can you have anything living or dead. No matter, energy or magic. All of those things have their roots in the real world, and therefore have realism.

Realism may not be the primary drive to an RPG, but there isn't an RPG that can exist without tons of realism all over the place. Realism is critical to their existence, so while the mechanics may not use realism as the primary driver, realism is hardly pocket lint.

Maxperson said:

So let's look at a game without realism in it. There are no swords, spears, or any other weapon that can resemble an earth weapon. There can be no dragons, plants, unicorns, elves, humanoids, or animals. Hell, there can't even be things with limbs. Nor can you have anything living or dead. No matter, energy or magic. All of those things have their roots in the real world, and therefore have realism.

Click to expand...

I have my original 1984 boxset of "Old Ones & Eternities" right here!

Immortal Sun said:

I have my original 1984 boxset of "Old Ones & Eternities" right here!

Click to expand...

Heh!! Can't be played without realism being present.

Maxperson said:

Realism is what allows you to play an RPG.

So let's look at a game without realism in it. There are no swords, spears, or any other weapon that can resemble an earth weapon. There can be no dragons, plants, unicorns, elves, humanoids, or animals. Hell, there can't even be things with limbs. Nor can you have anything living or dead. No matter, energy or magic. All of those things have their roots in the real world, and therefore have realism.

Realism may not be the primary drive to an RPG, but there isn't an RPG that can exist without tons of realism all over the place. Realism is critical to their existence, so while the mechanics may not use realism as the primary driver, realism is hardly pocket lint.

Click to expand...

Why are you using the term "realism" in such a meaningless way?

Aldarc said:

Why are you using the term "realism" in such a meaningless way?

Click to expand...

Max has a habit of making commonly understood terms so broad, that they lose a lot of their discussion-value, and this keeps coming up again and again in lots of discussions on this board. Perhaps it would be more constructive to stick with the convential way in which the term is used, Max?

I think you (Max) know that when we use the word realism, we are referring to a style of play that mimics real life in more detail then conventional modes of play. So maybe it would help, for the sake of discussion, to use this commonly understood definition instead, and continue from there?

For example, when I say my roleplaying game uses a 'realistic approach' to combat-injuries, I think most people on this board would take that to mean that the game mimics certain aspects of how injuries in real life tend to affect a person. That is usually how we use the word 'realism' in regards to a roleplaying game.

Imaculata said:

Max has a habit of making commonly understood terms so broad, that they lose a lot of their discussion-value, and this keeps coming up again and again in lots of discussions on this board. Perhaps it would be more constructive to stick with the convential way in which the term is used, Max?

I think you (Max) know that when we use the word realism, we are referring to a style of play that mimics real life in more detail then conventional modes of play. So maybe it would help, for the sake of discussion, to use this commonly understood definition instead, and continue from there?

Click to expand...

I am using it in the way it's commonly used. [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] seems to be intentionally minimizing realism in order to win a point, so I demonstrated the importance of realism in RPGs in the hope that he would at least acknowledge that realism has more meaning than "pocket lint." Alas, he seems to be one of those who would rather stick his head in the sand and sing la la la, than to admit when he is wrong about something.

Realism is present everywhere in an RPG. Once people realize that, then it's pretty easy for them to understand the concept that realism isn't all or nothing and that the only difference between [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] and I is where on the realism line we each prefer things. Let's say that D&D sits at X amount of realism on the line. I prefer to add a bit more realism to the game, making it Y. He may like to keep it the same or perhaps even reduce it.

Realism does have value for him, though, even if he won't admit to us or himself. Something that is necessary to even be able to play the game has value. Period.

For example, when I say my roleplaying game uses a 'realistic approach' to combat-injuries, I think most people on this board would take that to mean that the game mimics certain aspects of how injuries in real life tend to affect a person. That is usually how we use the word 'realism' in regards to a roleplaying game.

Click to expand...

Right, you want to increase the amount of realism that is in combat. The thing to remember is that realism isn't binary, i.e. having no tie to reality at all or absolutely mirroring reality. It exists as a line between those two points, which makes what I described to him in my post last night correct and helps understand what those of us who enjoy adding more realism to D&D are about.

@Maxperson

Do you mean something like “baseline familiarity centered around our own physical systems?” Gravity is a thing, some interactions transfer more energy than others, nonparasitic plants need light for photosynthesis, humans (and animals like them) express themselves based on biological and social imperatives. Stuff like that?

I don’t think (broadly) that anyone would disagree with that (@Aldarc included).

I think the friction arises when we try to sort out the nature of a certain paradox that seems to violate our baselines arbitrarily, what to extrapolate from it, what is the consequence/utility (from a gameplay perspective) of digging too deeply or hewing too closely/granularly (to our baselines). Further still, the more Through the Looking Glass components get ported to our games, the more friction there is (as even our seemingly trivially “true” baselines become challenged).

EDIT - That isn’t even touching on the questions of:

1) Does hewing to x too closely cause gameplay issues (balance, overhead)?

2) Does hewing to x too closely interfere with having interesting inputs to gameplay (framed conflicts, proposed action declarations, exciting obstacles).

Maxperson said:

Heh!! Can't be played without realism being present.

Click to expand...

I know, and he always shows up late.

Manbearcat said:

@Maxperson

Do you mean something like “baseline familiarity centered around our own physical systems?” Gravity is a thing, some interactions transfer more energy than others, nonparasitic plants need light for photosynthesis, humans (and animals like them) express themselves based on biological and social imperatives. Stuff like that?

I don’t think (broadly) that anyone would disagree with that (@Aldarc included).

I think the friction arises when we try to sort out the nature of a certain paradox that seems to violate our baselines arbitrarily, what to extrapolate from it, what is the consequence/utility (from a gameplay perspective) of digging too deeply or hewing too closely/granularly (to our baselines). Further still, the more Through the Looking Glass components get potted to our games, the more friction there is (as even our seemingly trivially “true” baselines become challenged).

EDIT - That isn’t even touching on the questions of:

1) Does hewing to x too closely cause gameplay issues (balance, overhead)?

2) Does hewing to x too closely interfere with having interesting inputs to gameplay (framed conflicts, proposed action declarations, exciting obstacles).

Click to expand...

Yes. That familiarity ties game correlations to reality. Realism exists everywhere you look inside of RPGs. It's only the level of realism that's at issue, not whether or not it exists. The problems encountered in discussions about realism here on the forum stem from the fact that we all have different baselines of realism that we like on any particular topic. Some may like more realism in weaponry, others in damage, yet others in how gravity works. Others will like less.

I think the other questions you mention in your edit affect where we place our limits. For example, while I enjoy more realism in D&D than is present in the rules, I wouldn't want to have to have my PCs go to the bathroom multiple times a day. That bogs the gameplay down with uninteresting inputs and increases the overhead(time used).