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

hawkeyefan · Apr 21, 2019

Maxperson said:
You offered up two methods for the same exact thing, not two methods for doing one thing two different ways, which is what I am talking about.

I’ve read this sentence about a dozen times now, and I’m really struggling to understand it.

You’ve claimed that the GM making decisions for action resolution or for establishing elements in the fiction is inherently more realistic than other methods.

I provided an example (fork in the path) and then explained how a GM might decide the answer (method 1) and how another game may have a player make a roll and the GM narrates based on the results of the roll (method 2).

You seemed to agree that these two methods are equally realistic.

Therefore, GM deciding by consulting notes is not inherently more realistic.

Maxperson said:
You moved the goal posts from, "Example 1 is less realistic than example 2," to "Example one and example two are functionally identical." You don't get to move the goal posts like that.

I didn’t move goal posts. I compared two methods.

Maxperson said:
In D&D fighters do not care for arms and armor, because arms and armor never wear down in any way. If you are playing some other system where it states explicitly that arms and armor wear down, but care is assumed, then my example does not apply to THAT system. THAT system does not in any way refute my claim, though.

I’ve never liked how fighters in my game always seem to be free of intestinal concerns. They live on rations and ale and the occasional hank of mutton, but never miss a battle due to stomach issues.

So I came up with a mechanic whereby we can determine if a fighter has to skip adventuring to spend a day in the privy!

Would you agree that this mechanic makes my game more realistic than baseline D&D?

Maxperson · Apr 21, 2019

pemerton said:
No it's not. Reality is characterised by unpredictable and unanticipated events. GM decision - more-or-less by definition - can't produce those. That's one reason it produces outcomes in the fiction that are not particularly like real life.

This is more of your twisting. Nobody is saying that we are producing exactly real life. All we have to do is edge closer to it in order to increase realism.

Generalising the point: GM decisions are, more-or-less by definition, made for reasons. Thus they create a fiction that reflects one person's priorities for a shared fiction. This is not a characteristic of real life!

Reasons are a characteristic of real life. I don't know why you think that they aren't.

What do you mean by adding becoming nicked and dulled in combat? Do you mean adding that as a mechanical state? As a way of narrating why an attack roll fails? As background colour in the manner that [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] describe upthread?

It doesn't matter. All the answers to those questions do is establish how much of an increase in realism there was, not whether there was an increase or not.

And what does this example have to do with GM decides as a method of resolution? In Prince Valiant, I can narrate a dulled weapon (reducing its adds in combat) as an outcome of a loss in combat. In BW, there are various rules for equipment degradation as well as the possibility of narrating this as a consequence of failure. In Cortex+ Heroic I could impose a Dulled Blade complication on a PC as a consequence of a successful reaction by a NPC.

Awesome. That does nothing to change the fact that if weapons don't get dull, as they do not in D&D, adding in the ability to get dull is an increase in realism. It doesn't matter if Prince Valiant already has it.

There are any number of methods that can produce such outcomes in a RPG which allows for it. You've given no reason to think that GM decides is the one that will produce the most realistic distribution/occurrence of such events.

This is yet another of your Straw Army. I've claimed anything about "the most realistic" of anything. That's just more of your twisting that some others here want to excuse you on.

If [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s D&D game includes player's narrating their PCs' care for their weapons, then we have at least one counterexample to your claim that in D&D there is no such dulling or assumed care. You seem to have in mind the dulling of weapons as a mechanical state of affairs, but your argument would become clearer if you spelled some of these assumptions out, and related them to the thread topic of processes whereby the shared fiction is established.

No. No that would not be a counter example. For you to show a counter example, you would have to show in the D&D rules where care of weapons is a listed part of the game. Someone adding it to their D&D game does not do that.

That's not to say that he's wrong to think that there is no "realistic" inferential pathway from those world-level details to any particular drop that the PCs might find themselves adjacent to. My point is that you don't seem to have a very well-developed sense of the range of RPG mechanics out there, and also the range of mechanical and non-mechanical decision-making processs.

I don't need to have a well developed sense of the range of RPG mechanics. If an RPG has through it's mechanics, better realism than D&D, then I would have less(or nothing) that I need to do in order to get that game to where I want it to be.

Let's go back, for instance, to your claim that deciding which is the more-travelled path in the way [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] suggested upthread - ie on the basis of a player check - is less realistic than [something-or-other]. Such a system can be used to introduce weapon degradation and weapon breakage - 4e Dark Sun uses a version of it, as does Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel and Cortex+ Heroic. You've said that these systems are not apt to produce realism, yet they have more prospect of yielding instancs of weapon degradation and weapon breakage than does D&D as you would pkay it out of the box, which is - you've said - a mark of realism. What's your response to this apparent contradiction? I've got no idea, because you don't seem to have anticipated it because of the assumptions you make about how RPGing works.

Another Strawman. I've never said that those systems are unlikely to produce realism. I said your style of play is less realistic than mine, and based on your various examples of your game play, I stand by that.

Maxperson · Apr 21, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
You’ve claimed that the GM making decisions for action resolution or for establishing elements in the fiction is inherently more realistic than other methods.

I provided an example (fork in the path) and then explained how a GM might decide the answer (method 1) and how another game may have a player make a roll and the GM narrates based on the results of the roll (method 2).

You seemed to agree that these two methods are equally realistic.

Therefore, GM deciding by consulting notes is not inherently more realistic.

I didn't make a general claim that making decisions is more realistic than other methods. I said the DM making a reasonable decision about something weapon breakage, is more realistic than pink bunny dreams resulting in a weapon breaking.

I didn’t move goal posts. I compared two methods.

Two methods that were both about orange juice(equal realism). I was talking about making Tang(less realistic) more like orange juice(more realistic). Your comparison shifted the conversation away from what it was about.

I’ve never liked how fighters in my game always seem to be free of intestinal concerns. They live on rations and ale and the occasional hank of mutton, but never miss a battle due to stomach issues.

So I came up with a mechanic whereby we can determine if a fighter has to skip adventuring to spend a day in the privy!

Would you agree that this mechanic makes my game more realistic than baseline D&D?

Baseline D&D already has mechanics for this. Page 256 of the 5e DMG might help you. Or you could use the 1e rules for disease. They're much better and more realistic than the 5e version. Also, you should probably have these illnesses affect all of the classes. If you limit them to only fighters for some reason, you are losing realism in other areas.

pemerton · Apr 21, 2019

Maxperson said:
I didn't make a general claim that making decisions is more realistic than other methods. I said the DM making a reasonable decision about something weapon breakage, is more realistic than pink bunny dreams resulting in a weapon breaking.

Yes, you asserted this. But you gave no reason for it.

Maxperson said:
Or you could use the 1e rules for disease. They're much better and more realistic than the 5e version. Also, you should probably have these illnesses affect all of the classes. If you limit them to only fighters for some reason, you are losing realism in other areas.

What is your evidence that the AD&D DMG rules for disease are realistic?

EDIT: Before you start going on again about "twisting" etc - as per [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] upthread, I assume you accept that an unrealistic incidence of disease doesn't increase realism any more than an "unrealistic" absence of disease (which needn't be that unrealistic - not everyone in pre-modern times contracted serius diseases).

Lanefan · Apr 21, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
Sorry it read that way. The results were not really important for the example so much as the methods.

In a procedural game that has a more traditional approach, like D&D, the GM typically has all this information at his disposal prior to the PC asking the question. So he looks at his notes and knows the answer. He may then share that info or call for a roll if he thinks it appropriate (if there is a chance of failure, essentially).

In a more narrative based game, the GM probably doesn’t know which path is more traveled. He asks the player to make the appropriate roll, and then decides what information to provide to the player based on the result of the roll. In this case, let’s say the roll is successful and the GM says the righthand path is more traveled.

Neither of these approaches is more realistic than the other.

In and of that particular instant and looking at nothing else, both are equally realistic and consistent and valid.

But there's a bigger picture to consider: first the easy one, whether the right-hand path being more travelled makes sense with what has been determined in the fiction leading up to this point; and second the harder one, whether that determination now is going to risk leading to things appearing later that should have (or could have) been known or telegraphed sooner.

In a pre-mapped situation the GM [and maybe everyone, depending whether a) the map is already known or b) someone in the party has flight capabilities and went up to scout] will in theory know what both paths lead to before the party get to the junction, and that knowledge will then inform the tracking results. Internal logic is maintained.

Why do you say this? Why can’t the group collectively maintain internal logic?

Because unless the entire idea of setting exploration is denied to the group, the players don't know what's out there that they haven't seen yet. If for example the GM already knows that the left path leads to an orcish village while the right path leads to a rarely-used dock on a lake then the GM could have in various ways telegraphed or breadcrumbed these things earlier had the opportunity arisen. But if the GM doesn't know these things then she can't telegraph anything; she can't describe elements of the scene that might very logically be there (e.g. that the traffic on the left path is probably all orc) because she has no way of knowing yet that they would exist.

Have you played in games where such responsibility was not solely the GM’s?

I don't have to have in this case, if a dumb bozo like me can see how easily it'd fall apart.

This concern of yours about internal logic falling apart if the GM isn’t the one calling all the shots just seems misplaced. That doesn’t really happen.

The only way it wouldn't happen is if the players were extremely forgiving of inconsistency (which IMO is close to unforgivable if it happens all the time) or simply didn't care enough.

Maxperson · Apr 22, 2019

pemerton said:
Yes, you asserted this. But you gave no reason for it.

What is your evidence that the AD&D DMG rules for disease are realistic?

EDIT: Before you start going on again about "twisting" etc - as per [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] upthread, I assume you accept that an unrealistic incidence of disease doesn't increase realism any more than an "unrealistic" absence of disease (which needn't be that unrealistic - not everyone in pre-modern times contracted serius diseases).

I didn't say they were realistic. I said they were more realistic than the 5e rules. Please rephrase your question to take what I said into account.

pemerton · Apr 22, 2019

Lanefan said:
I don't have to have in this case, if a dumb bozo like me can see how easily it'd fall apart.

The only way it wouldn't happen is if the players were extremely forgiving of inconsistency (which IMO is close to unforgivable if it happens all the time) or simply didn't care enough.

Ths tells us something about the limits of your imagination. And of your willingness to believe others, given that everyone posting in this thread who has actually used the technique you're talking about is saying, on the basis of their actual experience, that your concern is not warranted.

Maxperson · Apr 22, 2019

pemerton said:
Ths tells us something about the limits of your imagination. And of your willingness to believe others, given that everyone posting in this thread who has actually used the technique you're talking about is saying, on the basis of their actual experience, that your concern is not warranted.

So first, his imagination seems stronger, not weaker. He is able to imagine all of those other things that your style doesn't take into account. Second, those who have used the playstyle have demonstrated that they don't care about the inconsistency he is talking about. It's not their place to tell him that his concern isn't warranted, when the reason they don't see it is that they don't care about the consistency he cares about.
[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is correct in his concerns. If he played your playstyle those unforgivable(to him) inconsistencies would rear their ugly heads.

pemerton · Apr 22, 2019

Maxperson said:
So first, his imagination seems stronger, not weaker. He is able to imagine all of those other things that your style doesn't take into account.

What things?
[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] plays an AD&D variant. The elements in his game are ones that I'm very familiar with. The mechanics are also ones that I'm very familiar with (AD&D plus a hp/wound variant, a spell memorisation variant similar to 5e, and I think some critical hit/fumble variants). What are you suggesting his game contains that [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s or mine or any other poster on this thread's lacks?

Maxperson said:
Second, those who have used the playstyle have demonstrated that they don't care about the inconsistency he is talking about. It's not their place to tell him that his concern isn't warranted, when the reason they don't see it is that they don't care about the consistency he cares about.

What are you talking about?

My actual play posts on these boards count in the dozens. Where are the inconsistencies in the fiction?

This is the bottom line, for me: if you want to make it a competition, I'll put the depth and richness of my gameworlds up against your or [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] any day of the week.

If you're not interested in that competition, then instead of making false claims about other people's fictions - eg in that case that it must be riddled with inconsistency - start thinking, instead, about the reasons why they're making their claims.

For instance, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has made it clear that he thinks it is an inconsistency if a surprise emerges in play that has not been previously foreshadowed. But, in fact, in real life surprises occur all the time. People discovered dinosaur fossils around 200 years ago and were surprised. The first time I visited London - a city of millions of people, of whom I knew about half-a-dozen - I bumped into the sister of a friend of mine, whom I'd not seen since my friend's wedding nearly 8 years earlier, walking down the street. There was no foreshadowing beyond my having heard, sometime in the intervening 8 years, that she'd moved to Britain.

This is part of why I dispute that GM decides for <reasons> makes the gameworld more like real life. By making the gameworld more predictable and subjecting it to one person's vision, it actually makes it less like real life.

Maxperson · Apr 22, 2019

pemerton said:
What things?

Did you read his post? He stated some examples pretty clearly.

If you're not interested in that competition, then instead of making false claims about other people's fictions - eg in that case that it must be riddled with inconsistency - start thinking, instead, about the reasons why they're making their claims.

The richness of your game does not invalidate his examples or prevent those sorts of things from occurring in your game. There are many different areas of game play and a game can be very rich in some areas, and deficient in others. I'm sure [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s game is weak in areas that you find important, just like yours is weak in areas that he finds important. That doesn't mean that your game is less rich than his. It's just lacking in areas that he prefers.

For instance, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has made it clear that he thinks it is an inconsistency if a surprise emerges in play that has not been previously foreshadowed. But, in fact, in real life surprises occur all the time. People discovered dinosaur fossils around 200 years ago and were surprised. The first time I visited London - a city of millions of people, of whom I knew about half-a-dozen - I bumped into the sister of a friend of mine, whom I'd not seen since my friend's wedding nearly 8 years earlier, walking down the street. There was no foreshadowing beyond my having heard, sometime in the intervening 8 years, that she'd moved to Britain.

Go back and re-read his last post. He states clear examples of what he is talking about.

This is part of why I dispute that GM decides for <reasons> makes the gameworld more like real life. By making the gameworld more predictable and subjecting it to one person's vision, it actually makes it less like real life.

If there were only one quality to realism, that might be true, but there isn't just one quality. The reasons a DM uses to increase realism can increase it in some areas, even if it decreases it in another, and still result in a net gain to the realism of the situation. When I come up with reasons that make a situation more realistic, I'm making net gains. Sure, it doesn't have the same variety of possibilities that real life has, but then it never has had that and never will, no matter what system I might use. That means that by coming up with my reasons, I'm not losing ground on the possibilities you mention, but I am gaining in the areas that matter to me and my group.