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

lowkey13 said:

It can be frustrating when you go through the whole process of trying to explain something, and get a one sentence non-response, and a followup that indicates that further argument about argument is ahead - however, given that that my viewpoints on this issue (re: arguing about arguing) were already well-known, I am just making my relief against banging my head permanent this time. I appreciate that you recognize that.

Click to expand...

Sure thing! They do the same thing to me, so I know what you're talking about. I'm just a bit more stubborn than you are about this sort of thing.

Anyway, I apologize if you thought I was indicating that people were bullying you; I really was using that as an analogy in that prior post, and you have shown you are more than capable of standing up for yourself (as shown in this thread!). I do think that there is something distasteful with a group of people that have an insular and (not necessarily) widely-shared opinion taking turns being, at times, rude and dismissive* to a fellow forum member and then bolstering each other with XP; that's what I meant when I wrote that "the majority of people looking at this thread will just see a circular firing squad of people high-fiving each other without cause."

Click to expand...

I didn't think you were saying that they were bullying me, so no worries. I was My response was to [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] who was equating the analogy with the accusation of bullying. It was to let him know that I wasn't taking it the same way he was.

Anyway, whether it's called "more realistic" or "more authentic" or "more asdwfnksaedjk," I have always preferred a level of abstraction in my games and favored fast gameplay over simulation/realism; that's why I played a stripped-down 1e and pretty much checked out when they published the DSG and WSG. I personally think it would be helpful to, instead of concentrating on this sole issue, to discuss how different goals in TTRPGs have to balanced against each other, and different goals have different costs; something which is familiar in almost every endeavor.

Click to expand...

I agree, which is why I have repeatedly said here that while I enjoy more realism than 5e has at it's core, I won't engage realism to the point where the players' enjoyment of the game starts to suffer.

It might be interesting to even ask whether the weighting of realism/simulation has changed in TTRPGs, given the advent of amazing computer games; it seems unlikely (IMO) that there will ever be a mass-market for a truly complex and time-consuming TTRPG, and that the main value of these games in today's age may lie in the more social aspects as well as the creativity (which, unlike computers for now, remains unbounded). But that is probably a topic for a different thread!

Click to expand...

I'm just going to throw this here since I've seen a lot of people quoting Gygax as being against realism for D&D. Gygax was coming from a wargaming background where realism meant trying to mirror reality as closely as possible. In that context, 1e was not about realism. Gygax then spent tons of time engaging tables and such to simulate reality to a lesser degree, but to a degree that was greater than we saw in 3e-5e. Realism as people have used it since the 90's has meant something different than what Gygax was talking about.

I don't know whether computer games were responsible for the change, but realism in table top RPGs definitely means something different than it did in the 70's and 80's.

AbdulAlhazred said:

Cool. I would say that, in AD&D, it made sense to have NPCs with character classes. The classes were reasonably simple, especially fighters and rogues and such, and not much would be gained by using a monster stat block. Spell casters are a bit different, frankly I would just sort of hack them to have whatever was immediately needed and not get into crazy things like spell books and lists of known/not known spells and all that complexity. Still, back in those days, I would often list an NPC as '4th level Magic User'. OTOH I did also often just create stat blocks, or 'power lists' for specific NPCs that didn't match up with any specific PC class.

Click to expand...

I like magic to be MAGICAL, so I don't have tons of NPC spellcasters running around the world. A temple might have 30 priests, but only 2 clerics. That's not to say that wizards are rare, but they're not a dime a dozen like Greyhawk and some other campaigns run them. That has the side effect of cutting down on the number of complicated NPCs for me to prepare.

pemerton said:

To be clear - are you positing a system in which neither armour nor level/HD makes any difference in combat, and combat is essentially the attrition of damage dice?

As @AbdulAlhazred already posted, the bit about armour not mattering takes us close to 4e, where armour is mostly a cosmetic thing except for a handful of classes (by default wizards and sorcerers have a bit less than anyone else, while paladins have a bit more). The bit about level/HD not mattering would be a big change for D&D but not inherently unrealistic.

This would be a big change in resolution compared to standard D&D, but I'm missing the bit where it's unrealistic. Of course if you write in some fiction heavier armour makes people more robust in combat and then the mechanics contradict that you'll get some weirdness - but (eg) 4e avoids such weirdness by writing into the fiction that there are multiple ways to be robust in combat: armour, quick reflexes, quick thinking, etc.

Click to expand...

I will allow this qualification in terms of 4e. I think it is authentic to the genre and tone of the game. I don't think it is at all realistic. I mean, for 1000's of years, people created and perfected forms of armor, which CLEARLY have value in preventing/reducing injury. The question, however, of one game mechanic vs another's relative realism, even given that we completely specify everything, is pretty fraught. Mostly the implementations are simplistic gamist attempts to create some degree of authenticity, not to really get very close to realism.

So, I am hesitant to say that D&D's AC system is more realistic than none at all. It COULD be, I wouldn't be surprised if it were found to be so, but the analysis would be beyond anything anyone is probably capable of today. Beyond that I suspect the 'make it harder to hit' system has some limitations, so it may be more faithful in some situations and less in others. Maybe less in some than no system at all, so again the question is really hard to answer. It would be my contention that no game designer, ever, really attempted to create a realistic answer, they just followed the obvious general, uncontroversial, concept and made something reasonably authentic (or not if they weren't good designers).

Maxperson said:

This does nothing to change what I said. All of that is mechanics being tied to the attack. One is effectively the other. An attack without a mechanic does nothing. A mechanic without being in the fiction does nothing. Saying "But realism is only the fiction and not mechanics!" is playing a semantical game.

Click to expand...

Have you forgotten how to just play pretend? Kids pretend "attacks" all the time with no mechanics. You're only saying that attacks cannot exist without mechanics because you're mired in a rigid way of thinking about games.

Again, it's more than fine to prefer such ways of thinking, but you should have enough of an open mind to recognize that your preference is not the only way possible.

This is untrue. A mechanic in which an attack only happens when my cat farts is a lot less realistic than one in which an attack happens when a player declares his PC attacks with a sword and uses 5e attack mechanics.

Click to expand...

Again you confuse a process with the fiction. In the fiction, an attack occurs, whether determined by pure play pretend or a well-codified mechanic or your cat farting. You may well prefer the codified mechanic over the other two (and be in the vast majority) but tgese things do not reflect "realism" in game because they are outside of the fiction. Means do matter, but only to the players. "Realism" can only be concerned with the ends (the fiction).

Frex, if I relate a story about how my character got scratched by a sewer rat and developed a disease, are you going to say that you can't say if this is a "realistic" outcome without knowing the precise manner in which it happened in the game rules? It doesn't matter to the fiction if I used 1e mechanics or this was the outcome of a failed check in BitD. It may matter to you, because you prefer one set of mechanics to the other because those mechanics better reoresent your play goals and game focus preference, but the mechanics used don't make the outcome more or less "realistic".

Maxperson said:

Sure thing! They do the same thing to me, so I know what you're talking about. I'm just a bit more stubborn than you are about this sort of thing.

Click to expand...

Whereas I feel the same way about you and [MENTION=88539]LowKey[/MENTION]13. You refuse to pick up what's being put down. I get both of your arguments because I used to make them myself. There are quite a few threads from around 3 or more years ago where I'm arguing your current position. I came to realize I had a very, very narrow view of gaming.

I didn't think you were saying that they were bullying me, so no worries. I was My response was to [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] who was equating the analogy with the accusation of bullying. It was to let him know that I wasn't taking it the same way he was.

Click to expand...

Max, you've said that you engage in dishonest posting when you think others are being dishonest to you, and you've directly accused me of being dishonest with you (and admitted you were dishonest in responses). You can't say you aren't feeling persecuted when you've outright stated that you retaliate for perceived persecution and then name names as to who you've done this to. I mean, really, some people actually recall what you've said.

I'm just going to throw this here since I've seen a lot of people quoting Gygax as being against realism for D&D. Gygax was coming from a wargaming background where realism meant trying to mirror reality as closely as possible. In that context, 1e was not about realism. Gygax then spent tons of time engaging tables and such to simulate reality to a lesser degree, but to a degree that was greater than we saw in 3e-5e. Realism as people have used it since the 90's has meant something different than what Gygax was talking about.

I don't know whether computer games were responsible for the change, but realism in table top RPGs definitely means something different than it did in the 70's and 80's.

Click to expand...

Discussion of how Gygax played is an actual red herring. I'm surprised you haven't noticed.


ETA: Ah, I see lowkey13 has blocked me, but is still petulantly complaining about me (and others) in multiple threads.

Ovinomancer said:

Max, you've said that you engage in dishonest posting when you think others are being dishonest to you, and you've directly accused me of being dishonest with you (and admitted you were dishonest in responses). You can't say you aren't feeling persecuted when you've outright stated that you retaliate for perceived persecution and then name names as to who you've done this to. I mean, really, some people actually recall what you've said.

Click to expand...

So what I said, is I mirror back what's coming at me. If someone is rude to me, I will be rude in response. I don't post dishonestly. My positions are my positions, and I don't make stuff up that I don't believe.

Sadras said:

I hear what you are saying but it comes down to this:
In reality, we plan what to take before the trip/adventure, hard choices have to be made at planning level which will affect encumbrance depending on what we pack, it might affect how we travel depending on what is carried, it might affect how stealthy we are able to move, the choices are made on the intelligence gathered at time of departure, it will affect what the next person in the group decides to bring, our gear might affect the decisions/reactions of NPCs, it might affect what might get broken or damaged during the trip....

Much of this is circumvented via the BitD system which allocates slots based on when it is required.

The one is clearly gamist, it is not even a question.

And just to be clear I'm not knocking it. I'm just stating the mechanic is less like how it happens in real. I would love to go overseas and not pack anything except a luggage bag with x slots and a generic weight and just replicate clothing depending on the weather. My wife would have loved that on our last trip to Europe.

EDIT: Bolded part added for clarity.

Click to expand...

I understand why you are putting it this way, but this comes down again to the kind of 'realism' that is being discussed. If you want to have the gear that actually gets pulled out of the backpack realistically reflect what a highly experienced professional thief with significant knowledge of the details of the types of obstacles he's likely to face, then maybe the BitD system is MORE REALISTIC! You have put all the value on 'process simulation', but less/little on the fidelity of outcomes.

Your luggage back example is not apt, because you are, presumably, a pretty experienced traveler. In any case you are exactly as experienced as yourself, and thus there's no greater degree of preparedness skill which realistically could have appeared. Even if your trip was in an RPG, if you are playing yourself in that game, there's no such greater skill possessed by your character, and again BitD's mechanic would be meaningless, it would have no work to do.

However, in the actual game, BitD, the mechanic does actual work and produces actually more authentic types of results, at least arguably. This is the kind of reason why Max's absolute insistence on one specific sort of realism doesn't cut it. There just really are more kinds, really and truly, and no amount of commentators trying to tell us that isn't so will ever get much traction (although I'm happy that I have refined my views on authenticity, that will be interesting to apply to some more editing I will do soon).

Sadras said:

In reality, we plan what to take before the trip/adventure, hard choices have to be made at planning level

<snip>

Much of this is circumvented via the BitD system which allocates slots based on when it is required.

<snip>

the mechanic is less like how it happens in real. I would love to go overseas and not pack anything except a luggage bag with x slots and a generic weight

Click to expand...

In some previous threads I've been criticsed for suggesting that other posters conflate the ficiton and the real world - but it's hard to see what else might be going on in this post!

The characters in BitD do not pack luggage bags with X slots and generic weights. They plan, and make hard choices.

But in the real world, we author all that at a certain point in time, being in possession of certain information.

There is nothing unrealistic about the resulting fiction. And as [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] says, it's not obvious that the decision process for the player is very different from that for the character: the player's knowledge of situation X that triggers a decision that the character packed item Y corresponds to the skilled character's decision, in anticipation of situation X, to pack item Y.

The first D&D mechanic that I thought of that is the same as this is from Oriental Adventures, mid-1980s. The yakuza class has an ability to have contacts (a certain number per level). The player does not need to decide who the contact is until s/he wants to have his/her PC meet that contact.

This is not new game tech.

darkbard said:

Why? Considering all that has been written here, why do you insist this somehow adds to your sense of realism in the game?

Click to expand...

I think its just his preference. We can argue about what is possible, and what different kinds of play can and do produce, but I won't argue with anyone's preferences. I will say that BitD's mechanic might be more authentic to the idea of an experienced thief, but that isn't really relevant to the guy who enjoys thinking out his equipment list because the RP he enjoys is doing that thinking. He needn't justify it at all.

AbdulAlhazred said:

I think its just his preference. We can argue about what is possible, and what different kinds of play can and do produce, but I won't argue with anyone's preferences. I will say that BitD's mechanic might be more authentic to the idea of an experienced thief, but that isn't really relevant to the guy who enjoys thinking out his equipment list because the RP he enjoys is doing that thinking. He needn't justify it at all.

Click to expand...

Totally. I'm just curious as to *why* he holds these preferences. Y'know: the unexamined life and all that (or, possibly, examined and well considered)...