I own and have read a copy of Fate Core. But it's not at the front of the queue! It's sitting behind HeroQuest revised and DungeonWorld, and also DitV - but I'd like to adapt the latter to something more fantastical than western.
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
I found playing in a western setting really relaxing, refreshing, at home in a way, after watching so many movies in my youth. Then you can pump up the supernatural dial of DitV to have some strange stuff happening
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]
The game world both is and is not like real life. There are similarities and differences. Pointing out the differences doesn't negate all the similarities. From a players perspective that is roleplaying a character the game world often feels and functions like the real world because he is viewing the game world through the characters perspective. From that perspective going to a tea-house is no different than going to a tea-house in real life. You see neither the real life person or the in game character have any awareness about the processes external to them that cause anyone to be at the tea-house when they visit. They only know if someone is or if someone isn't there when they visit the tea house That's what we mean when we say the game world is like real life. From these first person perspectives there's uncertainty about who you will find in the real world tea house and who the character will find in the game-world teahouse.
Now, obviously the processes that determine whether you will meet someone at a real life tea house are not the same processes that determine whether a character in the game world will meet someone at the game world tea house but that's not a meaningful insight to make as your conflating internal first person perspectives with external information that neither a real life person nor an in game character actually possess.
The game world both is and is not like real life. There are similarities and differences. Pointing out the differences doesn't negate all the similarities. From a players perspective that is roleplaying a character the game world often feels and functions like the real world because he is viewing the game world through the characters perspective. From that perspective going to a tea-house is no different than going to a tea-house in real life. You see neither the real life person or the in game character have any awareness about the processes external to them that cause anyone to be at the tea-house when they visit. They only know if someone is or if someone isn't there when they visit the tea house That's what we mean when we say the game world is like real life. From these first person perspectives there's uncertainty about who you will find in the real world tea house and who the character will find in the game-world teahouse.
Now, obviously the processes that determine whether you will meet someone at a real life tea house are not the same processes that determine whether a character in the game world will meet someone at the game world tea house but that's not a meaningful insight to make as your conflating internal first person perspectives with external information that neither a real life person nor an in game character actually possess.
There are many ways to replicate the first-person uncertainty you describe. One is to make a Streetwise check, or Circles check, or . . . check (depending on system and precise context); another is to wait to find out what the GM has decided. The second of these doesn't make the game more like real life.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
From the character perspective both of those methods emulate real life.
From a God perspective neither of those methods emulate real life. However the dm just deciding gets much closer to real life than rolling dice. The dm can make informed decisions and include much more into the decision making process than dice ever dreamed of.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
See, this is what I, generally speaking, dispute. My assertion is that even the most enriched of game world settings are so 'thin' in terms of detailed understanding of the processes and implications of the established facts, that any decisions made about what "is or isn't likely" are indistinguishable from pure opinion. The DM can indeed "make up stuff" and call it realistic, that doesn't make it so in any meaningful sense except that it adheres to his preferences. If he makes up some 'explanation' for something, that too is made up ultimately.
Real life OTOH is governed, objectively, by principles best understood using a framework like the Buddhist concept of 'dependent origination'. That is to say, everything is interrelated at nearly infinite levels and no distinct processes can be described at the level of human observation. Even our 'explanations' of what happens in the real world are thus largely a constructed narrative. If this is true of reality, what does it say about our ability to construct artificial realities with substantial similarity to the real world? Essentially it is an impossibility. Instead we base our constructs on principles of what works when we play, largely.
This is where I disagree. My reasoning is similar to [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s - that there is more in the heaven and earth of the gameworld than is dreamed of in any GM's philosophy. GM decision-making isn't "informed decision-making", it's just one person's preferences for the fiction trumping another's. Which is exactly what makes it not like real life!
Last Sunday the Motogp grand prix has been held at COTA in Austin, Texas. The reigning world champion and Honda rider was supposed to win for the seventh time in a row.
Instead his and all other factory Honda bikes racing on Sunday suffered a mechanical failure and did not finish the race.
Likely? Sure no. Unlikely? Not even. An event more unique than rare.
Like a totally unexpected critical failure on a routine roll.
Instead his and all other factory Honda bikes racing on Sunday suffered a mechanical failure and did not finish the race.
Likely? Sure no. Unlikely? Not even. An event more unique than rare.
Like a totally unexpected critical failure on a routine roll.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
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?
hawkeyefan
Legend
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.
Similar Threads
