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

pemerton said:

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?

Click to expand...

There's a bit more - and a bit less - to my game than that; if you want to see the basic player side rules look here:

http://www.friendsofgravity.com/games/commons_room/blue_books/decast-blue-book-in-html/index.html

Spell write-ups, pantheons, and setting info all have their own pages. Sorry, though, but most of the DM-side stuff isn't online (yet).

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.

Click to expand...

And, were it a competition, I've no doubt that we'd both have our good and bad moments.

However, the question is more one of how much of that depth and richness do your players ever get to see or hear about - should they so desire - beyond that which is in the framed scenes?

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.

Click to expand...

Er, not quite.

I think it's an inconsistency if something - doesn't have to be a surprise at all - emerges in play the existence of which would have (or easily could have) made a difference to previous play had said "something" been known of or thought of at the time said previous play occurred. For an example, look no further than my own sad tale of the missing wagon tracks from way upthread.

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.

Click to expand...

Surprises do occur all the time...but even then sometimes you can think back and realize that some previous things you maybe thought irrelevant at the time were in fact related and-or leading up to this surprise event.

Dinosaur fossils were noticed long before 200 years ago but were either ignored, not followed up on, or fell victim to wild and inaccurate speculation (here be dragons!); what happened 200 years ago was that some people suddenly realized what they really were and were then able to tie a bunch of previous observations etc. (i.e. years if not centuries of "foreshadowing") together.

The consistency was, in hindsight, always present. And that's what I'm after in the game.

pemerton said:

Hang on - are you telling me that before you say anything as GM you check it against a written record of every bit of fiction ever produced in your campaign? Or do you rely on memory when doing your prep and when making decisions in the course of play (such as whether or not any sect members are in the teahouse)?

At my tabel we rely primarily on memory but secondarily on notes. (I suspect that this is what [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and you also rely on.)

Click to expand...

I rely on memory when I can but my memory only goes so far. My current campaign has been going for over ten years now and believe me, if I didn't have fairly detailed (if often only in point form) game logs to fall back on I'd be screwed. Even then I make mistakes, but I try my best to keep them to a dull roar.

I believe that much of what you and Lanefan call inconsistency is really ambiguity or uncertainty. For instance, in my 4e campaign there is uncertainty about how old the world is; and about the precise sequence in which certain events occurred before, during and in the immediate aftermath of the Dawn War. But given that only one PC (the deva invoker/wizard, who having become a Sage of Ages has access to all the memories of his previous incarnations) has the possibility of access to such knowledge, and he hasn't attempted to ascertain and document it all, the uncertainty makes sense. And gives the campaign a trueness to life that encyclopedia-style campaign timelines undermine!

Click to expand...

Uncertainty and-or ambiguity can be great!

And even relatively detailed campaign-history timelines can leave lots of holes and gaps to be filled in later. Hell, those gaps are what I've been mining for stories and plots for most of this campaign!

If nothing else, a timeline tells what happened when - but it doesn't always say why it happened or what caused it to happen...

pemerton said:

A variation on [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s objection would seem to be the following:

* The players ask about the colour of the ceiling in the dungeon room;

* The GM, who has no notes on this (in my experience it's rare for module descriptions to note ceiling colours), narrates that it's red;

* The players note the following inconsistency and/or lack of telegraphing - no spots of red paint on the floor or walls were mentioned, and yet there are no drop sheets in the dungeon inventory!​

Click to expand...

No, the players wonder why we weren't told the light coming from the room had a somewhat redder hue than usual when we saw it from down the hall. (such an observation would inform us that there's maybe something odd here which might lead us to take more time and-or spend more resources than usual, e.g. spells, in our approach to this room - even though it turns out to be completely mundane in the end)

This is the sort of thing that gets missed.

Or even this old standby:

* The GM's account of the details of the orc village includes the weaponsmith, and a forge, but doesn't itemise any carpentry tools - and yet the orcs are narrated as living in timber dwellings not all of which are in total disrepair!​

I think the Keep in B2 suffers from this "inconsistency", actually; I'm not sure about the village in T1.

Click to expand...

This is in fact exactly the sort of thing I get annoyed with; particularly if my character has any interest in carpentry. And sure, there's ways to explain away almost everything but it gets to be a bit much if this has to be done all the time.

Sadras said:

What I find curious is that everyone understands the plain words of "more realism" and accept it on D&D material, whether it be stuff from the DMs Guild or the monthly D&D booklet (forget its name now) that Enworld produces for 5e - and yet when Max uses it ppl lose their minds and need all sorts of measures and what not.

EDIT: Latest En5isder.
Really wonder if a thread needs to opened up to discuss Mike Myler's definition of the words "more realistic"

Click to expand...

I disagree. Everyone brings their own notions about what "more realism" means, but that does not mean that a singular understanding is equally shared. It just means that everyone has their own set of expectations. This brings us back to one of my first posts in this thread that started this mess with Max:

Aldarc said:

Even ignoring the fantastical elements within the most popular genre of TTRPG play, I'm not sure if I would call it 'realism' by any reasonable metric. Often that appeal to realism is selectively applied, if not prejudiciously, by both the game system and the participants, typically with some other goal or value in mind. 'Realism' is likely a smokescreen for some other issue(s). This is to say, I don't necessarily think that 'realism' is the genuine goal of people who claim they desire 'realism' in their TTRPG, especially D&D.

Click to expand...

Emphasizing here my earlier point that appeals to "realism" typically masks other play preferences (e.g., immersion, genre aesthetic, etc.) rather than representing an actual concern for "realism" itself. When I see a game or supplement offering "more realism," then that usually raises a red flag or two for me. I don't know what "more realism" means in a RPG because everyone has wildly different ideas about what "more realism" entails mechanically that it is fairly meaningless. We do not so much "accept it" as much as our eyes glaze past it as a meaningless buzz phrase that generally prefaces the revelation of particular play preferences and mechanics.

Sadras said:

I believe the idea is that these additional elements (attempting to mirror instances within real life), are to provide a more immersive experience and/or to provide a hardcore form of gaming. At some point these additional elements slow the game down and a balance needs to be struck.

The idea that these additional elements are fixed within the mechanics (daily weather, weapon/armour depreciation...etc) might have some proclaim that their game is 'more realistic' than others whose game does not have such mechanics. Do these systems emulate everything within RL, of course not.

Click to expand...

I would suggest that your post supports my point above that "realism" in this debate is a smokescreen about other play preferences (e.g., internal coherence of fiction, play procedures, immersion, etc.) rather than what constitutes "more realism."

Aldarc said:

I disagree.

Click to expand...

Are you saying En5sider's use of the term "more realistic" in the link I provided is unfamiliar or ambiguous to you?

Emphasizing here my earlier point that appeals to "realism" typically masks other play preferences (e.g., immersion, genre aesthetic, etc.) rather than representing an actual concern for "realism" itself. When I see a game or supplement offering "more realism," then that usually raises a red flag or two for me. I don't know what "more realism" means in a RPG because everyone has wildly different ideas about what "more realism" entails mechanically that it is fairly meaningless. We do not so much "accept it" as much as our eyes glaze past it as a meaningless buzz phrase that generally prefaces the revelation of particular play preferences and mechanics.

I would suggest that your post supports my point above that "realism" in this debate is a smokescreen about other play preferences (e.g., internal coherence of fiction, play procedures, immersion, etc.) rather than what constitutes "more realism."

Click to expand...

Bold emphasis mine. Ignore play preferences / motives for mechanic.

Armour in RL depreciates due to wear and tear for whatever reasons.
A system that includes a mechanic (abstract as it is) for accounting for the depreciation of armour is attempting to mirror RL more so than a game that does not account for the depreciation of armour, for that specific category. Do you agree or not? If not, why?

Sadras said:

Are you saying En5sider's use of the term "more realistic" in the link I provided is unfamiliar or ambiguous to you?

Click to expand...

I am familiar with the use of the buzz phrase "more realistic," but I often don't find it exists as a particularly meaningful phrase. En5sider's use seems more like marketing jargon preying upon popular naivety than being indicative of actual substance, and I don't fault them for that.

Edit: I would clarfiy that "more realistic" is mostly vacuous; however, the link saying that they will provide a mechanic for item degredation for 5E is more meaningful.

Ignore play preferences / motives for mechanic.

Click to expand...

I don't think that you can. Contextual analysis abhors a vacuum.

Armour in RL depreciates due to wear and tear for whatever reasons.
A system that includes a mechanic (abstract as it is) for accounting for the depreciation of armour is attempting to mirror RL more so than a game that does not account for the depreciation of armour, for that specific category. Do you agree or not? If not, why?

Click to expand...

Except that is not necessarily true. For example, the above link that you had provided had also suggested that you may want this mechanic to "bring a little destructive excitement to the table," which does not require realism to be an intent for adopting it as a mechanic. Therefore illustrating how "realism" can be incidental to the inclusion or preclusion of mechanics or game design.

Aldarc said:

I am familiar with the use of the buzz phrase "more realistic," but I often don't find it exists as a particularly meaningful phrase.

Click to expand...

You keep changing the conversation. You understand the buzzword of how/why it is used in relation to the the mechanics - whether it is meaningful or even appropriate word was not part of the question.

I don't think that you can. Contextual analysis abhors a vacuum.

Except that is not necessarily true. For example, the above link that you had provided had also suggested that you may want this mechanic to "bring a little destructive excitement to the table," which does not require realism to be an intent for adopting it as a mechanic. Therefore illustrating how "realism" can be incidental to the inclusion or preclusion of mechanics or game design.

Click to expand...

I find this logic very uncharitable and nonsensical.
The marrying of a little destructive excitement to the table is a result of what might happen with weapons in the midst of combat in RL. You would not marry a little destructive excitement to the table with the realities of encumbrance for instance.

Sadras said:

You keep changing the conversation.

Click to expand...

I have remained consistent in my position regarding this realism debate throughout this entire thread, which is what I have been consistently arguing, and I even linked my initial post in this thread. Don't get frustrated with me just because I want to remain on topic.

You understand the buzzword of how/why it is used in relation to the the mechanics - whether it is meaningful or even appropriate word was not part of the question.

Click to expand...

No, I said that I understand how/why the buzzword is used for the purposes of marketing the mechanics. I think that it is ambiguous what it means but I don't have the same reaction to that as I do with Max because I engage in conversations with people and not with marketing materials.

I find this logic very uncharitable and nonsensical.
The marrying of a little destructive excitement to the table is a result of what might happen with weapons in the midst of combat in RL. You would not marry a little destructive excitement to the table with the realities of encumbrance for instance.

Click to expand...

I find your lack of good faith disturbing. You asked my reading, and I provided it in good faith. You disagree with my reading. That's fine. But accusing me of being uncharitable and nonsensical in my reading poisons the well, and that will certainly not endear your perspective to me. The link you provided uses the language "whether... or" which suggests to me a distinction of elements in the introductory clause as opposed to the causal link you make here. The buzz language is meant to suggest that if you belong in either camp (or both), then the contents of this article will appeal to you (so subscribe/purchase/whatever today).

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]

I think that when it comes to the phrase "more realistic" I generally don't mind people using it to try and convey an idea. And I think that generally speaking, I'm likely to know what they mean when they use it. The EN5ider article, in that sense, is clear to me what it is trying to convey.

So the rules for weapon degradation being an attempt to add "more realism" to the game.....I get what is meant, even if I don't really think it's technically accurate. But sometimes for the sake of conversation and for conveying ideas, that kind of phrase can work fine. I do think a lot of the conversation has been wasted by devoting time to this angle. To me, someone saying "I added weapon degradation to my D&D game to make it more realistic" is perfectly fine.

What I don't think is fine is something more like "My D&D game has weapon degradation mechanics, and therefore is more realistic than a game that lacks such mechanics" because I don't think that's true at all and for a myriad of reasons.

So I think the semantic debate has remained relevant to the discussion because some folks will mistake acceptance of the general use of the phrase for acceptance that the phrase is technically accurate. Others want to make sure that distinction is clear.

hawkeyefan said:

@Sadras

I think that when it comes to the phrase "more realistic" I generally don't mind people using it to try and convey an idea. And I think that generally speaking, I'm likely to know what they mean when they use it. The EN5ider article, in that sense, is clear to me what it is trying to convey.

So the rules for weapon degradation being an attempt to add "more realism" to the game.....I get what is meant, even if I don't really think it's technically accurate. But sometimes for the sake of conversation and for conveying ideas, that kind of phrase can work fine. I do think a lot of the conversation has been wasted by devoting time to this angle. To me, someone saying "I added weapon degradation to my D&D game to make it more realistic" is perfectly fine.

Click to expand...

Thank you! At least someone is willing to accept the plain word, without requiring people to jump through hoops and thereby allowing the conversation to reach the next plateau.

So I think the semantic debate has remained relevant to the discussion because some folks will mistake acceptance of the general use of the phrase for acceptance that the phrase is technically accurate. Others want to make sure that distinction is clear.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't find that style of conversation helpful or sincere.

What I don't think is fine is something more like "My D&D game has weapon degradation mechanics, and therefore is more realistic than a game that lacks such mechanics" because I don't think that's true at all and for a myriad of reasons.

Click to expand...

Apologies, I haven't been following your entire post run with Max, could you please provide me some reasons or an example why you think said statement is untrue.

EDIT: I believe I have thought of one - if the mechanic was badly designed, then sure it might prove that exclusion of such mechanic would make more sense (be more real), given its terrible design. For instance the old fumbles on a 1, which means a fighter with more attacks in a round is prone to more fumbles than one with fewer. Is this what you had in mind?