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

Lanefan said:

You'd think so, right?

But in the end it all depends on how good the DM's notes are, whether prepared before the game or written down during it; because seven real-world years later (which might well only be two or three in-game years for the PCs) when the party go back to that area there's no way in hell I'm otherwise going to remember which town had the good swordsmiths or even if there were any here at all.

However it's established, the point is that is then has to remain established.

Most of the time, yes. It's the instances that don't fall under the 'most of the time' banner that cause headaches.

Click to expand...

Eh, does it have to remain established? I created the original fundamental maps of the campaign world on some big sheets of graph paper in around 1976. Later I re-drew them on some hex paper (maybe a couple times actually, I'm not sure). I pretty much consider the hex grid version 'canonical', but it does differ in some ways from the 1970's version. Nobody would ever really care. Some of the same people have played in this world as recently as 2-3 years ago who were players back then in the same world. Some of the old PCs even made cameo appearances.

Nobody was really concerned that every detail established back almost 40 years ago was precisely known today or even if it was known that it was exactly held to be perfectly canonical. In fact I introduced a couple of elements in the new game which directly contradicted and put a new spin on a couple of old elements. The players discussed this and happily agreed that those 'old tales' could well be a bit inaccurate! I thought this was interesting. Nobody complained that somehow the play we undertook back then was 'invalidated' or compromised in any sense.

So why not just have the setting somewhat heavily developed even if it's the first game there? This would allow for that same ready availability of information and also allow a chance to check it all over ahead of time and fix or remove any inconsistencies or errors before they affect anything.

Click to expand...

Well, you can. I think if you play in any sort of established setting, say a superhero genre game, or even CoC or just D&D in World of Greyhawk, then of course a lot of things are established at some level. I don't think that is usually considered to be a way to remove inconsistencies. In fact I am told often that FR is a nightmare this way, with players often knowing all sorts of obscure facts that are easily contradicted in play! Is the GM supposed to acquire all these products from decades past and read them all? I don't think that's feasible. So maybe a middle ground could exist where some background is helpful, but OTOH a blank slate is hard to run into problems with!

Ovinomancer said:

This is weird. I didn't mention anything at all about your little tussle with Sep, so I'm not really clear why you feel the need to be defensive about it (or mention it more).

Click to expand...

No tussling here. I just walked away from that one. Perhaps I should have more clearly declared my desire for no further conversation.

At this point, after 2400 posts, I have learned only that Maxperson believes his subjective aesthetic preferences map perfectly onto some kind of objective reality which he cannot actually define.

The word for that is faith.

Ovinomancer said:

Yes, this is a common statement from you in the face of disagreement. You accuse the other posters of just being argumentative and then declare you've had the last word. Again, you do not cover yourself in laurels. And, as in the last time we were here, I'm not prepared to accede.

Click to expand...

Nah. He just doesn't have the same perseverance in the face of walls that I have. I don't mind denting them repeatedly. He does. Having followed the exchanges since he posted that awesome post that you completely ignored for some strange reason(I know the reason), he is right in his assessment.

pemerton said:

Thanks for taking that in good humour!

Click to expand...

Better than taking it in the face.

Maxperson said:

Nah. He just doesn't have the same perseverance in the face of walls that I have. I don't mind denting them repeatedly. He does. Having followed the exchanges since he posted that awesome post that you completely ignored for some strange reason(I know the reason), he is right in his assessment.

Click to expand...

I find if of little surprise that a fervently argued position that happens to support your preferences was warmly welcomed by you. And, he's not at all right, although that would conflict with your assumed worldview, so I have as little hope that this opinion would ever change, either.

You should realize that no one in this thread is attacking your play, nor are they even close to saying your play is bad, or there's is better. It's all an attempt to get you to look past the shallow assumptions you've reflexively defended and actually look at what the mechanics, play goals, and play styles you prefer actually do and consider there are other ways to do those things as well. This doesn't reduce your choices on how to do them, just like acknowledging that people like a different flavor of ice cream does not affect your favorite flavor.

To touch on the actual topic for a moment, "realism" however defined, cannot be a trait of game mechanics. These do not exist in the fiction and are, in fact, means of establishing fiction. It's the fiction that's "realistic" or not, not the mechanic. There's zero "realism" in rolling a die to determine a cause or effect. As such, any discussion of "realism" that starts with a mechanic is already fundamentally misplaced. Mechanics can be judged at how well they create "realism", but "realism" is never a function of the mechanic -- it's the outcome. So, when comparing mechanics as to how they produce "realism" in fiction, the end results are the only means of doing do, and, then, any method that produces a "realistic" outcome is as good as any other. "GM decides" is not more, or less, capable of producing "realistic" fiction than the player introducing the fiction or the dice or a chart. This is the fundamental argument. It really doesn't matter how you define "realism", it's always going to be subjective and evaluated according to your preference rather than anything objective. But, it does matter where "realism" exists, and there are NO "more realistic" mechanics, just outcomes. Once you grasp this, you can see that there are myriad methods to generate "realism" that achieve the goal. If you insist on a process, then it's not really "realism" that you're adding, but instead just more process, and it's just fine to like process.

Ovinomancer said:

I find if of little surprise that a fervently argued position that happens to support your preferences was warmly welcomed by you. And, he's not at all right, although that would conflict with your assumed worldview, so I have as little hope that this opinion would ever change, either.

You should realize that no one in this thread is attacking your play, nor are they even close to saying your play is bad, or there's is better. It's all an attempt to get you to look past the shallow assumptions you've reflexively defended and actually look at what the mechanics, play goals, and play styles you prefer actually do and consider there are other ways to do those things as well. This doesn't reduce your choices on how to do them, just like acknowledging that people like a different flavor of ice cream does not affect your favorite flavor.

Click to expand...

I was unclear I guess. I don't think you guys are bullying me or attacking me, though some of you are being rude with your posts. I do think you ignored his post and then argued just to argue, though. He's right in his assessment of his post and in characterizing your responses to them is what I am saying.

To touch on the actual topic for a moment, "realism" however defined, cannot be a trait of game mechanics. These do not exist in the fiction and are, in fact, means of establishing fiction. It's the fiction that's "realistic" or not, not the mechanic. There's zero "realism" in rolling a die to determine a cause or effect.

Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter, since many things you are adding to the fiction need associated mechanics. Talking about mechanics is the same as talking about the fiction, since the mechanic as you note will result in the fiction being more realistic. Your argument here is semantics.

Maxperson said:

We don't hear about those things, because too much realism isn't fun. Not because it's not about realism.

Click to expand...

Well, I would argue that it is a game, and thus it is about nothing but fun! Realism could sometimes add to the fun, though I think IMHO that it would do so by way of what I am calling authenticity rather than in some more direct way.

That is to say, a game might be more fun if weapons break on a 1 (or something). We know this isn't particularly realistic, and is probably less realistic than not handling breakage at all. However, it might feel more authentic, or at least more dramatic or otherwise appeal to players, making their experience more fun. It is also a simple enough system to implement, it isn't likely to get too much in the way of play or bog down the game a huge amount. OTOH a detailed system MIGHT be more realistic, but you probably cannot prove if it is or not, its a gray area. It might also add some fun and authenticity, but if it takes a lot of effort to do it, then chances are its too costly and will reduce the fun more than it adds.

Thus, I don't see the question being about realism at all, per se. Beyond that, a game which is wildly unrealistic can be quite fun. Toon was a real blast and we used to play it fairly often for a few years. Likewise we played Paranoia, which is a very unrealistic (surrealistic I would say) game. Nobody ever desired to make these games more realistic, that would have defeated their whole purpose.

Maxperson said:

The same goes for any system in which the PCs encounter lots of monsters/deadly encounters, which is a good many of them, probably most, and maybe even all of them. It helps to think of the PCs as fated in some way. THEY encounter deadly things with this kind of frequency, but the world at large generally does not. The tables are built for them.

Click to expand...

Interesting... Don't you guys (I mean you, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], and there have been a couple others) often discuss things in terms of playing a game in which the PCs are NOT picked out by fate. Where in fact they are simply nobody special, unless perhaps they actual manage to forcefully inject themselves into the wheels of fate (and I would assume this to be a difficult process which rarely succeeds). So, I wouldn't think you would advocate for the use of encounter tables which would require such an interpretation.

I mean, even in a 'you are nobody' type of game maybe PCs draw a little attention, make a few enemies, etc. and see more action than Joe Farmer, and I doubt you'd find that objectionable to a certain degree. Still, I am just curious what your take is on this Gygaxian/Anesian design element which was particularly prominent in AD&D.

Maxperson said:

I was unclear I guess. I don't think you guys are bullying me or attacking me, though some of you are being rude with your posts. I do think you ignored his post and then argued just to argue, though. He's right in his assessment of his post and in characterizing your responses to them is what I am saying.

Click to expand...

Again, nope. I disagree with his fundamental premise, in that I do not think he successfully defined "realism" except to hide the existing ambiguity behind another layer. His definition does nothing to improve the discussion because the same problems with it exists as before his definition. That I didn't go on to address the points he rests on this premise doesn't mean I ignored his post -- I could not, in good faith, address arguments made on a premise I was directly challenging; this would have been both pointless and exactly as argumentative as you're accusing me of being. I actually was avoiding being argumentative by focuses on the source of the problem rather than dealing with arguments where my best response would be to go back to the faulty premise.

It really doesn't matter, since many things you are adding to the fiction need associated mechanics. Talking about mechanics is the same as talking about the fiction, since the mechanic as you note will result in the fiction being more realistic. Your argument here is semantics.

Click to expand...

Max, where in your fiction is "and then the player failed a item saving throw so that the character's cloak burned up." Mechanics don't exist in the fiction at all -- there's no die rolls or charts in the created fiction. Since this assertion is nonsense, and obvious nonsense, from my point of view, I have to believe there's yet another failure of agreement on what terms mean. I'll go first -- mechanics are the processes at the game table used to resolve uncertainties in the game fiction. A skill check is a mechanic. As tools to resolve uncertainties in the fiction, they do not actually exist in the fiction any more than the player exists in the fiction of the character. If you disagree with this, please point out where.

Lanefan said:

To some extent I'll disagree with this, not so much from the system-v-realism point of view but from the system-v-immersion point of view.

Part of the goal of having one's game world be authentic and-or realistic is, I think, to help the players immerse themselves in the world and in the characters they play within it. Given that, having the players track their gear and expenses adds to the immersion factor in that the players are doing what the characters would be doing. Realistically, a character - particularly a poor one - is going to know how much money it has at any given time; and any adventuring character worth its salt is going to know what's in its backpack and what amount of remaining supplies it has on hand. Player knowledge matching character knowledge where it can is highly beneficial for immersion, and thus just as the character knows what's in its pack at any given time, so should the player.

Hand-waving all this makes the game easier and more efficient to play, to be sure, but note there's this trade-off to consider. Some might think the ease-efficiency is worth it, others might not.

Where realism (and other less pleasant considerations that at their extreme go all the way to cheating) comes into it is if a player can determine a character's gear-on-hand on the fly, is it realistic/authentic/believable for that PC to always just happen to have some particular piece of exotic gear available just at the moment it happens to be needed? Again, some might not care; but I sure do.

Maybe or maybe not more realistic, but I'd argue that on the whole these mechanics* push the game towards being more immersive.

* - and note this doesn't necessarily have to be done using hard-wired mechanics; the point is that it's paid close attention to at all rather than just hand-waved.

Click to expand...

I would be the last to argue that you're wrong, in the sense that what is immersive for different players is likely different, and you've always been quite consistent and articulated your position on this kind of thing in a way that feels genuine.

For me, it is a bit different. See, we were playing AD&D, and we were playing it for a LONG time, like 10 years at least, and what we discovered was that you'd create a new PC (the 493rd one probably by now) and cursorily write down your 'stuff' (after rolling for gold) from an equipment table we'd utterly memorized (boots, high hard 5sp...). Now, 22 months later, your character is 8th level and his sheet has been transferred 3 times (because a hole got worn where you write your hit points). His gear is now stuffed on some back corner written in dull pencil (dull because this was the last thing you moved from the old sheet). Maybe now and then someone remembered to scratch out something that got broken or used up, but mostly the last 14 times you were in town you just mumbled something about 'gearing up' and probably didn't bother to reduce your 14,904 gp by 136sp for replacement stuff (nobody is quite sure, was it 5 or 7 iron spikes).

Frankly, my character is an almost-name-level bad-assed dungeon crawler. I'm much more immersed in the character when I think "yeah, he's geared up, of course I've got flint and steel in my small belt pouch (3cp)." We invented, more informally than anything else, something like the kind of system DitV uses. It was just more immersive. When you got to the sloping rotating trick room/corridor thingy then of course Doug the Delver had 10 iron spikes and a 3' piece of chain in his backpack to use to bugger up the mechanism. There might not have been an exact number of times you could narrate this sort of preparedness, but don't overdo it and things are good.

If the DM was a bit dubious about a specific instance, maybe Douggy had to make a WIS check to see if he actually thought of having 3 colors of chalk or not. TO US, this much better emulated the sort of super prepared and vastly experienced types we imagined playing.