A New Perspective on Simulationism, Realism, Verisimilitude, etc.

[LostSoul]

In 4e it looks to me to be impossible.

Probably, considering how encounter and daily powers are set up...

Though...

"You are a fighting man. You wield a sharp blade. Almost as important is your sturdy shield, and you've mastered it well enough to use as a weapon, to push people where you want them, in addition to using it for defense. Your blows are powerful enough to cut through one enemy and into another, and when you focus, trading power for accuracy, you can be sure to hit.

"You know where to strike a foe to slow him down, though this opportunity does not arise very often; and when the chips are down and you need everything you've got, you can focus your will into a powerful blow that will give you the strength to carry on the fight.

"When enemies get close to you, they had better pay attention to you; your skill with the blade is such that, if they take their eyes off you for a second to move or attack someone else, you can get a swift cut in."

Tide of Iron
Cleave
Sure Strike
Steel Serpent Strike
Comback Strike
Combat Challenge

The player describes his character's action; the DM adjudicates it. Description (what I like to call "fictional positioning") determines if the PC can use any power, especially Steel Serpent Strike and Comeback Strike, and it's unlikely that Comeback Strike can be used more that once per day - or even in situations that are not dire.

 

[S'mon]

Probably, considering how encounter and daily powers are set up...

Though...

"You are a fighting man. You wield a sharp blade. Almost as important is your sturdy shield, and you've mastered it well enough to use as a weapon, to push people where you want them, in addition to using it for defense. Your blows are powerful enough to cut through one enemy and into another, and when you focus, trading power for accuracy, you can be sure to hit.

"You know where to strike a foe to slow him down, though this opportunity does not arise very often; and when the chips are down and you need everything you've got, you can focus your will into a powerful blow that will give you the strength to carry on the fight.

"When enemies get close to you, they had better pay attention to you; your skill with the blade is such that, if they take their eyes off you for a second to move or attack someone else, you can get a swift cut in."

Tide of Iron
Cleave
Sure Strike
Steel Serpent Strike
Comback Strike
Combat Challenge

The player describes his character's action; the DM adjudicates it. Description (what I like to call "fictional positioning") determines if the PC can use any power, especially Steel Serpent Strike and Comeback Strike, and it's unlikely that Comeback Strike can be used more that once per day - or even in situations that are not dire.

Given the complexity I think it's only practical for solo play; given the encounter & daily limits I don't think it's possible at all. Then you get Action Points, Healing Surges et al.

I think 4e essentially does require the player to know the rules pertaining to their PC in order to play the game. 3e was transitional. Pre 3e, it was not necessary.

Edit: And the pre-3e approach greatly facilitated immersion; just as in that C&C PBEM I mentioned - I'm not thinking about rules when I play, I'm thinking primarily in-character*.

*Currently "Holy s&$t that orc just took hits that would kill 10 men (52 damage) and it's still up?! I'm running away!

 

[Ariosto]

The "imperfect model" premise is (along with the limited-information aspect of a role's perspective) a primary reason for the position of game master in an RPG. It's not that an arbitrary "because I say so" is the whole of the law, but that comprehensive written rules would resemble Acts of Parliament in bulk -- and still be insufficient! (Consider how much must be encoded to get so little from "artificial intelligence" computer programs.) It is left to the GM to apply the many rules derived from experience and reason.

There has been a vogue in recent years to design role-playing and story-telling games after the fashion of popular "Euro-style" boardgames. That is, one first devises an abstract mathematical construct and then dresses the presentation with a "theme" to make it seem to be "about" something.

The more complex such a rules edifice is, the more the players have invested in it, the less likely it is to shift from self-reference and give way to modeling anything.

However, complexity itself can be interesting from a game-play perspective -- and as much an assurance of "realism" as players believe it to be. (Tactical Studies Rules presents: Bio One!)

 

[Hussar]

I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

There is no difference between the player saying "I attack the orc with my sword" and "I attack the orc with my sword and hit an AC of 2". There is no difference between "I rush at the orc, can I reach him in time?" and "I rush at the orc, my move is 6", I should be able to reach him in time, let me get my string."

You're basically trying to claim that improv acting is the only way to role play. That I have to "act out the action" in order to role play. Ballocks.

For one, there are just so many actions within an RPG in which I could have no actual knowledge in order to role play. I certainly have no idea how to pilot a starship, but my PC does. Does that mean Star Trek is no longer an RPG? I really can't really hack into a computer, so Shadowrun is no longer an RPG. And I'm pretty darn sure that no one reading this can ever cast a spell, so, most of D&D is out as well.

HowandWhy, trying to claim that the concept of roleplay was defined in 1974 and must be carved in marble tablets never to be changed is ridiculous. It's ridiculous for two reasons - one, language changes so no definition is ever that fixed and two, in 1974 no one had any real idea of what the heck they were doing, let alone enough experience in thinking about it to be able to formulate a hard definition.

Sorry, this whole thing just smacks of one true wayism. You've flat out said that there is only one way to actually role play, and stated it in such a way that pretty much screams edition warz.

 

[S'mon]

I
You're basically trying to claim that improv acting is the only way to role play. That I have to "act out the action" in order to role play. Ballocks.

Typical Hussar.

 

[howandwhy99]

@howandwhy99: I think I understand what you're saying now. You're defining a "role-playing game" as "a game such that the players don't have to know any of the rules to start playing, and they can figure it out along the way by describing their actions and letting the DM translate it into game terms."

Actually I'm defining an RPG as it has been designed and played for the last 35 years, a game where the participants need to succeed in their role in order to win.

It's like the time I was facing a mummy in 2E. We had two PCs, and both were low level (I think I was 2nd level). I knew what it could do if it hit, so I picked up the table in the room and used it as a shield to keep it back. The DM gave me a bonus to my AC; that kept it off my back long enough for the other PC to hit it with some greek fire. Once it was on fire, we got the chance to flee.

I'm not sure if that is really any different than how combat can work in 4E, or what is possibly the Forge game, Sorcerer.

I don't presume to know your beliefs, but what you describe above is a common mistake amongst people who only use RPG theory from the Forge. In an RPG no one has fiat over what happens in the game, least of all the DM. In Indie games, theatre games really as they follow theatre game design, the only thing that ever happens is the trading off of fiat over what happens. This is often called storytelling, which the Big Model inaccurately equates to roleplaying. What happens in theatre games is and can ever only be what one or more any of the players want to have happen. In an RPG the consequences of player actions are the result of the game's design, neither the DM's nor the Players' preferences.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't presume to know your beliefs

You've probably guessed them; I think the Big Model works.

but what you describe above is a common mistake amongst people who only use RPG theory from the Forge. In an RPG no one has fiat over what happens in the game, least of all the DM. In Indie games, theatre games really as they follow theatre game design, the only thing that ever happens is the trading off of fiat over what happens. This is often called storytelling, which the Big Model inaccurately equates to roleplaying. What happens in theatre games is and can ever only be what one or more any of the players want to have happen. In an RPG the consequences of player actions are the result of the game's design, neither the DM's nor the Players' preferences.

I'm not sure what you are saying; I do want to keep the conversation going, so let me tell you what I'm hearing.

1. The DM has no special authority over what happens; what matters is what makes sense in the game world. The player decides to pick up a table and use it as a defense, and therefore the PC has a better chance to avoid attacks.

2. "Indie" games trade that authority - the authority to say what happens - between all players.

I don't agree on the second point; most "Forge-baked" games don't work that way. At least the ones I am familiar with.

Does that make sense? Does that fit in with the traditional definition of roleplaying? Or am I just talking crazy?

 

[howandwhy99]

The player describes his character's action; the DM adjudicates it. Description (what I like to call "fictional positioning") determines if the PC can use any power, especially Steel Serpent Strike and Comeback Strike, and it's unlikely that Comeback Strike can be used more that once per day - or even in situations that are not dire.

I take it by "fictional positioning" you are referring to more Forge theory jargon?

I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

There is no difference between the player saying "I attack the orc with my sword" and "I attack the orc with my sword and hit an AC of 2". There is no difference between "I rush at the orc, can I reach him in time?" and "I rush at the orc, my move is 6", I should be able to reach him in time, let me get my string."

You're basically trying to claim that improv acting is the only way to role play. That I have to "act out the action" in order to role play. Ballocks.

It's certainly dependent upon whether describing an action counts as acting out an action. For a lot of people the second doesn't cut it. The action must actually be performed. In fact, the only times description only of actions does qualify as roleplaying is when such description relates the speaker's knowledge of the action. Saying something like, "I swing my sword" isn't roleplaying as it doesn't relate the speaker's knowledge of how a sword is swung at all. When that is the case, then the action isn't roleplayed. The person acting out the role, either physically or through verbal desciption, is only acting out the portions they can prove they can knowledgeably perform. (I'll explain more at the end of this post...)

For one, there are just so many actions within an RPG in which I could have no actual knowledge in order to role play. I certainly have no idea how to pilot a starship, but my PC does. Does that mean Star Trek is no longer an RPG? I really can't really hack into a computer, so Shadowrun is no longer an RPG. And I'm pretty darn sure that no one reading this can ever cast a spell, so, most of D&D is out as well.

Those games are RPGs, but you are right that those specific elements of those games are not roleplayed. Why? Because the designers decided they were not definitive of the roles being performed.

HowandWhy, trying to claim that the concept of roleplay was defined in 1974 and must be carved in marble tablets never to be changed is ridiculous. It's ridiculous for two reasons - one, language changes so no definition is ever that fixed and two, in 1974 no one had any real idea of what the heck they were doing, let alone enough experience in thinking about it to be able to formulate a hard definition.

1. Roleplaying was defined by Jacob Moreno in 1921. 2. It's definition was changed in the 40's to another that has only recently begun to be called "roleplaying simulation". This second definition is the basis upon which RPGs have long been designed. 3. The design of RPGs was very intelligent and this lasted throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s so long as the designers understood why the hobby was termed, quite accurately, as it was because roleplaying games came from wargames. In military simulations, the sister half to wargames (both manual and computer simulations) is roleplaying. And that roleplaying and understanding of that specific definition of roleplaying, roleplaying simulation, has been around since the 40s.

But I do agree, language changes. Clearly the Big Model attempts to co-opt the definition of roleplaying that has informed the design o RPG for 30+ years by using a different definition of roleplaying and denigrating any definition or design goals previously used. Essentially, non-Indie games.

Sorry, this whole thing just smacks of one true wayism. You've flat out said that there is only one way to actually role play, and stated it in such a way that pretty much screams edition warz.

This isn't edition wars. I'm saying Indie games are games designed to fulfill one definition of roleplaying. Mainstream games, like D&D, are designed to fulfill another definition. Are both fun? I think so. But apparently not by many Forge followers by the definition of the "fun" meme going around. But that whole thing was also started via "One True Wayism" as you accurately point out. The "Big Model" seems best to be equated to "the one true belief about roleplaying games".

---

Getting back to what I stated above, here are some examples of roleplaying. I agree with all, but the last: D, as I state below. For clarity in our ongoing conversations, which ones would you agree qualify as roleplaying?

A. In the real world a man goes to a home where a woman opens the door. He explains he is a telephone repairperson. The two talk about the problem she is having and the man attempts to fix her phone.
- The man is roleplaying a telephone repairperson.

B. Exactly as before the same man and woman act out their actions, but this time the woman is an actress (auxiliary/NPC) who is assisting in the teaching of the man to be a better telephone repairperson. This is theatre as both persons are pretending to be in a situation neither is actually in.
- The man is roleplaying a telephone repairperson.

C. A second woman sits at a table with the man and asks him to describe to her how he would interact on the job as a telephone repairperson. The man describes what he would do step by step and the woman relates back the results of his actions.
- The man is roleplaying a telephone repairperson.

D. The same set up as C. except the man says only, "I convince the woman I am a good telephone repairperson."
- This is not roleplaying. No performance of a role has been acted out or conveyed.


Option C. is what a lot of tabletop roleplaying is like. Except in my example the woman, the instructor, has complete fiat over what qualifies as a "good" performance to qualify as a telephone repairperson. In an RPG, there is a unique role in all of roleplaying theory (academic theory, not the internet stuff), that of the Referee. A referee refers to the definition of the role as given in the rules rather than determining themselves the successful performance of that by another. This is how roleplaying can qualify as a "game". This is how it allows for objective measures for success or failure.

Judges, another kind of Director-based role in roleplaying was also defined in the 70's. It used the "Imperfect Model" hypothesis Alex319 describes above. Rather than a game though, this makes roleplaying more of a contest. The performers attempt the role behavior as best they can, like a dancer dancing the rumba, and then the Judge adjudicates the performance accordingly. This judgment is hopefully made objectively upon strict guidelines.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm not sure what you are saying; I do want to keep the conversation going, so let me tell you what I'm hearing.

1. The DM has no special authority over what happens; what matters is what makes sense in the game world. The player decides to pick up a table and use it as a defense, and therefore the PC has a better chance to avoid attacks.

2. "Indie" games trade that authority - the authority to say what happens - between all players.

I don't agree on the second point; most "Forge-baked" games don't work that way. At least the ones I am familiar with.

Does that make sense? Does that fit in with the traditional definition of roleplaying? Or am I just talking crazy?

In number 1. neither the DM nor the players choose that the table allows its' user a better chance to avoid attacks. The result of that action is already in the game rules.

In number 2, to the best of my knowledge, "Forge-baked" games are based upon the concept of narrative authority resolution. That each person at the table adds to a story being told. That "Narrative Authority", fiat over consequences, is used whenever a person is adding to the story in game.

Forge games aren't about roleplaying at all, but rather about creating and conveying a story to its' participants. I'm guessing you are not equating "fiat" as control over the consequences of the role being performed, but rather of the actual game being played. Forge games operate completely outside of the roleplaying in order to determine who has the fiat, storytelling authority, to define the role next. That action never occurs in roleplaying games..

 

[Raduin711]

I don't know about edition wars or one-true-wayism, but I would say there is a difference between:

"I move 6 squares and attack the orc"

and

"I move up to the orc. Can I attack him?"

In the first case, presumably the player is sitting in front of a game board where everything is definitively located, for everybody, enabling the player to strategize and know with a great deal of certainty what he can do and what might happen if he did it.

In the second example, there is no game board, except the one that the players have imagined in their heads. This has benefits as well. A DM is not limited by squares or miniatures. The greater number of undefined questions means that a good DM can make choices about how a battle unfolds in a way that entertains the players. For example, if a PC is up in a tree when a group of orcs attacks, and the player humorously falls from the tree, the DM can decide who the PC falls upon, taking into account how the battle is faring, and what would be entertaining to the group.

Now I am not saying which one is better, just pointing out that each has its merits. Each has its flaws as well.

Going back to the first example, if a battle is not going well, there is very little a DM can do about it. He continues to role play the opposition, roleplaying their actions and strategy. If things get ugly, the DM is usually left with two options: discard strategy and/or roleplaying, or cheat. (fudging the dice, removing a monster before all its hit points have been depleted, and so on.)

In the 2nd example, communication is absolutely crucial to the experience. If a player is not paying attention, he may miss some important detail.

Player1: "Okay, after spending the past three rounds desparately evading my foes, I have finally made it to the moat. I race across the drawbridge and into the castle!"
Dm:"..."
Player1: "What?"
DM: "I hate to break it to you, but the drawbridge is closed."
Player2: "Don't you remember? back at the beginning of combat, DM said..."

That isn't to say communication problems only fall upon the listener. Sometimes the DM forgets some crucial detail in describing the scene, which can wreak havoc on the enjoyment of the players. Not only that, so much power rests in the hands of the DM, that an especially poor DM can turn a game into a veritable nightmare. Ego, thy name is DM.