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

[LostSoul]

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

I wouldn't call that Forge jargon since it doesn't originate from the Forge. But yeah, it's jargon that I personally like that comes from a source close to the Forge.

I don't think how I used it hampers discussion at all; though I do think the fact that you had to call it out as "Forge jargon" does. I think how I used the term made sense and can be understood by any player of RPGS, and the fact that you call it out as "Forge jargon" is just hampering discussion.

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.

If I understand this - let's say there's a table in the game rules, a table that says "Modifiers to AC". One of the entries is "a chair or other improvised shield". In that case, using that would mean that I have a good sense of the role that I am playing; that when I fight something out of my league (a mummy, though I've only picked up on that through play) I refer to my knowledge about what will aid me in defending against its attacks.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

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.

That's not true for all games that are strongly associated with the Forge. The only one I can think of (that I have played) is Universalis. (Oh, and maybe Capes.) Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, My Life With Master, The Shadow Of Yesterday - all of these games use a traditional resolution system, resolving conflicts in the fiction (just like D&D does) instead of priorities between players.

And, for what it's worth, I agree with pretty much everything you say regarding defintions of roleplaying. I don't much care if, when I play The Shadow of Yesterday, that it's actually roleplaying. Though I don't mind discussing how it isn't or how it is.

I do object to uniformed classifications of games, however, which is why I'm making a point of it.

If you want to discuss these games and how they work, that's cool and I would be interested to see what you have to think about them. They might not be roleplaying games, but they do not work on the assumption that they resolve only who has the fiat to determine what happens next in the "story".

 

[S'mon]

Theory-talk, if not stopped in time, consumes all threads, whether they have resisted it or promoted it.

To misquote a Star Wars book.

 

[S'mon]

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.)

My preferred approach is to leave it to the players to realise that things are going badly, and decide to flee/retreat. Once they make that decision, I as GM will typically shift from a more strictly adversarial kill-the-PCs stance to a more narrative-entertain-the-players stance as we play through their escape from the pursuing monsters. In my experience, that way everyone wins.

There is still a defeat, but its resolution is just as fun, and likely more memorable, as victory would have been. I haven't cheated to give the PCs an unearned victory; and now like in all the best action movies they have the thrill of seeking revenge in a return grudge match against the victorious enemy, or otherwise dealing with the situation - avoiding the dragon, making peace with the troglodytes, et al.

 

[howandwhy99]

I wouldn't call that Forge jargon since it doesn't originate from the Forge. But yeah, it's jargon that I personally like that comes from a source close to the Forge.

I don't think how I used it hampers discussion at all; though I do think the fact that you had to call it out as "Forge jargon" does. I think how I used the term made sense and can be understood by any player of RPGS, and the fact that you call it out as "Forge jargon" is just hampering discussion.

Fair enough. I pointed it out as many positions presented as personal positions seem only to be rewordings of a single "one true way" of playing and designing roleplaying games. I have faith you have your own opinions where some are also in disagreement with the Forge and the Big Model, so I agree this point really doesn't need to be discussed.

If I understand this - let's say there's a table in the game rules, a table that says "Modifiers to AC". One of the entries is "a chair or other improvised shield". In that case, using that would mean that I have a good sense of the role that I am playing; that when I fight something out of my league (a mummy, though I've only picked up on that through play) I refer to my knowledge about what will aid me in defending against its attacks.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

That a good description, but it leaves out the core element that makes it a roleplaying game versus a simulation game. The rule is on the DM's Screen, not the Players'. The operation of the rule is learned it play. As it is a definer of the role it's an element that must be determined through play. Or proof of proficiency in the role becomes suspect. As you might read in my response to Hussar: any such response in example C. becomes simply the repeating of a stolen answer back to the teacher (or test giver in a Referee's case).

That's not true for all games that are strongly associated with the Forge. The only one I can think of (that I have played) is Universalis. (Oh, and maybe Capes.) Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, My Life With Master, The Shadow Of Yesterday - all of these games use a traditional resolution system, resolving conflicts in the fiction (just like D&D does) instead of priorities between players.

So I have this right, do you consider all Forge task, conflict, and scene resolution the resolving of conflicts "in the fiction"? Those games are not roleplaying games as no amount of roleplaying ability is measured or rewarded. This has nothing to do with creating fiction. It has to do with roleplay. The definition of the role may be fictional (in fact, there is never a role a person can play that isn't fictional: parent spouse, teacher, whatever), but the fiction created by Forge games is a story being told, not a role being performed. As I understand them, each of those games' mechanics is about putting narrative resolution in the hands of the players.

This may be confusing as traditional games have been redefined under Forge terms as not RPG's at all, but as storygames. The key point to remember about mechanics in RPGs is they are they resolve represented elements which are abstracted. By definition abstractions are not roleplayed. You cannot act out a the action a die roll (or whatever mechanical resolution) is being substituted for. Nor can a die roll by a sufficient description of an action to count as knowledge of a role. It would seem quite clear: When something is not acted out, it is not roleplayed.

And, for what it's worth, I agree with pretty much everything you say regarding definitions of roleplaying. I don't much care if, when I play The Shadow of Yesterday, that it's actually roleplaying. Though I don't mind discussing how it isn't or how it is.

I do object to uniformed classifications of games, however, which is why I'm making a point of it.

I'm with you there. I like Storygames, I just don't care for the theory that promulgated them, which espouses not just a false definition of roleplaying, but defines actual roleplaying, roleplaying game design, and roleplaying objectives as inherently faulty, bad, and un-"fun" (beginning the 4E meme).

If you follow Forge theory, I would hope you agree I am not misrepresenting the conclusions of its theories nor the manner in which many adherents refer to "bad design" (a.k.a. roleplaying game design and play).

If I use terms like roleplaying not to refer to storytelling, it's mainly because there is a war of definitions, which I did not start nor wish to engage in. "Don't propose an argument, redefine the vocabulary" is a common means of distributing propaganda. Redefining the terms and their relation is how any advertised message can alter listener's thinking and thereby their concluded beliefs. In my opinion, using the vocabulary of the Forge not only creates an inherent misunderstanding of roleplaying and RPGs, but it reinforces its' followers efforts to redefine the entire hobby by redefining the very activity as something different than it nearly ever was.

If you want to discuss these games and how they work, that's cool and I would be interested to see what you have to think about them. They might not be roleplaying games, but they do not work on the assumption that they resolve only who has the fiat to determine what happens next in the "story".

As I said above, my understanding of the Big Model is all RPGs (storygames) use NAR rules. That no non-Social Contract rule isn't a NAR rule (maybe those too). If I'm wrong on based on your beliefs or your understanding of the theory, please let me know. If you'd like to talk more about the games you listed, that's cool too.

 

[Ariosto]

Raduin711, it is not unknown for players to "forget" things that they happen to find inconvenient. Things can appear (e.g., equipment, special abilities) and disappear (e.g., encumbrance, wounds, "defining" character traits) quite "magically"!

Creative accounting, thy name is player.

 

[Alex319]

First of all, my original post wasn't even intending to classify anything as "not an RPG," or to propose a new definition of "roleplaying." All I was trying to do was to set up a framework for classification, to make these issues easier to talk about. I never intended to say that one way was better than another or that one way "wasn't roleplaying."

But anyway, HowAndWhy, I'm still a little confused here...

Alex319: 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."


howandwhy88: 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.

But on the other hand, later in the thread...

LostSoul: If I understand this - let's say there's a table in the game rules, a table that says "Modifiers to AC". One of the entries is "a chair or other improvised shield". In that case, using that would mean that I have a good sense of the role that I am playing; that when I fight something out of my league (a mummy, though I've only picked up on that through play) I refer to my knowledge about what will aid me in defending against its attacks.

howandwhy88: Does that make sense, or am I missing something? That a good description, but it leaves out the core element that makes it a roleplaying game versus a simulation game. The rule is on the DM's Screen, not the Players'. The operation of the rule is learned it play. As it is a definer of the role it's an element that must be determined through play. Or proof of proficiency in the role becomes suspect. As you might read in my response to Hussar: any such response in example C. becomes simply the repeating of a stolen answer back to the teacher (or test giver in a Referee's case).

It seems here like you ARE saying that "the players don't know the rules at the outset" is a key element of "roleplaying" under your definition, because you're saying that if the rule is on the DM's screen, it counts as "roleplaying", but if it's on the PC's screen, then it isn't.

Also, here's another thing. You state that having the operation of the rule be "learned through play" is an important aspect of roleplaying. Is the only way to "learn it through play" through trial and error, or are other methods possible? In that example, suppose that before the battle, the PCs were back at home training, and their instructor told them that "these are the things that can help you defend yourself, and these are which ones are more effective" and gave the PCs the "modifiers to AC" list. Any problem with that?

And if you're going to say that the instructor wouldn't have a list with quantitative data (like "X gives +1, Y gives +2") etc., consider the following hypothetical. Suppose that it was a sci-fi game, and the players were officers on a starship, and before their mission they were given a document with the technical specifications of their ship. This would include lots of quantitative data ("Weapon X is N% more powerful than Weapon Y but consumes M% more energy per shot") and of course this data would correspond to the game rule stats of the weapons (if it didn't, the data wouldn't be accurate). Would this break the "roleplaying"?

(To go back to your "telephone repairperson" example: The examiner asks the person how to repair a phone with a particular problem, and even though he had never repaired a phone with that particular problem before, he knows the answer because he read it in a telephone repair manual.)

And anyway, earlier in the thread you say:

Alex319: What "error" are you talking about? And why does the imperfect model interpretation "not count as a game at all"?

howandwhy88: I should have said "gameplay convenience" falls into the same error as game-based design. It's not bad, but it is the element of design that, while nice, causes game to be un-roleplayable in the manner I point out above.

Imperfect model games are based on building DM fiat into the rules. Rule Zero and all that. Whether these are considered games or not is up to you, but without rules in place of "because I say so" an activity doesn't really stand up to the definition of a game.

So you're saying anything that involves "DM fiat" isn't roleplaying. But if a player describes an action that isn't in the rules (which will happen a lot if players don't know what the rules are, as you seem to advocate) then what other way is there to resolve it other than "DM fiat"? Or is the only way a game can qualify as a "roleplaying game" under your definition if the rules cover every action that a player could conceivably describe?

And finally...

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.

howandwhy88: 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.

So you're saying that a game can still be an RPG even if certain elements of that game are not roleplaying. So suppose that you play 4e as normal, but during out-of-combat scenarios, you have players describe what actions they want to do, then have the DM decide what skill checks are necessary, roll the dice behind the screen, and tell the players if they succeed or not. So in that case, 4e as a whole would still count as an "RPG" even though the combat aspect is still "not roleplaying" according to your definition. Correct?

 

[Hussar]

HowandWhy.

Your arguement seems to say that boffer LARPing is somehow more role playing than tabletop. After all, I'm fully acting out a role when I do that.

Since all tabletop games are abstractions to some degree, all PnP roleplaying games are therefore less roleplaying depending on the level of abstraction.

Then there's Mind's Eye Theater LARP. The conflict resolution mechanics in that are entirely abstract- rock/paper/scissors, thus, by your own arguement, Mind's Eye Theater isn't actually role playing.

Seems to me that you would argue that the epitomy of role playing in PnP games is something like Role Master, where the rules attempt to be as close to realistic as possible, whereas something like D&D would not be a role playing game at all since the rules are very, very abstract - levels, combat whatever.

To me, any definition of role play that excludes LARPing and places Boffer LARP at the top of the heap isn't a very good definition.

 

[Raduin711]

My preferred approach is to leave it to the players to realise that things are going badly, and decide to flee/retreat. Once they make that decision, I as GM will typically shift from a more strictly adversarial kill-the-PCs stance to a more narrative-entertain-the-players stance as we play through their escape from the pursuing monsters. In my experience, that way everyone wins.

There is still a defeat, but its resolution is just as fun, and likely more memorable, as victory would have been. I haven't cheated to give the PCs an unearned victory; and now like in all the best action movies they have the thrill of seeking revenge in a return grudge match against the victorious enemy, or otherwise dealing with the situation - avoiding the dragon, making peace with the troglodytes, et al.

I think that is a good approach. It does depend on the PC's being willing to retreat, however, and that lies beyond A DM's control. He can always say "I think you guys should run." Which our DM never does. Probably should. We're pretty dense sometimes.

Raduin711, it is not unknown for players to "forget" things that they happen to find inconvenient. Things can appear (e.g., equipment, special abilities) and disappear (e.g., encumbrance, wounds, "defining" character traits) quite "magically"!

Creative accounting, thy name is player.

Totally agree. I remember playing in a 3e game with a guy who was rolling impressive stealth checks on mediocre dice rolls wearing plate armor. I don't think I played with that group after that.

 

[S'mon]

I think that is a good approach. It does depend on the PC's being willing to retreat, however, and that lies beyond A DM's control. He can always say "I think you guys should run." Which our DM never does. Probably should. We're pretty dense sometimes.

I'm OK with killing off the PCs if they refuse to retreat. Ideally I'd prefer to kill an NPC or two with them first though, so maybe they take the hint. I haven't seen much in the way of players absolutely refusing to retreat when clearly overmatched; most fatalities come when the monsters are just a bit tougher than the PCs, so they think they have a chance.

 

[Alex319]

Totally agree. I remember playing in a 3e game with a guy who was rolling impressive stealth checks on mediocre dice rolls wearing plate armor. I don't think I played with that group after that.

And I remember playing in a 3e game with someone who thought that the save-bonus-by-level chart was cumulative, so when he created a 3rd level character he added the save bonuses from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level. I also played a 4e game with a ranger who didn't remember that you don't add your stat mod to damage with Twin Strike...