Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[LurkAway]

However, I think "I push him out the window" should be available to any character -- all they might have to do is use a Page 42-like reference to perform a stunt and do it.

A combat action like 'push' vs a power called Defenestrate is an extreme but good example of what's happening psychologically for me with process simulation vs results-oriented simulation.

 

[LostSoul]

A combat action like 'push' vs a power called Defenestrate is an extreme but good example of what's happening psychologically for me with process simulation vs results-oriented simulation.

I have the same problem with turn-based initiative.

 

[FireLance]

A somewhat late response, as I've been caught up in a few matters recently.

Me, too, but what if the crunchy bits followed the narrative bits instead of the other way around? With the crunch guided by some simple overarching principle(s) along the lines of a Page 42? The narrative aspects would also, thereby, determine the depth of the realism for any given, individual campaign and/or setting.

Really, I don't think it matters whether narration follows crunch or crunch follows narration. The problem happens when the narration turns out to be more or less effective than the DM thinks it should be (a yardstick that would vary from DM to DM) and the DM has to choose between sacrificing consistency (or "realism") or game balance.

With experience and hindsight, of course, we could pick narrations that are less subject to abuse (or nerfing) in a wider variety of situations and thus satisfy the needs of both balance and realism. However, if we have become wedded to certain narrations, then changing them becomes problematic.

For example, if you wanted to narrate a magical effect that:

(1) Could be used by a relatively low-level wizard and
(2) dealt fire damage
(3) in an area
(4) to all creatures, friend and foe,
(5) that could be reduced or even evaded completely by non-magical means

there are a variety of ways that this could be (better, IMO) narrated instead of as an exploding ball of flames that completely filled the area (point 5, in particular, makes this specific narration problematic in some cases). However, because fireball is such an iconic spell, we continue describing exploding balls of fire in our games, and just try to work around the corner cases (sacrificing either balance or realism, to taste) when they do show up.

 

[pemerton]

1 & 2 are probably a result of a number of different things, but the reason for doing 1 or 2 aren't why consistency matters, consistency matters because people doing 1&2 express concern when healing surges produce inconsistencies when pursuing 1 or 2. The problem healing surges create for players doing 1 & 2 is almost always an issue of consistency (which results in strained believability).

Yes, but the reason they get this consistency problem is because, by doing 1 and 2, they are treating metagame rules as if they were process simulation.

This is why I think the simulation issue is more fundamental than the realism issue - not that I'm really trying to persuade you of this - it's obviously something on which reasonable minds might differ! - but to try and articulate a different perspective.

But, if I understand your use of process simulation (and I am not sure I do), we aren't talking about people treating the mechanics as such. We are talking about a basic desire for the game not to disrupt willing suspension of disbelief. This is very different from wanting detailed simulation of reality.

By "process simulation" I don't mean detailed simulation of reality. I mean the action resolution mechanics - the actual things the players do, like generating random numbers and applying modifiers from their character sheets - corresponding in a fairly tight way to events in the fictional gameworld.

In D&D, for example, the die roll to hit is traditionally seen as corresponding to something in the fiction - the PCs swinging of the sword or pulling of the bowstring, for example.

But not all action resolution mechanics are process simulation. In 1st ed AD&D, for example, Gygax states expressly in the DMG that a successful saving throw might correspond to finding a niche in an otherwise bare rock face - in this case rolling the successful saving throw doesn't really correspond to the PC doing anything in the fiction, but rather permits the player to narrate something that otherwise couldn't be narrated - namely, his/her PC's hiding behind a niched to avoid the dragon breath.

As CrazyJerome has explained here and elsewhere, hit points have been fuzzy between process simulation, and metagame. 4e pushes them strongly in the metagame direction. All the consistency problems with healing surges, though, come from treating them (and saving throws for dying) as process simulations.

If the above attempt to distinguish species of mechanics didn't make sense, here is a passage from Ron Edwards that is what I personally have in mind:

In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action...

Resolution mechanics, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about the cause of what, which is to say, what performances are important during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play.​

The mechanics - the things we do at the table to play the game - model ingame causal processes - hence (assuming I'm not misunderstanding CrazyJerome) "process simulation".

 

[Bedrockgames]

I of the ways that people rationalized the inconsistencies, but not all.

It didn't affect my view of hit points much at all, because all the things that people say 4E made suddenly unbelieveable were already unbelievable to me, and already rationalized has highly abstract, rough narration and pacing tools. Others had different rationalizations that also survived contact with 4E largely intact. Then others found themselves "forced" into new rationalizations (for them) that they were willing to accept. Others found that they could not accept the new rationalizations and/or were unwilling to be so forced.

You can't fix that by making the rules more consistent. You'd have to go back and make them more inconsistent again, so that all those competing rationalization have a toe-hold.

I think here it is a matter of degree. I don't doubt your experience with healing surges, and I agree hp have always had some consistency/ believability issues. But what healing surges did for many was create more clear inconsistent results in play. HP presented problems but for many of us they were a happy medium and it was fairly easy to describe 20 points of damage as a serious wound without running into inconsistencies. Obviously HP didn't simulate wounds well at a granular level but the point is lots of people could easily describe the wound without having the mechanic undo what they just described. Healing surges presented an issue for such gamers because suddenly what you just described can evaporate after a HS.

I think you and I actually agree on a lot of things here, but it seems we are using the term consistently in different ways. My concern is whether the mechanics produce inconsistencies in the setting or flow of the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I believe the term process simulation is creating far more confusion than clarity here.

 

[Bedrockgames]

.

As CrazyJerome has explained here and elsewhere, hit points have been fuzzy between process simulation, and metagame. 4e pushes them strongly in the metagame direction. All the consistency problems with healing surges, though, come from treating them (and saving throws for dying) as process simulations.

This paragraph makes sense (thigh I am beginning to think process simulation is a jargony term for fairly simple and intuitive concept). sure that makes sense and doesn't contradict what I've been saying which is D&D has occupied more of a middle ground when it comes to believability and playability. This has enabled it, IMO, to attract a larger audience. By suddenly focusing on one or the other, it loses part of it's fan base.

In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action...

Resolution mechanics, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about the cause of what, which is to say, what performances are important during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play.​

The mechanics - the things we do at the table to play the game - model ingame causal processes - hence (assuming I'm not misunderstanding CrazyJerome) "process simulation".

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ron Edwards:

In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action...
Resolution mechanics, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about the cause of what, which is to say, what performances are important during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during ...​

I realize lots of people here find Ron's writing on things like GNS helpful, and if that works for you great. But I don't find that stuff very helpful for me in terms of play or design.​

 

[LurkAway]

I realize lots of people here find Ron's writing on things like GNS helpful, and if that works for you great. But I don't find that stuff very helpful for me in terms of play or design.

I have to second that. Also, the writing style comes across to me as overly verbose and I think rather pretentious for the context IMHO, so my eyes keep glossing over it. He's also on record for stating that "Simulationism is NOT an actual outlook or goal, unlike Narrativism or Gamism. Nor is it a "design dial," as many have suggested. No, we think that Simulationism is a form of retreat, denial, and defense against the responsibilities of either Gamism or Narrativism." He seems very serious about his roleplaying philosophy but I have trouble taking it seriously. Perhaps his position has moderated over the last decade, but I don't think it has much place in my nods to realism.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have to second that. Also, the writing style comes across to me as overly verbose and I think rather pretentious for the context IMHO, so my eyes keep glossing over it. He's also on record for stating that "Simulationism is NOT an actual outlook or goal, unlike Narrativism or Gamism. Nor is it a "design dial," as many have suggested. No, we think that Simulationism is a form of retreat, denial, and defense against the responsibilities of either Gamism or Narrativism." He seems very serious about his roleplaying philosophy but I have trouble taking it seriously. Perhaps his position has moderated over the last decade, but I don't think it has much place in my nods to realism.

I think Edward's has a very clear style, and it is one that either attracts or repels. I will say the few times I've dealt with him on his forum (for stuff like announcements) he has been a very nice guy. I think he just has very strong views and convictions about gaming. He tends to approach things with a lot of certainty...this sometimes leads him to dismiss positions others value IMO. The biggest problem he faces, in terms of attracting an audience, is he has developed a very extensive vocabulary of terms with precise definitions. While I am sure the glossary is primarily about achieving clarification of ideas, it presents a very real communication issue (and in my view overcomplicates some relatively simple concepts). Just not my cup of tea.