This thread is a spin-off of
this thread. Its immediate trigger is the following post:
In real life, people move through a physcially-structured environment where events happen in accordance with causal processes. Notions of
request,
permission,
decision etc have no explanatory work to do in relation to real-life causal processes (except for a rather narrow range of phenomena involving interactions between human beings).
At a RPG table, in the situation being described in the posts above, the players give rise to an idea -
our PCs find some sect members at the teahouse - and they suggest that that idea should be an element of the fiction that is being collectively created at the table. The GM then decides whether or not that idea actually does become part of the shared fiction, and communicates that decision to the players by telling them what it is that their PCs find at the teahouse.
That causal process has very little in common with the causal processes that bring it about that, if I go to a teahouse looking for members of a particular sect, I find any of them there. The most obvious difference is that whether or not, in real life, I meet any sect members doesn't depend upon whether anyone takes up a suggestion I make about an interesting idea.
Whether or not the GM making decisions about the gameworld, and then conveying that to the players, makes for good RPGing seems a matter of taste. But whether or not such a process is like real life seems a straightforward matter of fact. It's not.
Ok, something that interests me greatly, but I don’t have time to go through all the posts now, so I apologize if I’m repeating others’ positions.
To me the crux of the matter is the perception of the players.
I’m not concerned whether the causal processes of the game world mirror that of our world. My concern is that it seems like they are.
For example a common leadership technique to help build buy-in and consensus is to make somebody else think an idea is theirs. It doesn’t really matter if it is, as long as they think it is. Because people tend to be more invested in things that are.
So when a scenario like your example comes up, I don’t care whether I had written up the people that are present ahead of time, determine it randomly, decide on the spot, or any combination of these and other approaches and techniques.
What I care about is how the players/PCs experience it. And that essentially comes down to being believable, which is a bit of an art.
For example, something nature is good at, but people aren’t, is being sufficiently random. For example, if you were to build a model of terrain of a small field and part of a forest, it often looks “not quite right.” Not because of the textures, materials, and such, but because we have a hard time being random in our placement, but not too random. The art is in making it look appropriately random.
But the reality is, it’s not really entirely random. There is a causal process at work, which is what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is referring to.
So when a player says they want to go to the tea room to see if so-and-is is there, I can consider that causal process. It’s not a question of going through every potential activity and interaction that person might have made to place them in the tea room or not. But we can consider that process when setting a probability between yes, no, or it’s not obvious enough so I’ll roll.
As GM I might have considered this process ahead of time, and already have an answer. We’re not really modeling the causal process per se, but using our understanding of the existence and general nature of that causal process to model the results.
This is part of what I’d consider realism. That is. The part that the players experience feels like they experience the real world. In other words, it generally makes sense based on how they experience life in this world. Even with elements of fantasy, magic, etc., the events presented by the GM “make sense.”
To me it’s similar to what a writer might describe as “the story writing itself.” When the player asks goes to the tea room, the rules of the game frame how to determine whether or not they are there. That impacts who provides input into that decision, but it can still be made to model “reality.”
Now I get that to some players that the process is as important if not more important. This too is a perception thing, and that is the perception of whether the cool thing that happens in the story is more or less important to how that result was accomplished. And thinking about it, they are kind of focusing on two different things. If it’s the results that matters more - the focus is on the characters. If the process matters more, then the focus is on the players and/or the game.
To some, a TPK at the hands of the monster is fine if that’s the way the dice fell.
To others, they don’t want a TPK even if that’s what the dice say.
Another group are fine with the TPK regardless of dice or not, as long as it was interesting.
So I get the sense, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], that your measure of realism is more about the process rather than the result. But I disagree. I think that for many (most?) the experience is what matters. TV shows, movies, books, rtfs can all be experienced as “realistic” whether they are an account of actual events or fiction.
The show Westworld is also a great study of what’s real and what’s not. The guests can experience, for example, a train robbery. One guest might experience it as a game, because they know that it’s not real, and they focus in part on the fact that it isn’t. But another can be fully immersed, and experience it as real. If a guest wasn’t informed how the park worked, the event would be real, as far as they were concerned.
I think that realism is a matter of perception, and focus. Do you choose to experience the game as if things were happening due to normal causal processes? If the GM is good at simulating the results of these processes it might be very easy to suspend your disbelief and experience it from that perspective.
In the time I’ve known you on the forums, you seem particularly opposed to GM secrets, and characterizing techniques such as “mother may I,” or, “playing to learn what’s in the GM’s notes,” etc. I find those as a superficial short-hand that fails to acknowledge that, say, a GM’s prepared material isn’t always fixed, isn’t independent of ongoing activities in the game, and is able to incorporate player input.
But without getting into where I might disagree, I think it highlights that your perception of, and the way you experience the game is centered around the process, at least in part. There isn’t anything wrong with this, and I’d go so far to say it’s probably a characteristic and part of who you are. And there are games designed specifically for that playstyle.
I don’t fully “get it” because it’s not the way I experience it. For example, there are people that will say a DM fudging a die roll invalidates their success and ruins the game. From an intellectual standpoint I understand what they are saying. But I don’t “get it.” Because it’s not a feeling I’ve ever experienced. I enjoy knowing what happened behind the curtain. Wow, we were about to die 27 times and you altered things to make sure we didn’t? Cool! Nicely done! In other words, I just don’t care about that. At all.
That’s just part of who I am.
And I think that’s part of the disconnect between players like you and me. We can agree on lots of things. But a lot of threads like these (another example - What is World Building For?) not only highlight philosophical differences, but experiential differences.
I also think we can still learn a lot from each other. My approaches to GMing have changed from discussions with you and others.
For a person like me, who values “realism,” it’s about the experience. It’s more important than the process. It’s more important than “The Rule of Cool,” or “Just Say Yes,” and doesn’t condemn illusionism, fudging,or similar techniques. It’s not my job to ensure you can succeed in an encounter, and balance is not fetishized. A half-orc with a penalty in Intelligence can still strive to be a wizard, and while I try to provide an interesting experience, I can’t be entirely responsible for your fun. No, you don’t need to be able to buy magic items with your treasure, but you will pay taxes, money-changing fees, and for food, and other necessities. You’ll probably be targeted by thieves as you flaunt your new wealth. Poison can be save or die. And if you fall in a 50’ pit by yourself with no rope, no way to fly, and break a leg and can’t climb, you might just die in a couple of days at the bottom of a pit. And even if you get out, that broken leg will be a problem for a while unless you have access to 7th level or better spells (and you probably don’t). Sometimes it sucks to be an adventurer.
It’s also not about me, the GM. Yes, I’ll provide plot hooks and threads, events, etc. Yes, it’s a creative process for me. But it’s also an impartial process for me. The giants stealing sheep from the local farmers are doing it because the winter has been unusually harsh. And if you, the PCs, decide to do something about it. Great. Or not. It doesn’t matter to me, although what you choose to do or not will have consequences.
Although it acknowledges the existence of the process, it’s not about modeling the causal process itself, it’s about modeling the results of the process.
Everything is story! If exploration is there, it is because it is what the players WANT in their story!
