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

[Bedrockgames]

I wanted to pick up on this, to make a point that I don't think I've made earlier in the thread but seemed especially apposite in reply to this.

Notice how its an implication of what you say, in referring to "a game with a sense of real world causality in the game's fiction", that games adjudicated in other ways tend to lack a sense of real world causality.

This wasn't anything I was implying in my post. I made the point even that you can juggle different goals here (for example real world causality was one consideration, but potential drama or genre convention was another). This wasn't about being purely driven by real world causality (I was merely stating that, as an off-the-cuff remark, the person not being there or being there is no more mother may I than real life is mother may I). But I wasn't implying a different approach like the one you are suggesting couldn't include realism as the aim. I am assuming, based on your posting history and interests you are going to lean more toward what works in terms of story, but I don't see that a system which, for example, has moves players can perform to help adjudicate this situation would have to be less realistic. That honestly is going to depend greatly on the moves and the way the system tells you to use them. I don't see this as a zero sum game over who has the most realistic, or least realistic approach. Realism isn't a particular concern for me in my games. As I explained, I like some level of internal consistency, I like the world to feel like it is a real place that exists for the characters to explore, but my worlds are governed just as much by wuxia movie logic and physics as they are by real world logic and physics.

Just to give an example from another game, which I know I've mentioned a lot but it is one that really struck me. When I played Hillfolk, I felt it, even though a lot of the setting stuff was coming from things the players asserted in scenes, that it felt like a real, palpable world (and everything was flowing logically from what came before). I realize that Hillfolk isn't say yes or roll the dice, or a system like DW, but it is one, at least when I played it (by no means am I an expert on the game), where these kinds of situations were often by players framing the scene (or even by just saying something was the case in dialogue within a scene). I didn't find it unrealistic or implausible at all. I am sure a boneheaded player could have made it so, but if the group wants plausibility, that kind of system will have it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I wanted to pick up on this, to make a point that I don't think I've made earlier in the thread but seemed especially apposite in reply to this.

Notice how its an implication of what you say, in referring to "a game with a sense of real world causality in the game's fiction", that games adjudicated in other ways tend to lack a sense of real world causality.

The same implication is seen (and I have seen it many times over the past decade or so on these boards) in describing approaches to establishing setting and backstory that aren't GM maps and notes or GM decides, perhaps by extrapolation from maps and notes as "Schroedinger's secret door (or whatever)".

I think that there is no basis for that implication whatsoever. And I think that most of those who put it forward have very little experience with those other (non-maps-and-notes) approaches. This claim that I am making is a corollary of the OP: that the bad guy is in the warehouse because that's what the GM has written in his/her notes is no more realistic and no more emulates reality than the bad guy is in the warehouse because the player succeeded on his/her track-down-bad-guys-in-warehouses check.

And for completeness, in case it's not already obvious: whatever method is used to establish the fictional truth about the location of the bad guy, the reason that he may be found in the warehouse is because that's where he is hiding - just as in the real world.

Again, this seems contradictory to me.

If you honestly think that any method is equal...that neither GM nor Player driven techniques are more “realistic” than the other....a sentiment I would agree with, by the way...then why would you infer someone describing their technique as being guided by their sense of realism or causality as a criticism of other techniques?

I don’t rely solely on GM driven techniques in my games. I use them, yes....but more and more I find myself allowing the players to determine lots of details. Whether it’s simply going with an idea they’ve presented or using the game mechanics to determine something, I like using different approaches for different things. Obviously, a lot of this depends on the game being played.

At times I may decide something as a GM that I feel is appropriate. Perhaps a villain has been driven from his lair and gone into hiding. Where is he hiding? If I decide ahead of time, and base it upon information that’s been presented in the fiction...the villain’s traits and desires, and his connections and resources, whatever other pertinent elements of the fiction that may apply..then I’ll go ahead and do that. Using the logic of the fiction to make such a decision.

In a case where maybe a lot of the facts that would inform such a decision haven’t been strongly established, I may allow the players to suggest a probable location, and perhaps make some kind of roll to see if it works out. Then I’ll proceed with having the villain be hiding somewhere accordong to this method.

I don’t think that either of these two methods is ultimately “more realistic” than the other. But I absolutely understand why someone might use such language when discussing the first method. It is certainly imprecise, but I’m not going to look for offense where none is intended.

 

[Manbearcat]

Just to add to this, which I'm sure you have covered previously.

Say Yes
Roll the Dice
Say No
Co-Authoring
Table-Ruling via Consensus
Table-Ruling via DM
Player Adding a backstory element
Player Authoring upon success of check
Fail Forward
Success, with Complication
In-Character Dialogue Scene
and many others...

Are various tools that we use at our table.
To label all that as Mother-May-I, because I adopt the Say No in my DMing toolbelt is short-sighted, reflects a terrible lack of understanding, a dismissive attitude with likely an undertone of nasty, given that the description is by many considered a pejorative.

I cannot understand why the other side does not see this.

Would you say it is fair to call this sort of "kitchen sink" approach "unconstrained (by system) GMing?"

If not, why?

Because when I think of the inverse, I think of "constrained (by system) GMing." And constraint means specific things depending upon the system. One constraint in a system might be "Fail Forward is anathema." A constraint in another system might be "there is no plot." A constraint in another system might be "you need a map with a, b, and c to play at all." A constraint in another system might be "create a map through play." A constraint in another system might be "at every moment, push play toward conflict or escalate current conflict." A constraint in another system might be "follow the rules and the results of the dice." A constraint in another system might be "GM all scenarios neutrally."

 

[darkbard]

I've got a lot of Traveller, 4e and Prince Valiant reports, but fewer for BW. Here's a link to a report of a first session, but not the Thurgon campaign but a parallel game I'm GMing. (The report is on rpg.net, where I post as thurgon.)

"The 4e game will likely finish in a few months."

My, oh, my, that turned out a bit differently, what?

 

[pemerton]

"The 4e game will likely finish in a few months."

My, oh, my, that turned out a bit differently, what?

Someone decided to build a house, weekend-by-weekend.

 

[darkbard]

Someone decided to build a house, weekend-by-weekend.

Pitfalls of adulting...

 

[pemerton]

If you honestly think that any method is equal...that neither GM nor Player driven techniques are more “realistic” than the other....a sentiment I would agree with, by the way...then why would you infer someone describing their technique as being guided by their sense of realism or causality as a criticism of other techniques?

In a conversation about transport modes, if someone says "I ride my bike because I need to get from A to B" that tends to imply that other modes (eg walking) aren't so good at getting from A to B. Alternatively, if someone thought that walking was as good as riding for getting from A to B, then they would (I think) be unlikely to point to it gets me from A to B as a reason in favour of riding rather than walking.

I don’t think that either of these two methods is ultimately “more realistic” than the other. But I absolutely understand why someone might use such language when discussing the first method.

I'm not saying I'm puzzled by the usage. I'm disagreeing with it. Those are different things.

I’m not going to look for offense where none is intended.

You may be addressing the wrong poster here. I'm not offended and have never said anything to the contrary.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Again, this seems contradictory to me.

If you honestly think that any method is equal...that neither GM nor Player driven techniques are more “realistic” than the other....a sentiment I would agree with, by the way...then why would you infer someone describing their technique as being guided by their sense of realism or causality as a criticism of other techniques?

I don’t rely solely on GM driven techniques in my games. I use them, yes....but more and more I find myself allowing the players to determine lots of details. Whether it’s simply going with an idea they’ve presented or using the game mechanics to determine something, I like using different approaches for different things. Obviously, a lot of this depends on the game being played.

At times I may decide something as a GM that I feel is appropriate. Perhaps a villain has been driven from his lair and gone into hiding. Where is he hiding? If I decide ahead of time, and base it upon information that’s been presented in the fiction...the villain’s traits and desires, and his connections and resources, whatever other pertinent elements of the fiction that may apply..then I’ll go ahead and do that. Using the logic of the fiction to make such a decision.

In a case where maybe a lot of the facts that would inform such a decision haven’t been strongly established, I may allow the players to suggest a probable location, and perhaps make some kind of roll to see if it works out. Then I’ll proceed with having the villain be hiding somewhere accordong to this method.

I don’t think that either of these two methods is ultimately “more realistic” than the other. But I absolutely understand why someone might use such language when discussing the first method. It is certainly imprecise, but I’m not going to look for offense where none is intended.

I agree, neither method is more realistic, because neither is realistic at all. Both are methods of determining fiction, which can be as realistic as you describe it. But, you will hear proponents of one of the methods often say that they use realism in their method. I think it's fair to point out that they're just using their personal judgement as to what makes sense in a fictional world and that has nothing at all to do with realism.

I think honestly evaluating what you're doing when you play can lead to better play because you can avoid the potholes (cause you know where they are) and you will play with more discipline towards achieving play goals. I do not think that honest evaluation means you must accept one method is objectively better than the other. Subjectively, for you, absolutely one can be better.

 

[pemerton]

Suppose I said that determining whether or not a secret door is part of the fiction by adjudicating a check is not more "Schroedinger's secret door" than determining whether or not a secret door is part of the fiction by making a note on a map in advance of play. I believe that many people, including some who are posting in this thread, would disagree with that claim.

Are they forbidden from disagreeing because they might hurt my feelings?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Suppose I said that determining whether or not a secret door is part of the fiction by adjudicating a check is not more "Schroedinger's secret door" than determining whether or not a secret door is part of the fiction by making a note on a map in advance of play. I believe that many people, including some who are posting in this thread, would disagree with that claim.

Are they forbidden from disagreeing because they might hurt my feelings?

This is sophistry. You're saying that others are mean to you, so you're excused if you might be mean to them?

That said, one would hopefully not be hurt just by disagreement, although the SSD is a bad label, much like MMI, and can offend.