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

[AbdulAlhazred]

5e mechanics on this are limited. Besides the character ideals/bonds used a a general reference, there is the optional rule: Loyalty (dmg 93) but there is the Social Interaction rules (dmg 244-245) concerning the NPC's disposition towards the character. So I imagine one could use the friendly NPC reaction table for a situation between the barbarian and his wife.

I would call all of these 'thin' in terms of adding much to the game conceptually. The Interaction rules seem more like a sort of DM support mechanic, something he can use at his option behind the scenes to provide a prod to his thinking, much like we all used to just roll a d6 behind the screen (I know I would, "maybe the bad guy went left 1-3, or right 4-6" or "maybe the NPC is broke and can be bribed 1-2, requires some bigger incentives 3-5, or is rich and laughs 6). 1e has a lot of these in the DMG (one could argue all but a few bits of the 1e DMG are of this nature).

The point is, they aren't surfaced mechanics which the players can rely on and reason about in a way that lets them take measured risks or set up/advocate for the type of fiction they want. The ideals/bonds is the strongest of all of these, as it is explicitly player side in terms of setup at least. This means the player can ASK for certain things in a formalized way, and even make some embellishments on the backstory of his character and the world. Where it fails is in terms of just not tying into anything. When we played our 5e campaign I certainly referred to these elements of my character and said things like "Oh, my character has the ambition to rule his own kingdom. So I will vote to strike off in the direction of the castle in the hopes of finding a place I can establish my own stronghold." Things like that, but there wasn't any MEAT to it.

This is one of the disappointments I have with 5e. It has a universal mechanic, but it fails to actually DO interesting stuff with it!

 

[Numidius]

That is all true. I tried Plot Points once, but I have a player who pushes the envelope. If the mechanic is vague or loose he will push it. He pushed it so bad, the rest of the players groaned because of the fiction introduced. I realised after that the best thing for me to do was just scrap that idea. I could not have the game lose some internal consistency every time he used a plot point.

And despite all the flack we get from using the Say No toolkit in this thread and being lumped under the MMI label, I do not feel bad in using it (Saying No).

I DID FEEL BAD when I had to Say No to the player using Plot Points. I don't want to be in that position again. I don't want to be in a position where I have to rise to my understanding of MMI-DM and have to deny someone their ability to change the fiction because of my idea of the internal consistency. I don't want that stress at my table.

Power corrupts No, joking aside, it takes time and sensibility not to abuse those features, from players not used to it, and from "old" Gms not wanting to release a bit the authority (I'm not referring to anyone in this thread)

 

[Maxperson]

I would call all of these 'thin' in terms of adding much to the game conceptually. The Interaction rules seem more like a sort of DM support mechanic, something he can use at his option behind the scenes to provide a prod to his thinking, much like we all used to just roll a d6 behind the screen (I know I would, "maybe the bad guy went left 1-3, or right 4-6" or "maybe the NPC is broke and can be bribed 1-2, requires some bigger incentives 3-5, or is rich and laughs 6). 1e has a lot of these in the DMG (one could argue all but a few bits of the 1e DMG are of this nature).

The point is, they aren't surfaced mechanics which the players can rely on and reason about in a way that lets them take measured risks or set up/advocate for the type of fiction they want. The ideals/bonds is the strongest of all of these, as it is explicitly player side in terms of setup at least. This means the player can ASK for certain things in a formalized way, and even make some embellishments on the backstory of his character and the world. Where it fails is in terms of just not tying into anything. When we played our 5e campaign I certainly referred to these elements of my character and said things like "Oh, my character has the ambition to rule his own kingdom. So I will vote to strike off in the direction of the castle in the hopes of finding a place I can establish my own stronghold." Things like that, but there wasn't any MEAT to it.

This is one of the disappointments I have with 5e. It has a universal mechanic, but it fails to actually DO interesting stuff with it!

I have to ask. Why do you need a mechanic for that sort of thing? Were that my 5e PC, I would make the stronghold happen. I would save the prodigious amounts of coin I get adventuring. When I am speaking with(and I would arrange to be able to speak with) nobles and kings as part of adventuring, I would ask for land grants and permission to build a stronghold. When being asked for a reward, I would ask for titles and commissions. I would build my way towards that stronghold and rule my land one way or another. Many settings have wild areas not ruled. The kingdoms next to those areas would be prime areas for me to go to for this sort of thing. I could set up my own kingdom, after proving my worth and promising trade exclusives, mutual protections and such.

5e does as much interesting stuff as you have it do. I'm sure mechanical aids would make it easier, but those aids aren't necessary to accomplish goals.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I have to ask. Why do you need a mechanic for that sort of thing? Were that my 5e PC, I would make the stronghold happen. I would save the prodigious amounts of coin I get adventuring. When I am speaking with(and I would arrange to be able to speak with) nobles and kings as part of adventuring, I would ask for land grants and permission to build a stronghold. When being asked for a reward, I would ask for titles and commissions. I would build my way towards that stronghold and rule my land one way or another. Many settings have wild areas not ruled. The kingdoms next to those areas would be prime areas for me to go to for this sort of thing. I could set up my own kingdom, after proving my worth and promising trade exclusives, mutual protections and such.

5e does as much interesting stuff as you have it do. I'm sure mechanical aids would make it easier, but those aids aren't necessary to accomplish goals.

Every ask you make here is to the GM. You, as a player, have zero authority to "make it happen."

 

[Bedrockgames]

Mmhh... to start with what the authors said before the launch, actual Modularity would be fine*.
Then moving away from the wargaming aspect towards the 3 Pillars, and having a unified resolution system (also modular, for those who prefer granularity and differentiation among the three Pillars) granting a satisfying resolve for disputes at the table; eventually having classes distributed between the 3P; more emphasis on setting modules than adventure paths: that leads to Pcs broader Action Declaration in the context of setting- game- situation and in which Pillar/Class/Skill Set the Pc is focused on.

And a black strong coffee at the end

*(Burning Wheel comes to mind for its modularity)

This is helpful. If it is truly a modular change, one an OSR person could ignore for example, I think it would be fine. The one that gives me the most pause is the broader action declaration. That is something I've always found leaves me scratching my head as a GM and player when it is present in a system. I think, in some ways, it is a bit why something like Skill Challenges threw me off (even though I understand those are not what you are talking about here). Also why Moves in DW took me a super long time to grok. Nothing against such things. I can see why you would find them valuable. But this is one area where I feel like an old dog learning a new trick. It just doesn't fit with how I approach play. So if a new edition were to want to attract both you and I as customers, I think that part of it would have to be something I could easily put aside (it being present wouldn't trouble me provided I could easily get around it and run games of D&D the way I always have.

 

[Maxperson]

Every ask you make here is to the GM. You, as a player, have zero authority to "make it happen."

This is wrong. I have absolute authority over what my PC does. The DM is socially obligated not to be an asshat, so he's not going to be smashing what I do with a bunch of crap. I don't have to worry about him being a bad DM, because those are rare as hell, and if I did manage to find one, I would have left long before I really made a push for those goals. It may take work, but I can get there if I have the drive.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And it's a fact that this idea you are putting forward that something must mirror reality or be utterly and equally unrealistic is a False Dichotomy. Realism is a spectrum, not an absolute. Repeating your False Dichotomy incessantly isn't going to make it correct.

No, Max, I am not putting forward a dichotomy, I'm saying the scale doesn't exist at all -- nothing in your game (or mine) is like the real world. See? No choice, no false dichotomy.

Let's take two movies. Good Fellas and The Wizard of Oz. Good Fellas, despite not mirroring reality, is much more realistic than The Wizard of Oz. They are not equally unrealistic.

No, it's not. Everything that happens is according to the imagination of tge participants. The only real thing is the film, and that's the same in both.

Now, the real world is a constraint in both films, but only because they are made in the real world. Your game (and mine) are not in the real world, they are fictional.

Riiiiiight. Because gravity exists in the game, but doesn't exist in the real world, because if it did exist in the real world, then the real world would have something to do with the fiction of gravity in the game. Knives don't exist in the real world for the same reason. And so on.

No, Max. Gravity and knives exist in the real world. Neither exists in your game (or mine). We pretend they do, but we also pretend elves and dragons and magic. We can pretend anything, that doesn't make it real.

"Realism" on relation to pretend games is only the internal coherency and consistancy of the fiction that makes it believable. It has nothing to do with the real world.

Specifically, you deciding that the pretend cultists are very pretend unlikely to be at the pretend tea house has absolutely nothing to do with the real world, on part or on a scale. It is pretend.

Very unreal things can have a great deal of seeming weight and believability. Game of Thrones is often cited as such (warning: GRRM hates you), but it's still pretend. It's not realistic, it's internally consistent and coherent to a high degree.

Reality does connect to the game in thousands, if not millions of different ways to varying degrees. Those degrees fall somewhere on the realism spectrum.[/QUOTE]

 

[Maxperson]

No, Max, I am not putting forward a dichotomy, I'm saying the scale doesn't exist at all -- nothing in your game (or mine) is like the real world. See? No choice, no false dichotomy.

"Like the real world" is the False Dichotomy. It doesn't have to be "Like the real world" to have realism. It doesn't matter if it's "Like the real word," only that it be "more like the real world in this one particular instance than yours is." That makes it more realistic in that instance.

Now, the real world is a constraint in both films, but only because they are made in the real world. Your game (and mine) are not in the real world, they are fictional.

This is not relevant to realism.

No, Max. Gravity and knives exist in the real world. Neither exists in your game (or mine). We pretend they do, but we also pretend elves and dragons and magic. We can pretend anything, that doesn't make it real.

It doesn't have to be real. There's your False Dichotomy again. It just has to be related to the real world in some way and to some degree, which even things in the imagination are.

Very unreal things can have a great deal of seeming weight and believability. Game of Thrones is often cited as such (warning: GRRM hates you), but it's still pretend. It's not realistic, it's internally consistent and coherent to a high degree.

How it portrays knights and life in that sort of era is more realistic than say Bugs Bunny's portrayal of knights and that sort of era.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is wrong. I have absolute authority over what my PC does.

Let's accept this as given for the sake of argument. You don't have authority over outcomes. The DM, does. They decide if it's a success or failure or what mechanic to use. Perhaps your DM thinks it's very unlikely, and assigned a 1 in 10,000 chance? You can't do boo about it.

The DM is socially obligated not to be an asshat, so he's not going to be smashing what I do with a bunch of crap. I don't have to worry about him being a bad DM, because those are rare as hell, and if I did manage to find one, I would have left long before I really made a push for those goals. It may take work, but I can get there if I have the drive.

But this isn't about how the rules work, Max, it's about the people you choose to play with and them aligning with your expectations. It doesn't speak at all to how the rules work, or how their designed, it speaks to who you're friends with and what conventions your table accepts as baseline. Given this, do you not see how your response to [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] isn't helpful unless he plays at your table?

 

[Ovinomancer]

"Like the real world" is the False Dichotomy. It doesn't have to be "Like the real world" to have realism. It doesn't matter if it's "Like the real word," only that it be "more like the real world in this one particular instance than yours is." That makes it more realistic in that instance.

You've previously defined realism as 'like the real world,' Max. This is why you introduced your scale of realism, where you can become just a bit more like the real world in one area and that's adding realism (for the sake of realism). Are you now saying that realism, for you, does not mean "like the real world?"

That aside (because I know better), I'm not saying that it has to be "like the real world" to have realism, I saying is cannot be, at all, even a little bit, like the real world. It can be how we imagine the real world, to some degree, but our pretend isn't realism.

This is not relevant to realism.

No, it's me showing the only real part of the two movies you put forth as having "realism" based on their how their actors pretended about the fictional scripts.

It doesn't have to be real. There's your False Dichotomy again. It just has to be related to the real world in some way and to some degree, which even things in the imagination are.

It can't be real. Perhaps, if I say it again, you'll get it and stop forcing it into whatever mental engine you've got going that spits out "False Dichotomy!"

It cannot be real to any degree because it's all pretend. It cannot be related to the real world because it's all pretend. At best, it's how you imagine the real world to be, but I can imagine it differently and then we're stuck arguing which of our imaginings of the real world is more like the real world. Neither are more like the real world, because they are both pretend.

How it portrays knights and life in that sort of era is more realistic than say Bugs Bunny's portrayal of knights and that sort of era.

No, it isn't. It's pretend. It may hang together better for you, seem more believable, you may enjoy it more, but, fundamentally, that's just how you feel about it, it has nothing to do with how more or less real it is.