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

[Numidius]

"Pillars & Plots" part III
How to generate Stats!!

Gm's: Dungeon, Town, Wilderness
Pc/Party: Combat, Social, Exploration

Take a D20 and choose A NUMBER between 3 and 18 (eg: 10).
The range from 1 to the number BEFORE it (eg: 1 to 9) is Dungeon/Combat.
The range 'tween AFTER that number and 20 (eg: 11 to 20) is Wilderness/Exploration.
The range from THAT number (eg: 10) to either 1, or 20, whichever is shorter (eg: 1 to 10) is Town/Social.

Examples:
Gm chooses 15. D 1-14, T 15-20, W 16-20
Pc chooses 7. C 1-6, S 1-7, E 8-20.

As you noted, Dungeon/Combat and Wild./Expl. can reach extremes in the D20 range. Town/Social at best will be middle ranged (50%).

Every Pc can have own stats, or the Party as whole, if they prefer. In the latter case just calculate the average Number from Pcs D20, or make it up starting from 11 and every Player adds, or subtracts 2.

Next: Player driven story arc!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What I find curious is that everyone understands the plain words of "more realism" and accept it on D&D material, whether it be stuff from the DMs Guild or the monthly D&D booklet (forget its name now) that Enworld produces for 5e - and yet when Max uses it ppl lose their minds and need all sorts of measures and what not.

EDIT: Latest En5isder.
Really wonder if a thread needs to opened up to discuss Mike Myler's definition of the words "more realistic"

Careful how you sling around that 'everyone'. I think if you were to go back through my posting history on this forum or on rpg.net, or the old WotC D&D Community forums, if they still existed, you'd find I've never spoken in this fashion. I don't consider 'realism' to be a substantial axis on which to analyze most aspects of game play.

In any case, the uses of this term, or analogous terms, is very loose. I don't think that the question of whether or not one or another mechanisms of determining things like who is in the tea room is more 'realistic' is even a sensible question which can be asked. A question like "what are the realistic outcomes of a 100' fall onto a hard surface?" OTOH has some more and less realistic answers. Even the later question however isn't utterly clear cut, as we can undoubtedly find an example in the real world of almost any outcome of such a fall (somewhere someone stood up and walked away from it, or at least survived). So even there its a fuzzy question of 'likelihood', not absolutes.

If the game is Traveler, where the universe ostensibly obeys the same natural laws as our real world, we might remark "it sure was pretty unrealistic when that guy survived 100' fall onto concrete." That seems like a sensible remark. Arguing about the realism of the scene generation process which lead to the existence of a 100' drop, not really a question in which realism is germane. Now play D&D and we have a world where dragons fly, how can we even approach a discussion of how realistic it is to survive a 100' drop? Doesn't it depend on factors which aren't even explicit in the game (IE the luck, skill, and connections with fate which Gygax assigns to hit points?). Even this relatively straightforward question is no longer cut-and-dried and doesn't have any objective realistic character anymore.

Again, all that is left is 'coherency'. D&D games frame scenes in which something akin to the laws of nature are narratively consistent. You can EXPECT to fall and be hurt if you step off a 100' drop. This isn't about 'realism' per se. It is about being able to reason about the fictional consequences of actions so that consensus can exist at the table as to the appropriateness of the resulting narrative and mechanical process.

 

[Maxperson]

Now play D&D and we have a world where dragons fly, how can we even approach a discussion of how realistic it is to survive a 100' drop?

Because dragons flying has nothing whatsoever to do with falling 100 feet. They are completely different aspects of the game and each aspect has a different spot on the realism spectrum.

 

[Lanefan]

Not to speak for pemerton, but I think that's what he disagrees with. The idea that a GM making a decision yields a more realistic result than other methods.

While you could likely provide examples of a GM making a decision that seemed to result in a more "realistic" (by which I think we mean something like "mathematically likely") outcome, others can just as easily provide examples where a player makes a decision that results in a more "realistic" outcome.

It's a preference that some folks in this thread have, and it's something that makes more sense to them, and that's fine....but it is in no way objectively more realistic than most other methods used in an RPG.

To illustrate, let's look at a basic example. The party is making their way along a path. They come to a fork in the path. Which branch shows more signs of traffic?

In a game like D&D, where the DM knows the surrounding area and its inhabitants and their goals and so on, he may declare the left branch as the more traveled because he has the map and knows that way leads to more populated areas, so common sense indicates that would be the answer. This is "realistic" in the sense that some form of logic is applied to the answer.

But what about a game where the surrounding area and inhabitants are not known by the GM ahead of time, but are instead determined through play? Why would the GM picking the left branch be more "realistic" than the right branch? Perhaps the game calls for a roll from the players, and then based on the results of the roll, the GM narrates things accordingly. The player rolls well, so the GM decides that the character is capable of accurately determining that the left branch sees more traffic.

Hesitant to dive back in to this mess, but the second example (where the player rolls) still reads as if the GM already knows left has more traffic - the only difference is the use of dice rather than the GM just narrating it.

The "realism" of the result is no different in either example. The "realistic" method used in the first example simply doesn't work for the second. So ultimately, what is being discussed is a preference in game mechanics and how they're applied.

To some extent.

The (or an) other factor - and you in fact hit it above - is internal logic.

Where the GM has things mapped out ahead of time then - even if only based on the GM's opinion - there's going to be an inherent baked-in internal logic, variants to which will over the long run become apparent. But where nothing is predetermined there's a much higher risk of illogical results e.g. by roll the left path is accurately determined to have more traffic at the junction but subsequent roll results indicate that path goes nowhere and-or has been abandoned. This either a) breaks logic or b) invalidates the result obtained at the junction.

And if the "vanishing" traffic is then explained by a hidden complex or whatever then what other evidence of that complex might have been seen before had its existence been known by the GM all along?

These are the sort of questions I keep asking, though I have yet to get an answer beyond what amounts to a somewhat patronizing "Don't fret about that sort of stuff". Well, dammit, I am going to fret about that sort of stuff and won't be alone in doing so. The setting has to have an internal logic (and by this I mean an internal logic other than "there is no logic", which would be a waste of everyone's time), if only so players and characters can tell the difference when the characters find themselves in a different setting with different logic e.g. an outer plane or a dreamworld.

And the only person at the table who can give the setting that internal logic, and then maintain it, is the GM. And even then it won't be perfect as no GM can stay on top of absolutely everything, but the odds of consistency will be much greater, which is all we can ask for.

 

[Lanefan]

See, this is what I, generally speaking, dispute. My assertion is that even the most enriched of game world settings are so 'thin' in terms of detailed understanding of the processes and implications of the established facts, that any decisions made about what "is or isn't likely" are indistinguishable from pure opinion.

So what? Even if it's only pure opinion, as long as that opinion is vaguely consistent then it naturally follows that the setting as defined by that GM and informed by her opinions will also be vaguely consistent and through that either have or develop its own internal logic. That logic then defines what is "realistic" within that setting - a "realistic" that may or may not have anything to do with our own real-life reality - and gives the characters and players a base foundation on which to function.

Real life OTOH is governed, objectively, by principles best understood using a framework like the Buddhist concept of 'dependent origination'. That is to say, everything is interrelated at nearly infinite levels and no distinct processes can be described at the level of human observation. Even our 'explanations' of what happens in the real world are thus largely a constructed narrative. If this is true of reality, what does it say about our ability to construct artificial realities with substantial similarity to the real world? Essentially it is an impossibility. Instead we base our constructs on principles of what works when we play, largely.

To argue with this will quickly move us into the realms of belief, science-v-religion, and spirituality - I'm going to hazard a guess the mods might not be in favour and so give this no more than this brief wave as I pass by...

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's not all opinion. It's an absolute fact that if I add in becoming nicked and dull in combat with the need to sharpen the edge and work out the nicks, and rusting if not cared for properly to longswords, that longswords in my game more closely match how they work in the real world than they normally do in D&D. That makes it a fact that my longswords would have more realism than D&D longswords.

I don’t agree with that, really....ask a metal worker which method seems more realistic and he’ll likely laugh.

But it’s beside the point. We’re comparing methods that RPGs may employ in their game. That’s why the example I gave offered two methods.

Comparing a game with one method to another with no method doesn’t really address what we’re discussing.

Sure, but in D&D there is no such dulling or assumed care. Longswords simply never nick or get dull in D&D. You've moved the goalposts of this discussion with that statement.

Me: I have apples and D&D has oranges, and apples are more realistic as they more closely match reality.

You: Well, if I change D&D so that it assumes oranges instead of apples you can't tell the difference between oranges and oranges, so realism is all subjective.

You can't see how this new argument is bunk?

No....because I never said I was talking about D&D.

I described two systems, one that included a mechanic for sword maintenance in the form of a skill check, and the other which assumed this task was happening “off screen”.

Of those two, which is more realistic?

Assumed care and roleplayed care would be the same level of realism, as the damage to swords is being done and being repaired.

Thank you.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, judging from the posts between your's and this one, I think your kitten has died (to completely change analogies in mid-stream, but at this point who cares).

Your kitten died because a wad of cash fell from the sky and landed on it - the classic good news bad news situation?

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t agree with that, really....ask a metal worker which method seems more realistic and he’ll likely laugh.

Highly unlikely. He may tell me that it doesn't work exactly that way, but he will agree that one way is closer to reality than the other.

But it’s beside the point. We’re comparing methods that RPGs may employ in their game. That’s why the example I gave offered two methods.

You offered up two methods for the same exact thing, not two methods for doing one thing two different ways, which is what I am talking about. You moved the goal posts from, "Example 1 is less realistic than example 2," to "Example one and example two are functionally identical." You don't get to move the goal posts like that.

In D&D fighters do not care for arms and armor, because arms and armor never wear down in any way. If you are playing some other system where it states explicitly that arms and armor wear down, but care is assumed, then my example does not apply to THAT system. THAT system does not in any way refute my claim, though.

Comparing a game with one method to another with no method doesn’t really address what we’re discussing.

It's exactly what we are discussing. This discussion is about changing rules to make that rule more realistic. You can't do that if there is already said method there.

No....because I never said I was talking about D&D.

I was, though. If you are going to alter the game we are discussing in some effort to prove me wrong, it's auto fail. You can't change D&D to some other system and then claim that I am wrong when talking about D&D which does not have such a system. In D&D, there is no such system of assumed repair, so my alterations does in fact make longswords more realistic than D&D has them.

I described two systems, one that included a mechanic for sword maintenance in the form of a skill check, and the other which assumed this task was happening “off screen”.

Of those two, which is more realistic?

They're roughly the same, which is irrelevant to my point. Coming up with an example of two ways to make something roughly as realistic doesn't change the fact that you can still alter games in ways to make those game MORE realistic.

 

[Numidius]

"P&P" part IV
Player driven story arc

While the Gm driven part applies mostly to new content, plot twists, big changes, about Setting, presumably something important or immediately related to the Pcs being at stake, usually larger than Characters, which, in turn, use also their Background Relationships & Affiliations to subvert Gm's initial declarations and force him/her to roll on Conflicts having smaller Goals within Pc's reach in different arenas of play (town, wilderness etc)....
....in Players driven stuff the opposite takes place: Players now declare something the Pc wants to achieve, that is at stake, and Pcs roll their Stats to overcome obstacles, opposing Npcs, factions, put by Gm on their way to reach the main goal; be it a single conflict, or more, one after another, or simultaneously confronted by different Pcs. The Gm can use imagination freely, improvising or following his prep, to describe a non-linear scenario (think about a town based situation with many prominent personalities involved, with different agendas, or a savage land with various monstrous factions, or a typical dungeon enshrining a powerful magic item guarded by an ancient evil while a group of zealot good paladins swore to not let anyone lay their hands on it, and how these react to the Pcs pursuing their goals: friendly, hostile, better if interested in the same goal for themselves).

Flow of play: Player(s) declare something or someone or somewhere, they want to achieve, get hold of, influence in a radical manner, reach with a purpose. Players might want to go together, or even interfere with one another. Conversation goes around the table as usual. When Gm or Player, or even PvP, don't agree anymore on what is being declared: Conflict ensues.
The active Player decides in which manner prefers to act; usually is evident which stat is going to be rolled, but, anyway,
if one wants to overcome an Npc with violence, and death is a possible and accepted outcome: Combat is the stat.
If s/he wants to change the 'active behaviour' of the Npc by words, or non-violent physical means, magic, convincing, persuading, showing off, impressing: Social is the stat.
If, lastly, one does not want to interact directly with the above Npc, and finds a way to bypass, circumvent, the obstacle interacting with the environment, willing to spend more game-time than a direct confrontation: the stat is Exploration. Exploration is also used if you want to take time to change, transform, survive the environment, from crossing a desert to building a fortification, to picking a magic lock, gaining info, research, hunt, scale sheer surfaces, infiltrate unseen, swim underwater tunnels, find your way out of a maze etc.

(To be continued...)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is irrelevant to whether or not something is more or less realistic.

The game uses these aspects of real life with longswords. 1. they have an edge. 2. they are made of metal(primarily). 3. they have hilts. 4. they do damage. There may be others we could come up with, but those 4 will do.

Longswords have that level of realism in D&D. Are you really arguing that if I add becoming nicked and dull in combat with the need to sharpen the edge and work out the nicks, and rusting if not cared for properly, that my addition does not more closely match how longswords work in the real world?

There isn't any real way to know based on what you've said so far. It also depends on what we MEAN by 'realistic'. The following points spring to mind:

First: you haven't specified what "become nicked and dull in combat with the need to sharpen the edge and work out the nicks, and rusting if not care for properly" actually means. How fast does this happen? What are the effects of nicked, dull, and rusty swords. How much time and energy is required for maintenance, what skills are required, what tools are required, etc.? To be perfectly blunt, I doubt you know the answers to these questions in real-life terms (and how would you quantify them in any case) with any certainty. Thus any attempt you might make to translate them into D&D mechanics are simply your opinions of what is realistic.

Second: Is realistic implying that this tracking of 'nicks and dulling' explains something within the narrative? Is it more realistic to say have the GM simply describe a blow as missing because the sword was too dull once in a great while? Or must there be a 0.415% per day probability of such a miss which has to be mathematically factored into play? What if the end results are basically narratively indistinguishable? Does the impression of realism created in the player's minds count as 'realism' or is some sort of quantifiable mathematical veracity the standard?

Third: How can you assert that the result is, in any of the above senses, actually more realistic? Maybe just ignoring the whole issue, as Gygax clearly did, is overall the most realistic option available, for at least some definition(s) of realistic. I certainly think that could be the case.

Finally: Is all this book keeping and insistence on tracking of grinding, honing, whatever the heck it is that has to happen, actually going to make a game that feels more like you're actually inhabiting your character? Is that even the goal?

Certainly all these absolute claims you make about what is and isn't realistic, etc. is all basically balderdash, isn't it? It is a statement of your preferences to do things in certain ways. I don't understand what is wrong with simply accepting this obvious fact.