Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[AbdulAlhazred]

To elaborate on the "as if"... It was common back in the day, and still is in some corners of the OSR world, to explain some of the more bizarre design decisions of early D&D in terms of "realism".

For example, level limits for demihumans were explained by, "If they could keep levelling over their long lives, they'd dominate the world!" Which, it is explicitly or implicitly stated, would be "unrealistic".

Of course the retort is perfectly possible (and was made even in the early days) that adventurers are extraordinary people who don't necessarily match the broad demographic profiles of the population... And that in any case, why do game mechanics have to support that degree of world-level "realism"? But that retort had remarkably little effect.

I suspect that anyone who insisted on level limits would, if pressed, admit that they don't really think population dynamics can or should be embodied in game mechanics. It's just too complicated a subject even when restricted to humans! But they want to feel "as if" that embodiment had been done. It makes the world seem more alive to them, more independent of their individual game or convenience.

(Naturally, not all sim players cotton to level limits, I'm not claiming they do. I'm just pointing out a dynamic that seems to me to be in play for those that do.)

But my response is that level limits for demi-humans in D&D/AD&D DO serve a design purpose! They act as a disincentive to play as a demi-human, which is otherwise in most cases a mechanically superior option. The designer of the game, Gygax, was not interested in a game which depicted bands of superior demi-human adventurers lording it over the human 'normals'. That simply wasn't the milieu/genre he was interested in producing, and thus he introduced mechanical constraints designed to make that outcome unlikely. My point being, there never was any sort of viable simulationist argument here, the rule is PURELY gamist, or at most could be seen as being part of a 'high concept' in which the genre is meant to be close to that of most S&S from which he drew inspiration, where humans are the only/main protagonists (even Lord of the Rings is MOSTLY about humans in an overall sense, despite the main characters often being 'demi-human').

I am certainly willing to agree that if a game designer can construct their system in such a way that a significant segment of the gaming public is able to reason about it in 'simulationist' terms, and that makes them satisfied with the result, then the resulting game is probably going to be better received. In terms of the actual topic of the thread, I think this is a point which is likely to be important to someone including 'plot armor' of some sort into their design, or 'mook rules' like the 4e minion rule.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, I'm not going to deny that usage for a simulationist approach in any sort of fantastic game requires some compromises, but that doesn't mean you can't be selective about where the simulationism ends (it also at least requires some unpacking where, once you have a set of premises about how the fantastic elements work, whether extrapolating from those straight on is still simulationist or not). And as you reference, it can become more than a little questionable what it means when the fantastical elements get high enough--but I suspect most hardcore simulationist types are unlikely to go to far into the hyperfantastic.

I agree, but I will go ahead and raise one of my usual objections to "realism."

I tend to find that there are those who appeal to "realism" who have widely divergent understandings of what makes something "realistic" when it comes to simulating anything with the rules or game processes.

So part of my contention lies with that selectivity process, which comes across as trying to turn a subjective perspective of realism into a sort of objective truth about what is "realistic." This is even excluding the introduction of things like "magic," "cosmologies," or the "supernatural" into the equation that should render the application of our understanding of realistic physics null and void.

So that subjective selectivity when applying "realism" sometimes feels more like post hoc justifications of personal biases than anything else. Why is realism important for game elements A, B, and C but not these other game elements X, Y, and X that should and probably would have large ramifications on A, B, and C?

Moreover, more problematically, I find that sometimes appeals to "realism" often entail a desire to sneak in unsavory things under the banner of "greater realism" (e.g., sexism, racism, etc.). The obvious example here being F.A.T.A.L., which branded itself as the most realistic game.

This undoubtedly reflects my own biases, but I will admit that as a result of my time in this hobby, appeals to "greater realism" often shoot up a bunch of red flags for me because of things like this. I am aware that there are people who want more "greater realism" who don't share such unfortunate prejudices; however, I find that "realism" is often where I find that the subjective prejudices of the designer/GM often intrude in the game space in unpleasant ways.

Edit: This is one reason why I think that I would personally favor a move away from an appeal to "realism" as a term to something else that is a little more cognitive or self-aware of its fictive or subjective nature: e.g., imaginary naturalism.

 

[The Shadow]

They act as a disincentive to play as a demi-human, which is otherwise in most cases a mechanically superior option.

In other words, it's a patch on another bad design decision, or a number of them. Why should playing a demi-human be mechanically superior in the first place? Or if it should, why disincentivize it at levels that many campaigns didn't reach?

I can testify that it didn't do a very good job as a disincentive, because my experience was that nobody ever played a human unless it was a class requirement. If you wanted a human-ish character, you played a half-elf.

But let all that be what it is. My point didn't have to do with the mechanic, but the explanation of the mechanic in terms of "realism" - which on its face is rather absurd, but does make sense in terms of wanting the feel of realism, wanting the world to be independent of your desires.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I feel strongly about simulation personally, I think for me what defines simulation is an attitude that the way that things interact is based on qualities inherent reflective of their physical reality in the world, and to processes that are consistent-- as opposed to their interactions being defined by dramatic need, dramatic opportunity, or dramatic position.

That's probably why I never seem to have a problem reconciling gamist or narrative stuff with my simulations-- I'm perfectly willing to accept that the reality of the fiction is something that also happens to make for a fun game. I had that come up in Lancer recently-- Lancer utilizes a very hard separation between the rules NPCs use and Players use, they aren't even approximate, in theory you're just supposed to suspend disbelief, but for me its just perfectly intuitive that the super skilled 'Lancers' the game is named for literally pilot a whole different class of mech that require more skill for a higher payoff.

So for me, I start with a fantasy, often one sold by a story but where I sort of want to get away from the 'specialness' of the central characters and plot, and I try to simulate that fantasy (being a gundam mech pilot, being a hunter of the supernatural, being a fantasy adventurer, whatever)-- these worlds usually have very interesting status-quos, and the stories are what naturally emerge from that interesting status quo. Its not a matter of if the Dragon has dramatic results, the slaying of the dragon is a dramatic question in and of itself, the episode can close with joyful triumph or crushing defeat and that's a satisfying conclusion to this episode of the character's story, or even the characters themselves (you know, if they die or retire or whatever.)

You can explore the results of your character's interaction with the simulation, but that can be a very quiet thing, a progressive development and growth or decline as they change in response to the events-- I suppose that means I think a dramatic spiral is undesirable because the dramatic episode shouldn't necessarily arise from the previous one, the continuity can come from the 'character study' element, the important thing I guess in that context, is not dramatic action, but perhaps dramatic reflection?

 

[The Shadow]

and to processes that are consistent-- as opposed to their interactions being defined by dramatic need, dramatic opportunity, or dramatic position.

While I'm sure that players exist who don't care much about consistency, I think caring about it is very far from being a trait exclusive to "simulationists". Narrative gamers often have a strong sense of responsibility for the fiction, to ensure that inconsistencies don't arise.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, such stories exist. I think seeking such stories through RPGs is likely to be a pretty rarefied taste, but it's a big world! I certainly don't have much interest in playing that out.

Honestly, isn't this a fairly likely type of outcome in a game like, say, Dungeon World, that is generally seen as a Narrative kind of game? I mean, the fighter discharging his "I will protect the halfling at an cost because he is my friend" bond by interposing himself between said halfling and some dangerous opponent and as a result being sent to Death's Door and passing out of this world. That seems like a fairly likely outcome of DW play, actually. It even seems like an outcome that is INTENDED as one of the possibilities when we "Play to See What Happens" IMHO. PCs do have SOME plot armor in DW, they can generally make Defy Danger moves, they have more hit points than the typical monsters they are likely to face on a regular basis, and they get a Death's Door move to snatch themselves from the very gates of death back into the world. Still, PCs are likely to face at least some lethal choices now and then. I guess you could play such that death isn't really one of the stakes, but I don't think that's a design intent of the game (I could be wrong).

 

[The Shadow]

Honestly, isn't this a fairly likely type of outcome in a game like, say, Dungeon World, that is generally seen as a Narrative kind of game? I mean, the fighter discharging his "I will protect the halfling at an cost because he is my friend" bond by interposing himself between said halfling and some dangerous opponent and as a result being sent to Death's Door and passing out of this world. That seems like a fairly likely outcome of DW play, actually. It even seems like an outcome that is INTENDED as one of the possibilities when we "Play to See What Happens" IMHO. PCs do have SOME plot armor in DW, they can generally make Defy Danger moves, they have more hit points than the typical monsters they are likely to face on a regular basis, and they get a Death's Door move to snatch themselves from the very gates of death back into the world. Still, PCs are likely to face at least some lethal choices now and then. I guess you could play such that death isn't really one of the stakes, but I don't think that's a design intent of the game (I could be wrong).

Eh? I wasn't referring to danger of death (I realize that not all narrative games make death rare or impossible) but to the ironic, subversive realization that everything was meaningless. That sort of story is, I submit, not one that many games try to support.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

While I'm sure that players exist who don't care much about consistency, I think caring about it is very far from being a trait exclusive to "simulationists". Narrative gamers often have a strong sense of responsibility for the fiction, to ensure that inconsistencies don't arise.

Agreed, I think its that + the other part that defines the simulative mindset, the intersection between this strong sense of responsibility and the emphasis on the systems that 'model' the imaginary reality in a somewhat granular way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh? I wasn't referring to danger of death (I realize that not all narrative games make death rare or impossible) but to the ironic, subversive realization that everything was meaningless. That sort of story is, I submit, not one that many games try to support.

Well, perhaps oddly, I always felt that the attempt to cloth situations and milieu in impersonal (often but not exclusively simulationist) ways feels particularly disempowering. Like, the way the Great Wheel in classic TSR D&D is depicted as some sort of endless eternal 'timeless' balance. The World Axis depiction of an active dynamic struggle between order and chaos, with the ultimate outcome yet to be determined, just seemed vastly more interesting and likely to figure in a dramatic story arc. 4e's designers felt this as well, and you can sense the clear way in which dramatic necessity is a clear priority throughout the system.

The clearest and earliest example I came across was strategic teleportation. In 4e this can only happen between 'circles'. This means you can only arrive at specific points which are narratively appropriate. Nor can you simply exit from any unfavorable scenario via a quick spell casting. It IS possible to construct a circle, but it takes some time and resources. Thus a group of PCs might prepare by going to a certain point and creating a method of retreat, but it won't be their ultimate goal. This set of mechanics was CAREFULLY designed to produce interesting stories! It is no less plausible in any other sense than AD&D teleport rules, but it works better in a game sense. In fact, at capstone levels these limits in 4e can be broken, allowing for a sort of special dramatic ending.

Things like plot armor could be designed to work in similar ways, though I haven't really seen a game which does that exactly.

 

[The Shadow]

Agreed, I think its that + the other part that defines the simulative mindset, the intersection between this strong sense of responsibility and the emphasis on the systems that 'model' the imaginary reality in a somewhat granular way.

I see, thank you for the clarification.

I think the word 'model' is getting us back into the weeds of whether one is really trying to "simulate" something or not. My take has been that isn't really the case, that nobody is really trying to simulate the world - but that many people do want to feel that has been done. They want enough of a feel of reality that they can surrender themselves to it, immerse themselves in it.