Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[Micah Sweet]

By "the first part", do you mean this?

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[Thomas Shey]

LitRPG is a really interesting thing to watch happen. The way this describes it undersells it a bit too, there's plenty of it that is adopting game elements while playing coy about being a game, and just making things like level or class a part of the world's physical laws.

And it is, of course, possible to completely reify the game assumptions into the setting. Earthdawn is the classic example here; characters have classes, levels and potentially at least, level elevating hit points. It deals with the LFQW problem by making everyone mages of a sort (with the ones that don't look like classic mages having their magic mostly just internal).

But that's showing the sausage making a bit too much for a lot of people.

 

[Pedantic]

And it is, of course, possible to completely reify the game assumptions into the setting. Earthdawn is the classic example here; characters have classes, levels and potentially at least, level elevating hit points. It deals with the LFQW problem by making everyone mages of a sort (with the ones that don't look like classic mages having their magic mostly just internal).

But that's showing the sausage making a bit too much for a lot of people.

I missed the boat on Earthdawn, it's both too early and too late for me, overlapping poorly with my tabletop career. Which is a shame because I feel like early teen Pedantic could have really formed a solid obsession.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

And it is, of course, possible to completely reify the game assumptions into the setting. Earthdawn is the classic example here; characters have classes, levels and potentially at least, level elevating hit points. It deals with the LFQW problem by making everyone mages of a sort (with the ones that don't look like classic mages having their magic mostly just internal).

But that's showing the sausage making a bit too much for a lot of people.

My home setting for Pathfinder 2e does this too, I take for granted that the reason you can do things by the game rules that are out of ken for the real world (like harm such a large creature with your tiny body and tiny sword) is because people in that world are internalizing magic and awarding them superhuman strength and capability as they train. I wouldn't do that in something like OSE, but the world should match up with the game as much as possible, and I love me some anime and LitRPG so it works out.

My Lancer games meanwhile, similarly match the single health bar enemies, and multi health bar players (which is just asymmetrical NPC and PC design) to a system of negative license levels for people who aren't lancers, who use more heavily mass produced AI systems for mech control that make them way more vulnerable because their actual skills aren't up to snuff. I almost always want to treat mechanics as a direct simulation of the reality of the world-- usually working backwards from the good mechanics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What I'm taking Umbran's point to be is that there are lots of ways to scratch the "simulation" itch. I don't think anyone can deny that J. R. R. Tolkien worked harder than just about anyone else to make his world as intensely realized, as living and breathing, as possible. It was a lifelong obsession. But he didn't play roleplaying games in Middle Earth that I know of, he wrote stories and essays about it.

So, to the extent you've chosen to realize the worlds of your imagination in the context of a game with other people, there must be something about that particular realization that appeals to you apart from the simulation. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that there's something about the game that engages your delight in simulation better than other ways.

What is that? I'm not at all trying to tell you your preferences are wrong! I'm just trying to understand what they are. Why a game instead of another mode of expression?

The question can very easily be turned back on me, so I'll try to answer it. Why do I like stories produced in games better than those I write myself?

I think there are several reasons besides the obvious one of socializing with friends. First - I don't know what's going to happen next! Yes, there are solo RPGs that can supply that, but they are still limited by my own imagination. The collision between multiple people's imaginations and agendas produces fascinating debris!

Second - playing the role provides much the same fun of acting, but without the pressure of a large audience or the need to memorize lines. There is a pleasure in seeing what this other person I inhabit wants to do and strive to do it.

Third - the vicissitudes of my character provide much the same catharsis as reading great fiction, but because in a sense I've "lived" it myself, the experience is more intense.

Fourth - for much the same reason, the experience of play can let me "try out" being a different kind of person. When I was younger, I was very shy and awkward, but RPGs gave me a safe space to learn to be more assertive and personable. Likewise, I'm unmarried but the game can in a sense let me experience being a loving but flawed father.

All of those reasons apply to me too, except that I also really enjoy the experience of, in effect, "living another life" in a magical world that exists outside of my own perceptions, rather than getting the feeling that all this happening just to entertain me. That's why narrative games bother me, by the way. I don't want to feel the universe revolves around me and my friends.

As to why gaming, I got into Metzer Basic when it came out, and quickly moved on to 1e with friends. It's a social activity I've always enjoyed. I also enjoy real and feigned history immensely, and RPG setting books back in the day were always great for that kind of writing.

 

[The Shadow]

I don't really see how this bears upon whether what he says about purist-for-system simulationism is true or false.

It doesn't, of course. But the original question was whether he is biased or has animus against simulationist play. Perhaps he's changed since I stopped reading the Forge, but while I was there, the answer was emphatically 'yes'. I honestly don't blame people highly committed to that mode of play being angry and offended at him, because he said some grotesquely offensive things.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I feel the same, a big part of the appeal of a roleplaying game for is that lavish worlds with interesting tones, systems, themes, history, and etc (e.g. all of the things one would consider if you consider worldbuilding to be a form of art in its own right) entice me to want to interact with them-- and usually, being too focused on the main characters and their special plotline or arc or whatever, serves to distract from the status quo that interested me in the first place. So a world that's strong enough to stand without the PCs, or that isn't particularly interested in them or any story you're going to actually tell, is often a good sign that it's a world I, ironically, actually want to play in.

In DND terms, if I strive to just be a normal adventurer in your world-- that experience should be the hook.

 

[Pedantic]

I feel the same, a big part of the appeal of a roleplaying game for is that lavish worlds with interesting tones, systems, themes, history, and etc (e.g. all of the things one would consider if you consider worldbuilding to be a form of art in its own right) entice me to want to interact with them-- and usually, being too focused on the main characters and their special plotline or arc or whatever, serves to distract from the status quo that interested me in the first place. So a world that's strong enough to stand without the PCs, or that isn't particularly interested in them or any story you're going to actually tell, is often a good sign that it's a world I, ironically, actually want to play in.

In DND terms, if I strive to just be a normal adventurer in your world-- that experience should be the hook.

And then you get into discussion about what happens when you change a mechanic, which can go either way. If I want meaningfully difficult desert travel, I need to figure out a supply system, carrying capacities, avoid effects that create water, measure the results of desert hazards against character health and so on.

Or, if I think the soak roll takes too long to resolve and I want to use a flat damage reduction mechanic, I need to think through what that means for types of armor, equipment prices and so on.

That's usually hard and often even harder to do completely and well. I can do all of that above and then discover I haven't actually checked camel walking speeds and the desired fiction doesn't emerge. What I can do at that point is change the rules again.... But I can't create a difficulty that doesn't exist, if a player finds a way around it. Honestly, that's half of the whole point, and usually a sign of an engaged player.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

And then you get into discussion about what happens when you change a mechanic, which can go either way. If I want meaningfully difficult desert travel, I need to figure out a supply system, carrying capacities, avoid effects that create water, measure the results of desert hazards against character health and so on.

Or, if I think the soak roll takes too long to resolve and I want to use a flat damage reduction mechanic, I need to think through what that means for types of armor, equipment prices and so on.

That's usually hard and often even harder to do completely and well. I can do all of that above and then discover I haven't actually checked camel walking speeds and the desired fiction doesn't emerge. What I can do at that point is change the rules again.... But I can't create a difficulty that doesn't exist, if a player finds a way around it. Honestly, that's half of the whole point, and usually a sign of an engaged player.

Part of a system being good for me, in my mind, is that it presents a world with it's mechanics that I want to play in. So, Pathfinder 2e is really nice for me because I don't feel the need to change the mechanics in particularly annoying ways, with a few shoe-pebbles that will probably come up over the years as i go, I think alignment is the closest right now and even then its not particularly onerous.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, pretty much.

OK. So reposting it:

I'm interested in analysis of RPGing. My assertion is that what distinguishes purist-for-system RPGing from other approaches is the emphasis on resolution process (ie the system in action without the need for participant decision-making) and certain associated approaches to framing and consequence narration.

Purist-for-system is a term that I learned from this essay. It describes an approach to RPGing.

The approach is exemplified by RPGs like RM, RQ, Champions/HERO, GURPS, C&S, perhaps Classic Traveller. I mention these systems because familiarity with them helps make sense of the approach.

RM, RQ and C&S are all FRPGs that try and cover the same general sort of thing as D&D, but they all differ from D&D in some fundamental ways. I'm not as familiar with C&S as the other two, and so will draw mostly on RM and RQ to outline the differences:

*They eschew classes as the core of PC build, in favour of skill-based progression (RQ has no classes at all; in RM and I think also in C&S, classes serve as skill-packages or skill-cost determiners);

*They eschew hp-based combat in favour of hit location and crit systems, with active defence/parry broken out from armour protection, and armour acting as damage reduction;

*They eschew Vancian casting in favour of some sort of points-based spell system.​

On top of these mechanical differences, the all emphasise "seriousness" in tone and setting (in contrast to some of the more "funhouse" aspects of, say, White Plume Mountain or Castle Amber or even Tomb of Horrors).

What's going on with these differences?

At their core, the resolution processes of these RPGs - that is, the methods used during play to work out what happens when a player declares that their PC does something - have two properties:

*They generate answers to the question "what happens next?" without the participants (players and GM) having to make decisions on the way through;

*As the resolution process is worked through, it generates knowable fiction at every point.​

Here's a clear example of a RPG resolution process that doesn't meet the first criterion: in Burning Wheel, if a player fails a roll, the GM has to decide what happens next, having regard to (i) the task the PC was attempting and (ii) the player's stated intent for that task and (iii) the player-authored PC Belief that is at stake in the current fictional situation. It's metagame all the way down! RM, RQ and similar games eschew this.

Notice that D&D's core combat resolution engine, and core spellcasting rules, mostly satisfy this first criterion. This shows their very close connection to wargaming procedures. (Notice, also, that 4e's skill challenges don't - that's one reason they're controversial!)

But consider the second criterion. D&D's combat procedures fail this test (putting to one sie the more outre interpretations of them canvassed upthread by @Pedantic). When an attack roll is made, and resolved, and (if it hits) hp damage is applied to the target, we don't know what happened in the fiction. Was it a lucky attack that caused a small injury? Was it a mighty blow that was parried, but the parry shook up the parrier? Or something else? We can't know that just from the resolution procedure. Someone - typically the GM - would have to make it up!

Whereas RM and RQ answer these questions via the resolution procedure without anyone having to make anything up: we know whether the blow was landed skilfully or not, we know whether or not it was parried, or blocked by a shield; if an injury occurs, we know where it is and how severe it is.

In the case of spellcasting, the contrast with D&D is less clear but there's a general sense, in the purist-for-system ethos, that Vancian memorisation in it's D&D style is hard to take seriously, but a points-based system enables us to similarly envisage what is going on at the moment of casting: the spell user is calling on their inner energy (kind-of like Ged or Dr Strange) and shaping the magic to try and impose their will on it. It's not a coincidence that these games tend to require a roll for spell casting, rather than having it succeed automatically as it does in D&D.

This is the essence of purist-for-system RPGing. But this ethos tends to bleed from the resolution process to other parts of the game. For instance, because the resolution process tells us what is happening at each stage in a knowable way that doesn't require additional authorship, it is natural to think that the resolution process tells us what is possible in the fiction ("rules as physics"). This then has implications even when the procedures are not being used - eg when the GM is authoring the setting, or framing a scene/establishing a situation, they should do so having regard to what would be possible given the resolution mechanics. (Contrast D&D, which at least in its classic form that these games were reacting against cheerfully permitted all sorts of elements in the fiction that couldn't be explained in terms of the extant PC build and resolution rules.)

Furthermore, the differences I've described - more "realistic" combat, less reliable spell casting - make classic D&D dungeon-crawling less feasible as a play activity (because fighting is less feasible, and spells no longer serve the same player-side resource function that they do in classic D&D). At the same time, rich and robust skill systems encourage players to focus their activities elsewhere.

The things I've described in the previous two paragraphs, in turn, are what feeds into the sense of "seriousness" about the setting. And that iterates back into expectations about what sort of fiction the resolution system should generate, so the upshot tends to be a type of "groundedness" or even "grittiness".

To reiterate what I've posted a bit upthread, you can see the same purist-for-sytem ethos in AD&D players who change the game in certain key ways:

*Introducing a wound/vitality type system to make injury more realistic, and make it clearer - in the fiction - which "hits" are really just wearing a foe down vs which are the actual injury-causing blows;

*Adjusting the falling damage rules to avoid the situation where a player knows their character can't die from a fall;

*Adjusting the archery rules so that a single crossbow shot that is not dodged or deflected can be fatal, even if the PC has more than (depending on edition) 6, 8 or 10 hp;

*Replacing Vancian memorisation with some sort of spell-point system, and/or adding in general spell failure/mis-cast rules.​

These changes (i) enable tighter connection between resolution processes and knowable fiction, and (ii) make classic and "funhouse" dungeon crawling less viable as a focus of play. They increase the sense of "seriousness", just like RM and RQ and C&S and so on.

I think it's harder to graft an effective skill system onto AD&D (apart from anything else it collides a bit with thief, ranger and bard class design) but it's not impossible to have at least a bit of a go at it, as the original OA shows.

Anyway, that's the longer version of an explanation of what I think is going on in purist-for-system RPGing, and how action resolution procedures are at its core, but generate effects and an ethos that ramifies into other parts of the game. (It also explains why I think that purist-for-system RPGing is not connected to "world simulation" in the sense of that phrase that @AbdulAlhazred is criticising. RM and RQ and C&S GMs don't pretend that they can model a whole world using game mechanics. Rather, they approach their GMing task, and the relationship between the fiction that they author and the mechanics of their RPGs, in accordance with the ethos that I've tried to describe.)