Why do RPGs have rules?

[Thomas Shey]

There are absolutely play imperatives where conjuring threats out of thin air is not considered playing in bad faith. On the fly encounter adjustments have been advocated for by several people on these boards.

I do think you can run a game in a way that is sensitive to skilled play in trad games, but it is seldom the case that playing skillfully is required. Most games are just not tuned that tightly.

Though, and to make it clear this is not intended to counter your more general point, one of the things often directed as a dislike at Pathfinder 2e is that it does demand some degree of skilled play if the GM is not actively accounting for its lack in his group (i.e. a group that just wants to bull ahead will most likely run into serious problems if the GM is using normal encounter calculation options). D&D4e seemed to demand some degree of that, too.

I'd also suggest that being overly casual with how you play Mythras is not going to go well. There are probably others I'm not thinking of.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Your comments about answering the question “what if…?” is another example of something I don’t see as unique to simulation. It seems very akin to plausibility. It’s certainly an interesting thought, and something I often consider… so I think it’s relevant. But I’m pretty unconcerned about simulation when I GM, so it doesn’t seem strongly related to a sim mindset.

Not just "what if..." but "what would really happen if..."?

I hope you can see how a GM whose focus is on presenting a fair challenge for the players or on creating a narrative that "feels" emotionally similar to a satisfying novel will GM a scenario (invading hobgoblin army; rescuing your grandmother from false imprisonment by the modrons; slaying a dragon) differently than one who's interested exclusively in "what would really happen?"

If the dragon lands on the ground and engages the party in melee so that the barbarian and the knight can participate in the battle, PRO: the knight's player and the barbarian's player have a fun evening. CON: anyone who is primarily interested in how a dragon "would really fight" come away dissatisfied.

If the dragon dive bombs attacking humans every so often with 200 lb. boulders from 500' up, uses human spies to gather intel on threats in advance, and possibly hires assassins to steal or sabotage their gear, PRO: anyone who's primarily interested in how a dragon "would really fight" gets some good answers, and has an interesting challenge if they want one (or maybe they choose to apply to the dragon for employment as spies, etc.). CON: knight and barbarian players may have a bad time, especially if it comes to a fight.

Do you see what I mean by "it's about subtraction" and the pros and cons of not subtracting?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it "say something plausible"? Or something more? You've suggested something more - no metagame agenda. But @Maxperson not far upthread said that the metagame agenda of "fair encounters" (in CR/XP terms) is consistent with simulationism.

So are you and Maxperson disagreeing? I mean there's nothing wrong with doing so, but I'm trying to work out who the "us" is in your post.

I am disagreeing. To me, the metagame agenda of fairness is orthogonal to simulation. Not necessarily in opposition to it though. After all, the campaign has to start somewhere.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

To be fair, I think we're having two forking discussions here. The question of game/skill is not necessarily related to the question of simulation. I'm generally happy to compromise on sim priorities to present a more navigable gamestate. I've said before that the primary difference between PC and NPC adventurers is that the former are significantly more likely to have encounters in a level-appropriate order.

To your specific concern though, I don't think there's any real need for further special sauce, (A) @FormerlyHemlock's "absent meta-game concerns" can tolerate a few "except for these meta-game concerns" and still produce distinct results.

Bolded point is so very true.

I lose track of which meta-game concerns we're discussing at (A) but I want to emphasize that the absence of metagame motives (simulationism) isn't inherently virtuous! It's just a metric. 100% absence of metagame concerns isn't necessarily better than 20% absence of metagame concerns any more than 100% oxygen atmosphere is better than 20% oxygen atmosphere. (Also, 100% oxygen atmosphere will kill you.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Presumably, as per the posts I've quoted not far upthread, this makes it not a simulation?

If you're trying to say "that makes it less simulationist" then yes, in terms of the threefold model, attention to fairness makes the game more gamist. That's not inherently good or bad! Once we are talking about the same thing we can discuss how much of that thing we all enjoy; whether ruthless 100% simulationism is more enjoyable to pemerton than "mostly simulationist but with concessions to make it so TPKs are usually avoidable via skilled play" or "mostly dramatist with enough gamism to still make it possible to lose, with simulation as a distinctly tertiary priority at best."

But "this makes it not a simulation?" is a question that doesn't compute. It's a misuse of terminology, unless I'm misunderstanding which posts you're referring to.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm not sure where you picked that part up (although the amount of drift in this thread could account for it.) Models can be internal, external, or hybrid (have internal and external components.) A system like CR - if you want to use that as part of simulation* - is an example of an external component. There's nothing at all in the way of GM as referee making use of such components. It's players who should avoid metagame concerns.

*Not all systems must have a simulationist purpose: some may perform other jobs that are useful to play.

For pemerton's sake let me clarify that my, FormerlyHemlock's, stance on the bolded point is the opposite: to the extent that the GM's motivations are solely about faithful extrapolation within-world and not with metagame factors D or G, the game is in S mode.

I've honestly never given much thought before to whether player attitudes or metagaming can affect how simulationist a game is. I do not mind in the slightest if players burn trolls with fire based on player knowledge, even for PCs who are completely new. PCs have lived for decades or centuries in their world; who am I to say they couldn't possibly know anything about trolls?

At any rate, I am not asserting that players should avoid metagame concerns, either descriptively (as part of defining simulationism) or normatively.

We're having a good discussion but not everybody agrees with everybody else about everything and that's okay!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What would it look like to choose something that doesn't fit a chain of imagined causality?

If lightning bolts in heavy rain always strike houses I'd get a little bit suspicious that something is at work besides dispassionate extrapolation.

I'd get even more suspicious if lightning bolts in heavy rain strike houses only when the players are watching.

I realize that that's not an answer the question you asked, but it's the answer to the question you would have asked if we were both on the same page about what simulationism is.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I thought of another thing I like about simulationist GMing: it makes players' genuine emotional reactions to what happens more enjoyable for me to witness. "Holy moly, I can't believe it!" feels really good to hear when I didn't pull any strings to make "it" happen, aside from initial scenario construction.

I guess it makes me feel... successful as a creator?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not just "what if..." but "what would really happen if..."?

I hope you can see how a GM whose focus is on presenting a fair challenge for the players or on creating a narrative that "feels" emotionally similar to a satisfying novel will GM a scenario (invading hobgoblin army; rescuing your grandmother from false imprisonment by the modrons; slaying a dragon) differently than one who's interested exclusively in "what would really happen?"

If the dragon lands on the ground and engages the party in melee so that the barbarian and the knight can participate in the battle, PRO: the knight's player and the barbarian's player have a fun evening. CON: anyone who is primarily interested in how a dragon "would really fight" come away dissatisfied.

If the dragon dive bombs attacking humans every so often with 200 lb. boulders from 500' up, uses human spies to gather intel on threats in advance, and possibly hires assassins to steal or sabotage their gear, PRO: anyone who's primarily interested in how a dragon "would really fight" gets some good answers, and has an interesting challenge if they want one (or maybe they choose to apply to the dragon for employment as spies, etc.). CON: knight and barbarian players may have a bad time, especially if it comes to a fight.

Do you see what I mean by "it's about subtraction" and the pros and cons of not subtracting?

I see how it’s a priority for you. That if simulation as you’re describing it is in conflict with gamism or narrativism, then your priority is simulation.

I think my questions are more how is it achieved. Because how a dragon attacks is entirely up to the GM. There’s no baseline to simulate from. Yes, we can all suggest that certain tactics are likely better than others… but that assumes a lot about a dragon. There could be reasons the dragon has to land… perhaps it can only maintain flight for so long. Perhaps it has a massive ego and needs to crush foes directly. Any number of other traits or factors could come into play here.

But of it’s all just up to the GM, then I get that the GM is deciding what makes the most sense to them… but I’m just unsure how one outcome in a range is decided upon.

For instance:

I'd get even more suspicious if lightning bolts in heavy rain strike houses only when the players are watching.

What does this mean? How would one accomplish having lightning bolts strike where the players aren’t involved?

 

[Maxperson]

I am disagreeing. To me, the metagame agenda of fairness is orthogonal to simulation. Not necessarily in opposition to it though. After all, the campaign has to start somewhere.

@pemerton is reading more into what I said than was there. When you are wandering the setting, there will be easy encounters, medium encounters, hard encounters and some that are just plain out of reach. The party will encounter all of those, but it is still a game so you aren't going to throw a bunch of unwinnable encounters at the group. The vast majority will be in the easy to hard range, which the party is capable of handling. It's perfectly realistic to hit the group with fair encounters and simulates encounters in the world quite well. They are just not going to be all of the encounters, just the vast majority.