Why do RPGs have rules?

[Imaro]

I think it's so deeply embedded within the structure of these forms of play that it generally goes unnoted. Dungeons are layer cakes of increasing challenge from top to bottom, matched with the progression of the PCs. This is exactly what Gary was excited by about what Dave created. He saw the whole picture instantly.

Hexcrawls are largely just dungeons in a specific format, the encounters near town are low level, and the ones off in the terrible swamp are high level. Sandboxes largely follow the same sorts of conventions, and failure to signpost difficulty is generally frowned on. All of these forms are ideally suited to the meta-fictional considerations of play.

I honestly think your assumptions are so strong around the design of these styles that you're making the "evidence" fit your preconceived notions.

Let's look at your assumptions about hexcrawls.... I mean simulation wise there can only be so many apex predators in an area so it does make sense that you run into more weaker creatures than stronger creatures in a specific area. All animals (including humans) leave spore, kills, markings, etc in their territory that telegraph their presence so I'd argue not telegraphing actually goes against simulation. Furthermore in nature weaker creatures give the known territory of an apex predator a wide berth whenever possible (and humans in particular don't set up there settlements as close to predators as possible) so yes there isn't going to be 100 dragons in the same area and yes the town is going to be further from the dragon's lair as opposed to the goblins any townsperson can slay if they have a weapon and yes there are going to be signs in nature that telegraph what creatures live in what area... Going by what I typed out what is guiding my design of this setting?

Contrast this type of setting with something like that of Blades in the Dark where we have a dead sun and yet no mention of how the world isn't a frozen ball of ice. Or where a "cataclysm" unleashed earthquakes and volcanoes and ghosts and horrors on the world. Multiple moons appear in the sky sometimes for...reasons. Also lightning towers that somehow produce the same effect as powerful sorceries once did against those same ghosts.

Dont get me wrong, it's a cool world but it's based on a smattering of facts that don't try to create any type of simulation or often any type of causation, leaving it either to be created by the GM or never to be answered. It is a world clearly designed to provide a moody, cool place to pull off heists in. You're honestly saying you don't see a difference in the construction of these 2 settings?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And, yet again, the reason why is no secret; it was deliberate because 5e by design is not trying to tell already experienced DMs how to run their games.

I agree with everything you say except perhaps this paragraph. I don't think Mearls et al. made a conscious choice not to explain how to create or use a map key, for instance[1]. I think they grew up playing D&D and had internalized that knowledge to such a degree that they literally never realized it needed to be taught. We see the fruits of that now in Example 1 of the previously-linked article: a 5-star DM's Guild adventure which tries to describe a ruined castle's layout through room-by-room textual descriptions but includes no map of the castle! A what is worth a thousand words, people?

It's not just map keys of course. New DMs should know the dungeon crawl procedure. I'll do my bit for humanity and write up roughly what the DMG should have said in Chapter One. I'm going to use the terms "players" and "player characters" interchangeably here.

Dungeon crawls are one simple and fun way to run an adventure. They focus on players moving from place to place within a "dungeon", interacting with the contents of each place such as by searching for traps or treasure, talking with dungeon inhabitants such as non-player characters or even monsters, or combat with those inhabitants.​

​

At its most basic, a dungeon crawl happens when you as Dungeon Master do the following:​

​

1. By consulting the map and the map key, briefly describe the place where the players currently are. Be sure to include information about any monsters, treasure, etc. in plain sight, as well as any exits leading to a different location (different room, hallway, etc.). Try to keep descriptions brief--don't feel like you have say everything up front. Give the players enough information about immediately-obvious features so they can ask follow-up questions, such as "how many orcs are there?" or "what does the statue look like?" Players tend to remember detailed info better if it's given as a response to their questioning.​

​

2. After describing the location, ask, "What do you want to do or ask me?"​

​

3. Answer their questions and decide the results of their actions. Optionally, if enough time has passed, roll a wandering monster check to see if any monsters enter the location from elsewhere in the dungeon.​

​

4. If players aren't sure what to do, a good default action is to move to a different location by going through one of the exits. You can ask for example, "Do you want to go through the north door or back through the east door or do something else?" If they move, return to step 1.​

​

There are many variations on dungeoncrawling such as navigating a forest instead of a dungeon, and there are ways of running an adventure without dungeon crawling at all, but if you can do the above you are ready to DM your first adventure!​

​

[1] BTW I think it's generally a mistake, though common, to key maps solely by numbers. A map which has a hallway labeled "13. Gelatinous Cube" is superior to one that just says "13".

 

[Imaro]

It's precisely how the phrase is used. It's about thinking of something in some idealized version, beyond the reality of it. It's often used to refer to a person... Mike puts Sally on a pedestal. It's strictly subjective.

Here you go...

put someone/something on a pedestal
idiom

to behave as if one person is more important than others:
We put athletes and movie stars on a pedestal.

But aside from that... what do you think of the actual point?

What was the point again? I got lost in the snark.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That is the point, though.

There's no and can't be no skilled play in D&D, because the only possible skill being expressed is players' ability to please the GM who pretends to be impartial. Some even go further and gaslight themselves into thinking that they are actually impartial, and their decision-making is predicated on anything other than their left foot.

Obviously this is a bit of hyperbole, but the truth at the core of it is a very hard kernel indeed! Consider the example of deploying a trap against the notional 4 goblins. In 5e the player describes this task. The GM then does SOMETHING, and announces a DC for the player to roll for.

What is this something? That's the only question here. If our GM is the one and only big game hunter/US Army Ranger dude in a million GMs, then maybe he makes an informed decision about this DC. Maybe, but maybe he is a family and decides to just set a DC that sounds fun and challenging, or he's a narrativist and his DCs are set to produce a good blend of success and adversity. Maybe he thinks you're an obnoxious player and rules that the goblin ganks you while you foolishly stand there fiddling with rope. Maybe he thinks you're hot and goes easy on you!

Now, assuming said GM is NOT a trap expert, all he can do is pick from the other motives! Sure he might think it's ideal to set the DC realistically, but he has NO neans to do so! People always do possible things, so ipso facto the GM WILL pick an actual course of action.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat

I can tell you why I have doubts about their simulationist character. I'm working through this real-time, so let's see if I change my mind by the end of the post.

In terms of my categories upthread, they fail at (2) because the GM isn't the one extrapolating the internal cause. The player has too much decision-making power.

So let's turn to (1), which is the trickier case.

I think the fact that the player gets to impose their will on the fiction, and generate consequences, without that being mediated via a dice roll, is what puts pressure on here. I can see your position (I think I can - I'm just about the opposite of a martial artist, but I can read and hopefully understand your words), and so if "impose their will on the fiction" = the PC imposes their will on the opponent then I can see the simulationist character you're pointing to. But the number of borderline cases - eg marking a dragon while poking it with a dagger, or marking only two of three foes one attacks because of a choice about how to divvy up the foes among the various PCs - makes me think there is sufficient metagame, or at least "fortune in the middle", in there, that it doesn't quite hit the RM/RQ sweet spot.

The fewer the borderline cases, the more the claim to be simulationist. But even that's not quite right: in RM, if you hit a borderline case then you rework the mechanic (or ad hoc it in some fashion - at my table that was generally consensual with the GM in the chair but not the boss); in 4e D&D, you make up some fiction to explain it. Which reinforces the FitM-ish character of 4e.

What do you think?

I'm going to do the same as you (work my way through what you've written in real time and see where I land at the end), but I'm only going to focus on one facet (as I think it might be illuminating).

So, I agree that a singular piece of game engine (in this case, the suite of converging mechanics that make 4e Defenders "work") that either (a) isn't prioritizing as the apex of design and play a very particular form of Simulation-by-referent/model & extrapolation and/or (b) disallows GMs a Sim-driven-veto (again, by referencing their personal model for the situation & employing their personal means of extrapolation) on a case-by-case basis is a problem for SImulationism design agenda and play priorities.

Now, if the above is true, if you take a game that doesn't enshrine (a) (at all of the design agenda/systemization/play level) and/or doesn't grant that case-by-case GM veto of (b)? That is the mother load of problems for Simulationism concerns it seems to me. But, as I was attempting to draw out above with my Defender mechanics personal anecdote, GMs might disagree on (a) when employing a game mechanic in a moment of play and therefore disagree on whether the GM veto inherent to (b) is necessary for that a particular moment. Both that (a) and (b) (in that moment) depends upon the particular array of information that they are drawing upon.

So I'm going to move on to the bottom half of your post above; "the fewer the borderline cases..."

Let us take a 3.x attempt at "Sim-ifying" D&D 4e Defender mechanics whereby (a) can be said to have attempted to be in play to one measure (execution notwithstanding) and (b) is certainly in play. Here are my thoughts on what a (dysfunctional...as its the only type of conversation I can see in this scenario) conversation around "borderline case" might come up and resolve:

GM: "The zombies are mindless. Your marking and punishing mechanics requires an opponent with a mind. So your Defender stuff doesn't work. That is how the game was designed (here the GM is leaning on my (a) above)."

Player: "Huh? There is no charm tag or anything like it any of my Defender mechanics? How can my Defender stuff be negated by the mindless tag?"

GM: "It doesn't matter. I'm vetoing this corner-case (the GM is exercising (b) above). Marking and punishing an opponent has to rely upon the creature to have an attention span that can be manipulated; a mind. It doesn't have one. So I'm extrapolating that the mechanics make no sense in this situation. So your stuff doesn't work."

Player: "Wait. So ok. Even creatures with the most primitive neurology...I mean even creatures that aren't possessed of primitive neurology are goal-directed by metabolic and replication processes/imperatives. You mean to tell me that the necrotic energy that imbues these things with animation doesn't given them any semblance of goal-directedness? The sorcerer or necro or whatever doesn't imbue them with any sense of goal-directedness? That makes absolutely no sense. How can they do...anything? Anything at all?"

GM: "Yeah...they're imbued with a goal by their master or Necrotic energy or whatever...but its just so...I guess...primitive...that it doesn't rise to the level of imbuing it with the processing capacity to register your Defender stuff. Mindless. So your Defender stuff doesn't work."

Player: "Ok, so these zombies have no sense of spatial dynamics at all. No sense of themselves moving in space. No sense of objects external to themselves, relative velocities, angles of intercept, etc? How do they move with any purpose or functionality at all? What governs that? Why doesn't whatever governs that apply to them processing and orienting to my Defender-ey stuff?"

GM: "...because they're mindless...and the game engine says mindless means something...and it makes sense to me that mindless means something. And that something is your Defender stuff relies upon the ability to influence a mind...even if the mechanics of your Defender stuff doesn't have the Charm tag....so your Defender stuff doesn't work."

---

That_is_a_mess of a conversation. You can land on either side of that and with righteous indignation at the end of the affair. And I'll bet you any amount of money that there is an overwhelming deluge of 3.x GMs who would land where my 3.x GM landed above. And then there is a subset of them (and probably not a small one) who feels "player entitlement...rules lawyer...douchey player get out of my game."

So where does Simulationism land on that conversation above? It would seem to me that it would land on the GM's take, despite the reality that both (i) a shortcoming of design is readily apparent and invoked (the interaction of Mindless and Charm tags) and (ii) a case for "no GM veto" can be made without even invoking genre logic or drama logic or game layer integrity logic; by merely referencing how goal-directed things do stuff (goal-directed things moving themselves in a 3d environment and interacting purposefully with objects in that 3d environment).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What is this something? That's the only question here. If our GM is the one and only big game hunter/US Army Ranger dude in a million GMs, then maybe he makes an informed decision about this DC. Maybe, but maybe he is a family and decides to just set a DC that sounds fun and challenging, or he's a narrativist and his DCs are set to produce a good blend of success and adversity. Maybe he thinks you're an obnoxious player and rules that the goblin ganks you while you foolishly stand there fiddling with rope. Maybe he thinks you're hot and goes easy on you!

Now, assuming said GM is NOT a trap expert, all he can do is pick from the other motives! Sure he might think it's ideal to set the DC realistically, but he has NO neans to do so! People always do possible things, so ipso facto the GM WILL pick an actual course of action.

I hope you recognize that the sentence in bold is a non sequitur. This is where it matters substantively, as discussed upthread, that "a crude, low-quality model" should not be conflated with "not a model". The GM is not forced to decide between the four options proposed by you: gamism, narrativism, personal animosity, or sexual attraction. Other options exist, and one of them is to attempt faithful extrapolation, either on a sort of FKR basis or from published rulebooks for 5E or some other game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Obviously this is a bit of hyperbole, but the truth at the core of it is a very hard kernel indeed! Consider the example of deploying a trap against the notional 4 goblins. In 5e the player describes this task. The GM then does SOMETHING, and announces a DC for the player to roll for.

What is this something? That's the only question here. If our GM is the one and only big game hunter/US Army Ranger dude in a million GMs, then maybe he makes an informed decision about this DC. Maybe, but maybe he is a family and decides to just set a DC that sounds fun and challenging, or he's a narrativist and his DCs are set to produce a good blend of success and adversity. Maybe he thinks you're an obnoxious player and rules that the goblin ganks you while you foolishly stand there fiddling with rope. Maybe he thinks you're hot and goes easy on you!

Now, assuming said GM is NOT a trap expert, all he can do is pick from the other motives! Sure he might think it's ideal to set the DC realistically, but he has NO neans to do so! People always do possible things, so ipso facto the GM WILL pick an actual course of action.

Again, not really a 5E GM but that seemed to be the point tog 5E, was it doesn't pin you to just one style. Which I see as a plus for D&D

 

[Imaro]

Obviously this is a bit of hyperbole, but the truth at the core of it is a very hard kernel indeed! Consider the example of deploying a trap against the notional 4 goblins. In 5e the player describes this task. The GM then does SOMETHING, and announces a DC for the player to roll for.

What is this something? That's the only question here. If our GM is the one and only big game hunter/US Army Ranger dude in a million GMs, then maybe he makes an informed decision about this DC. Maybe, but maybe he is a family and decides to just set a DC that sounds fun and challenging, or he's a narrativist and his DCs are set to produce a good blend of success and adversity. Maybe he thinks you're an obnoxious player and rules that the goblin ganks you while you foolishly stand there fiddling with rope. Maybe he thinks you're hot and goes easy on you!

Now, assuming said GM is NOT a trap expert, all he can do is pick from the other motives! Sure he might think it's ideal to set the DC realistically, but he has NO neans to do so! People always do possible things, so ipso facto the GM WILL pick an actual course of action.

Why does any of this matter if for a trap that has a DC of X to detect, DC of Y to be disabled and Damage of Z the DM is consistent in his/her/their DC of W to make it? That's where the fairness comes in, that's where skill is judged (Is this a worthwhile move for a player to make/some players to make?), etc.

EDIT: Simulation only comes in on how he arrives at that W but once that W is determined it will be the same for anyone who tries to construct said trap.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Here you go...

put someone/something on a pedestal
idiom

to behave as if one person is more important than others:
We put athletes and movie stars on a pedestal.

I don't see that as contradictory to what was said. "Folks place simulation on a pedestal." Anyone placing one priority above others is placing that priority on a pedestal.

If I put my wife on a pedestal, it doesn't mean I think everyone does.

What was the point again? I got lost in the snark.

I wasn't being snarky. It was an apt phrase to use.

Do you think that the idea of simulation becomes more important than what's actually happening at the table? Do you think that folks may at times attribute their aesthetic choices to simulation? How does a GM untangle simulation from all the other elements and considerations of craft? Given the potentially wide range of possible outcomes of any action, how do we settle on one outcome over others in a simulation?

What's actually happening at the table that gets labeled as simulation?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Do you think that the idea of simulation becomes more important than what's actually happening at the table? Do you think that folks may at times attribute their aesthetic choices to simulation? How does a GM untangle simulation from all the other elements and considerations of craft? Given the potentially wide range of possible outcomes of any action, how do we settle on one outcome over others in a simulation?

This is an issue that will emerge with any priority though (if you are using priorities as a lens). The reality is most groups are going to have a mix of players, so you will adapt. Few tables will be pure this or that. But I think that is a much larger topic than whether a given priority is real. If you have players who want realism, and you are doing heavy genre emulation, you are going to have to bring in more realism if what you are doing is not landing with them. If you want to run the thing as a game, RAW, but the players keep trying to go beyond the rules and focusing on stuff like what their characters would do, you are also going to either have to adjust or maybe find another group. I think honestly where people run into issues, is trying to impose a gaming ideology on the table. It can be handy to have various schools of thought to draw on. And it is absolutely fine to have a GMing style or an RPG point of view, but I have never encountered the platonic group who perfectly fits any one of these styles or approaches.