Why do RPGs have rules?

[Thomas Shey]

But somehow the fact it was made up 20 years ago somehow makes it less arbitrary than making it up 20 seconds ago . . . .

I think for some values of "arbitrary" this is absolutely true. Whether that value matters to you is a different question.

 

[pemerton]

There could be in-fiction circumstances that dictate one is more realistic than the other, such as the party wandering through a large orc territory and no goblins are anywhere nearby

The point is that this is all just made up! The GM could just as easily made it a large Goblin territory, or whatever else.

The closer the game holds to reality(and nobody is expecting the game to mirror reality), the more realistic it is. There isn't a person alive who has every circumstance they encounter meet some sort of personal dramatic need. Games that are all about meeting dramatic needs, while fun for those who play they, are inherently less realistic on that aspect of RPGing than simulationist games where sometimes a dramatic need is met, and sometimes it's something else.

I struggle to take this seriously: the reason for having events in our RPGing that don't speak to player-authored dramatic needs for PCs is because it's more realistic?

The reason there isn't a person alive who has every circumstance they encounter meet some sort of personal dramatic need is because real people, not being characters in fictions, don't have dramatic needs. That said, most people I know and deal with have more in their day-to-day life that speaks to their personal concerns and connections then seems to be the case in the typical "simulationist" RPG of the sort you seem to be describing.

 

[pemerton]

I wouldn't say it was necessarily the case that a game world constructed around dramatic needs couldn't be more realistic in respects than some other game world. Still it would be less realistic to the extent that it lacks truths that are independent of the characters.

Upthread, the issue of Middle Earth and simulationism was raised. It seemed to be suggested that there could be a simulationist game set in Middle Earth.

Everything in Middle Earth is authored to meet some dramatic need or serve some thematic purpose.

Now it is being posited that this is "unrealistic" and hence at odd with simulationism.

I'm lost.

there would be world-truths that are independent of or external to character-related dramatic needs.

If a "world truth" means something the GM has made up in their notes that the players never learn about, then it's separate from play, and in my view of little interest.

If a "world truth" means something that we can imagine happening that is independent of the events the PCs participate in, then every RPG with some minimum degree of sophistication has this. Eg in my BW games there are shops, soldiers, guards, sailors, etc and its obvious that all these people have lives and families and so on that don't have any relevance to or bearing on the PCs.

If a "world truth" means something that the GM makes a focus of play that is not connected to the players' evinced concerns for their PCs, then what we're talking about in my view is not "realism" but rather who gets to decide what play is about.

 

[AnotherGuy]

There is no "living world". It's just "makings up" based upon rationalizations, justifications, and extrapolations of other "makings up."

I struggle to take this seriously: the reason for having events in our RPGing that don't speak to player-authored dramatic needs for PCs is because it's more realistic?

I imagine things evolve in your (@pemerton and @innerdude) fictional worlds without the need for hard or soft moves.
For instance, surely the passage of time alters the state of things within your world that necessitates some fictional authoring?

 

[pemerton]

There might not be a direct translation but IMO there's at least some correlation between length and quality, in that a longer campaign is more likely to entail deeper and richer interaction with the other characters (as they come and go) along with the setting and its elements; if for no other reason than people tend not to begrudge the time these things take.

This is absolutely bizarre.

Soap operas run for years and years. Films with compelling characters and dramatic interactions runs for a couple of hours. There's no correlation at all between number of sessions played and quality of play.

 

[pemerton]

I've run through three definitions of real: 1) mapping to sets of real-world facts, 2) externality to imagined characters, and 3) fits a naturalistic theory.

Oh right. I agree, It's all make believe.

When I ran a Wuthering Heights game, and one PC had to carry a box with a body in it from his book shop in Soho to the Thames, so as to dump it in the river, we Googled a map of London. I would say that's a pretty tight mapping to sets of real-world facts.

If that makes Wuthering Heights a sim game then I'll eat my piece of clothing that flutters in the wind.

As for "externality to imagined characters", how is something that's all make belief "external" to other imaginary things?

To talk about what simulationist RPGing involves we need to talk about the actual people doing it, and what they do. Not try and identify features of their fiction that ostensibly differentiate it from others' fiction.

 

[loverdrive]

This is absolutely bizarre.

Soap operas run for years and years. Films with compelling characters and dramatic interactions runs for a couple of hours. There's no correlation at all between number of sessions played and quality of play.

I mean... If one purposefully avoids interesting dramatic developments and strives to them only ever happening on accident, a longer campaign obviously has more opportunities for cool dramatic interactions to happen randomly.

 

[pemerton]

I imagine things evolve in your (@pemerton and @innerdude) fictional worlds without the need for hard or soft moves.
For instance, surely the passage of time alters the state of things within your world that necessitates some fictional authoring?

Do you mean the passage of time at the table, or the imagined passage of time in the fiction? I think you mean the latter, but am not 100% sure.

If you do mean the latter, I feel that your question gets things the wrong way round - you seem to say that imagined events necessitate real world action. But it's the opposite - real world actions include the authoring of new imagined events.

So if, at the table, for whatever reason there is agreement that, in the fiction, time has passed, then someone has to frame a new scene or otherwise say something about what is happening now. In AW, this would be the GM making a soft move. In Torchbearer, the rulebook gives the GM advice on how to prompt the move into the next Adventure Phase as the players finish their Town Phase - to use PbtA language, this is a type of soft move, namely, providing an opportunity.

 

[Krachek]

Wrong.

The thing that I finally grasped about "trad sim" GM-ing is that literally all of it is arbitrary.

Whatever reasons the GM chooses for inserting one bit of fiction or another is only based on some other bits of fiction the GM made up yesterday.

Or last week. Or 20 years ago when (s)he created the campaign world.

But somehow the fact it was made up 20 years ago somehow makes it less arbitrary than making it up 20 seconds ago . . . .

I would not give much value on idea I have 20 years ago, those are usually more dull and lame than idea and content I produce today.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The closer the game holds to reality(and nobody is expecting the game to mirror reality), the more realistic it is. There isn't a person alive who has every circumstance they encounter meet some sort of personal dramatic need. Games that are all about meeting dramatic needs, while fun for those who play they, are inherently less realistic on that aspect of RPGing than simulationist games where sometimes a dramatic need is met, and sometimes it's something else.

Here are two scenarios.

1) The PCs leave town, traveling to the north and run into goblins.
2) The PCs leave town, traveling to the north and run into the tribe of orcs that killed the ranger’s family.

Which is more realistic?

I'm not talking about the passion-project types, I'm talking about the big players - WotC, Paizo, a few others.

But WotC doesn’t make more than one system. And Paizo doesn’t really, either, with Starfinder as an exception (though I don’t know if they’re even still putting out material for it).

Most of the big companies produce games based on one system. So I’m not really sure if your initial point is all that valid.

There might not be a direct translation but IMO there's at least some correlation between length and quality, in that a longer campaign is more likely to entail deeper and richer interaction with the other characters (as they come and go) along with the setting and its elements; if for no other reason than people tend not to begrudge the time these things take.

Nope, it’s a preference. If it’s a preference a person has, then they may be more likely to consider a longer campaign yo be good. But, I’d think that if a campaign is good, it’s more likey to go long because the participants are enjoying it. The length of a campaign would, in that sense, seem to be a result of the quality of play rather than a cause of it.

Also, deeper and richer interaction with the characters doesn’t seem to be about length of the campaign so much as the game’s focus. I’ve played years-long campaigns that had very shallow and minimal character interaction. It doesn’t tend to be what the game is about. There are games that are designed to be focused specifically on the characters and the depth of their interactions.

Given how often you seem to criticize this kind of play, it seems strange to now see you claim that its goal is a positive outcome of long campaigns.