Why do RPGs have rules?

[hawkeyefan]

If one really accepts the sorts of arguments you and others are making, then my definition of "real" puts the work in the right place. To make the imagined world facts external to player purposes is to put the world on a "realistic" - physicalist or as it used to be called materialist - metaphysical footing from the perspective of their characters.

World facts that are external to and independent of player goals do not suit the purposes of dramatism. Various posters have been vocal in not seeing the use of such world facts... wondered aloud how such could be of use to player characters. I take that to agree with this point.

Meaning that if there is a form of realism that exists in setups where world facts are adopted without regard to characters, then that is clearly distinct from dramatism. "Realistic" is used to mean many different things: if for some meaning of realistic that meaning is also of use to and present in dramatism (i.e. if you are right for said meaning), then there is nothing about that meaning that makes modes prioritising it distinct from dramatism (beyond said prioritisation, which isn't nothing but is also an easily blurred line.)

Therefore the definitions of "real" worth having must include the one I propose: it has consequences that dramatism has no use for and should reject. The triumvirate of definitions I proposed work collectively; but this is the one that makes the resultant "realism" most distinct.

I don't think we need to worry about realism. I don't think any RPG game or setting seeks to create an implausible world (as noted, there are some exceptions that intentionally try to do so). So trying to determine which is "more realistic" is just pointless.

So I've asked a few times now, if we set that concern aside and then look at what happens in play... how would we describe it? No one's answered that question.

Other than saying "it's more realistic" what do you think sim GMing does? What is the outcome?

I've read something like this apprehension many times now. All I can say is that the externality or independence of the world facts is not intended to thwart players. They form their goals within the context of those facts, just as in real-life we act within the world: reality does not warp around our dramatic needs.

Does your typical day involve more things related to your wants and needs, or totally unrelated things?

I mean, I'm at work right now because I need to be. I'm also chatting here because my work's all done and I have some spare time, so I want to spend it on topics that are interesting to me. Later, my kids will get home from school and I'll chat with them about their day, and then I'll wrap up work. After that, we'll eat dinner. There are likely to be some video games with my son at some point. Then later, my friends are coming over for our Stonetop game.

Obviously something unexpected could happen. But that would be out of the ordinary... my day is pretty much defined entirely by my wants and needs. That's generally how life works.

The idea that we're constantly being bombarded with the unexpected is a bit strange. It seems to rely more on the expectation that the characters in the game are like a wandering group of adventurers.

But that's a strong assumption to make. There are plenty of games where that is not the case. The characters are something else, and have a more specific agenda... so it should not be surprising that the things that happen to them tend to connect to them or their agenda.

That's whoever or whatever process is controlling the NPCs. I should also call attention to the desirability of players conflicting with players in this mode. I don't find it ideal to assume a single harmonious party. Even where player characters are notionally working together, each should think about their character's motives within the world.

Generally, the GM is controlling NPCs. Very likely, they've also determined the NPCs goals and outlook and resources. So even if they use a dice roll or similar method to determine a response, the GM is still very involved in how the NPC may react.

I'm not sure what this has to do with PC motivations, but I agree with you that we shouldn't always assume they're aligned. Certainly, it would seem more realistic for people who are close to one another to have conflicting agendas at times, or to disagree about the best course of action. Yet many folks who are citing realism as their goal will readily admit that one of their expectations for play is that the players always act cooperatively in a group.

 

[soviet]

So, in my current Tyranny of Dragons campaign, the party uncovered that the Cult of the Dragon believes it is approximately 100 days from being capable in summoning Tiamat. For mechanics, which are known to the players, I decided on 90 days + 2d10.

In that time the party is rushing to complete quests in gaining allies and destroying Cult assets and resources (while also working through their personal dramatic needs). The purpose of that is to convince the Council (the representatives of various factions and powerhouses) at their next and final meeting, to strike the Cult and its forces united and with their full strength

This sounds awesome

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Keeping the above quoted for reference.



What brings them to such a place? Wouldn’t it be (A) or (B)?



I see this as (A).



I view this as (B).

EDITED: I had my A and B mixed up. I've corrected that.

I think (E), the players make things happen, is basically not quite A) or B), it is simply a type of sandbox play, or entirely undirected and effectively GM-less play. However, it won't last. Once the players start something, the world (probably a GM) has to react to that in some fashion. If the PCs decide to rob a bank, then the FBI's master bank robber catcher is coming for them! Frankly, you can see BitD as this sort of game, just set in a crapsack world that demands you act in SOME fashion before it grinds you down.

In effect, at most, E is just shifting the unreality to the player's side!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The mystery of Middle Earth is straightforward. In the Silmarillion and other works, and in the maps by his son, Tolkien supplied an abundance of information that fits the criteria for realism. Those can be supplemented from books such as the superb Atlas by Karen Wynn Fonstad. Tolkien undertook multiple projects in Middle Earth. Some of those projects were dramatic stories.

What criteria for realism? Are the mountain ranges of Middle Earth geologically plausible? Is the existence of a kingdom which has remained virtually unchanged and inhabits the same 3 cities (well, they're down to one in LoTR) for THREE THOUSAND YEARS and maintains the same ruling dynasty all that time realistic? No, none of it even faintly resembles reality!

Its a contrived world which is designed deliberately to act as a stage upon which the author can construct myths of a pretend mythic cycle, and invent pretend ancient languages. NOTHING MORE.

 

[Maxperson]

I reiterate: I am not a character in a work of fiction. I have no dramatic needs.

It seems odd that your life has been so bland that you have not had moments of happy surprise, wonderful coincidence, or tragic versions of both.

You are not a character in a work of fiction, but if you have ever randomly run into an old friend that you've missed. etc., you have had the equivalent of a dramatic need being met. You randomly running into a long lost friend in the real world and your PC randomly running into a long lost friend as the result of a dramatic need are effectively the same, even if it is not called a "dramatic need" here in the real world.

 

[Maxperson]

What criteria for realism? Are the mountain ranges of Middle Earth geologically plausible?

Are they not?

Is the existence of a kingdom which has remained virtually unchanged and inhabits the same 3 cities (well, they're down to one in LoTR) for THREE THOUSAND YEARS and maintains the same ruling dynasty all that time realistic? No, none of it even faintly resembles reality!

If you're talking about Gondor, this didn't happen. It lasted 2000 years until the line of Anarion failed, and was led by people who lived 3x-4x as long as normal humans, so that 2000 years would be the equivalent of a real world human dynasty that lasted 500-700 years. Then the stewards took over rulership until the heir(Aragorn) returned.

The Imperial House of Japan has ruled since 660 BC. That's close to 2700 years. Is 3000 really implausible? Especially with long lived races? I don't think so. Even if there had been no broken line of rulership, it would still have been realistic and plausible for the Dunedain rulers to rule for 3000 straight years.

8 Oldest Monarchies in The World - Oldest.org

Discover the 8 Oldest Monarchies in The World here. Prepare to be transported into a rich & fascinating history on the oldest monarchs that exist.

www.oldest.org

 

[Lanefan]

Does your typical day involve more things related to your wants and needs, or totally unrelated things?

I mean, I'm at work right now because I need to be. I'm also chatting here because my work's all done and I have some spare time, so I want to spend it on topics that are interesting to me. Later, my kids will get home from school and I'll chat with them about their day, and then I'll wrap up work. After that, we'll eat dinner. There are likely to be some video games with my son at some point. Then later, my friends are coming over for our Stonetop game.

Obviously something unexpected could happen. But that would be out of the ordinary... my day is pretty much defined entirely by my wants and needs. That's generally how life works.

The idea that we're constantly being bombarded with the unexpected is a bit strange. It seems to rely more on the expectation that the characters in the game are like a wandering group of adventurers.

By your description above and the fact you can so clearly predict what will happen later in the day, you have a fairly well-established day-to-day routine in your life.

Most in-game characters don't have any such routine, which immediately makes them quite different from most of us real people. I'd even suggest that part of the initial challenge of playing such characters revolves around this difference - that unlike real-world folk the in-game characters have the freedom in-game to more or less do what they want when they want to. Some players quickly come to revel in this in-character freedom, others take a while to adjust, and a few never do.

And their ability to do what they want when they want to (and in many cases where they want to) leads to two rather predictable outcomes:
1 - that any in-game deadline is seen as unusual rather than commonplace
2 - they're constantly encountering unexpected things due to the unpredictability of their actions and-or travels.

But that's a strong assumption to make. There are plenty of games where that is not the case. The characters are something else, and have a more specific agenda... so it should not be surprising that the things that happen to them tend to connect to them or their agenda.

If, in-game, the characters proactively make these things happen then yes, it's not surprising. What's surprising - and comes across as overly-contrived - is when those agenda-related things keep happening to them even if they do nothing to bring those occurrences about.

I'm not sure what this has to do with PC motivations, but I agree with you that we shouldn't always assume they're aligned. Certainly, it would seem more realistic for people who are close to one another to have conflicting agendas at times, or to disagree about the best course of action. Yet many folks who are citing realism as their goal will readily admit that one of their expectations for play is that the players always act cooperatively in a group.

To the bolded I plead not guilty, y'r honour.

Realism (where practical and possible, in knowledge it isn't always) is certainly a goal of mine, yet in no way do I expect or demand they act co-operatively as a group. How well they get along, or don't, is entirely up to the players.

 

[Lanefan]

What criteria for realism? Are the mountain ranges of Middle Earth geologically plausible?

The ones around Mordor, no; and that's one aspect of Middle Earth that has bugged me since I first read the books.

The rest of them are quite plausible based on what we see on Earth.

Is the existence of a kingdom which has remained virtually unchanged and inhabits the same 3 cities (well, they're down to one in LoTR) for THREE THOUSAND YEARS and maintains the same ruling dynasty all that time realistic? No, none of it even faintly resembles reality!

There's a difference between realistic, theoretically possible, and impossible. Some of his mountain ranges are pretty much impossible*, however a 3000-year kingdom, while unlikely, is theoretically possible; even more so in a world that didn't undergo the technological advances** ours has.

That said, in many RPG settings you've also got a) deities who occasionally mess with things and b) adventuring characters who sometimes gain the ability to literally reshape the world (say he, whose character was in part responsible for sinking 3/4 of a continent).

* - if he'd made internal Mordor a very high plateau rather than leaving it pretty much the same elevation as the surrounding areas he'd have got it right.
** - an aspect which also falls - barely - under theoretically possible, but isn't very realistic given what we see on Earth.

 

[Campbell]

@Lanefan

In the sort of play where we respond to dramatic imperatives the norm is that characters have daily routines, responsibilities, obligations. It's more modeled after prestige drama (Peaky Blinders, Carnivale, Sons of Anarchy, The Tudors, Penny Dreadful) than the adventure stories that inspired D&D.

Even something like Stonetop which features adventuring deeply grounds the player characters to a specific place and expects all the adventures to tie back to Stonetop. We all have positions and responsibilities within Stonetop. My character Berkhard mediates disputes. @kenada 's character Haf serves as the publican. @niklinna 's character, Tober, helps to train and maintain the animals of Stonetop, ensures hunting is done responsibly. We're pillars of the community and everything we do, especially expeditions we take on are down in service of those responsibilities.

Is adventure gaming the norm overall? Sure. But not when it comes to Story Now play. Trying to evaluate it outside of its proper context is not helpful to actually understanding it.

 

[Maxperson]

The ones around Mordor, no; and that's one aspect of Middle Earth that has bugged me since I first read the books.

The rest of them are quite plausible based on what we see on Earth.

The War of Wrath caused great upheaval across the continent. It's plausible that those mountains formed unnaturally as a result of the war between archangels, balrogs, elves, humans and dragons.