Why do RPGs have rules?

[clearstream]

Well... First I would point out that "the world itself" is not a thing, it has no facts, only fiction! So, while I think it is possible to author fiction that has regards to other fiction its still all turtles, all the way down. So in lieu of 2 I would posit "players author world facts based on other criteria and regardless of any dramatic needs of the PCs."

Thank you for a thoughtful reply. It may seem odd, but imaginary facts, or facts that we can pretend we have knowledge of, are not epistemologically disreputable. Your observation is right that the authoring will give no regard to the dramatic needs of the PC. My second and third components of the "simulationist principle" account for what I think it would normally give regard to.

So to embrace your point fully, I say that the basis for establishing and updating the imagined world facts is the point of distinction. So far I've phrased it in the form of an antithesis. The positive form would be something like that the basis for establishing and updating world facts gives only regard to my 2. and 3. from post #2029. That would then lack that there should be a choice made of some subset* of real world examples and theories that form the reference set. A complete statement of a "simulationist principle" would need that.

Recalling an earlier definition

A simulationist design is one whose models and rules take inputs and produce results including fiction correlated with pre-existing references; so that we know when we say what follows that our fiction accords with the reference.

It's now clarified that the "pre-existing references" will be the reference subset and not the imagined world facts based on them - those need not be pre-existing. That the second and third components of the simulationist principle (or something like them) should be the only basis for establishing and updating those imagined world facts forms the point of distinction.


*I'd include intermediaries for real world examples and theories as candidates for such a subset. For instance the reference set could be everything in certain works of fiction. The intermediary may modify some examples and theories in certain ways, without rendering inapplicable those that are unmodified.

 

[aramis erak]

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

From where I sit, that's not provable.
Nor am I for you provably not a fictional character.
And that's before going all solipsist, and pointing out the only person one can be absolutely certain is real is themself...

Maxperson, AbdulAlhazred, Clearstream, Myself, and Loverdrive all could be seen as filling a dramatic need in a relatively mindnumbing story for you and us. Shades of My Dinner With Andre or Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe... but by a less competent author and director.

And that you claim not to be a character in a fiction proves it not; breaking the fourth wall is a rare (and yet still overused) technique in stage, screen, or literature. When it's done really well, it's fun... Deadpool or Howard the Duck both do so well; some of the sitcoms of the 90's and 00's were particularly dreadful about misusing/abusing it. Most protagonists as portrayed would respond the same, as they are unaware of their status as characters.

So, if you were fictional, odds are you'd deny being fictional as the character would be ignorant of their fictionality. At least in competent fiction.

Plus, you keep coming back to the debate... perhaps you enjoy the textual debates as a suitable level of personally enjoyable life-drama? I know that I do. The debate is dramatic; it flows much like the above mentioned movies. (Movies I was forced to watch for academic reasons... not fun for me.)

 

[aramis erak]

This this this. Even out at the fringe, games like Harn, there isn’t any ironclad requirement that the characters must be typical members of any demographic.

There are games that do. The GW Judge Dredd RPG, for example.

Many of us here are pretty unrepresentative by any metric. Life is like that.

Yep. Some of us even have lead interesting lives and done things that would be scarily close to "adventuring"... Pretty much anyone who has seen combat service would count; anyone who's spent time teaching in schools for low income neighborhoods, too.
Hell, going camping in Alaska can be adventure material. I've been at SCA events were we had to chase the bears out of the park. And others were we chased the KKK out.

Amen to that Sir! I mean, the truth is, nobody is representative, or maybe we all are depending on how you look at it. PCs are dramatic tools though, essentially. I mean, if they weren't, we'd call them 'pieces' or 'units' or 'figures' or something from wargaming.

Several RPGs do use the term "figures"... not common now, but many late 70's to early 80's games were unclear about the distinction between minis wargame and RPG... largely because not everyone was making such a distinction. Most do so now... but it's a spectrum.
Car Wars (pre5th ed): RPG? or Boardgame? Both? Neither, but some third thing inbetween?
Gorilla Game's Battlestations, same issue.

 

[loverdrive]

Goblins in some settings have enough about them to treat them the same way historical cultures can be. That they aren't real is a problem for you, but I know about as much about Tolkien's Orcs/Goblins (which are in fact the same "race" under Tolkien's writings), and John Wick's Orcs than I do about Homo naledi, and I enjoy watching the presentations about H. naledi.

I've had in mind something closer to "GM invented this deep setting with tons of lore hidden in the depths of her google docs" rather than "we play in a setting that everybody can just look up and call the GM out if what she says contradicts the lore".

 

[aramis erak]

I've had in mind something closer to "GM invented this deep setting with tons of lore hidden in the depths of her google docs" rather than "we play in a setting that everybody can just look up and call the GM out if what she says contradicts the lore".

Still, I can simulate Tolkien's world to an acceptable level I can't do with the real world of 50 to 100 thousand years ago... and approach it in a simulationist mode. It really helps, however, when the mechanics reinforce the tropes, too...

 

[loverdrive]

Still, I can simulate Tolkien's world to an acceptable level I can't do with the real world of 50 to 100 thousand years ago... and approach it in a simulationist mode. It really helps, however, when the mechanics reinforce the tropes, too...

I do not dispute that.

I don't really want to get into discussing what "real" means, but I'd say Tolkien's orcs are "real" (OK, I haven't read anything of Tolkien, so this is my assumption), in a sense that it's possible to verify a particular depiction for integrity and do research about them.

The way I see it, fun of "realism" is predicated on players' knowledge about the subject, and their ability to really appreciate adherence to it, nodding "yeah, this seems legit" in agreement.

 

[gban007]

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.

Bit of a sidetrack, but which are the 3 cities here? By talking about down to one, I'm assuming you mean Minas Tirith, Minas Morgul and Osgiliath, but there is also at least Dol Amroth and Pelargir, plus other settlements they mention Aragorn and the Grey Company encountering that some sources paint as cities such as Linhir and Calembel, , and what is Rohan used to be part of Gondor and presumably at least some of their settlements would date from Gondor times.

 

[clearstream]

I've had in mind something closer to "GM invented this deep setting with tons of lore hidden in the depths of her google docs" rather than "we play in a setting that everybody can just look up and call the GM out if what she says contradicts the lore".

As I see it, simulationism doesn't require that the imagined world facts be kept secret from the players, and there are significant advantages in the opposite. Simulationism isn't about the secrecy of the world facts.

 

[gban007]

Sure it did, I read Appendix IV just like everyone else! The 3 cities of Gondor (and its possible Arnor had a city or two as well at some point,

Have talked about the other cities of Gondor, but on Arnor, named large settlements at least / potential cities are Annuminus, Fornost, Tharbad and Lond Daer.

 

[innerdude]

I think for me, the idea now is to connect, as @clearstream is trying to do, the thread between sim mindset to the rules > processes and procedures > table play.

It's actually shocking to me that, for as long as I would have considered myself a "sim" GM, I didn't once think about the process I had been enmeshed in until I was 35 years old.

I'm actually curious how the tenets/ethos of sim is transferred from direct, in play experience to a formulated, procedural mindset.

Like, how is it done? From 1985 through 2012, I had totally and completely been inculcated in the idea that "sim" priorities were paramount without ever having had an actual discussion or conversation with another human being about what that idea looked like or how it had formed in my consciousness. It simply sprang whole cloth into being through my observations and experiences playing D&D 3x, Star Wars Saga, GURPS, Pathfinder 1e, and Savage Worlds.

But somehow that idea had been firmly planted.

It was in 2012 that I started catching snippets of conversation @pemerton, and @Manbearcat, @chaochou and others were having on the subject here.

It took 5 years, from 2012 to 2017, for the idea that maybe my "sim" mindset wasn't as all encompassing as I'd been brought to believe, to move toward actual action, when I tried out Dungeon World for about 6 sessions of GM-ing and mostly failed at it, but it was an interesting failure.

But how does the mindset itself come about without ever having thought about the idea tangibly and concretely?

Is it a byproduct of adopting Rule Zero at some level? Is it based on unstated but culturally understood norms about distribution of authorial authority?