Why do RPGs have rules?

[robertsconley]

Well, there is little doubt that you have flown on aircraft who's critical systems were simulated using software I wrote in the '80s. In fact it was so successful that for one project we extended our techniques to ALL of the control systems on the aircraft, and slaved the whole simulation to the actual prime contractor's flight simulation system so we could virtually fly the actual aircraft systems through any flight scenario, basically an 'iron airplane'.

What I learned from that is that every little detail is critically important. Time and time again our high fidelity models emulated hardware, and coupling to the actual control systems revealed unexpected things. I recall telling the engineers from a certain well-known aerospace company that their airplane would fall out of the sky under certain conditions, which they scoffed at, until it happened (luckily the aircraft wasn't lost in that case). Details matter, in fact the world is NOTHING BUT THE DETAILS! This is why I am utterly dismissive of the idea that anything meaningfully simulative happens in RPGs except for rather trivial cases like 'gravity works like so' possibly.

Dismissing that anything can be meaningfully simulative is frankly a negative attitude to take. Now that you related some of your own life experience I understand where you coming from. Since the early 2000s after I worked up my first simulators when I watch any drama with anything involving real world space tech, I know every little thing they get wrong in films and dramas like Apollo 13, Gravity, From the Earth to the Moon, For all Mankind and so on and so forth.

But I learned to enjoy them for what they are as long as they are in the ballpark.

So when it came to my campaigns, rather than throwing up my hands and not bothering trying to simulate anything I figured out what I could with pen, paper, dice, and a set of RPG rules. When simulation of real life was a focus I did the work to see how the outcome matched up against real-life results and adjusted if they weren't.

Sure, but what does this have to do with simulation?

It means don't set impossible standards of accuracy. Not everything needs to be within .001 degrees to be useful for a particular application. That some folks are happy to get it to .1 degrees and call it a day for what they are trying to do.

Realistic, as in plausible and recognizable as being drawn from mundane experience, yes. So you describe a rain shower in a fantasy world as if it was real, drops falling from the sky to the ground, etc. I agree this is realistic at that level and all RPGs, indeed virtually all fiction of all sorts, does this. I think we agree on the core reasons too.

And some people

In what sense is the D&D version unrealistic and the GURPS version more realistic? Does one more accurately produce a mix of outcomes similar to reality (IE degree of mortality based on distance fallen)? What criteria are you using here? Is it even possible to say meaningfully when D&D PCs simply have a pool of hit points which gets debited when they 'fall', but has no other effect?

Because GURPS method of calculating damage incorporates the acceleration imparted by Earth's Gravity (32 ft/sec^2) and the mass of the object impacting the ground. In addition, its GURPS distinguishes between collision with a hard unyielding surface and other types of surfaces.

D&D either does a linear 1d6 damage per foot. Or a factorial sequence in later editions (1d6 for 10 feet, 1d6+2d6 = 3d6 for 20 feet, and so on).

Then there is the fact that D&D only care about combat endurance (hit points) and not the impact of injury. Whereas GURPS does care so going through the above procedure for GURPS will result in a range of injuries that matches with what happens in life.

I been in GURPS Playtests. The authors and the playtesters can and will do the math and tweak accordingly to get results to line up with life (or fiction in cases like with Discworld).

 

[pemerton]

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.

In my view your assumption would be wrong. JRRT's Orcs were whatever they needed to be to make the story work - there is a consistent theme of "loathsome and twisted", but not much beyond that.

What do the goblins in The Hobbit, the kidnappers of Merry and Pippin, the soldiers of Mordor, have in common beyond being dangerous, violent baddies?

The most serious treatment of Tolkien-esque Orcs in a RPG that I know of, which does try to impose some sort of coherence on all the above, is Burning Wheel. Which is not a simulationist RPG!

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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?

For a lot of people, for a long time, learning to RPG has mean learning the tenets/ethos/techniques of "sim" play. Roughly: the GM creates a world and establishes some scenario/possibility within that world; the players create PCs whom the GM frames into that scenario/possibility; the players start declaring actions; the GM has overall authority/responsibility for "what happens next".

Within that broad paradigm, there can be a lot of variation. One important one is what does the GM do if the players declare "We go over here now"? The different answers to that help (though don't fully) constitute the (so-called) "linear <=> sandbox spectrum".

Another variation, coming up in recent pages of this thread, is the extent to which the GM uses systematic methods (like weather charts, random events charts, whatever) rather than unfettered invention. The former are often seen as "more sim" or "more realistic" because they disclaim authorship.

You could go a long time arguing with people about AD&D vs 5e vs GURPS vs Rolmaster vs playing a Classic Traveller free trader campaign, and never have to move outside of this broad paradigm, because nearly, perhaps literally, all of the debate would pertain to the variations I've described.

 

[aramis erak]

Well, I think there was at least some talk of people using the lifepath system in CT to RP their characters, by like translating the 'survival' rolls into an RP scenario. I expect you can do a whole campaign like that, though it will require a bit of tinkering with a few subsystems. We certainly thought about it back in the early '80s when we were playing a lot of CT.

Here's the thing...
The CT CG process is low choice. And I can cite the process from memory from 40 years of at least occasional, and over 5 years of campaigns...
RAW:

1. roll atts, in sequence. Str, Dex, End, Int, Edu, Soc
2. pick service (career) to attempt to enter.
3. roll for entry.
   1. on scuccess, go to 5
   2. on fail, go to 4
4. roll for service drafted into
5. Roll term's survival
   1. on success, gain 1 skill roll
      1. if term1, gain a second skill
      2. if term 1, check for automatic service skills.
   2. on fail, go to 1
6. if not a term 1 draftee nor already commissioned, nor in a rankless career, rollfor commission
   1. on success, gain rank 1 (commission) and 1 skill roll
      1. check for automatic skills for rank 1 (which are additional to the roll)
7. if commissioned and not maximum rank and not in a rankless career, roll for promotion
   1. on success, gain +1 rank and 1 skill roll
      1. check for service automatic skills for current rank.
8. for each skill roll,
   1. choose one of the skill tables
      1. If education 8+, all four are available
      2. if Education 7-, only the first three are available
      3. it is unclear to me whether prior rolls this term unlock table 4 for this term. I allow it. Some don't.
   2. roll 1d
   3. take the indicated skill
      1. Cascades if that skill is vehicle, gun combat, or blade combat, (or, if using S4, the additional cascades) pick the skill from the appropriate list.
9. Roll Aging Saves if term 4+
10. Roll for reenlistment
    1. if nat 12, go back to 5.0
    2. if term < 7 and success but not nat 12, choose between Muster Out or stay in
       1. go back to 5.0
       2. go on to 11
    3. if term > 7, go on to 11.
    4. if failed, go on to 11
11. figure total mustering out rolls
    1. 1 per term
    2. additional for rank
       1. R1 or R2, 1 roll
       2. R3 or R4, 2 rolls
       3. R5 or R6, 3 rolls
12. make the rolls
    1. for each roll, Choose Cash or Benefits.
       1. no more than 3 benefits rolls can only be applied to the cash table.
    2. rollon that table
       1. characters with rank 5 or 6 choose whether or not to apply their +1 before rolling on the material benefits table
       2. characters with gambling skill or who have retired choose before rolling whether to apply a +1 to the rolls on the cash table
    3. resolve attribute gains
    4. resolve weapon benefits
       1. if more than 1, choose whether the 2nd and later are additional weapons or skill in previously obtained weapons
13. if 5+ terms completed, note retirement pay.
14. Name the character.
15. if need be, name the ship.
16. purchase additional starting gear

I've bolded all the choice points, and underlined the actual points for dice rolls. More is defined by random than by rolling.
Now, compared to then-current (1977) D&D, that was a lot of choice. But, at the same point, one didn't pick one's skills, merely affected the odds of which they got by table choices. The choice is barely meaningful.
RAP, many allowed rolling the skill choice die then picking the table, making the choice very meaningful.

D&D OE character gen:
Roll 6 atts in sequence (which order was always a controversy in my circles due to the exemplar in Vol 1 p 10)

Sequence a: STR INT WIS CON DEX CHA (order in text)​

Sequence b: STR CON INT DEX WIS CHA (reading card in columns)​

Sequence c: STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA (essentially, Traveller order)​

Roll for starting cash
Choose race
Choose class (unless demihuman - elves per unexpanded OE are always W/M duals, while halflings and dwarves are only fighting men)
Roll HP.
choose Alignment
choose Languages
if need be, Starting Spells.
purchase starting gear
One can kind of roleplay the choices in Traveller. The iteration is where the choices matter for an RP context, but for most, it's mechanistic during, and then post-generation, a narrative is devised. It's definitely a form of play of Traveller, but whether it's RP varies by individual. (Says the guy who random-rolled some NPCs wed night while running a CT/MT hybrid.)
The choices in D&D are far fewer, but only because of iteration. The RP can start in char gen... with class choice. (demi-humans don't get to make that choice until Sup 1 adds thieves. Note that class choice is often mechanistic (either due to attribute requirements or race choice); Languages and Alignment are also race constrained, starting spells are only for certain classes. The first that's really an RP choice is starting gear. Given the rules, the real munchkins spend 2 GP on starting weapons: dagger and spear ... "But wait, Daggers cost 3!" Sure... but...

• buy two spears...
• use spear 1 to chop down spear 2 to a dagger.

As I said, I was talking munchkins. (and yes, I've done that as a player, and seen other players try that.
Once players used the alternate damage by weapon type, equipment went from the RP sphere to mixed RP and Mechanistic.

---

TLDR:
Classic Traveller has less meaningful choice than it seems.
D&D can support very limited RP in char gen, but it's strongest before the change to damage by weapon type.

 

[Maxperson]

Two of my college housemates, both Tolkien fans, went on to become geologists, and both say no. I believe this is the prevailing opinion among Tolkien scholars even about the mountains that don’t border Mordor. Tolkien’s descriptions are wonderfully vivid and detailed of each scene, but as I understand it, great bits and up to a less realistic geological and geographic whole.

Fair enough. I don't think that geological correctness is ultimately needed for the mountains of Middle Earth to be realistic/simulation, though.

Part of realism in a fantasy game is fantasy realism. Things that the fantasy establishes as real that are not real in our world. A dragon flying over Los Angeles is very unrealistic. A dragon flying over Baldur's Gate is very realistic for D&D.

Tolkien established that the world was created by songs sung by angels to achieve Eru's vision. With that in mind, the mountains of Middle Earth become realistic/simulation of that supernatural song to achieve Eru's will. Heck, they may have been Morgoth's doing with his discordant notes, which ultimately also were a part of Eru's vision.

 

[clearstream]

Another variation, coming up in recent pages of this thread, is the extent to which the GM uses systematic methods (like weather charts, random events charts, whatever) rather than unfettered invention. The former are often seen as "more sim" or "more realistic" because they disclaim authorship.

The key is that it's part of the lusory means, toward which a sim-prioritising lusory attitude has been adopted.

By my lights GM as arbitrater or referee can serve as part of the lusory means in this respect; and I take it that you don't agree with that. It sounds like we do agree that systematic methods will be. Either way the above is right.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, there is little doubt that you have flown on aircraft who's critical systems were simulated using software I wrote in the '80s. In fact it was so successful that for one project we extended our techniques to ALL of the control systems on the aircraft, and slaved the whole simulation to the actual prime contractor's flight simulation system so we could virtually fly the actual aircraft systems through any flight scenario, basically an 'iron airplane'.

What I learned from that is that every little detail is critically important. Time and time again our high fidelity models emulated hardware, and coupling to the actual control systems revealed unexpected things. I recall telling the engineers from a certain well-known aerospace company that their airplane would fall out of the sky under certain conditions, which they scoffed at, until it happened (luckily the aircraft wasn't lost in that case). Details matter, in fact the world is NOTHING BUT THE DETAILS! This is why I am utterly dismissive of the idea that anything meaningfully simulative happens in RPGs except for rather trivial cases like 'gravity works like so' possibly.

Why was simulation fidelity so important to your application? What business impact did lack of fidelity have? I assume you were probably training pilots or something.

You keep denigrating simulations that aren't as detailed as the ones your business used, but in that case the real takeaway is that simulations that don't mimic reality closely enough, if used for training, will not build physical intuitions that allow pilots to successfully replicate these feats in real life.

Since no one is playing D&D to develop the capability to Fireball giants into oblivion in real life, guess what? That's not a failure mode for these kinds of simulations! The objective in this case isn't to build physical intuitions, it's to avoid breaking willing suspension of disbelief[1].

You're apparently equating "not a training simulation (Training simulation - Wikipedia)" with "not a simulation (Simulation - Wikipedia)".

(Or maybe you're equating it with something else like an engineering simulation--again, it's not entirely clear yet what your business objective was for your simulations.)

[1] Different people have different thresholds for what breaks their willing suspension of disbelief (not just in games, in books and movies too), as well as different levels of desire to prioritize narrative satisfaction over maintaining willing suspension of disbelief. This is the whole point of GDS. Again, I'm not claiming simulationism is in inherently virtuous; just disputing the claim that has been made repeatedly that RPGs are "not simulations" because they are lower fidelity than the airplane simulations your business did back in the 1980s, @AbdulAlhazred .

 

[hawkeyefan]

Fair enough. I don't think that geological correctness is ultimately needed for the mountains of Middle Earth to be realistic/simulation, though.

Part of realism in a fantasy game is fantasy realism. Things that the fantasy establishes as real that are not real in our world. A dragon flying over Los Angeles is very unrealistic. A dragon flying over Baldur's Gate is very realistic for D&D.

Tolkien established that the world was created by songs sung by angels to achieve Eru's vision. With that in mind, the mountains of Middle Earth become realistic/simulation of that supernatural song to achieve Eru's will. Heck, they may have been Morgoth's doing with his discordant notes, which ultimately also were a part of Eru's vision.

You’ve broadened the definition of simulation here to effectively include any and all play.

 

[pemerton]

You’ve broadened the definition of simulation here to effectively include any and all play.

Right. This is why, quite a way upthread, I asked @Maxperson on what basis he could say that the lightning bolt in my Torchbearer game wasn't a simulation.

 

[Maxperson]

You’ve broadened the definition of simulation here to effectively include any and all play.

Wrong.