Why do RPGs have rules?

[hawkeyefan]

If it were the same kind of plausibility (as opposed to e.g. cinematic plausibility), you'd just shrug and say "I guess I lean simulationist then" in response to someone answering a question about "what's the point of simulationism?"

No, I wouldn't describe myself that way.

You're missing the point. You continue to rely on an interpretation of story now play involving "crazy circumstances" rather than focusing play on the characters and their specific drives.

You seemingly refuse to see how the wandering party of adventurers of more traditional play continually having fantastic things happen around them and to them is not coincidental. It's the kind of contrivance you've stated you're against.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You seemingly refuse to see how the wandering party of adventurers of more traditional play continually having fantastic things happen around them and to them is not coincidental. It's the kind of contrivance you've stated you're against.

I "refuse to see" how it's not coincidental? Is that a typo? It is coincidental and rather contrived. It's not the kind of contrivance I hate most (that would be contrivances happening during gameplay, as opposed to during scenario hooks), but what in the world gave you the idea that I don't realize that contrived scenario hooks are contrived? All I've said is that the dichotomy you've claimed to exist between contrived hooks and narrativist play is a false one--I never said I don't sometimes run contrived hooks, and in fact I've said over and over that I'm more simulationist about gameplay than I am about worldbuilding.

 

[hawkeyefan]

D&D is about as far from history as you can get in my opinion. That said, just because there is a setting conceit that is highly gameable, that doesn't mean you can't follow through that conceit in a 'simulationist' manner that does still look to real world history and real life for guidance in shaping how things pan out. I would argue playability is extremely important and having gameable setting concepts can mean the difference between a game that lasts a week and one you keep going back to for years (I think a lot of what has sustained D&D over its lifetime is it has many core elements that are highly gameable on a regular basis). But then moment someone like Hickman asks 'what is the vampire even doing in this dungeon', I would argue you are moving more towards something trying to model a believable world. Granted that is also where a lot of people point to more story elements to RPGs becoming significant in RPGs. I think both are true though, just as it can both be true that D&D with its setting of wandering heroes is there because it works for gameability and play over time, and that this can also lead you to ask questions about setting consistency, following the fictional history of the setting, bringing real world logic into the game etc. I don't think there is a one true way here. Some people want more cinematic D&D, some people want more realistic D&D (in the senes of things flowing more like real life and not being overly cinematic---or at least being perhaps more character driven). I think when you are dealing with fantasy especially there will always be players who will want areas of the game to be grounded in something real to help make the fantasy more believable (though I also think a Terry Gilliam style campaign is entirely fine too)

Sure, this is largely what I've been saying. I don't think that the kinds of concerns over plausibility are absent in any games I play or run. Over the past few years, those have included D&D 5e, Stonetop (Pbta), Blades in the Dark, Star Trek Adventures, Call of Cthulhu, Spire, Mothership, Alien, Delta Green, and Galaxies in Peril. Obviously, these games all involve settings with different degrees of fantastic elements, but beyond that... beyond accepting the premise... none of them abandon plausibility or internal consistency any more than the others.

The one game I did run that was far less concerned with that stuff was The 13th Fleet. It's a comedic take on Star Trek, where the PCs are all captains in the eponymous fleet, which is made up of all the troublemakers. They wind up being the only fleet to survive a major galactic conflict (the "Nearly Victorious Battle") and must make their way back to allied space, while simultaneously trying to stab each other in the back. It was a tongue-in-cheek kind of game, and we didn't care much about plausibility at all. This was very removed from my typical type of game.

Can there be a dial between "cinematic action" and "grounded action"? Sure. I don't think that has a lot of bearing on the plausibility factor, though. I don't feel like the focus of this discussion about contrivances has been about the level of action, and if the PCs are average joes or action heroes. It's been more about the events that come up in play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I "refuse to see" how it's not coincidental? Is that a typo? It is coincidental and rather contrived. It's not the kind of contrivance I hate most (that would be contrivances happening during gameplay, as opposed to during scenario hooks), but what in the world gave you the idea that I don't realize that contrived scenario hooks are contrived? All I've said is that the dichotomy you've claimed between contrived hooks and narrativist play is a false one--I never said I don't sometimes run contrived hooks, and in fact I've said over and over that I'm more simulationist about gameplay than I am about worldbuilding.

What distinction are you making between worldbuilding and during game play? The kinds of hooks that I'm talking about get introduced during game play. Sure, several may be crafted before play begins, but once play starts, I expect that more hooks will be introduced. More opportunities for adventure and so on.

Based on this post, I don't know what it is that made you think that I needed to admit that my game isn't concerned with verisimilitude. Can you clarify?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What distinction are you making between worldbuilding and during game play? The kinds of hooks that I'm talking about get introduced during game play. Sure, several may be crafted before play begins, but once play starts, I expect that more hooks will be introduced. More opportunities for adventure and so on.

Does it matter where I draw the line? Are we having a conversation about false dichotomies and whether it's possible to run a game entirely without contrivance (it is), or a discussion about how I personally prefer to play the game, or a discussion about the various modes I sometimes run the game in despite my personal preferences?

The short answer to your question is that I'm less simulationist about stuff that happens between adventures, when no roleplay is happening.

Based on this post, I don't know what it is that made you think that I needed to admit that my game isn't concerned with verisimilitude. Can you clarify?

I don't care what you admit about your game. You can say you care about verisimilitude, or that you don't care about verisimilitude. I just want you to stop trying to make discussions about ideas into discussions about yourself.

Edit: and stop insisting on false equivalencies, like saying that all D&D games are contrived to exactly the same extent. They're not, and they're not trying to be.

 

[Morrus]

This is exactly the emotional defensiveness I was talking about. You're incapable apparently of just having a normal conversation: "Doesn't a world that's been set up so that danger and chaos is logical everywhere require some degree of contrivance to create?" "Sure, but it's self-sustaining once created, and I've already said that I'm more simulationist at gametime than I am as a worldbuilder. Having a contrived setting doesn't bother me the way unexplained coincidences during play would."

Other people don't universally have the same hangups you do about needing to be seen as running a virtuously "realistic" game. Some of us are just pragmatically interested in realism, where appropriate, for what it does to gameplay (makes it easier to get in character) and willing suspension of disbelief.

If you can't make your point without insulting people, it's not a point worth making. Dial it back, please.

 

[Umbran]

Other people don't universally have the same hangups you do ...

It's a quality of you, not a quality of the game mechanics.

Mod Note:
The two of you now seem to be trying to dismiss people, rather than the points they make.

Please do not continue to make this discussion personal.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Can there be a dial between "cinematic action" and "grounded action"? Sure. I don't think that has a lot of bearing on the plausibility factor, though. I don't feel like the focus of this discussion about contrivances has been about the level of action, and if the PCs are average joes or action heroes. It's been more about the events that come up in play.

But I would say events that come up in play will need to be grounded in some kind of logic, whether that is story logic, cinematic logic, real life logic, gritty crime drama logic, etc. I think someone coming from the 'simulationist perspective' or from just the 'living world' perspective is going to ground those things (at least oftentimes) in a way that prioritizes reality. That doesn't mean cinematic events also won't be grounded just there is a difference in the logic applied to things happening. If I am running a campaign in what I call "Chang Cheh" mode, having a bunch of Japanese Ninja pop out of the walls is fine because it is cinematic and exciting. If I am not doing so, the players are going to expect more from me than 'it was exciting' as an explanation. They will ask "how they did they get there?", "How long they were waiting for us?, "How did they know to be in the room at that moment?", "How exactly were they fitting into the walls?". But if they understand we are all effectively operating in a Chang Cheh film, they don't ask these questions because they know that isn't how the world operates. In a more over the top cinematic campaign or module I simply won't worry about answering those questions. However in a more grounded and living world campaign I would. And I even did so where I had a location I wanted that kind of suprise attack, but created in game logic and a kind of ecosystem to explain how and why). Generally though I find in these campaigns, players expect events happen not as set pieces or because you had a cool idea for an encounter in mind, but because they seem to naturally flow from things (and this can be done via random encounter tables, by keeping good track of what NPCs are doing, etc).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Generally though I find in these campaigns, players expect events happen not as set pieces or because you had a cool idea for an encounter in mind, but because they seem to naturally flow from things (and this can be done via random encounter tables, by keeping good track of what NPCs are doing, etc).

One of the things I struggle with continually is the tension between wanting a living world, and wanting to be fair to the players by giving them lots of information (since I am the bottleneck on all their information about the gameworld). In particular I struggle with offscreen NPC activities. I want to make them do a lot (move around the dungeon and get behind the PCs, sow caltrops; launch coups, explore dungeons, sometimes get themselves killed offscreen, possibly turn into ghosts) but when I can't think of a way to give the players visibility into why e.g. Komar the Terrible is now a ghost, I often don't.

Do you have any thoughts to share on managing offscreen NPCs in a way that's still legible to the players? (Or player reactions to non-legible NPC actions? Could "Somehow, Palpatine has returned" be okay if there actually were a good explanation that the GM doesn't go out of their way to reveal?)

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't care what you admit about your game. You can say you care about verisimilitude, or that you don't care about verisimilitude. I just want you to stop trying to make discussions about ideas into discussions about yourself.

You asked me "Why can't you just admit that your game is not concerned with verisimilitude?" If you don't care about that, then I don't know why you're asking me about it.

I am talking about ideas. And I'm using my experiences to do so. I don't think that's a case of me making the conversation about myself.