GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

So... an approximation of Narnia exists, we might say. A shared concept of it.

Again, no one is saying it is anything other than an approximation

Similarly, the worlds we play in do not exist. An approximation exists in our notes and our shared concepts of them.

I wouldn't say they exist in the notes but I don't strongly disagree with this or anything. I think the concept is more important than the notes. To me it is kind of like saying Passion of Saint Matthew by Bach or Mahler's Second Symphony objectively exist. You wouldn't say 'it's just notes on a page' because that completely misses the point. The notes point to a bigger concept. And it a concept we can all share beyond the notes on the page. The notes on the page sound a bit dead if you have a machine play them. Accurate, but dead

On whether they exist, they exist as concepts in our mind. So they do have some existence. They just don't exist as physical realities

 

[hawkeyefan]

My point is there is a lot more going on at the table between players and the GM. It is an organic conversation and process. And when you try to break that down into individual components I do think that by its nature is reductive and appears to miss an awful lot.

But you’re talking to experienced RPGers here. So I don’t think words like organic and intuitive are helping at all. We all know what goes on at the table.

So when we’re talking about comparisons or we’re trying to work out what makes something work, it helps to get specific.

There’s a conversation going on at the table. The players declare actions, the GM has the game world respond accordingly, calling on the game’s mechanics as needed. This is pretty much the default expectation for an RPG.

So, with that in mind… what else is happening at the table that you’re citing here? What more is happening that you think I’m leaving out?

I don't doubt you do. But I think you have an inflated sense of confidence in your conclusions here. I think you genuinely believe everything stated in the rest of this post. But I think it is reductive

Well, having played in tons of games of the kind you’re describing, and having GMed that way for decades myself, I feel very comfortable that I understand traditional play.

I looked at my games and the way they worked and I really examined what was happening. It wasn’t always an easy thing to do. I had to discard all the metaphor and flowery language to look at the actual structure and processes of play.

And there was absolutely stuff going on that if you’d asked me prior, I would have adamantly and genuinely denied.

This isn't about feel hawkeye. And it isn't about simulation. Like I said, this has little to do with style debates. In this scenario there is a real mystery to solve. The GM has established it. That is different from a scenario where there isn't an established mystery to solve that has established concrete facts about it to uncover. We have been over it a million times. And I don't think we are going to make any gains at this stage in the conversation

So this is why I’ve described it as a puzzle. I absolutely get the appeal of that. To come up with the solution and be “right”.

However when it comes to the experiential quality… of it feeling more like a mystery, I think that’s subjective.

To me, it seems that you aren’t differentiating here between what is objective and subjective. Just as you switch between character and player when discussing this stuff. And I think that’s what causes the bulk of the disagreement.

As to what it has to do with simulationism, as I said, the blurring of lines between make believe and game process is similar to the mistake that most simulationists make.

 

[Campbell]

The idea that providing stats to an NPC who has none defined or further developing them between sessions make them more real or objective is something I find profoundly silly. The idea that say when I played the prelude our Vampire Amsterdam Chronicle that my character, Ariel Mataan, was less real during the prologue where he had no stats is also bizarre (we do our preludes entirely in freeform).

This is just a roleplaying version of "There is only The Method". It's gatekeeping the feeling of being there in the moment to a particular process and approach and saying other play is less real, less earned. It's saying if you play a homeless man without (sleeping in a box and not showering) your acting is inauthentic. It's saying if you do not suffer for your art, you do not deserve to feel immersed in your character and their circumstances.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The idea that providing stats to an NPC who has none defined or further developing them between sessions make them more real or objective is something I find profoundly silly. The idea that say when I played the prelude our Amsterdam Chronicle that my character, Ariel Mataan, was less real during the prologue where he had no stats is also bizarre.

This is just a roleplaying version of "There is only The Method". It's gatekeeping the feeling of being there in the moment to a particular process and approach and saying other play is less real, less earned. It's saying if you play a homeless man without (sleeping in a box and not showering) your acting is inauthentic. It's saying if you do not suffer for your art, you do not deserve to feel immersed in your character and their circumstances.

I feel like you are putting a lot of emotional baggage into what I am saying that just isn't there. I am not saying an approach where you aren't trying to maintain an objective world like that are worse. Or that a world improvised on the fly can't feel real. We are just talking about whether things have a prior, objective existence in the setting before the players get there. That can matter in some modes of play. For example in mysteries

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, with that in mind… what else is happening at the table that you’re citing here? What more is happening that you think I’m leaving out?

Like I said I don't think this stuff can be so easily quantified. That is the whole point. The point isn't that I have a list of things I specifically think you are missing. It is that there is clearly much more going on, at least from my view, than how you guys tend to describe this style of play.

Well, having played in tons of games of the kind you’re describing, and having GMed that way for decades myself, I feel very comfortable that I understand traditional play.

I looked at my games and the way they worked and I really examined what was happening. It wasn’t always an easy thing to do. I had to discard all the metaphor and flowery language to look at the actual structure and processes of play.

And there was absolutely stuff going on that if you’d asked me prior, I would have adamantly and genuinely denied.

Fair enough. I don't agree with your analysis. I see your explanation and for me it falls very short. Perhaps you found it persuasive and helpful. That is fine. What I take issue with is you acting with so much certainty about it. Like there is no chance you are wrong.

So this is why I’ve described it as a puzzle. I absolutely get the appeal of that. To come up with the solution and be “right”.

However when it comes to the experiential quality… of it feeling more like a mystery, I think that’s subjective.

Yes but we aren't talking about quality. We are just talking about whether something is an actual mystery to solve

 

[Bedrockgames]

To me, it seems that you aren’t differentiating here between what is objective and subjective. Just as you switch between character and player when discussing this stuff. And I think that’s what causes the bulk of the disagreement.

I don't think this is the problem. I've tried to clarify this for you in previous posts. I think you have an issue with this idea that there can be a mystery for the players to solve during play for some reason.

As to what it has to do with simulationism, as I said, the blurring of lines between make believe and game process is similar to the mistake that most simulationists make.

Again this doesn't have anything to do with simulation but posts like this just make me have no interest in replying to you because they are a bit insulting

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What are those "facts", other than things the GM has imagined, and (typically) written down?

They are that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The reason this matters, is because some people want to gate keep that feeling of being there in the moment behind a particular process. This is no different than Method Actors believing they have some sort of special sauce (and that other approaches to acting are inauthentic). They are wrong. Just because they have only one way to get there does not mean there is only one way.

You (and others) read into this something that has not been said. It is not about "feeling real," that can be achieved in many ways and what works is ultimately subjective. It is merely about there being real deduction in a sense that there are pre-established facts to deduce. Whether that feels like "real mystery solving" to you or not is a question only you can answer and doesn't have a right or wrong answer.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is saying that one style of play has an objective truth to it and another does not meant to be value-neutral?

Yes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Like I said I don't think this stuff can be so easily quantified. That is the whole point. The point isn't that I have a list of things I specifically think you are missing. It is that there is clearly much more going on, at least from my view, than how you guys tend to describe this style of play.

I don’t understand how something could be so clear to you yet you cannot describe it.

Fair enough. I don't agree with your analysis. I see your explanation and for me it falls very short. Perhaps you found it persuasive and helpful. That is fine. What I take issue with is you acting with so much certainty about it. Like there is no chance you are wrong.

Please. You’ve been just as certain in this thread, and have often cited how “blindingly obvious” things are and so on. As I pointed out much earlier, I’m not saying one way of doing things is real and the other isn’t. I said they’re both equally real… or unreal.

We have different points of view… obviously… I’m going to state my case just as you’re going to yours. You’ve behaved no different in that regard.

Yes but we aren't talking about quality. We are just talking about whether something is an actual mystery to solve

Okay… let me throw out a comment that maybe will help. So something like “Murder on the Orient Express” is a mystery novel by Agatha Christie. I’m sure we’re all at least passing familiar with it.

I don’t think it contains a real mystery either. It’s a mystery novel about fictional people and a fictional mystery.

I’m not trying to short change your play style in any way when I’ve been talking about this. I’m trying to separate the make believe (the mystery) from what we do at the table.

I don't think this is the problem. I've tried to clarify this for you in previous posts. I think you have an issue with this idea that there can be a mystery for the players to solve during play for some reason.

Again this doesn't have anything to do with simulation but posts like this just make me have no interest in replying to you because they are a bit insulting

Again… please. You just accused me of hubris and of being overconfident in my analysis, while steadfastly and repeatedly insisting on your view. Don’t try and paint me as the bad guy here. We’re discussing things and have both advocated for our views.

I explained why I think it is similar to simulationism… it’s the error of thinking that the fictional events of play have actual cause and effect, that one thing leads to another is “organic” rather then “a decision made by the GM”.

The idea of cause and effect is certainly something the GM is likely to consider… like if the PCs steal from the royal vault, the king will dispatch his men to find them… but that doesn’t mean there is actual cause and effect happening. The GM could say the king doesn’t dispatch his men… because the threat of war from the neighboring country is too great to spare anyone… or whatever else he decides.

And that’s what I think connects us to the OP. The amount of decision making and back story creation by the GM can be so significant it almost becomes easy to overlook. To attribute GM decisions to something else… typically the fictional cause and effect of the game world.