A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

You're fooling yourself if you think game design isn't a part of you sitting down to play on game night. Game design runs through adventure design, and definitely through consideration of house rules or rulings at the table -- you're engaged in game design at all of those points because you're making decisions that change how the game plays. Note, not is played, but plays -- how the mechanics work to achieve a goal.

When you talk about how you want your game to have more realism, that's game design -- you're taking the general rules of 5e, say, and adding your design layer on top to achieve your play goals. Game design isn't just creating a new ruleset, it's also in how choose to use a ruleset. Frex, I know for a fact that when you sit down to play a game, for instance, it doesn't play like my game does, even if we both use the same system. Why? Game design choices we're both making for our different tables.

If it's game design, it's at best secondary or tertiary to everything else that is going on. I don't give a fig about the design when I'm modifying things to make them more realistic. I care that it's more realistic.

As for 'realism', that cannot be a goal for you in a game with elves and magic.

Yes. Yes it can, and it's a fact that it is. You don't get to tell me what my goals are. Realism is not an all or nothing thing. That's a False Dichotomy. I can have realism in some parts of my game, and have elves and Tarrasques in other parts.

What you're looking for is a game that is as close to normal assumptions except where specifically detailed otherwise. So, people can't "heal" overnight because that's bad, except magic.

This is false. It's because I want more realism. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You're bringing a lens of "as much like the world as possible so magic can be more magical" without ever examining why or what you get from doing this.

So first, I'm not trying to make it as much like the world as possible. I like a lower level of realism than that. Second, whatever else I get is secondary to the fact, and it is a fact, that I want more realism in parts of the game.

it's asking you to consider if there's another goal you're aiming for but misidentifying because you haven't stopped to really think it through.

There isn't. The goal is more realism. Anything else that comes as a result of adding that additional realism is secondary. I know why I do things. I know what my goal is. There's no chance of it being anything else.

 

[Enthusiastic Grog]

By definitions, RPGs are narratives. Simulationism is inherently flawed because by defintion a GMs sandbox is their narrative about a world, not an actual world itself. Most notions of what people assume are "common sense" are simply collections of their own personal cultural biases. GM-as-owners-of-narrative, aka most hardcore OSR style approaches, refuse to acknowledge that the narrative can only really exist by player narrative labor and player ownership of the game world. Anything else is simply a novellist inviting people to play-act the role of incidental, secondary characters in their free form novel, and not really gaming. Remember, rules, not rulings. Without democracy and player control at the table, it's merely one person's novel play acted out, not actually gaming.

 

[Enthusiastic Grog]

If it's game design, it's at best secondary or tertiary to everything else that is going on. I don't give a fig about the design when I'm modifying things to make them more realistic. I care that it's more realistic.



Yes. Yes it can, and it's a fact that it is. You don't get to tell me what my goals are. Realism is not an all or nothing thing. That's a False Dichotomy. I can have realism in some parts of my game, and have elves and Tarrasques in other parts.



This is false. It's because I want more realism. Nothing more. Nothing less.



So first, I'm not trying to make it as much like the world as possible. I like a lower level of realism than that. Second, whatever else I get is secondary to the fact, and it is a fact, that I want more realism in parts of the game.



There isn't. The goal is more realism. Anything else that comes as a result of adding that additional realism is secondary. I know why I do things. I know what my goal is. There's no chance of it being anything else.

Non-sequitir. Replace "my narrative." All actual RPGs are narrative. Unless you have an actual physics machine (aka, hardcore sim system like Runequest or Aftermath!), it's essentially novel writing. The only differences between the storygame and sandbox approaches is the distribution of at-table politcal power between the GM and the players. Further, players create the narrative space - without players, a GM is nothing. You don't want "realism", you want your narrative vision. It's a great thing! Own it.

 

[pemerton]

By definitions, RPGs are narratives. Simulationism is inherently flawed because by defintion a GMs sandbox is their narrative about a world, not an actual world itself.

I don't think I agree that simulationism is inherently flawed - though if it was what I wanted, I'm not sure that I'd use GM decides as my method for achieving it!

I think that some RPG mechanics attempt to provide resolution procedures for use at the table that map onto causal processes that are occurring in the shared fiction. For instance, in Classic Traveller if you try to do a funky manoeuvre while wearing a vacc suit, first you make a check to see if you get into any sort of trouble; then, if you do, you make a follow-up check to see if you can sort out the problem.

There's a "world-tracking" logic to that approach that is different from (say, and thinking of Maelstrom Storytelling as the system) resolving an EVA scene by pooling all your dice (from agility, vacc suit training, tethering etc) and then rolling, getting a success or failure, and narrating an appropriate fiction to match that outcome.

I don't think the Traveller approach delivers more (or less) realistic results than the fortune-in-the-middle/scene-resolution approach - in either case that will depend on the details of the fiction that is being established. But in my experience it is different in play, and - for lack of a better word - more "gritty". (Thus, and contra to something I read from Marc Miller, I don't think that Classic Traveller can do Star Wars very well.)

GM-as-owners-of-narrative, aka most hardcore OSR style approaches, refuse to acknowledge that the narrative can only really exist by player narrative labor and player ownership of the game world. Anything else is simply a novellist inviting people to play-act the role of incidental, secondary characters in their free form novel, and not really gaming.

I'll leave the OSR bit untouched, but otherwise I agree.

 

[pemerton]

I was going to make a similar comment about how D&D often feels at-odds with itself when it comes to realism. Some of its mechanics are clearly trying to present real-world analogues; some of them are much more . . . inscrutable, shall we say?

<snip>

I mean, if you squint your eyes and turn your head just so, I suppose you could kind-of, sort-of argue that there's hints of realism in D&D, especially the 3.x line and its treatment of basic skill task resolution.

There are many reasons why I'm not very keen on 3E, but one of them is that sometimes it wants to be gritty/simulationist (eg skill rules; combat manoeuvres; casting spells from the back of a moving wagon) but other times it wants to be classic gonzo D&D (eg basic combat rules; the fact that under normal conditions casters never have trouble with their magic; healing rules). A related issue is that it uses things like "natural armour bonuses" to give a veneer of simulation to what are in fact features of the game driven purely by system maths (eg dragons have +30 "natural armour" bonuses to their ACs, but a +5 suit of plate armour ie the best that a mage can forge, gives +15 or so to AC - what does that "natural armour" actually consist in, not in system maths terms but in in-fiction terms?).

I see 4e as having made a clear call in this respect, and that's one thing I like about it.

I agree that natural recovery is something that we experience in life

Although not in the same way that it happens in any published version of D&D. In real life a sword blow can cause an injury (dismemberment, for instance; and infection) that doesn't cause immediate unconsciousness yet may be fatal unless treated and that is permanently disabling.

In D&D (any edition, although not every edition has every option), PCs suffer injuries that are immediately fatal, injuries that cause unconsicousness and (in some cases) may turn out to be fatal, and injuries that can be completely recovered from with no need for treatment and never taking more than a few weeks or so. That is not a very realistic range of possible injuries.

Hence I agree with this

Even with 1e, I suspect that it was less about realism and more about game pacing as well. "If you don't want to be out of action of a long time, play smart and avoid combat!"

 

[Lanefan]

By definitions, RPGs are narratives.

Among other things, sort-of yes. They're games out of which one or more narratives may arise over time, said narratives sometimes only really becoming clear after the fact in hindsight.

Simulationism is inherently flawed because by defintion a GMs sandbox is their narrative about a world, not an actual world itself. Most notions of what people assume are "common sense" are simply collections of their own personal cultural biases.

As long as these remain internally consistent within themselves when they interact with the players, why does it matter?

GM-as-owners-of-narrative, aka most hardcore OSR style approaches, refuse to acknowledge that the narrative can only really exist by player narrative labor and player ownership of the game world. Anything else is simply a novellist inviting people to play-act the role of incidental, secondary characters in their free form novel...

Which, by the way, is still a narrative. The only real difference is that it comes mainly from a single source.

If you're limiting your definition of "narrative" to only include "narrative arrived at in an equally-shared-by-all-participants manner" please try again.

...and not really gaming.

You're treading in deep water with this one. To say (or even suggest) a GM-driven game is "not really gaming" is liable to risk offending a considerable number of people in here, and their offense would be valid.

Remember, rules, not rulings.

Meaning, you prefer neutral mechanics control the game rather than a possibly-biased GM? If no, please rephrase. (and note that one of the tenets of true old-school gaming is that the GM is in fact intended to be a neutral arbiter - check yer 1e DMG for verification here)

Without democracy and player control at the table, it's merely one person's novel play acted out, not actually gaming.

And a second shot goes flying across the bow...

Lan-"you've come out swinging, I'll give you that"-efan

 

[Sadras]

I'd be infinitely curious to hear from the One-True-Sandboxers out there if they really do like "sandboxing" the whole time----or if the "sandboxing" portion of the campaign is just a ramp-up to get their hooks into the game world / plot so they can start pursuing stuff that matters to their character.

I'd like to think I run a very Sandbox-styled game and the reason for this is twofold:
(1) To truly give the PC's choice to pursue their desires; and
(2) To, for lack of a better word/phrase - don't kill me @Aldarc, run a realistic or the illusion of realistic styled campaign.

I run a mish-mash of storylines and published modules/AP all happening concurrently, but I provide opening for the PCs to 'escape' all that. It could perhaps mean a lot of effort lost on my part, nevermind the AP's purchased, but I'm willing to sacrifice that for our table. So far the PCs have decided to remain on the train (many tracks).

EDIT: To answer your question - For a campaign, it is the style I prefer to run, so the answer is yes.

If I were only running a module then it would be less sandbox-y and that would be established at session 0 where you'd get everyone's buy-in.

 

[Sadras]

If it's game design, it's at best secondary or tertiary to everything else that is going on. I don't give a fig about the design when I'm modifying things to make them more realistic. I care that it's more realistic.

I will have to take you at your word on the above, but it is hard to fathom and this from my own experience when tinkering.

I imagine when one tinkers, one also looks how the change will affect the game - is it fair, is it balanced, how does it interact with other mechanics of the game, what is its effect at low/medium/high levels...etc. It doesn't make sense for me to modify something in a vacuum cause more than likely you're going to make a mess of things.

 

[Alexander Kalinowski]

By definitions, RPGs are narratives. Simulationism is inherently flawed because by defintion a GMs sandbox is their narrative about a world, not an actual world itself. Most notions of what people assume are "common sense" are simply collections of their own personal cultural biases. GM-as-owners-of-narrative, aka most hardcore OSR style approaches, refuse to acknowledge that the narrative can only really exist by player narrative labor and player ownership of the game world. Anything else is simply a novellist inviting people to play-act the role of incidental, secondary characters in their free form novel, and not really gaming. Remember, rules, not rulings. Without democracy and player control at the table, it's merely one person's novel play acted out, not actually gaming.

By definition RPGs are Games, LOL. And all games produce narratives by virtue of changing states. Simulationism comes in due to the open-ended nature of potential RPG narratives as well as providing immersion to players. If a cut with a non-magical knife makes that enemy bandit EXPLODE, it'd be nonsensical and players would probably be turned off, left scratching their heads.

Other than that, this is a black-and-white view you are presenting. First of all, you're acknowledging RPGs as games in the last clause. Secondly, if RPGs were just narratives, having no player agency at all would be no problem. People have enjoyed story-telling in various forms without having any control over narrative at all for millenia. The ability to impact the story comes in exactly because it's a game and you want to influence the course of the game as a participant.

And commonly, in traditional RPGs, players do have some hand in the outcome of an adventure. Perhaps not as much as proponents of more narrative games fancy but that's largely a matter of taste. The equation "more player agency = more fun" is not universally true.

 

[Aldarc]

For myself, realism is always the goal when I talk about it and include more of it in my games. For example, I think going from literally dying to full health after 8 hours to be highly unrealistic, so I'm slowing down healing to give it more realism. There is no other goal for me than added realism. I suspect that's the case for most people who like more realism.

So does this mechanic disrupt your prioritization and sense of roleplaying immersion?

I think this may be where you are going wrong when we talk about realism. We are not designing a game, so it's not a game design discussion. Were I designing a game, then yes, I would look at hit points as part of the pacing and take that into consideration when figuring out the level of realism I wanted in that game. However, when I am just playing a game and I want to tweak hit points to be more realistic with regard to healing, I don't give a flying fig about pacing. Sure, the pacing will change, but that's not even a remote concern of mine.

Then what kind of game discussion is it?

Although not in the same way that it happens in any published version of D&D. In real life a sword blow can cause an injury (dismemberment, for instance; and infection) that doesn't cause immediate unconsciousness yet may be fatal unless treated and that is permanently disabling.

In D&D (any edition, although not every edition has every option), PCs suffer injuries that are immediately fatal, injuries that cause unconsicousness and (in some cases) may turn out to be fatal, and injuries that can be completely recovered from with no need for treatment and never taking more than a few weeks or so. That is not a very realistic range of possible injuries.

Quite true. And this says nothing about the diseases involved in healing from combat. I know that I have mentioned it before, but a member of my group is a surgical nurse who complains about healing in D&D. Though for him the deeper issue of "realism" is the sense that D&D neither understands nor respects his medical profession, particularly given the prevalence of healing magic, which literally hand waves the issue away. Though from what I gather in discussion, it's less about the lack of realism and more about the lack of cognizance regarding the issue.

I'd like to think I run a very Sandbox-styled game and the reason for this is twofold:
(2) To, for lack of a better word/phrase - don't kill me @Aldarc, run a realistic or the illusion of realistic styled campaign.

There's no need for bloodshed. My only questions would then be for further clarification about what what running a "realistic styled campaign" means for you in this context? And how does that contribute to the play goals of your sandbox games? You don't even have to answer these questions in a reply. I don't doubt that you have thoughtful answers. The point being is that I don't know what a realistic campaign means for you, and so I am unclear about how or where you will apply it. If I want to decide whether or not I want to play in your game or adopt a similar approach for my own games, then understanding your idiomatic application of "realism" is more palpable for me than simply tagging the project as more "realistic."