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

[Imaculata]

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.

As I understand it, natural armor is not only the material, but also the thickness of a creature's tough skin, as well as a way to balance its difficulty. But I don't think it was meant to give 'a veneer of simulation' at all. It's part of 3rd edition's armor mechanic, and that's it.

Why do you need to make an exact call about what it is? Does it change anything about the gameplay?

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

OSR games and GMs who abide by rulings over rules, still roll the dice, still use the rules. If you play in such games there is no sense that you are merely playing in a person's novel acted out. That just isn't what these games are about at all.

 

[pemerton]

As I understand it, natural armor is not only the material, but also the thickness of a creature's tough skin, as well as a way to balance its difficulty. But I don't think it was meant to give 'a veneer of simulation' at all. It's part of 3rd edition's armor mechanic, and that's it.

Why do you need to make an exact call about what it is? Does it change anything about the gameplay?

Why can a mage or godling not forge armour that is as tough as the "natural" hide of a dragon? This is possible in AD&D, and in 4e, but not in 3E. What is going on with dragons in the fiction of that edition?

To me it makes no sense at all.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

And you apparently buy into the False Dichotomy as well. Realism isn't an all or nothing thing. I don't have to want an actual physics machine or nothing resembling anything in the real world. Realism is just an approximation of real world things inside of the game. But at least you recognized that your response to mine was a non-sequitur.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It really depends on if you're okay with things being imbalanced. I am. I thought 3e went a bit too far with the imbalance, but I definitely don't need things to be as balanced as 5e is. When I tinker I'm more concerned with whether it will be fun for the players or not, not if it will unbalance things.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Secondary to being unrealistic, sure. It's not, "disrupts my sense of immersion, therefore it's unrealistic." It's, "It's unrealistic, therefore it disrupts my sense of immersion." Realism is the primary issue and motivator.

Then what kind of game discussion is it?

It was right there in the first sentence. Realism.

 

[Aldarc]

Secondary to being unrealistic, sure. [1] It's not, "disrupts my sense of immersion, therefore it's unrealistic." [2] It's, "It's unrealistic, therefore it disrupts my sense of immersion." Realism is the primary issue and motivator.

I am not suggesting phrasing [1] with my inquiry, especially since it puts the cart before the horse. But when I read [2], it seems like what proceeds from the "therefore" is the actual underlying issue. In fact, my question to you is more in line with [2]. This is to say that the "unrealism" creates cognitive dissonance that disrupts your play priority of immersion. So there are things that disrupt your sense of immersion that you would like to rectify. These may be a range of factors: realism, metagame mechanics, etc. But immersion seems like the actual play priority that you are trying to maximize. The realism is the means to maintain that play immersion.

It was right there in the first sentence. Realism.

So you corrected me by saying I was in error for thinking that it was a game discussion about realism in game design because it's actually a game discussion about (unspecified) realism?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Secondary to being unrealistic, sure. It's not, "disrupts my sense of immersion, therefore it's unrealistic." It's, "It's unrealistic, therefore it disrupts my sense of immersion." Realism is the primary issue and motivator.



It was right there in the first sentence. Realism.

So, to understand correctly, you do realism for the sake of realism, but where you do realism is arbitrary. Further, you do not want to discuss or contemplate the reasons for the arbitrary realism, or what gets realism and what doesn't . Also, those arbitrary choices are not design, even if you're modifying nechanics to achieve a play goal.

Have I captured this correctly?

 

[Bedrockgames]

But immersion seems like the actual play priority that you are trying to maximize. The realism is the means to maintain that play immersion.

:

Just a thought on priorities in general, and not saying this applies to Maxperson as he may well be motivated soley by realism or immersion. But this is one of the reasons I mentioned these kinds of discussions sometimes lead to inverse GNS theory on the other side of the debate, and why I've moved away from putting as much stock in online gaming discussion as I once did. Before in this sort of exchange, I would embrace immersion as my priority without questioning the assumption of priories themselves. Just based on my own observations in play and my own personal experience of games, I don't think most people have a single priority. I think most people have a list of things they like and things they dislike. As those things come up, it impacts enjoyment of the game. Just like I might have a list of ten things that I find irritating when I watch movies (and the more they come up the more my interest wanes). And like I might have 10 things I really like and the more they come up, the more my interest is piqued (for instance, if a movie does a great job of packing drama on the turn of a dime, and uses compelling music to back it up, that always gets me as a viewer; if a movie has dialogue that sounds like it is just coming from the mouth of a writer trying to persuade me about something, that reduces my interest; if I see a blatant break down in internal logic, that also reduces my enjoyment). In gaming, I think most players are usually juggling a number of things they value. And it only really matters when those things are obvious in play. This is why bringing up obscure corners of the system or aspects of the game that are not immediately obvious to counter someone's stated preference, is not a terribly persuasive course. Add to that you usually have five different people at the table with different lists, and I think you can see why a game like D&D (which has to appeal to the biggest possible audience because it is THE ROLEPLAYING GAME) has to keep a certain level of plausibility and realism to retain crowd A, but not so much that it turns off crowd B. If you are someone for whom realism, or plausibility or immersion are important, D&D tends to hit the good enough mark. Plus you are probably also playing it for all other kinds of reasons. I think the games that can afford to have priorities are smaller RPGs that don't need the whole market. But even there, I think it is misguided to view systems that deliver prioritized play experience as better than those that don't. Most of my campaigns have people who want different things, and I can only think of one or two players who have a single overriding priority in my groups. For the most part, it is like when you go to a movie and you want a range of experiences. If you just focus on one, that can actually miss the point for a large number of people.

 

[Sadras]

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."

Let me take a stab at it, as I used the word realistic in haste.

So (1) was free for the PCs to pursue other goals should they want to alongside the main campaign or exclusively from it.
(2) Was so that the setting would appear less contrived if that makes any sense.

So yes I ramshod a few AP's and modules onto the setting, they're adventure hooks, I have no idea if the PC's will pursue any or how they will pursue them. But the setting has to feel like it isn't only about these AP's and modules which often seem to manufacture a particular square of exploration all to do with the AP's and modules which seems uncharacteristically contrived.
There are many more things happening along the Sword Coast besides say the ToD and SKT storylines. Some complex and some less so and anytime spent away from the main setting's storyline pursuing other adventures affects the plot line of the AP's. Time marches on, Council Meetings are missed, opportunities to capture a Wyrmspeaker, obtain a Dragon Mask, halt marauding Giants...all these adventures are lost as we get closer to Chaos.

So there is a sense that the stakes are high and decisions taken matter more so because everything doesn't remain static until the PCs arrive. The setting is not turn-based. It is my humble attempt to make it a living breathing world, more realistic in the common tongue.