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

[Lanefan]

Yeah, the setting and mechanics of BitD are very tightly interwoven to produce the desired effects. The mechanics lean into the setting, and vice versa. It's actually very impressive.

For its specific purpose, I'm sure it is; and that's great.

I'd rather have a big-tent system that can handle many specific purposes, however, because I'm lazy and only ever want to have to learn one system, once.

Seems reasonable. That's largely how we handle it in D&D 5E with my group. We kind of assume certain default expectations....people have a waterskin and so on. We only track significant gear like weapons and magic items and the like.

Here's what I'll say on how my play in these two systems shakes out. D&D has a more detailed system that we largely ignore in favor of a mix of abstraction and assumed basics. BitD Has a simpler system that creates a potentially compelling aspect of play.

As for the realism of either system....I really don't favor one over the other in that respect. It's more about how they play out at the table.

Where to me the pre-hoc assignment of resources is far more realistic - as defined as being reflective of how real life works - than ad-hoc (or even post-hoc) assignment.

I don't know if the threat of the dog is reduced, really. On one hand, I see what you're saying in that the player could decide to have a bit of gear that might resolve the issue out of hand (although I expect there'd likely still be a roll of some sort, the use of the meat would likely make that roll less difficult for the PC), and that seems an easier option, so therefore the challenge is lesser. I can understand that logic.

But, I think it becomes more of a question of is the loss of the inventory spot worth making this challenge easier? The limited availability of such slots makes it a question of resource management rather than just a question of what skill to use (stealth or attack). So in that sense, it's potentially more meaningful. Sure, the risk of harm may be removed, but the player may find out later that the inventory slot could have been put to use toward something perhaps more significant.

Maybe, but remember my original example had the unexpected dog appearing during the escape, such that after the dog there's unlikely to be any more significant obstacles on this score.

Why do you consider it a metagame decision? It really is very much in the game....it's only the timing of that decision that is different.

And it's that very thing - timing - that pulls it from in-game to metagame.

If a player in D&D said before the Score "I want to pack a hank of beef in case there are any guard dogs or the like watching this place" you would allow it, right?

Yes.

So in BitD it's the same decision. The Character is not acting on outside of game info....the player is acting on inside the game info. I don't think this is what we would typically consider "metagaming" when that's brought up.

To use your own phrase; how does this: "a player-driven in-the-fiction decision by the PC as to how to deal with the dog" not apply to the BitD example? What part of your statement is untrue for BitD?

The character didn't know about the dog. In D&D if she didn't bring any meat she's got a problem; a decision (or oversight) in her past is causing her headaches now - simple sequential cause and effect. In BitD if she didn't bring any meat the problem goes away if the player solves it in the metagame by now saying "I put meat in my empty inventory slot" and thus implying preparations were made in the past that would highly likely not otherwise have been made had no dog appeared. If some other previously-unknown-of obstacle had appeared at this point instead of the dog the player could just as easily have said "I put [problem-solving item x] in my empty inventory slot", again implying preparations that would not otherwise have been made.

For gameplay this is fine. For realism (or authenticity) it isn't, because it violates sequentiality (is that even a word?).

Yeah, I don't think we agree at all that this is metagaming in what would be considered the "traditional" sense. The player is making a decision for his character about how to address a challenge in the game.

The character is in no way acting on knowledge outside of the fiction.

Yes it is - or, at least, the player is. The whole point here is that the character specifically did not know of the dog beforehand and thus had no real reason to prepare for one. Thus by putting meat into that slot now (thus implying the meat was being carried the whole time) the player is acting on knowledge the character didn't have prior to this point.

Lan-"it's a refreshing change to have a discussion about meat where the words 'hit points' never appear"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Or do you think that what's being attempted is to come up with some game mechanic that may create interesting instances of play, and that the game mechanic has a bit of a nod toward real world cause and effect?

That's just it, though - even "a bit of a nod" is better than nothing.

I have no problem if someone says they add a system of some kind to their game because the addition makes it more realistic. That's fine. It's conversational and casual, and I generally wouldn't bother correcting such a usage because it's semantics.

But insisting that one system is more realistic than another....even if it's no system....that's when I think the question of objectivity versus subjectivity comes into play. There's no metric we can apply to determine which is objectively more realistic.

Well in some cases there is, if realism is defined as being reflective of reality as we know it.

Take weather. If a DM decides that the composition of her game-world's atmosphere is the same as Earth's and that her game world is the same distance from the same type of star as Earth is, then one can directly compare whatever weather tables she comes up with to what happens on the parts of Earth that are similar and more or less determine the level of realism (here defined as accuracy) of those tables. This then determines how realistic the weather is that the PCs encounter in their day to day adventuring, and also gives them a basis on which to note any changes or oddities.

I think that it's especially true in RPGs where what we're talking about is the content of a fictional world. If a game lacks a system for something, that doesn't mean it's absent from the world, does it? We can assume the common cold exists in most RPG worlds despite there being very few (if any?) that have some kind of rule to determine when a PC comes down with a cold. This can be handled narratively, or assumed to come up now and again, but to not have a mathematical impact on the game.

Maybe a player has a cold one week, so he decides to roleplay his character as if he has a cold, too. Is this less realistic or more realistic than if we rolled percentile dice and consulted a chart? I mean, I'm sure we could conduct a few years of research and see which method more accurately maps to real world trends.....but absent that kind of analysis, can we really eyeball them and say that one is more real than the other?

This is why I said that I can see how sometimes no system may actually be more accurate than a system.

I see what you're saying. However the reality is that if there is no system or other reminder that certain things might exist in the game world e.g. the common cold then both GMs and players will tend to forget about them or ignore them. A reminder reminds all involved to pay attention to such things now and then (always good); a system forces them to (essential sometimes, overkill at other times, depending on what is being looked at).

 

[Maxperson]

Maxperson is asserting:

a) I care about people’s experiences, and they matter

and

b) I don’t care about people’s experiences of realism, and they don’t matter

Go troll someone else. At this point there's no chance that you don't understand what I have said, so this is a deliberate untruth on your part.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, so you're saying that the addition of realism is objective, but that opinions about the value add of a realism injection will vary, and you care about that?

Yes.

To use an example that's already been brought up, you think that the addition of a system to introduce disease into the fictional world increases realism because it attempts to bring a real world element into the fictional world.

However, someone else may say that the implementation of such a rudimentary system actually reduces realism for them. They would find disease having no impact on the story being crafted in their campaign to be more realistic than would a world dictated by such a basic system. For the sake of discussion, let's say this person works in the medical field and has access to information beyond what is commonly available, and they have strong opinions about how adding such information into the fiction should work.

Sure, but that's a misperception on their part. Perception is greater than reality, so when someone misperceives increased realism for decreased realism, that becomes "real" for them.

So in this sense, their opinion is that the system in question so poorly models the real world that it actually decreases their sense of realism. They could more easily accept that disease never became a concern for the PCs than they can accept the system as it is designed.

It may decrease their enjoyment of the system, and it may decrease their sense of realism, but it still increases realism in the game.

Does this person's opinion matter? Would you say this opinion is somehow wrong?

That person't enjoyment does matter to me. I don't want anyone playing my game to not have fun. Depending on the issue, the answer could be to remove the offending system from my game, or if it's something deemed critical by myself and my other players, the new player would be very nicely encouraged to find a game where they could have fun. My group is very like minded with me. That's intentional as players should have similar tastes so as not to cause disruption in the game. A new player coming into the group would need to be similar(not the same) as the rest of us in what they are looking for in game play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure, but that's a misperception on their part. Perception is greater than reality, so when someone misperceives increased realism for decreased realism, that becomes "real" for them.

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

Lemme unpack this.

"Realism" is added. This is objectively true, realism has increased.

Someone sees this addition as not realism, but they are wrong and have made an error of perception because the realism increase is objectively true.

But, because perception is greater than reality or objective realism, there is now a decrease in realism.

We increased realism only to have decreased realism because someone has the wrong idea.

Again, whiskey tango foxtrot.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure. I think when research enters the situation and people are attempting to accurately model some real world event in a statistical manner, then we can perhaps compare models and determine which is more accurate. I think you're using "real" in place of "accurate", but yes, I otherwise agree with what you're saying.

Do you think such statistical analysis is what's used to come up with a chart in the DMG?

Or do you think that what's being attempted is to come up with some game mechanic that may create interesting instances of play, and that the game mechanic has a bit of a nod toward real world cause and effect?



I disagree that it's not all subjective. I think opinions will vary, as my example attempted to show. What did you think about my example?

I have no problem if someone says they add a system of some kind to their game because the addition makes it more realistic. That's fine. It's conversational and casual, and I generally wouldn't bother correcting such a usage because it's semantics.

But insisting that one system is more realistic than another....even if it's no system....that's when I think the question of objectivity versus subjectivity comes into play. There's no metric we can apply to determine which is objectively more realistic.

Lanefan and I have been discussing PC inventory systems in D&D and Blades in the Dark. Both seem equally reasonable to me, and the one I like more is simply a matter of preference in how it plays at the table.

I think that it's especially true in RPGs where what we're talking about is the content of a fictional world. If a game lacks a system for something, that doesn't mean it's absent from the world, does it? We can assume the common cold exists in most RPG worlds despite there being very few (if any?) that have some kind of rule to determine when a PC comes down with a cold. This can be handled narratively, or assumed to come up now and again, but to not have a mathematical impact on the game.

Maybe a player has a cold one week, so he decides to roleplay his character as if he has a cold, too. Is this less realistic or more realistic than if we rolled percentile dice and consulted a chart? I mean, I'm sure we could conduct a few years of research and see which method more accurately maps to real world trends.....but absent that kind of analysis, can we really eyeball them and say that one is more real than the other?

This is why I said that I can see how sometimes no system may actually be more accurate than a system.

Alternatively, if you add disease to a mosel but it's completely wrong, like, say, the modelled disease is a 53% hourly chance you turn into an elephant if you live at an even-numbered address, then it's addition reduces realism by a greater degree than adding the concept of disease could increase it.

So, all your points plus bad models are just bad. A bad model can be very much worse than no model.

 

[Maxperson]

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

Lemme unpack this.

"Realism" is added. This is objectively true, realism has increased.

Someone sees this addition as not realism, but they are wrong and have made an error of perception because the realism increase is objectively true.

So far so good.

But, because perception is greater than reality or objective realism, there is now a decrease in realism.

And now you've lost it. Nope. There is not a decrease in realism. However, the misperceived decrease in realism seems real to the person.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure. I think when research enters the situation and people are attempting to accurately model some real world event in a statistical manner, then we can perhaps compare models and determine which is more accurate. I think you're using "real" in place of "accurate", but yes, I otherwise agree with what you're saying.

Do you think such statistical analysis is what's used to come up with a chart in the DMG?

Or do you think that what's being attempted is to come up with some game mechanic that may create interesting instances of play, and that the game mechanic has a bit of a nod toward real world cause and effect?



I disagree that it's not all subjective. I think opinions will vary, as my example attempted to show. What did you think about my example?

I have no problem if someone says they add a system of some kind to their game because the addition makes it more realistic. That's fine. It's conversational and casual, and I generally wouldn't bother correcting such a usage because it's semantics.

But insisting that one system is more realistic than another....even if it's no system....that's when I think the question of objectivity versus subjectivity comes into play. There's no metric we can apply to determine which is objectively more realistic.

Lanefan and I have been discussing PC inventory systems in D&D and Blades in the Dark. Both seem equally reasonable to me, and the one I like more is simply a matter of preference in how it plays at the table.

I think that it's especially true in RPGs where what we're talking about is the content of a fictional world. If a game lacks a system for something, that doesn't mean it's absent from the world, does it? We can assume the common cold exists in most RPG worlds despite there being very few (if any?) that have some kind of rule to determine when a PC comes down with a cold. This can be handled narratively, or assumed to come up now and again, but to not have a mathematical impact on the game.

Maybe a player has a cold one week, so he decides to roleplay his character as if he has a cold, too. Is this less realistic or more realistic than if we rolled percentile dice and consulted a chart? I mean, I'm sure we could conduct a few years of research and see which method more accurately maps to real world trends.....but absent that kind of analysis, can we really eyeball them and say that one is more real than the other?

This is why I said that I can see how sometimes no system may actually be more accurate than a system.

Agreed: Also, I think, speaking as someone with some knowledge of actual mathematical models of the sorts that might be envisaged here, that there are two very different things you can talk about.

Here's an example. Dr Svante Arrhenius made a basic set of calculations on the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere and the degree of warming to be expected back in about 1912. This number is in very close agreement with what you see in the latest IPCC report etc. The difference is Arrhenius was doing a simple 1-dimensional calculation which yielded a single number, but no particulars. Today we can model all the details of climate change to some fair degree of resolution. There is a qualitative difference.

Suppose we made a model of the spread of disease with a few variables, etc. It could tell us (again math that was done 100 years ago) about how many people might get sick given a few basic parameters (onset time, vector, rate of transmission, etc.). It is worthless for telling you who will get sick. Not even the most sophisticated simulations we can currently imagine could do that.

So, you can achieve a type of realism, but there is a big qualitative difference between that and something that would translate into the narrative of a game. Again, realism turns out to be a quite slippery concept.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes it is - or, at least, the player is. The whole point here is that the character specifically did not know of the dog beforehand and thus had no real reason to prepare for one. Thus by putting meat into that slot now (thus implying the meat was being carried the whole time) the player is acting on knowledge the character didn't have prior to this point.

But the same could be said of the D&D player...they didn’t know about the dog when they decided to select a hank of meat for their inventory. They had no real reason to prepare for the dog.

The only reason they may have had is the hunch that it might come in handy. In this case, that hunch is the player’s more so than the character’s.

What Blades does is create a model that reflects the fact that a criminal would have a better idea of what to bring on the job than the player would. It’s the scoundrel who has the hunch, not the player.

For me, that makes it seem realistic.

Not more realistic than some other method....just how it feels to me. To me, that aspect of portraying the scoundrel’s knowledge is more meaningful than me selecting gear ahead of time.

I don’t think anyone can accurately tell me I’m wrong so much as they can simply say they prefer something different.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's just it, though - even "a bit of a nod" is better than nothing.

Well, not necessarily....see the mention of bad models in recent posts.

But aside from that...the two systema we’ve been discussing each have a nod toward the real world. One mirrors real world sequentiality (it is a word!) and the other mirrors the ability of a criminal to effectively plan for a crime.

Is one of these objectively better than the other? Or is it just a matter of preference?

Well in some cases there is, if realism is defined as being reflective of reality as we know it.

Okay...then how do you quantify this? Both the approaches above are reflective of reality as we know it.