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

[Ovinomancer]

No.

Sorry, I missed where the game rules say players can create content in X, Y, and Z. According to what you said above, it was specifically the DM giving the permission to the players. Unless the game gives that to the players, you're still at the DM giving out power, making that something the DM can give away, meaning it's still, ultimately, the DM's power. I'm pretty sure that you'd argue that even with player content creation the DM retains veto power, right? Or are you saying the D&D has, as part of it's mechanics, the ability for the player to create content without the DM having veto power? Heck, that's not even true for spells, which is the only D&D mechanic where players actually have content control, if very narrow.

A game that cannot be easily altered to player facing. D&D is easily altered like that, so it's not strongly DM facing.

You're waving your hands, Max. What game is this that cannot be easily altered so that the DM gives the players permission to add things? Surely, since you've made this definition up yourself, you had an example in mind?

And, D&D is only easily altered like that via DM houserule -- note the "DM" part there. Your houserules are not a valid criteria for assessing how D&D is or is not a DM facing game. They cannot be, because your houserules are not what D&D is, they're just your houserules (and fine houserules, I'm sure).

I'm really not understanding why you feel the need to say D&D isn't strongly DM facing. This isn't a bad thing, unless you're looking to play games that aren't strongly DM facing. D&D is still the single most popular RPG by far more than a country mile, so being strongly DM facing clearly isn't a detriment to having a good time playing. Sure, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] (and others, sorry) prefers to play games that aren't strongly (or weakly) DM facing, but so what? Not everyone needs to like D&D. Not everyone needs to like Burning Wheel, either -- I'm sure [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] will not be by shortly to make claims that BW can be modified to be more DM facing because he's worried his game of choice won't measure up if it isn't.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Heh. I read an interesting article recently that touches on why martial arts communities tend to be very polite and well mannered. It comes from a strong understanding of exactly what kind of damage angry people can do to each other, which leads to better non-physical conflict resolution skills.

So, by extension, there is a direct correlation between the familiarity and exposure to the means of violence and the quality of non-violent conflict resolution skills. Samurai, gun fighters, 15th Century Italian Nobles, they all excelled at this!

I guess what I'm hinting at is there must be some other element involved. Your point could be ONE FACTOR, but it logically cannot be a sufficient answer in and of itself.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, by extension, there is a direct correlation between the familiarity and exposure to the means of violence and the quality of non-violent conflict resolution skills. Samurai, gun fighters, 15th Century Italian Nobles, they all excelled at this!

I guess what I'm hinting at is there must be some other element involved. Your point could be ONE FACTOR, but it logically cannot be a sufficient answer in and of itself.

I'm not following you, here. Are you mocking my post? Because there was a lot of non-violent conflict resolution with samurai, gun fighters, and 15th century Italian Nobles. Politeness in all those cases was strongly emphasized. A correlation doesn't mean that idiots and hotheads suddenly stopped existing, but the culture that existed around all of those was highly structured with many conflict de-emphasizing rituals and rules of behavior.

And, yes, of course there are multiple factors -- nothing in social interactions ever boils down to one factor. Pointing out an interesting article that found and explained an interesting correlation isn't an argument for, "this is it, guys, the answer to all society's ills!"

Or did I misread you and owe you an apology?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Okay, then answer the barn question @pemerton poses: how far/long to the barn?

I agree with you that "just color" is a bit hyperbolic, but tge underlying point that time is either an undefined or very poorly defined mechanic is true. That doesn't mean that you, a GM, can't further refine or emphasize this but it does mean you're adding definition to your game to do so. This is apparent because the next GM over doesn't have to focus on time and is still running the same set of mechanics.

To reiterate: time is mostly a GM choice, not a well defined mechanic.

Here we come to an example of why even D&D evolved. From OD&D up through 1e AD&D the trend was simply more precise and encompassing rules dictating durations, mapping techniques, exploration rules, etc. When employed in a dungeon type setting this can answer the 'barn question' quite effectively. The dungeon is a totally mapped space with all topography, locations, and situations within it precisely defined. AD&D (and even OD&D to some extent) also attempted to address these sorts of questions in less thoroughly structured contexts, such as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s example, but with limited success.

2e, which was IIRC largely the work of Zeb Cook, clearly was designed with this understanding in mind. It is first and foremost designed with the idea in mind from the very start that the action will be more generalized, more dramatic and fiction-like, and take place in a wide variety of locations to a greater degree. It drops some important elements of 1e's exploration rules for example. There are no movement rates for exploration in dungeons in 2e. You could extrapolate them from knowledge of 1e play, no rule is actually changed, but no rates are actually stated. If you started play with 2e, then the fundamental rule for deciding how long your spell lasts during exploration is non-existent. It is now up to the DM to decide what he thinks is appropriate!

I believe there are still overland movement rates in 2e, and many of the trappings of 1e exploration-based play still exist, but any close consideration of the necessities of dramatic play is, as Pemerton explained, pretty much going to lead to DM determinations of time as simply a way of explaining, post-hoc, what happened.

4e has a sort of vestigial set of relict mechanics of this ilk, but most of the DMG's advice pretty much is incoherent with using them. For example, overland movement rates don't do much work in a game where travel is likely either to be elided (go to the action, skip the boring part) or handled by an SC, which is a pretty abstract story-centered type of mechanic. I do note that 4e also has durations on rituals, and these are equally 'color' since there are (ala 2e) no exploration movement rates (or really coherent exploration rules at all). At best they suggest the realms of problem solving in which a given ritual might find use.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I am not suggesting that alternatives to my proposed approach in the OP are wrong or bad. I've tried to make the point many times that you can make that determination with any number of methods, procedures or mechanics. The point of the thread though was whether my stated approach was mother may I or undesirable. For you the answer being dramatically interesting is important, and that is a fine way to run a game. Some of the other posters here though are saying that is less important to them than the sense that they are exploring a real place.

I've never really understood the way they fixated on this explanation of 'sense of exploring a real place', or at least that it is dependent on the specific type adjudication mechanics which they claim produces these 'realistic' results. I just cannot find the basis for this realism in anything that actually happens in the play of RPGS! At least not anything D&D-like. It is infinitely clear to me, and I think the posts regarding time and its place as a mechanic and significance in D&D play largely explain why. There is simply too little known about the world for it be determinable what is or isn't more or less realistic. Nor is it REALLY feasible to run a game in which something resembling realistic notions of frequency or causality can be maintained.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As I said earlier in the thread, it doesn't matter if I know exactly what the long odds are. It's sufficient for me to know that there are long odds and then offer up what I think is a good approximation of them. Realism isn't an all or nothing thing and asking me how I know what the long odds are implies that False Dichotomy. So long as I offer up something more realistic than the short odds that most player facing games and even some DM facing games employ, I am adding more realism to my game.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear. How do you justify that it is long odds, and that long odds produce this 'realism' vs short odds? Clearly you must have some objective model-driven basis for this kind of statement, or else it is mere conjecture.

I am applying, basically, the criteria outlined over 2500 years ago by one Thales of Miletus when he discussed how to approach discerning the truth about the world. Throw out all conjecture, all statements of authority which cannot be shown to be founded entirely on a basis of direct experience. Create a theory, a model of how you expect the world will work in X is true, and then perform experiments and make observations to attempt to disprove X. In terms of deciding long vs short odds in an RPG I would take this discipline to mean showing how, based on the known factors in the game world, why it would be contradictory for it to be short odds that the sect is in the tea house. Failing that, we only have opinion.

I mean, it is perfectly OK to say "I feel like making it short odds disturbs my sense of immersion, but I don't have a logical reason for this feeling." but I don't get the impression that this is what people are saying. I would point to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s 'barn post' about time as another sort of example which, instead of talking about odds, talks about what can or cannot be measured in a game world in most cases. I would actually state that I don't think Thales' conditions for deciding true facts CAN be accomplished within game worlds, there is no truth there, no statements of 'odds' or times can really be made, except possibly in reference to a consistency with past experience in the same world (IE the sect has not been in the tea room the last 12 times we were there, they probably aren't there now is a pretty good logical induction).

 

[pemerton]

I'm sure [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] will not be by shortly to make claims that BW can be modified to be more DM facing because he's worried his game of choice won't measure up if it isn't.

I guess it could be done - but then why not just play Runequest, which is a great game that already exists, has been around for a long time, and I think just had a successful Kickstarted relaunch!

 

[Sadras]

To reiterate: time is mostly a GM choice, not a well defined mechanic.

Fair enough.
I was only objecting to the blanket idea that time can only be colour in D&D and that PC choices, with regards to time, do not matter.

As far as movement is concerned, which was the example I gave, the only system in AD&D for determining how long it takes to get from A to B is to have a map, to which movement rates are applied. I've never encountered a GM or a supplement that has the requisite maps to apply a fly spell when the movement is overland at 4 mph. That's 2/3 of a mile per 10-minute turn, or approx 1 km. One of the more detailed maps I have is the one that came with my GH boxed set, and has various villages, hamlets, farmlets etc in the vicinity of GH marked. But it doesn't give the location of all these things to that sort of accuracy.

I find D&D has the minimum required to make time important should it matter for that scene, session, adventure or campaign. Maps with distance are available for settings, calendars available in various setting supplements and travel speeds are in the PHB. How far a barn is from x I can agree that is 100% colour, except when it is not due to GM fiat. And yes it sounds like Traveller, based on what you are saying, includes time in the action resolution mechanic, whereas I think that only occurs in D&D combat - using initiative, follow up saves, duration of spell effects and the like.

And here's another example: if the players have their PCs spend X weeks resting, or researching spells, or whatver, then their enemies can presumalby recruit Y new recruits. What is the value of Y? I don't know of any D&D rule that answers that question. (Traveller does have such a rule, in the Mercenary supplement. Whether that makes the game more or less realistic I'll leave as a judgement for others.)

If that is the case, then that is pretty impressive for Traveller, although without having read such supplement I would imagine they have all sort of tables. I mean like [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] says later on, given the variations that exist (type and number of creature, motive/goals of BBEG...etc) it would be tricky to come up with a one-size-fits-all.

This is what I mean when I say that time is colour. It suggests various possibilities to the GM, but it doesn't actually generate action resolution outcomes.

Understood.

 

[pemerton]

If the situation is such that I (or the player) need to know precise distances, if I don't already have the requisite map to hand I very soon will; even if it means drawing out then and there a more detailed version of a general map I already have.

If the GM draws the map already knowing what the relevant answer is in respect of (say) the Fly spell, then this is GM decision-making one way or another; and if the GM draws the map not knowing what the relevant answer is, then this is - in effect - a form of random determination. So why not just build that into the spell mechanics rather than mediating via at best partially-implemented wargame mechanics?

 

[Guest 85555]

I've never really understood the way they fixated on this explanation of 'sense of exploring a real place', or at least that it is dependent on the specific type adjudication mechanics which they claim produces these 'realistic' results. I just cannot find the basis for this realism in anything that actually happens in the play of RPGS! At least not anything D&D-like. It is infinitely clear to me, and I think the posts regarding time and its place as a mechanic and significance in D&D play largely explain why. There is simply too little known about the world for it be determinable what is or isn't more or less realistic. Nor is it REALLY feasible to run a game in which something resembling realistic notions of frequency or causality can be maintained.

I would argue this is a problem on your end, not on the end of people with this expectation (if only because I've played in enough games like this, and seen enough players with these expectations, to know it is a thing). That said, no one has argued for full realism. People have basically been arguing mainly for plausibility and a sense that the world is real. Pemerton created a straw man of that position in the OP (where a sentiment as'like it does in the real world' is taken to mean 'exactly the same as real life'). Further, I've actually been arguing for having more than one thing guide the GM determination of outcome (plausibility is important, but you can also include things like drama, excitement. etc in the decision making process). What people are saying isn't they want the GM to be a physics engine. They are saying they want the GM to create a setting that feels external to their character, consistent and real enough for the purposes of play. Those are not difficult things to achieve. Obviously people can nitpick all they want. If a player is intent on not believing the setting, the player won't believe the setting. But the people on this thread are not setting the high benchmark for realism that the Pemerton set at the start of the thread. And, more importantly, this whole conversation wasn't even about realism at all. It was about Pemerton saying that the GM making the determination "Bone Breaking Sect is/is not present" by simply deciding based on what he or she thinks ought to be, is Mother May I play. I said it was no more mother may I than real life. My point was, it wouldn't be mother may I unless the GM was forcing the players to keep asking about locations until they got the one that the GM had originally decided was the right one. But in my scenario, the GM is genuinely considering whether they would be at the tea house or not in good faith. That isn't mother may I. And this whole thread is just a straw man against that response where Pemerton was trying to rope people into defending the very strange position that game settings operate on the same causal principles as reality (which they obviously don't). That doesn't mean the situation is mother may I, nor does it mean settings can't feel like real places to people (or that GMs can't try to use plausibility in their determinations).