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

[Maxperson]

Let's accept this as given for the sake of argument. You don't have authority over outcomes. The DM, does. They decide if it's a success or failure or what mechanic to use. Perhaps your DM thinks it's very unlikely, and assigned a 1 in 10,000 chance? You can't do boo about it.

Cant do boo about what? It's not a single roll. The process I described begins at 1st level and probably doesn't finish until your level is in the double digits. So I fail some rolls along the way. That's to be expected.

But this isn't about how the rules work, Max, it's about the people you choose to play with and them aligning with your expectations. It doesn't speak at all to how the rules work, or how their designed, it speaks to who you're friends with and what conventions your table accepts as baseline. Given this, do you not see how your response to [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] isn't helpful unless he plays at your table?

If aligning with my expectations means that I expect them not to be asshats, then sure. If it means that I need to have rules or people who will be compliant with my wishes for everything I want my PC to accomplish, then no.

 

[Maxperson]

You've previously defined realism as 'like the real world,' Max. This is why you introduced your scale of realism, where you can become just a bit more like the real world in one area and that's adding realism (for the sake of realism). Are you now saying that realism, for you, does not mean "like the real world?"

See, the whole "...introduced your scale of realism, where you can become just a bit more like the real world in one area and that's adding realism" eliminates "like the real world" as my definition of realism. "Like the real world" = "Mirrors the real world" and I have said that isn't what it is in most posts on the subject.

That aside (because I know better), I'm not saying that it has to be "like the real world" to have realism, I saying is cannot be, at all, even a little bit, like the real world. It can be how we imagine the real world, to some degree, but our pretend isn't realism.

Then show your objective proof. All I've seen so far are subjective claims. If you know it, then it's a fact and you can prove that fact objectively.

It cannot be real to any degree because it's all pretend. It cannot be related to the real world because it's all pretend. At best, it's how you imagine the real world to be, but I can imagine it differently and then we're stuck arguing which of our imaginings of the real world is more like the real world. Neither are more like the real world, because they are both pretend.

So first off, our imaginations are real. They exist here in the real world. Second, what we are imagining might not be real, but it can have realism. I can imagine something, and then imagine a more realistic version of it, and then a version more realistic still. It doesn't have to be out in the real world and tangible for realism to be a quality.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Cant do boo about what? It's not a single roll. The process I described begins at 1st level and probably doesn't finish until your level is in the double digits. So I fail some rolls along the way. That's to be expected.

Waving your hands about it taking more than one check doesn't change the fact that it's your GM that's deciding things. It could be 1 in 10,000 all the way down.

If aligning with my expectations means that I expect them not to be asshats, then sure. If it means that I need to have rules or people who will be compliant with my wishes for everything I want my PC to accomplish, then no.

It's not a matter of asshats, Max. You could think it's reasonable, and your DM may not, and you lose. There's an example of a barbarian's wife being used that showcases this entirely.

See, the whole "...introduced your scale of realism, where you can become just a bit more like the real world in one area and that's adding realism" eliminates "like the real world" as my definition of realism. "Like the real world" = "Mirrors the real world" and I have said that isn't what it is in most posts on the subject.

Sigh. Yes, that's exactly what I understood you to mean. I'm not confused at all, you're not listening.

Then show your objective proof. All I've seen so far are subjective claims. If you know it, then it's a fact and you can prove that fact objectively.

Your game is a pretend world. It lives in your imagination. You imagine it to be like the real world, but it's not, it's like how you imagine the real world. At no time does anything in your game adhere to quantum mechanics, even a little bit. So, the idea that your imagination can be more or less like the real world is silly. It's just your idea of how the world is.

So, if we can categorically say that your imagination cannot be the real world because it has none of the qualities of the real world, we can also say that your imagination cannot be a little bit like the real world. Categorically it's not the same and cannot share qualities.

Instead, what you mean by "realism" is that it hangs together, it makes sense to you, and you can imagine that things might be causal (they aren't). This is the proof. Your imagination cannot be at all like the real world because your imagination cannot share any of the qualities that define the real world, even a little bit.

So first off, our imaginations are real. They exist here in the real world.

I've imagined a dragon. Does the dragon exist in the real world or does the particular chemical and electrical combination inside my brain at that precise moment exist in the real world?

This is like playing Doom, and looking at the code and the computer and saying that since the code and the computer exist in the real world, the BFG9000 and the demon I just shot with it also both exist in the real world. They do not.

Second, what we are imagining might not be real, but it can have realism. I can imagine something, and then imagine a more realistic version of it, and then a version more realistic still. It doesn't have to be out in the real world and tangible for realism to be a quality.

No. You can't imagine a more realistic version of anything -- it's still your imagination. At least so long as you hold to the definition of 'mirrors the real world'. If you'll accept the change to 'is internally consistent and coherent and I can believe it" then, sure, onboard. But, you've fought this change tooth and nail and insist that it's the relationship to the real world that's the crux of things. I think because you really, really want your imagination to be tied to real things and therefore better instead of the actually subjective opinion that it actually is.

I run a game that I strive very much to be internally consistent and coherent and presents a believable. I crib from common experience as much as possible so that the fantastic elements are grounded in expectation and shared world assumptions. I have gravity work at least in a manner that's understandable to a normal person. But it's not gravity and has nothing in common with gravity except things go down. I can increase the fidelity of my model, but that's not making things more realistic at all. It might improve the coherent and consistency, and, for some, be more believable, but that has nothing to do with mirroring the real world in any way, and increased fidelity might be less a mirror but still have more fidelity. It doesn't bother me at all to realize that what I do in my game is just my imagination of how things work. If anything, it's improved my games, because I'm not mired in the idea that "realism" is a goal of play, which could lead me to poor choices.

 

[Maxperson]

Waving your hands about it taking more than one check doesn't change the fact that it's your GM that's deciding things. It could be 1 in 10,000 all the way down.

No it can't. The social contract is a stronger rule set than anything D&D has ever come up with. Don't be an asshat means that what you just described above simply won't happen. There me be some long odds along the way, but there will be many things with shorter odds and eventually I will be able to achieve my vision.

It's not a matter of asshats, Max. You could think it's reasonable, and your DM may not, and you lose. There's an example of a barbarian's wife being used that showcases this entirely.

Disagreements do happen, yes, but not on all things, or even most things, along the way to a goal like that.

Your game is a pretend world. It lives in your imagination. You imagine it to be like the real world, but it's not, it's like how you imagine the real world. At no time does anything in your game adhere to quantum mechanics, even a little bit. So, the idea that your imagination can be more or less like the real world is silly. It's just your idea of how the world is.

Yep! And some of those imaginings will be more realistic than others. Being in my imagination does not prevent realism from existing.

So, if we can categorically say that your imagination cannot be the real world because it has none of the qualities of the real world, we can also say that your imagination cannot be a little bit like the real world. Categorically it's not the same and cannot share qualities.

The world has green, and I can imagine green. They share the quality of color, even if one color is created by my mind and the other by light absorbtion/reflection. They just don't share all qualities, which is fine. I'm not claiming realism as meaning "mirrors reality."

I've imagined a dragon. Does the dragon exist in the real world or does the particular chemical and electrical combination inside my brain at that precise moment exist in the real world?

And I've listened to Imagine Dragons.

You can't imagine a more realistic version of anything -- it's still your imagination.

Since I can do it, this is a false statement. I've done it many times.

I run a game that I strive very much to be internally consistent and coherent and presents a believable. I crib from common experience as much as possible so that the fantastic elements are grounded in expectation and shared world assumptions. I have gravity work at least in a manner that's understandable to a normal person. But it's not gravity and has nothing in common with gravity except things go down.

Which is sufficient to afford it a measure of realism. Though I suspect that in your game the farther things go down, the harder they hit, which is a little greater measure of realism. Perhaps that even maxes out at some points, kinda sorta like terminal velocity, which be even more realism.

I can increase the fidelity of my model, but that's not making things more realistic at all. It might improve the coherent and consistency, and, for some, be more believable, but that has nothing to do with mirroring the real world in any way, and increased fidelity might be less a mirror but still have more fidelity.

Good, because realism isn't bout mirroring the real world. It's a spectrum between the extremes.

 

[pemerton]

There is a tone in this discussion where one side is completely dismissing our style of play and aggressively critiquing it. whereas I think most folks on my side are saying if you like 'say yes and roll' go for it.

I've repeatedly said that I'm sure plenty of people like GM decides. If they enjoy it, play it! It has no effect on me what RPGs you or anyone else plays in your spare time.

My post made a particular claim: that GM decides is not "no more Mother May I than real life". That's all.

To quote from the OP:

Whether or not the GM making decisions about the gameworld, and then conveying that to the players, makes for good RPGing seems a matter of taste. But whether or not such a process is like real life seems a straightforward matter of fact. It's not.

The first sentence of that quote expressly refrains from judging whether or not GM decides makes for good RPGing. The second sentence states the claim I'm making in this thread: that having a ROG fiction established on the basis of one participant's unilateral judgement is nothing like encountering a constraint or a fact in real life.

And despite all the flack we get from using the Say No toolkit in this thread and being lumped under the MMI label, I do not feel bad in using it (Saying No).

What flack? To requote myself, from the FIRST POST in this thread: Whether or not the GM making decisions about the gameworld, and then conveying that to the players, makes for good RPGing seems a matter of taste.

 

[pemerton]

When we played our 5e campaign I certainly referred to these elements of my character and said things like "Oh, my character has the ambition to rule his own kingdom. So I will vote to strike off in the direction of the castle in the hopes of finding a place I can establish my own stronghold." Things like that, but there wasn't any MEAT to it.

Why do you need a mechanic for that sort of thing? Were that my 5e PC, I would make the stronghold happen. I would save the prodigious amounts of coin I get adventuring. When I am speaking with(and I would arrange to be able to speak with) nobles and kings as part of adventuring, I would ask for land grants and permission to build a stronghold. When being asked for a reward, I would ask for titles and commissions. I would build my way towards that stronghold and rule my land one way or another. Many settings have wild areas not ruled. The kingdoms next to those areas would be prime areas for me to go to for this sort of thing. I could set up my own kingdom, after proving my worth and promising trade exclusives, mutual protections and such.

5e does as much interesting stuff as you have it do. I'm sure mechanical aids would make it easier, but those aids aren't necessary to accomplish goals.

Every ask you make here is to the GM. You, as a player, have zero authority to "make it happen."

This is wrong. I have absolute authority over what my PC does. The DM is socially obligated not to be an asshat, so he's not going to be smashing what I do with a bunch of crap. I don't have to worry about him being a bad DM, because those are rare as hell, and if I did manage to find one, I would have left long before I really made a push for those goals. It may take work, but I can get there if I have the drive.

What [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] says is true, but is orthogonal to the point I want to make about this. I think my point is related to what [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] said.

Here's an example of MEAT: Suppose a player has, as a goal/Belief/whatever for his/her PC, I will free my brother from his possession by a balrog - and will not leave this town without something to help me do this! The first event in the campaign is the PC being at a bazaar, where a peddler claims to have an angel feather for sale.

Here's why it counts as MEAT: the first thing the player has to think about in playing the game is Will this angel feather help me free my brother? Which leads to other questions like Who is this peddler? Can I trust him? Am I sorcerer enough to harness the power of an angel feather?

Whether this is good or pedestrian story/drama is a matter of taste; but it's clear that, from the get-go, the action of play raises dramatic questions that tie directly to the theme/dramatic arc of this PC.

Here's an example of NON-MEAT: the same PC; and the first event in the campaign is You find yourself at the town gates - what do you do? This does not give rise to any dramatic questions. It does not force the player to confront questions about his/her PC, nor about any other character, institution or similar focus of human value and concern. Yes, the player could declare actions which involve seeking out angel feathers. Yes, if the GM is a Maxperson-style non-asshat the GM may provide opportunities to find them. But those things don't make MEAT.

In some fairly typical approaches to playing D&D, the second approach to the game actively pushes against MEAT, because the player is encouraged to mnimise risk and stakes at every point - instead of dealing with a peddler whose trustworthiness is unknown but in play, the player is encouraged to use divination magic, and spies, and sages, and the like to establish in advance that the peddler is trustworthy, that the power of the angel feather is something his/her PC can harness, etc.

The reason I have distinguished what I'm saying in this post from what [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] said is that none of what I have said turns on who has authority over framing situations. Or even over establshing what's at stake in the overall arc of play. It's about whether or not the GM frames situations in accordance with a certain set of principles, and how the stakes of those situations are established.

Ovinomancer and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] addressed this (coming in from a different angle, I'll admit) in their earlier remarks about how players influence the fiction of Dungeon World even though formal authority lies with the GM. The best discussion I know of, though, about these sorts of GM framing techniques, is in the Burning Wheel books (the core rules and the Adventure Burner).

An addendum: once the GM starts framing scenes having regard to PC goals/beliefs/themes, and with the goal of forcing the players to make hard/dramatic choices around those things, then the next natural step is to want action resolution mechanics that will let the players choice shape outcomes, whether for better (the player succeeds on the check) or worse (the player fails the check). So I think there's a non-coincidental connection between an approach to establishing situation in RPGing, and an approach to resolving it. And I think I've got the order of logical explanation (situation first, mechanics in response to that) right.

An edit: what would count as good situation to engage I will rule my own kingdom will depend (obviously) on all the details and nuance of the particular table and its players inclinations. But just to kick things of, and thinking of two examples from fantasy literature - Aragorn and Conan - it might well make sense to start with a kingdom whose rulership is under some sort of pressure or doubt. And present that pressure or doubt in a way that makes things hard for the player.

Eg Aragorn: How can I take over the kingdom while honouring my obligations to family, ancestry and the stewards who have faithfully ruled in my stead?[/I

Conan: Can I, a barbarian, gain acceptance as the ruler of the most civilised kingdom around?

And in relation to these, or similar, possibilities, a game that starts with Keep on the Borderlands in its standard version would be NON-MEAT, even though the player might try and have his/her PC made Castellan of the Keep; and might even connive to that end (eg by helping the existing Castallen meet an unhappy end at the hands of the evil priest).

 

[Maxperson]

What [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] says is true, but is orthogonal to the point I want to make about this. I think my point is related to what [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] said.

Here's an example of MEAT: Suppose a player has, as a goal/Belief/whatever for his/her PC, I will free my brother from his possession by a balrog - and will not leave this town without something to help me do this! The first event in the campaign is the PC being at a bazaar, where a peddler claims to have an angel feather for sale.

Here's why it counts as MEAT: the first thing the player has to think about in playing the game is Will this angel feather help me free my brother? Which leads to other questions like Who is this peddler? Can I trust him? Am I sorcerer enough to harness the power of an angel feather?

Whether this is good or pedestrian story/drama is a matter of taste; but it's clear that, from the get-go, the action of play raises dramatic questions that tie directly to the theme/dramatic arc of this PC.

Here's an example of NON-MEAT: the same PC; and the first event in the campaign is You find yourself at the town gates - what do you do? This does not give rise to any dramatic questions. It does not force the player to confront questions about his/her PC, nor about any other character, institution or similar focus of human value and concern. Yes, the player could declare actions which involve seeking out angel feathers. Yes, if the GM is a Maxperson-style non-asshat the GM may provide opportunities to find them. But those things don't make MEAT.

They don't necessarily make non-meat, either. So I find myself at the gates to the city. The first thing I have to think about is how will I go about becoming the ruler of my own nation. Do I go to the library and do research on items that can make me a king(i.e. Excalibur types)? Am I adventurer enough to accomplish finding and controlling such an artifact? Do I go to the local lord and try to ingratiate myself with him to gain status? Do I put those things on hold for now and seek ways to fund a conquering army? Those things are meat, and I came up with them myself. I don't need the DM to force me long my path or to cause me to confront questions about my PC and his character. I can do that myself.

The reason I have distinguished what I'm saying in this post from what [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] said is that none of what I have said turns on who has authority over framing situations. Or even over establshing what's at stake in the overall arc of play. It's about whether or not the GM frames situations in accordance with a certain set of principles, and how the stakes of those situations are established.

One of the things that I don't really agree with is the idea that events from the DM should confront one or more of the PCs in some dramatic way. Drama is drama because it's not the normal state of things. When drama is the norm, it's no longer drama. Some of what the DM does should confront PCs, and some should just be normal stuff.

An edit: what would count as good situation to engage I will rule my own kingdom will depend (obviously) on all the details and nuance of the particular table and its players inclinations. But just to kick things of, and thinking of two examples from fantasy literature - Aragorn and Conan - it might well make sense to start with a kingdom whose rulership is under some sort of pressure or doubt. And present that pressure or doubt in a way that makes things hard for the player.

 

[Numidius]

They don't necessarily make non-meat, either. So I find myself at the gates to the city. The first thing I have to think about is how will I go about becoming the ruler of my own nation. Do I go to the library and do research on items that can make me a king(i.e. Excalibur types)? Am I adventurer enough to accomplish finding and controlling such an artifact? Do I go to the local lord and try to ingratiate myself with him to gain status? Do I put those things on hold for now and seek ways to fund a conquering army? Those things are meat, and I came up with them myself. I don't need the DM to force me long my path or to cause me to confront questions about my PC and his character. I can do that myself.

then you wake up all sweaty and hurry up to catch up your party that already left for the sunken pyramid never to come back

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Again, this seems contradictory to me.

If you honestly think that any method is equal...that neither GM nor Player driven techniques are more “realistic” than the other....a sentiment I would agree with, by the way...then why would you infer someone describing their technique as being guided by their sense of realism or causality as a criticism of other techniques?

It definitely has been, at times, because the posit was something like "I wouldn't like this kind of game because I want a feel of a plausible realistic world..." which certainly implies that a 'story now' and/or 'zero myth' kind of system with SYORTD or some analogous mechanics cannot provide that. In other words, when you argue that a procedure of play is your preference because it is the one which produces the results you want, and another procedure is disfavored, you are pretty much saying that other procedure lacks the characteristic of producing the desired results! Anyway, it has been more explicitly stated than that by many posters at times, though not usually consistently. Often it comes in the form of questions about how to deal with 'non-realistic' types of results. I can recall several instances in this thread of "but then the players just declare they found the solution to the problem..." which is a kind of way of saying the whole procedure in which players can interject pieces into the setting is fundamentally bound to lead to degenerate unrealistic results.

I don’t rely solely on GM driven techniques in my games. I use them, yes....but more and more I find myself allowing the players to determine lots of details. Whether it’s simply going with an idea they’ve presented or using the game mechanics to determine something, I like using different approaches for different things. Obviously, a lot of this depends on the game being played.

At times I may decide something as a GM that I feel is appropriate. Perhaps a villain has been driven from his lair and gone into hiding. Where is he hiding? If I decide ahead of time, and base it upon information that’s been presented in the fiction...the villain’s traits and desires, and his connections and resources, whatever other pertinent elements of the fiction that may apply..then I’ll go ahead and do that. Using the logic of the fiction to make such a decision.

In a case where maybe a lot of the facts that would inform such a decision haven’t been strongly established, I may allow the players to suggest a probable location, and perhaps make some kind of roll to see if it works out. Then I’ll proceed with having the villain be hiding somewhere accordong to this method.

I don’t think that either of these two methods is ultimately “more realistic” than the other. But I absolutely understand why someone might use such language when discussing the first method. It is certainly imprecise, but I’m not going to look for offense where none is intended.

Right, so the question then is, would the later type of player explicated fiction, or at least player empowerment to receive a chance to lay stakes on achieving their goal not benefit from being more of a mechanically enabled thing vs simply being something you do in an ad-hoc way?

What I found is that a huge advantage is the lack of a need to try to be laboriously systematic in considering every possible eventuality in the design of the campaign and associated adventures. I remember the ultimate end of my thinking that doing so would somehow lead to emergent dramatic elements of play. I created a VERY VERY thoroughly documented scenario for a campaign. One in which the existence of every hamlet, the recruiting of every bad guy, the expenses of every lord, the nature, location, aims, and capabilities of every monster, etc. was all to be documented and tied together in terms of a whole series of contingent timelines and cause-effect networks. This was silly. Not only was it impossible to really complete, no amount of trying lead to a situation in which the players in that campaign didn't crash it all to bits within a few sessions!

I took a pretty long hiatus from D&D after that, and came back to run a follow up game taking up the basic state of that world at a slightly later date, but using 4e and simply not worrying about the previous fiction, except where the players simply wandered into it and it could form the default background to what they were doing. Quickly the world went in a new direction, the players made up a whole bunch of background material and took up an agenda which entirely changed the context of the stuff happening in the previous campaign. I worked 50x less hard and the result was infinitely more interesting.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem mainstream RPGs have though, is they need to appeal to you, to Pemerton, to me and to Max Person. They have to get as many people as possible. I am not saying that means they can't address these things. But obviously how they address them is going to matter because they want to attract all the gaming blocks while not pushing any of them away. Less mainstream games have always had the luxury of being able to focus more on stuff like this, because the audience will find them, and they can cater to a more narrow audience.

EDIT: Just to reiterate, the point of my original response to your post was just to say it should be more nuanced and not presented as a binary (I think a game could have a more even mixture rather than lean hard to one side or the other for instance). Just don't want to veer into an unnecessary tangent.

My feeling is there's no need for any specific RPG to be 'mainstream', its a niche hobby and its perfectly fine to play a game that appeals to nobody but you and your buds.

I don't really want 'nuanced'. I feel like, and I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] feels like (though certainly ask him, I could be getting it wrong) that there is a pretty clear and distinct line that can be drawn. Either the game is subject to the ultimate direction of the GM as arbiter of all content and theme, or it is not. That is, in terms of mechanics and authority the game itself gives this either to the GM exclusively or not to the GM exclusively. We've discussed how culturally and socially different balances of creative authority exist in games, but that could be seen as a different dimension. A preference for making this an explicit and not implicit feature of games exists.

So, there's a sense in which this IS binary and can be expressed that way, when we discuss the mechanics and processes and authorial structure presented by the game system itself. I guess what I'm saying is that the whole "but we have nuance" point is perfectly true, but not always relevant to all lines of discussion.