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

[TwoSix]

Very few of the GMs I know who engage in this style even call it simulationist. That is usually a term leveled at the style from outside. But that said, this isn't even about simulating real world stuff. There are a cluster of styles that engage in this sort of thing, and not all of them are interested in portraying reality. For example there is the Living Adventure style, which was elaborated on in Feast of Goblyns and originally showcased (I believe, though it may have earlier roots) in the original Ravenloft module---going by memory here. That is merely about treating the NPCs as live actors in the game the same as you treat PCs. The Gm is encouraged to have them move around, plot and plan, and react, the same way player characters do. This has nothing to do with simulating a world. It has eveything to do with running a character focused campaign where the villains do all kinds of clever things and are not pinned to a particular location.

You're free to call it whatever you want, of course, but that kind of play (where NPCs operate under a DM controlled paradigm of action, independent of the players or PCs) is straight up simulationism. Simulationism really has nothing to do with the real world, it has to do with designing probabilistic rules of action and extrapolating to see what happens.

Random encounter charts, organized by biome? Simulationist. Weapon dice, derived from a sense of how much damage the real-world equivalent would do? Simulationist. You can't really play D&D in any form and not be a little simulationist.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're free to call it whatever you want, of course, but that kind of play (where NPCs operate under a DM controlled paradigm of action, independent of the players or PCs) is straight up simulationism. Simulationism really has nothing to do with the real world, it has to do with designing probabilistic rules of action and extrapolating to see what happens.

Random encounter charts, organized by biome? Simulationist. Weapon dice, derived from a sense of how much damage the real-world equivalent would do? Simulationist. You can't really play D&D in any form and not be a little simulationist.

Well it is a category that comes of RPG theory. Not everyone thinks it is useful. Personally I don’t think it is (particularly under GNS). Most tables don’t conform neatly to those divisions in my opinion.

 

[TwoSix]

Well it is a category that comes of RPG theory. Not everyone thinks it is useful. Personally I don’t think it is (particularly under GNS). Most tables don’t conform neatly to those divisions in my opinion.

Sure. In general, most things in life don't fit neatly into categories, but that doesn't mean describing categories isn't useful. I don't think you're purely a simulationist gamer, but the aesthetic desires that drive simulationism appear to apply more strongly to you (based on your statement of preferences) than they do [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], just as an example.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure. In general, most things in life don't fit neatly into categories, but that doesn't mean describing categories isn't useful. I don't think you're purely a simulationist gamer, but the aesthetic desires that drive simulationism appear to apply more strongly to you (based on your statement of preferences) than they do @pemerton, just as an example.

I just feel these terms are part of a model that is hard to prove. You can group gamers into all different types. My feeling is even by participating in this discussion, I almost fall into the habit of accepting part of that model as I make and defend claims against pemerton. I have seen this happen many times innonline discussions (with myself and others) where you start to form principles out of the discussion, that you carry to the game table. But these don’t tend to reflect the realities of play. They are part of an idealized model. With simulationism my issue is two fold—you can lose sight of your natural style and stiffly try to be simulationist....but more important I think in GNS it felt like a leftover category describing s style of play that the theorists had very little real interest in. I don’t view what I do as simulationist. I view it as running dramatic sandboxes in living settings. And my style is open to change.

EDIT: Pardon typos. Was on iPhone

 

[Manbearcat]

I just want to make one minor point about this: the perfect is the enemy of the good. Responding because I think this connects to a much broader discussion of GMing, fairness, and arbitration in general. No GM is going to be perfectly X in anything. Whether X represents fairness, real world physics emulation, etc. That is obvious. No one would seriously suggest that. Doesn't mean it isn't worth the attempt or worth holding up X as the goal. You see this in sports for example. No referee is perfectly fair. But some referees are more fair than others. No writer has created a fully functional world, but some writers create more plausible and deeper worlds than others. When it comes to GMing to create a sense of a living setting (and I am not talking about a simulation of the real world) what matters is the GM is effectively functioning as the physics in the places where the mechanics are not used. A GM can be biassed and flawed, just like a theoretical universe could have wonky physics. What matters is the consistency. A GM's quirks and flaws become part of the physics of the setting. So that actually does give it a senes of being a concrete real place over time. And yes, it is a vast simplification when the GM tries to emulate real world physics. But it doesn't have to match reality 100% for it to feel like something real, or to be real enough for people to make informed decisions about where they are looking for members of Bone Breaking sect.

My issue with the premise of this thread is it is basically a reductio ad absurdum argument. Would definitely encourage posters not to fall for the bait.

All GMs are biased and flawed. A very typical problem is a blinkered view of one's capabilities in rendering an extremely complex system in a way that is inferrable from first principles or by weight of evidence by the other participants at the table.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't do their best and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't attempt it at all (perfect being the enemy of the good), but perhaps they need to consider (a) their limitations and (b) other sources of input (be it procedures, a slight shift in priorities, or principles, or other table participants) to play which will correct for their biases and flaws.

Coincidentally, a few other typical problems with GMs is their investment in their work/creation/prep (and the perceived value of it), their perceived status as alpha chimp (I'm using that descriptively; in an evolutionary, dominance hierarchy way), and their entitlement to absolute authority over content introduction. These 3 work in conjunction to be extremely sensitive to (b) above.

If I'm holding a GMing workshop, those 4 flaws are right at the top of the heap of things I would deconstruct and teach how to be aware of each of those lurking beasts while also maintaining confidence in your GMing product.

Interestingly, I'd say that once those flaws are beaten back, a GM becomes infinitely better at erecting a shared imaginary space for the players to explore, suss out its machinery, and make informed action declarations they can be secure in.

 

[Bedrockgames]

All GMs are biased and flawed. A very typical problem is a blinkered view of one's capabilities in rendering an extremely complex system in a way that is inferrable from first principles or by weight of evidence by the other participants at the table.



Coincidentally, a few other typical problems with GMs is their investment in their work/creation/prep (and the perceived value of it), their perceived status as alpha chimp (I'm using that descriptively; in an evolutionary, dominance hierarchy way), and their entitlement to absolute authority over content introduction. These 3 work in conjunction to be extremely sensitive to (b) above.

If I'm holding a GMing workshop, those 4 flaws are right at the top of the heap of things I would deconstruct and teach how to be aware of each of those lurking beasts while also maintaining confidence in your GMing product.

Interestingly, I'd say that once those flaws are beaten back, a GM becomes infinitely better at erecting a shared imaginary space for the players to explore, suss out its machinery, and make informed action declarations they can be secure in.

Again, I think people are projecting here. None of what I am talking about has anything to do with being the alpha chimp or oblivious to one’s own biases. It is about a style of play that likes having the GM take on this role to help create a sense of a world that is both believable and external to the characters. It isn’t the only way to do it, and it isn’t at all how people are characterizing, even pathologizing it. When I GM I am mindful of my biases, humble, and totally open to the idea that I made a bad it inaccurate call. But this is a set up for adjudication me and my players enjoy. What I don’t understand is why it is so hard for people to accept without attributing flaws to us as people. We are not unenlightened just because we take a different approach to GMing, and just because we take this approach, that doesn't mean we run the game like the worst caricature imaginable of such a GM (which seems to be how people are presenting it).

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't do their best and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't attempt it at all (perfect being the enemy of the good), but perhaps they need to consider (a) their limitations and (b) other sources of input (be it procedures, a slight shift in priorities, or principles, or other table participants) to play which will correct for their biases and flaws.

Sure you should account for your biases and work hard to strive for more fair-minded rulings. But you are slipping in a complete style change with (B). If such procedures work for you, that is great. I encourage you to use them, and I think it is fine to explore alternatives. But you are talking to someone who has looked at different ways of running the game, been in all kinds of campaigns, and is using a way that works very well at his table. I don't think a shift in priorities or procedures is required simply because it is a fact that no GM is perfect. That doesn't mean you have to throw away the play style. I get it might not work for you, or for some others. Maybe they do want more player input in the judgement, or maybe they want a clearer procedure. But for those of us who like the way these kinds of games feel (on both the GM and Player side) that kind of change disrupts the enjoyment. There are all kinds of games, gamers and play styles. This is a good thing. We should encourage it. But I get the feeling there are some here who want everyone to run the game using the same 'best practices', which I think is a terrible idea for something as subjective as RPGs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

All GMs are biased and flawed. A very typical problem is a blinkered view of one's capabilities in rendering an extremely complex system in a way that is inferrable from first principles or by weight of evidence by the other participants at the table.

Except I talk with my players, I get regular feedback. I am not saying what I do is a perfect simulation of reality (and frankly I'd never want it to be). But I feel we've reached a point where it is an adequate emulation of genre-infused living world, where the players can get the information they need to make informed decisions (and when they don't they are always free to ask questions---I am not rigidly imposing some kind of artificial wall so they can't inquire further or must only do so through their character). And, very very importantly, I do this because this is what I want GMs to do when I am a player. I like when GMs run games this way. No one is claiming that makes them masters of logic, or masters of emulating an artificial world. But what they do is enough for our purposes.

 

[Manbearcat]

Except I talk with my players, I get regular feedback. I am not saying what I do is a perfect simulation of reality (and frankly I'd never want it to be). But I feel we've reached a point where it is an adequate emulation of genre-infused living world, where the players can get the information they need to make informed decisions (and when they don't they are always free to ask questions---I am not rigidly imposing some kind of artificial wall so they can't inquire further or must only do so through their character). And, very very importantly, I do this because this is what I want GMs to do when I am a player. I like when GMs run games this way. No one is claiming that makes them masters of logic, or masters of emulating an artificial world. But what they do is enough for our purposes.

Brendan, that was in no way an attack on your preferred playstyle nor projection. That was just analysis of inherent GMing flaws (all GMs must push back against these characteristics...so I'm not excluded from this) and how they intersect with the creation of a (lets forget interesting for a moment) coherent, complex system that is able to be inferred through play (an intrigue, a biome, a social system).

You have to understand that some people (myself included) have a variety of playstyles that they engage with. Every time I run a Blades in the Dark sandbox game (in Duskvol), or a D&D hexcrawl, or a dungeoncrawl, or a Cortex+ heist, or create a Town in Dogs...I have to deploy many of the skills (perhaps with subtle differences) you have espoused as important in this thread. So I don't diminish their importance nor was that prior post a declaration of them being outmoded. Where we differ is their portrayal, some procedural elements that help to best accomplish the mission...and apparently (after that defense you just levied) the inherent flaws to be wary of (the GMs themselves so they can avoid those pratfalls) with GMs in setting/intrigue/metaplot-based games.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Brendan, that was in no way an attack on your preferred playstyle nor projection. That was just analysis of inherent GMing flaws (all GMs must push back against these characteristics...so I'm not excluded from this) and how they intersect with the creation of a (lets forget interesting for a moment) coherent, complex system that is able to be inferred through play (an intrigue, a biome, a social system).

You have to understand that some people (myself included) have a variety of playstyles that they engage with. Every time I run a Blades in the Dark sandbox game (in Duskvol), or a D&D hexcrawl, or a dungeoncrawl, or a Cortex+ heist, or create a Town in Dogs...I have to deploy many of the skills (perhaps with subtle differences) you have espoused as important in this thread. So I don't diminish their importance nor was that prior post a declaration of them being outmoded. Where we differ is their portrayal, some procedural elements that help to best accomplish the mission...and apparently (after that defense you just levied) the inherent flaws to be wary of (the GMs themselves so they can avoid those pratfalls) with GMs in setting/intrigue/metaplot-based games.

I am not 100% sure what you mean in the last paragraph. But my only real point was, these sorts of things are just tools. They are neutral. They don't have moral weight and using one over the other isn't what makes someone a good GM. A good GM makes good use of the tools they use, and uses the right tools for the situation. In some styles, the tools described are not suitable. I play different games and know what you are talking about there. But I have in mind a particular style of play and method of adjudicating, that in this and the other thread (and not saying you are doing it) gets dismissed as Mother May I, or somehow inferior to the other approaches). My tool box for this kind of campaign generally includes things like rulings, encounter tables, sandbox structure, living NPCs, and trying to fairly respond to player actions. I use the dice for plenty of things. But for a question like "What is inside the teahouse", I will typically make a judgement based on the circumstances and what I know or use that to generate a probability if the likelihood seems smaller. Where I think I differ from a lot of people, is I believe the GM can serve as a valid mechanism in play for determining these things. And that doesn't make it mother may I. If I am a player for example, and Bill is running a world. I am fine with the idea that Bill's brain effectively is the universe. There are quirks that are unique to Bill that will consistently come up for sure. But that world is going to have its own internal logic and rhythm because it is all coming from Bill. And Bill is a real GM. I remember a campaign where we were in a city where all the magic users were treated like gods, and I got it into my head to become the local god of Coffee and start a temple. Every time I went somewhere to find out if some resource or potential ally or worshipper was available, he didn't 'say yes or roll', he didn't 'say yes', nor did he have a set of clear procedures. He just decided in most cases. But it never became mother may I. His decision were clearly a product of thought and deliberation and not some shell game or a game where I had to guess what he was thinking. I could tell, if I asked if a certain type of person could be found in a certain part of town, he'd think it through and come up with a response. I think it really only becomes mother may I, if he has a finite set of possibilities in his head, and I only succeed when I happen to land on one of them.

 

[pemerton]

The question I'm curious about is why do you care whether the process for determining something in game mimics the procress something would be determined by in real life? What benefit is there to that?

I don't know that there's any benefit to it. My claim is that when the RPG process is so different from the real life process, it's a mistake to characterise it as being like real life.