Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7572546" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Eh. In the game, if a player declares they're looking for something somewhere, then it introduces the possibility it is there, which is not something that happens in real life at all. Now you either have a "say yes" moment, where the player is right (not the real world), or you use a mechanic to determine if the player is right or not or it's complicated (not the real world), or you rely on the GM to make the call as if the player is right, wrong, or complicated (again, not the real world).</p><p></p><p>What we can say is that the game may seem like it's a believable, internally consistent, internally coherent, believable world where there's fictional causality for things that makes sense. This is also not like the real world, but we can use our suspension of disbelief to believe so. </p><p></p><p>Why it this important? It's, well, not very. It's a bit of an in the weeds talk about how game worlds are constructed and how they work. It's nerdy and detailed. If you approach how games work casually, this is utterly nitpicky and unimportant -- just play what makes you happy. If, however, you're actually interested in how games do what they do, and what they incentivize, then it's very useful to recognize that gameworlds have absolutely nothing to do with the real world, but instead may contain what we think about the real world. Gravity does not exist in your game, but what you think about gravity may. This leads to a better understanding of how fiction works in game, what elements are necessary to maintain coherent, believable worlds and what may be elided entirely, and where the fiction causality determination needs to or may occur. </p><p></p><p>Fundamentally, I think that this discussion really revolves around whether a person thinks that causality needs to be determined prior to the mechanics or if it can be provided after you have your answer from the mechanics. Those saying that the mechanics need to be more "realistic" are the former camp -- fictional causes need to be fed into or be part of the mechanics engine to be germane. The mechanics then determine the outcome of this. The latter camp is comprised of those that say that the mechanics only need generate a predictable probability curve of success/failure/complication and that the fictional causality will be whatever explains that. In the end, both generate solid fiction, but far be it for me to actually say that the ends justify the means. The only point of saying that the ends are indistinguishable is to say that method of play doesn't really affect fictional integrity at all. It does, however, strongly affect how you enjoy playing.</p><p></p><p>So, then, to circle back to why care. For those of us actually interested in these things, we've recognized that this knowledge has improved our play by allowing us to better understand what it is we like about the games. And, of course, we like being nerdy about these things. The discussion is part of the enjoyment.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7572546, member: 16814"] Eh. In the game, if a player declares they're looking for something somewhere, then it introduces the possibility it is there, which is not something that happens in real life at all. Now you either have a "say yes" moment, where the player is right (not the real world), or you use a mechanic to determine if the player is right or not or it's complicated (not the real world), or you rely on the GM to make the call as if the player is right, wrong, or complicated (again, not the real world). What we can say is that the game may seem like it's a believable, internally consistent, internally coherent, believable world where there's fictional causality for things that makes sense. This is also not like the real world, but we can use our suspension of disbelief to believe so. Why it this important? It's, well, not very. It's a bit of an in the weeds talk about how game worlds are constructed and how they work. It's nerdy and detailed. If you approach how games work casually, this is utterly nitpicky and unimportant -- just play what makes you happy. If, however, you're actually interested in how games do what they do, and what they incentivize, then it's very useful to recognize that gameworlds have absolutely nothing to do with the real world, but instead may contain what we think about the real world. Gravity does not exist in your game, but what you think about gravity may. This leads to a better understanding of how fiction works in game, what elements are necessary to maintain coherent, believable worlds and what may be elided entirely, and where the fiction causality determination needs to or may occur. Fundamentally, I think that this discussion really revolves around whether a person thinks that causality needs to be determined prior to the mechanics or if it can be provided after you have your answer from the mechanics. Those saying that the mechanics need to be more "realistic" are the former camp -- fictional causes need to be fed into or be part of the mechanics engine to be germane. The mechanics then determine the outcome of this. The latter camp is comprised of those that say that the mechanics only need generate a predictable probability curve of success/failure/complication and that the fictional causality will be whatever explains that. In the end, both generate solid fiction, but far be it for me to actually say that the ends justify the means. The only point of saying that the ends are indistinguishable is to say that method of play doesn't really affect fictional integrity at all. It does, however, strongly affect how you enjoy playing. So, then, to circle back to why care. For those of us actually interested in these things, we've recognized that this knowledge has improved our play by allowing us to better understand what it is we like about the games. And, of course, we like being nerdy about these things. The discussion is part of the enjoyment. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
Top