A New Perspective on Simulationism, Realism, Verisimilitude, etc.

[Ariosto]

The more the complications, the easier to make innocent errors -- and the more for "rules lawyers" to exploit.

 

[Hussar]

The more the complications, the easier to make innocent errors -- and the more for "rules lawyers" to exploit.

Something I completely agree with. There's a first.

HowandWhy, I was thinking about your model on my drive home tonight and let's see if I'm understanding this correctly.

Getting back to what I stated above, here are some examples of roleplaying. I agree with all, but the last: D, as I state below. For clarity in our ongoing conversations, which ones would you agree qualify as roleplaying?

A. In the real world a man goes to a home where a woman opens the door. He explains he is a telephone repairperson. The two talk about the problem she is having and the man attempts to fix her phone.
- The man is roleplaying a telephone repairperson.

B. Exactly as before the same man and woman act out their actions, but this time the woman is an actress (auxiliary/NPC) who is assisting in the teaching of the man to be a better telephone repairperson. This is theatre as both persons are pretending to be in a situation neither is actually in.
- The man is roleplaying a telephone repairperson.

C. A second woman sits at a table with the man and asks him to describe to her how he would interact on the job as a telephone repairperson. The man describes what he would do step by step and the woman relates back the results of his actions.
- The man is roleplaying a telephone repairperson.

D. The same set up as C. except the man says only, "I convince the woman I am a good telephone repairperson."
- This is not roleplaying. No performance of a role has been acted out or conveyed.

If I'm understanding you correctly, the only way an act actually becomes role playing is if it directly models the action being done in the game world. Like you say, saying "I swing my sword" is not roleplaying. Only 1:1 correlation counts as roleplaying. (The ratio may not be exact, but, the closer it comes to 1:1, the better it becomes roleplaying.)

So, let's apply your definition to various games and see where it leads. I'm going to list a series of games/activities in order of closest to 1:1 correlation (those activities which most qualify as role play) to those the furthest away (and thus least qualify as role play).

1. SCA and historical reenactment. This is about as close to actually doing it as you can get without someone getting seriously hurt.

2. Boffer Larp. We are further away from 1:1 correlation, but, it's still pretty close.

3. Mind's Eye Theater. While the mechanics are very abstract, they don't get used all that often. The majority of action is resolved directly.

4. Microsoft Flight Simulator and various other high end simulation computer games. This is about as close to actual flying as you can get while staying on the ground.

5. First person shooters. Your actions directly correlate with the actions in the game. With more and more realistic physics engines, the ratio creeps slowly closer to 1.

6. Tabletop wargames. Such as Warhammer or Battletech or Star Fleet Battles. Again, your actions are modeled in incredible detail. You need to proceed step by step (in Star Fleet Battles, the steps can be painstaking) and the rules are the least abstract they can be while staying on a tabletop. Warhammer is perhaps the least of these, but there are various other miniatures games like Advanced Squad Leader which would qualify.

7. Free Form RPG's. Since these games lack any mechanics, you have to detail out every step as you go.

8. Rolemaster/GURPS. Any gaming system which heavily relies on emulating a given reality as closely to actual as possible. You never just "swing your sword" in Rolemaster or GURPS.

9. Mainstream RPG's. D&D obviously. Vampire as well. Conflict resolution rules are fairly abstract and have very little to do with what actually occurs in the game world. About the only 1:1 correlation that ever occurs is when the player speaks in the first person with his character. Even the character itself is a fairly abstract collection of rules with little or no bearing on the real world.

10. Various Indie games. Dogs in the Vineyard comes to mind here. Here we have mechanics that actually get used during first person interactions. The Stakes mechanics in DITV are highly abstract.

​

This is why I say that HowandWhy's model is utter bupkis. Any definition of roleplay that would put Halo on a higher shelf than D&D is not a definition of roleplay that I would subscribe to.

 

[BryonD]

This is why I say that HowandWhy's model is utter bupkis. Any definition of roleplay that would put Halo on a higher shelf than D&D is not a definition of roleplay that I would subscribe to.

Are you intentionally completely re-writing his description or are you honestly that confused? Because nothing in what he said comes anywhere near putting Halo on a higher shelf than D&D.

I don't completely agree with HowandWhy's model. But just WOW!! have you ever redescribed it in terms that are not it in the least equitable. It isn't even a functional response.

If your bastardization was correct, example A would NOT be roleplaying because the repairman does not actually turn a real screwdriver or at least simulate twisting his wrist in some way. Numerous other examples of how the words you have forced into his mouth have nothing to do with what he said could be listed.

 

[Galloglaich]

This confuses statement of action (by player) with resolution of action (by DM). In pre-3e D&D, the player of a non-spellcaster did not actually need to know any rules to play the game.

Player: "I attack the orcs with my sword."

GM: "OK, roll a d20"

Player rolls. GM looks at die.

GM: "OK, you hit the leading orc. Roll damage.."

Player: "Sheet says I do d8+3"

Player rolls. GM looks at result.

GM: "OK, you cut down the first orc. Its friends raise their scimitars as they come on..."

It also works fine with the GM keeping hold of the character sheet - eg I'm currently in a battle in a C&C PBEM (with super orcs, who are kicking our butts!), I simply state what my Fighter is doing and the GM resolves the results, I don't need to look at my character sheet.

In 3e this is still just about possible with a pregen PC with the right feat selection and options noted on the sheet; I play 3e with my wife and in-laws this way. In 4e it looks to me to be impossible.

Anyway, my point is that certainly in pre-3e D&D the player did not need to know anything about THAC0, inches, or other rules in order to play.

I agree with this POV on gaming, I think the rules should be in the background. But my problem is that DnD combat is too often based on waiting for your turn and then just saying “I swing my sword” over and over, which gets really boring. People should not have to say “I move two squares, turn on my healing surge, move another square to get a flanking attack, and focus three levels of my barbarian cleaving rage strike power on him” just to be able to get in a fight in the game. This is the kind of thing IMO that weeds out all of the girlfriends, buddies from work, poker night friends etc. from joining your RPG game (or staying in it after one session).

But they should be able to say things like “I’m going to wait until he takes a swing at bob and then try to nail him” or "I grab the brazier and fling the coals all over him, then run him through before he can get it togeher!” or “I fall back and try to fend off his attacks” or “I put all my might into one great swing of my axe” or "I try to shoot an arrow into dragons soft underbelly” or “I run halfway up the stairs and jump on the orcs back while he is fighting with suzy” or even “I am going to wait for him take a swing at me and then rush him after his sword goes by and try to get him with my dagger” ” etc. etc.

A good system should be able to handle these options that a real person might come up with based on normal general knowledge, real world experiences, from ideas they get from watching movies or even knowledge of history or martial arts. I also personally think it should reward innovative tactical ideas from players, so they can get more into it if they like without having to metagame the rules. I don’t think this has to be detailed or complex either, but you do have to start with an understanding of real-world physics and / or history for it to flow seamlessly.

If you start with a realistic model of the world, then you can pick your preferred level of abstraction. So for example, today lots of people understand how modern firearms actually work, unlike say 20 or 30 years ago. Rates of fire, controllability at full auto, jamming, effective ranges, penetration of armor, different types of wounds and ballistic effects are fairly easy to research and quantify. So as a result, both in computer games and RPGs, we have many games which are based on some kind of modern weaponry that are fairly realistic, whether they are very very detailed down to each individual bullet like in the old Twilight 2000, or fairly abstract and fast-paced like say, Shadowrun. In both cases the fight has a realistic feel. In both cases, the player can describe their actions naturalistically “I shoot the bastard in the face” and then the rules can handle what happens in game terms.

The problem is this doesn’t work for quasi-Medieval settings like in DnD, because people don’t even begin to understand European Medieval History, or how even basic widely known European kit worked, let alone the subtleties of Medieval Martial Arts. So they make up systems based on the idea that swords weighed ten pounds, you can cut through armor, weapons and armor are supposed to have spikes and wings and stingers on them, shields look like iron manhole covers, war hammers are two feet wide and etc. and etc. This creates such a muddle they can’t begin to imagine how to differentiate from one basic medieval weapon to another, leading to the point where many RPGs today like Warhammer FRPG (which I kind of like mind you) just give up on differentiating them at all, and make a general class for single handed weapons, lumping swords, maces, axes, hammers etc. together. And of course the poor dagger ends up the red-headed stepchild of every RPG

But with the rediscovery of the Lichtenauer et al fencing manuals in the 1990s and the subsequent rise of Historical European Martial Arts, this is no longer necessary. Numerous excellent online resources do exist now if game designers are willing to do the research; for martial arts, for weapons, for armor, for Medieval, Renaissance, "Dark Ages" or Classical era life in general. And if you base your system (and your world) on something real, you will find that it all fits together much more smoothly than before, and you can make a game that works in the background but handles things like combat without having to resort to Theater group style “Fiat”, which not everybody is comfortable with (though that is also a reasonable way to play if you like that kind of game). You'll have a system that you can much more easily add things to, adjust, and play around with without having it break so easily or begin to accumulate rules like barnacles on the belly of a ship.

What I really don’t like personally are serious (as opposed to inentionally humorous) games that require have to buy into a lot of Geek culture just to begin to play, I think that is ok for specialized or niche games but that is a real problem to me in a “mainstream” let alone a “gateway” game.

G.

 

[Hussar]

If your bastardization was correct, example A would NOT be roleplaying because the repairman does not actually turn a real screwdriver or at least simulate twisting his wrist in some way. Numerous other examples of how the words you have forced into his mouth have nothing to do with what he said could be listed.

While HowandWhy did not include that element, it certainly can be assumed that he actually did turn his wrist just so because he "attempts to fix her phone". I would assume, from that description, that he is physically manipulating the phone in some manner, in an attempt to fix the phone. It certainly could be true that he fails to do so, but, if you "attempt" to do something, that generally implies that you have ACTUALLY done something.

Now, I could be way off base. Apparently parsing English is a difficult thing to do.

So, could you explain to me how the man could "attempt to fix the phone" without actually performing any action in order to effect that end?

IOW, no, I am not rewriting Howandwhy's points and bastardizing them. He has repeatedly stated that the only acceptable form that an activity can take and still be labeled role play is any act which has as close to a 1:1 correlation with reality as possible. Any activity which is an abstraction is no longer considered role play.

He says it himself - saying "I swing my sword" is not roleplay. I'm not making that up, these are his words.

 

[Alex319]

@Galloglaich:

I'm a little skeptical of the claim that that historical martial arts based systems are inherently easier for new players to get into than more fantastical or magic based systems. Presumably most of the "girlfriends, buddies from work, poker night friends etc." that you're trying to reach will have very little pre-existing knowledge about historical martial arts, so making a system based on that won't necessarily mean that they can transfer their knowledge easier.

And the examples you give don't eliminate the need for rules knowledge. For example, in the Codex Martialis, you could certainly represent the tactic of “I’m going to wait until he takes a swing at Bob and then try to nail him” as "I'm going to ready an action to attack as soon as he uses up all his MP dice attacking Bob, so that he won't be able to use active defense against my attack." And presumably the player could simply describe their action the first way, and you could translate that into game terms. But in order for players to know when that tactic would be effective so they can effectively use it, they would still have to understand readied actions, the martial pool, active defenses etc.

This is not in any way a criticism of the Codex Martialis itself - I bought the PDF and read it, and it definitely seems to bring a whole new dimension to combat. My only real criticism of the Codex Martialis is that a lot of the rules seem not to be very clearly explained. I posted a post in the "FAQ" thread on the discussion boards on codexmartialis.com listing some of the things that I thought should be clarified.

 

[BryonD]

He says it himself - saying "I swing my sword" is not roleplay. I'm not making that up, these are his words.

Ok, you don't see the difference. Carry on.

 

[howandwhy99]

First of all, my original post wasn't even intending to classify anything as "not an RPG," or to propose a new definition of "roleplaying." All I was trying to do was to set up a framework for classification, to make these issues easier to talk about. I never intended to say that one way was better than another or that one way "wasn't roleplaying."

And that is a laudable endeavor. The reason why this is difficult is because of an attempt in the hobby to redefine roleplaying, not just the word, but also the design of games, gamplay, and the hobby itself. My comments aren't any reflection on you efforts here. What's rough is there is a kind of game that has routinely been called an RPG, a manual simulation game, that fits neither definition too well.

In all honesty, I don't mind at all if there is a kind of miniatures simulation game published under the RPG title. The difficulty is no one I believe, of either philosophical bent, when put to brass tacks will accede that manual simulation games require roleplaying to play them. They aren't all that bad, in truth. And plentiful in the hobby for a long time now too.

But anyway, HowAndWhy, I'm still a little confused here...CUT QUOTE

But on the other hand, later in the thread...CUT QUOTE

It seems here like you ARE saying that "the players don't know the rules at the outset" is a key element of "roleplaying" under your definition, because you're saying that if the rule is on the DM's screen, it counts as "roleplaying", but if it's on the PC's screen, then it isn't.

You know, I think you are right. I was trying to be as broad as possible in my definition to qualify any roleplaying game under the roleplay simulation definition, but in a tabletop setting that would require a proof of knowledge without referring to rules behind the screen. I don't want to quibble. I was simply trying to include LARPs and non-hobby roleplaying, which qualify without the rules necessarily being hidden. These would be those that fit into the repairman examples under type B. The actions are known, but their success requires the physical performance of such.

Also, here's another thing. You state that having the operation of the rule be "learned through play" is an important aspect of roleplaying. Is the only way to "learn it through play" through trial and error, or are other methods possible? In that example, suppose that before the battle, the PCs were back at home training, and their instructor told them that "these are the things that can help you defend yourself, and these are which ones are more effective" and gave the PCs the "modifiers to AC" list. Any problem with that?

And if you're going to say that the instructor wouldn't have a list with quantitative data (like "X gives +1, Y gives +2") etc., consider the following hypothetical. Suppose that it was a sci-fi game, and the players were officers on a starship, and before their mission they were given a document with the technical specifications of their ship. This would include lots of quantitative data ("Weapon X is N% more powerful than Weapon Y but consumes M% more energy per shot") and of course this data would correspond to the game rule stats of the weapons (if it didn't, the data wouldn't be accurate). Would this break the "roleplaying"?

(To go back to your "telephone repairperson" example: The examiner asks the person how to repair a phone with a particular problem, and even though he had never repaired a phone with that particular problem before, he knows the answer because he read it in a telephone repair manual.)

Roles are improved by the performance of them. That's pretty much a given. Could they be book learned before they are performed? Of course. Can that book learning refer to the rules in a tabletop RPG? Not without altering the game into a simulation game rather than a roleplaying game. (BTW, the instructor [Director] position is the one the rules are in for TRPGs. The instructor I referenced was not an in-game character).

In your Sci-Fi example, the technical specifications would be in role descriptions even if the math corresponded to the rules. Yes, this is a case where the underlying relationships would be pretty obvious to see. But only if the game world tech-specs were accurate and unbiased. The real specs could be different. Learning to not necessarily trust the specs could be one aspect of learning to play the role.

In the telephone repairperson example, yes, I suspect most roleplaying is learned from multiple sources. That doesn't mean roleplaying isn't acting out the role. Repeating back simulation rules describing a role isn't the same as repeating back the necessary steps to perform a role. It's close, I'll give you. But it's a dividing line between roleplaying and simulation playing.

And anyway, earlier in the thread you say:

howandwhy88: I should have said "gameplay convenience" falls into the same error as game-based design. It's not bad, but it is the element of design that, while nice, causes game to be un-roleplayable in the manner I point out above.

Imperfect model games are based on building DM fiat into the rules. Rule Zero and all that. Whether these are considered games or not is up to you, but without rules in place of "because I say so" an activity doesn't really stand up to the definition of a game.

So you're saying anything that involves "DM fiat" isn't roleplaying. But if a player describes an action that isn't in the rules (which will happen a lot if players don't know what the rules are, as you seem to advocate) then what other way is there to resolve it other than "DM fiat"? Or is the only way a game can qualify as a "roleplaying game" under your definition if the rules cover every action that a player could conceivably describe?

I've just highlighted the parts where I think there is a confusion here. I'm not saying no to roleplaying, but no to them being games. Judge GMs are certainly Directors in a roleplay. But as many on the Forge and other sites would also claim, it's not a game. Is that bad? I don't think so. But I feel it is important to be accurate here.

To the last question there, saying "not applicable" or "okay, whatever" are fine answers to any attempted action not covered under the rules. The rules are there to test the role, not things outside of it.

And finally...QUOTE CUT

So you're saying that a game can still be an RPG even if certain elements of that game are not roleplaying. So suppose that you play 4e as normal, but during out-of-combat scenarios, you have players describe what actions they want to do, then have the DM decide what skill checks are necessary, roll the dice behind the screen, and tell the players if they succeed or not. So in that case, 4e as a whole would still count as an "RPG" even though the combat aspect is still "not roleplaying" according to your definition. Correct?

To the first sentence, all roleplaying that is acted out in a simulation (rather than the real world) includes elements that are not roleplayed. Anything that is not actually performed is not roleplayed and theatre, by it's very nature, is cut off from the real world.

In fairness, I don't want to get this thread closed under the "edition warz" rubric because we are analyzing 4E, so let's look at this example from a skill-based game design in general. Skill checks are not roleplaying as they never require a person succeed through explanation. They are like Attitude Adjustment checks with used to speak with NPCs. The discourse may be acted out, but the quality of discourse isn't tested. As such, it isn't the part of the roleplaying that is properly gamed. It is simply the decision to take an action that is showing proof of proficiency. In a skill system no action need show such proof, so those elements are need not be gamed.

Could a person use a prop? Like a broken telephone? Sure, but most DMs don't bring locks and trapped treasure chests to the table to be bested by the players' own hands.

Roleplaying games are performance game. If relayed description is the only "performance" given, then "I pick the lock" doesn't count. That portion of the performance is abstracted. Therefore the role performance must be happening according to other definers or on a less detailed level. (Most games use a less detailed level).

To end the skill example, think of GURPS. If I were to create a surgeon, in what way to I learn and/or display my ability to do surgery? As GURPS is primarily a skill-based game, that element is never roleplayed. Whatever else is being tested in my roleplaying a surgeon, it isn't the performance of surgery itself.

 

[howandwhy99]

HowandWhy.

Your arguement seems to say that boffer LARPing is somehow more role playing than tabletop. After all, I'm fully acting out a role when I do that.

More? I guess it depends what you mean by the word. The closer to performing a role in truth, in reality, the more of that role a person is performing. Physical performance versus conveyed description is really just a difference between a person can actually do, not just know how to do.

Since all tabletop games are abstractions to some degree, all PnP roleplaying games are therefore less roleplaying depending on the level of abstraction.

To be clear, these are not lesser games. The are simply games were less of a role is performed. But most do so in order to avoid things CRPGers might called Grind. More of the role that is required to be demonstrated can be performed in a shorter time period.

Then there's Mind's Eye Theater LARP. The conflict resolution mechanics in that are entirely abstract- rock/paper/scissors, thus, by your own arguement, Mind's Eye Theater isn't actually role playing.

As the title denotes, that isn't a roleplaying game. It is a theatre game. The point is to dress up and act as their favorite character and tell a story on stage. If one want to do that, then improv theatre is definitely the way to go.

I feel I should point out that roleplay simulation is also improv theatre, but is rarely thought of as so. Pretended roleplaying is what one does in a fire drill and in practice on a football field. Strictly speaking there is no fire and no football game happening. Not to mention that each individual in those cases is, again strictly speaking, playing a character of his or her self (or, perhaps, another). But the difference between roleplaying games, hobby RPGS, and theatre games like Mind's Eye Theatre are that Tabletop RPGs are designed and played according to the roleplay simulation definition of roleplaying versus the one used by drama therapists.

Seems to me that you would argue that the epitome of role playing in PnP games is something like Role Master, where the rules attempt to be as close to realistic as possible, whereas something like D&D would not be a role playing game at all since the rules are very, very abstract - levels, combat whatever.

Rolemaster's Gamemaster Law may be the worst thought out book in the hobby. D&D is better than Rolemaster as it actually knows what it is about. It clearly defines its' four supported roles (Classes) and even offers differentiated sub-roles under each (sub-classes). Rolemaster purports to offer hundreds of roles, but like GURPs, does a poor job of supporting any one of them. As in many RPGs, only the role of fantasy fighter is really supported in any sufficient manner and that with the combat system. Given that these combat systems are often played out in fron to the screen as simulations, it doesn't really help the players in their roleplaying.

To me, any definition of role play that excludes LARPing and places Boffer LARP at the top of the heap isn't a very good definition.

Um.. what does this mean? How are Boffer LARPs not LARPs? Most LARPers I know anyways do not play those games to roleplay, but rather to pretend to be a fictional character.

And saying a definition of roleplaying isn't very good for your own preferences doesn't stop it from being factually accurate. Roleplay Simulation isn't something I'm just making up or am a lone wolf on. It has existed for at least twice as long as the tabletop RPG hobby. The design of almost every RPG is based in in whole or part on it. And practice of roleplay simulation is demonstrably the reason our hobby even exists, not to mention is titled as it is.

 

[howandwhy99]

If I'm understanding you correctly, the only way an act actually becomes role playing is if it directly models the action being done in the game world. Like you say, saying "I swing my sword" is not roleplaying. Only 1:1 correlation counts as roleplaying. (The ratio may not be exact, but, the closer it comes to 1:1, the better it becomes roleplaying.)

So, let's apply your definition to various games and see where it leads. I'm going to list a series of games/activities in order of closest to 1:1 correlation (those activities which most qualify as role play) to those the furthest away (and thus least qualify as role play).

I agree with your reiteration. Again, this isn't "my" definition of roleplaying. This is the definition of "Roleplay Simulation" as it has stood for over 70 years. Ask any teacher and they will back me up on this. The term "Roleplay Simulation" as I may or may not have pointed out earlier in this thread was not brought into common usage until the 90s. For a majority of Americans, I'd say especially those over 50, it is still the "true" definition of roleplaying as it was so predominate, while psychodramas were relatively unknown. And this definition and revised term is still not well known as a second kind of roleplaying even to those who teach with it everyday. Nevertheless, it is the type and definition of roleplaying from which roleplaying games were originally designed and launched.
...on to you examples:

1. Historical Reinactment falls under example B.

2. Boffer LARPs are the same, but what isn't acted out isn't really roleplayed as most LARPers would probably agree.

3. This includes learning in a role, but there is no game here. This isn't an RPG per se. It is theatre. Successful roleplaying has no measure here.

4. There are flight simulators which include roleplaying (check out the picture on Wikipedia's site under Roleplaying), but the computer simulator portion is still just a computer simulation game. Your example is a computer game, not an RPG.

5. Again, these are computer simulation games. Arcade games with prop guns where two players can talk to each other? Yes, that includes roleplaying quite clearly. But those games are primarily simulation games

6. These games are close to roleplaying, but no actions are being described to fit the role. These games are accurately termed Manual Simulation games. And don't require any roleplaying at all. Even if a person acted like they were their "guy" that portrayal wouldn't have any game element to it. There is no role success here and no RPGs.

7. Free Form RPGs have varying definitions. I'll assume you mean the Forge definition per your description. In these games there may or may not be roleplaying, but there is no game. The GM is in the instructors role (Director). Is this bad? I don't think so. As long as the GM is accepted as the expert on the roles being performed.

8. Games like these as I explain in my previous post are actually pretty poorly designed to be roleplaying games. The roles they define are, as often as not, not defined by the rules well at all. Instead, there is a sort of generic game design attempting to define an entire world and every activity possible therein, but with no proof of performance for most any of those activities. Where is the defining of roles in order to test the players performance of them?

9. Most mainstream games are pretty obviously Example C. roleplaying games. Design took a bad misstep with the inclusion of skills, but most games either qualify as RPGs or manual simulation games that could be played as RPGs if run properly (with the game behind a GM Screen, for one). Also, as I stated before, speaking in the first person here isn't the roleplaying that is being measured for success by the games themselves. Some may have a little finer detail, but most conversational roleplay is not defined with strictly defined rules. I believe it would feel too scripted for most players if this were a role test.

10. "Indie" games, by which most folks mean Forge-based games, are games designed that may or may not be able to support some kinds of roleplay. But, and it really depends on the game, often that potential for rolelpaying is strictly accidental to their design. Pretty obviously Forge games are based upon the "Big Model", which uses what was until very recently a relatively unknown theatre-based definition of roleplaying to define its' games.

This is why I say that HowandWhy's model is utter bupkis. Any definition of roleplay that would put Halo on a higher shelf than D&D is not a definition of roleplay that I would subscribe to.

Bupkis is a fun word. And that's a fine opinion to hold, but this isn't "my" definition. No opinion of preference or argument for or against how RPGs should be defined can negate the existence of real world definitions. This isn't a theory being developed. This is a definition of roleplaying that has held up since before World War II.