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

[howandwhy99]

Well then, check out wikipedia, here.

How can you take seriously an article that sources a Forge site for the definition of roleplaying games? That's ridiculous. The current sorry state of Wikipedia on RPGs has examples which go so far as to claim "indie" games are the first RPGs to actually include rules for roleplaying. ??? How do you square that? What have the rules we have been using for 35 years been about? The answer: Roleplay Simulation, of course. What roleplaying games have you ever played that included rules for players successfully characterizing their characters? Practically none exist. In my opinion, that site is a thinly veiled lie to misrepresent the hobby as storygames. Plain and simple.

LARPGs, for example, *are* RPGs. It doesn't matter how many times, or in how many ways, you protest to the contrary. Your own theories are just that. 'Real world definitions', ironically, prove it so. Whether you like it or not, in fact.

Please reread what I've been saying. They are storygames which are a kind of roleplaying game when using a very narrow definition of roleplaying. Specifically the one you hyperlink to above. They are not roleplaying games in relation to the design and play of RPGs for the tabletop hobby.

And really, Rolemaster doesn't know what it is, or is doing or whatever, and both that RPG and GURPS don't provide support for roles? And therefore, I suppose, for roleplaying? Yeesh.

Have you actually played or GMed any RPG other than D&D? More than a little curious about that. Because what I'm reading sure looks a lot like ignorant bias and baseless or borrowed theorising.

I've played in dozens of different game systems. And I've run quite a few. I've been involved in LARPs, both boffer and theatre games like Mind's Eye Theatre. I've have dozens of friends who are gamers and run and played in far more than what I've had direct involvement in. So yeah, I've been around for over twenty years running and playing roleplaying games.

Ignorant bias and borrowed theorizing goes both ways. Defining RPGs as that site does is obvious bias to Forge-based philosophies. Roleplaying isn't and has almost always never been about characterizing one's character. It was about succeeding at what one was doing in the game world, in their role. Plain and simple.

I don't know why you think I am theorizing here. The definition I am using is both historic to our hobby, factual outside our hobby, and has a long train of proof behind it in both tabletop RPG game design and it's obvious inspiration in computer RPGs.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I don't know why you think I am theorizing here. The definition I am using is both historic to our hobby, factual outside our hobby, and has a long train of proof behind it in both tabletop RPG game design and it's obvious inspiration in computer RPGs.

Because you are. You're choosing an extremely narrow definition (narrow to the point of inaccuracy), and using any method that is at hand to 'prove' it. Woefully inadequately, at that.

You've played other RPGs? Great. Then you not only should know better, but do.

Sure, I get it, you have an agenda to push, whatever your reason(s). Cool (or not, whatever), but it doesn't particularly impress, let alone convince. There's no substance to it at all, no backing or grounding in reality. That you want to set yourself and your theories, borrowed or otherwise, against the vast majority of RPGs*, roleplayers, and writings about roleplaying games, is your own business. But there's no point 'discussing' something, when a person takes that kind of stance.

So yeah, have fun with that. I've heard enough.

* Including D&D, hilariously.

 

[howandwhy99]

Umm, what?

Are you honestly going to tell me that the primary method of play of nearly every RPG out there is NOT to create a fictional character with which to interact with a setting? Even AD&D punished you for not playing in character with the training rules. The assumption of a fictional role is at the very heart of every role playing game.

Okay, if you have to stretch so far as to hunt down AD&D training rules to include AD&D 1E under the rubric of your definition of roleplaying, that's deliberately missing the point. Don't you think? There are hundreds of rules in that game about roleplay simulation-defined roleplaying. I'm actually glad you could find one to include Dungeons & Dragons in your subset as well. But do you really think the big defining game of our hobby is barely a roleplaying game?

Look at the introduction paragraph to pretty much every RPG out there. That's PRECISELY what it states.

In 1981, Tom Moldvay wrote in the introduction to Basic D&D:

And on your point that players play to "win"

Sounds a lot like what you are terming "theater gaming" to me. And this is long before Forgisms came on the scene.

Yes, by the time the 80's got underway, the understanding of what roleplaying is in our hobby had started to be incorrectly defined. This was known to many of the people who designed games throughout that decade. But certainly not all. And people became quite confused as to what roleplaying was and is as you rightly point out. That doesn't change the truth that roleplaying game design and game play followed the definition of roleplaying I am using.

/edit for further thought.

The problem I'm having here is that Simulationist Role Play serves a very different function, typically, than what gamers consider to be role playing. SRP is a pedagogical tool. The entire point of using it is to teach people how to act in a given situation. When you are in elementary school and you do a game of "going to the supermarket" and you have play money and plastic food to buy while another student acts out the role of the cashier, that's SRP.

But, and this is the big but for me, there is no such purpose to most RPG's. There's not teaching element required or even wanted in RPG's. Unless you're trying to Blackleaf D&D, most people are not playing D&D to learn how to cast spells. It would be pretty useless to come to D&D to learn how to sword fight or climb a mountain. There's no direct pedagogical function to RPG's. Yes, you do learn skills while playing RPG's - communication skills, math skills etc - by that's a byproduct of the activity, not a reason for playing.

Again, you seem to be confusing your purpose for playing RPGs with some believed "objective" and universal purpose for playing RPGs. Problem solving? Goal setting? The heuristic value of devising good strategies? These things cannot be done in Storygames. They can and have been done for decades in RPGs. Why try and claim only one kind of "fun" exists in roleplaying? Is this more equating of "fun" to character assumption (or what you call role assumption?) That's more advertising one's games as the "funnest around" in my opinion. I believe roleplaying in RPGs has a much broader definition than the one you're choosing to use.

Also, I've went ahead and underlined a key passage in your text. Do you really think there is no learning going on in RPGs? That there is no improvement through practice of behavior? I don't know what kinds of games you have played, but you might be missing the boat.

In tabletop wargaming, OTOH, there is no role assumption. You are not, usually, pretending that you are George Washington trying to defeat the British. You are simply using your own knowledge of tactics and strategy to beat the other guy and change the course of history. Without role assumption though, most people would not call Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures a role playing game. Chainmail is a fantastic system for handling mass fantasy battles, but, it's pretty hard to call it any sort of a role playing game, because there is no assumption of any sort of role.

For the same reason, I wouldn't call Microsoft Flight Simulator an RPG. But, under your definition, it certainly is. I'm acting out the role of a pilot in a very realistic situation that is about as close to real as you can get while sitting on the ground. I can actually LEARN to fly an airplane playing this game. As far as Simulationist Roleplay goes, that's SRP on the head.

Please go back and read what I wrote before. I have never made the claim that any of what you are saying here is roleplaying. In fact, I state in your 10 examples how each is either a roleplaying or simulation game. In any case, what you are saying here is misrepresenting me. I have attempted to be very clear. How does any of what you are saying qualify as RPS?

 

[howandwhy99]

Because you are. You're choosing an extremely narrow definition (narrow to the point of inaccuracy), and using any method that is at hand to 'prove' it. Woefully inadequately, at that.

You've played other RPGs? Great. Then you not only should know better, but do.

Sure, I get it, you have an agenda to push, whatever your reason(s). Cool (or not, whatever), but it doesn't particularly impress, let alone convince. There's no substance to it at all, no backing or grounding in reality. That you want to set yourself and your theories, borrowed or otherwise, against the vast majority of RPGs*, roleplayers, and writings about roleplaying games, is your own business. But there's no point 'discussing' something, when a person takes that kind of stance.

You must be referring to Storygame theories. Given the first 25 years of how almost every roleplaying game was played and conceived of, I myself would not be as dismissive. For instance, GDS theory did a good job of explaining what was going on in the current sort of Theatre game, manual simulation game, and SRP/RPG split in the hobby right now. That it's theorists might not have known about different definitions of roleplaying does not mean their detailing of what they were saw and experienced was wrong.

I have no more agenda than anyone pushing for a strictly "theatre-only" version of roleplaying design. I actually want Storygames to grow and thrive. But I don't want RPGs to be killed off, so they might live. I'm just pointing out that three decades of gameplay isn't so easily wiped from the minds gamers by those intent on redefining roleplaying. Gamers may not have known how roleplaying was what they were doing , but having "no backing or grounding in reality" as you put it? That's like denying the design of 99% of every RPG ever made. Who in their right mind could think a theater game could be designed using simulation game rules?

 

[Ariosto]

I don't know whether they were in their right minds, but a number of designers have written long books of "simulation" rules ... only to end by advising the GM to cheat (or "fudge") in order to preserve his story.

That seems to me a disservice to role-playing and story-telling games alike.

 

[Mallus]

You're choosing an extremely narrow definition (narrow to the point of inaccuracy)...

Right. It seems odd to argue that role-playing in D&D was originally about learning to successfully perform a role --defined as something akin to societal role or profession-- when the games reward/advancement mechanism were --again, originally-- completely divorced from anything logically related to the performance of that role.

Fighters could gain more XP from fast-talking a troll out of it's gold than from actually fighting it, and mages wouldn't gain any XP from years of study, no they'd have to go out, kill things, and take their stuff.

It's also odd since D&D classes never mapped neatly to societal roles. For instance, a fighter could be a pirate, a knight, a soldier in service of the Church, or a tribal chieftain. All clearly different 'roles' that looked identical (and were rewarded identically) from a rules perspective.

So yeah, have fun with that. I've heard enough.

You have to admire his tenacity, though.

 

[Mallus]

Roleplaying came from military simulations. D&D is an acted out game of fantasy warfare.

Right. D&D began as an acted out game of fantasy warfare. It rapidly became something else. I started with AD&D, where Gygax explicitly describes the game as "swords and sorcery" (a literary sub-genre), deliberately, one can assume, choosing not to emphasis whatever connection the game might have w/ earlier military simulation rules.

 

[Hussar]

I believe roleplaying in RPGs has a much broader definition than the one you're choosing to use.

Also, I've went ahead and underlined a key passage in your text. Do you really think there is no learning going on in RPGs? That there is no improvement through practice of behavior? I don't know what kinds of games you have played, but you might be missing the boat.

I'm going to answer that in reverse order. In the post you quoted, I specifically did outline things you might learn from playing an RPG. That's fair enough. But, would you say that the primary or even remotely linked goal of an RPG is teaching? I learn whenever I engage in pretty much any activity. I'm trying to think of an activity I could engage in where I would learn nothing, but, I'm drawing a blank.

My point was that in Simulationist Role Play, the primary goal is teaching someone to do something. That is the whole point of engaging in Simulationist Role Play. That's WHY militaries use it, because it's an excellent teaching tool.

But, somehow I don't think EGG, Mr. Arneson or anyone else involved in Lake Geneva had "Hey let's teach the world about how to cast spells" on their mind.

Now, back to the broader definition. Are you trying to claim now that your definition of role playing game is actually broader than mine? You've limited what you consider to be an RPG to a very small subsection of games that are generally covered under the umbrella of RPG. Since you section off RPG from any, what you call, Theater Games, I would argue that your definition is far and away more restrictive.

On an unrelated note though. I would like to say that it is a real pleasure discussing something with someone who feels very strongly about their point but never feels the need for ad hominem attacks or descending into mindless semantics. You've never once said that I "just don't get it" and that's really appreciated. I've missed this sort of discussion on En World for some time, and it's nice to see it return. It's really nice to see someone capable of discussing the issue and not the poster.

Now, I completely disagree with your point, but, that's another issue.

 

[howandwhy99]

On an unrelated note though. I would like to say that it is a real pleasure discussing something with someone who feels very strongly about their point but never feels the need for ad hominem attacks or descending into mindless semantics. You've never once said that I "just don't get it" and that's really appreciated. I've missed this sort of discussion on En World for some time, and it's nice to see it return. It's really nice to see someone capable of discussing the issue and not the poster.

Now, I completely disagree with your point, but, that's another issue.

And that's cool. I know I was getting flack for calling certain games Theatre Games, and which have begun in the last couple of decades to be considered RPGs. If you have been roleplaying as long as I have, you know about the flap when Mind's Eye Theatre came out around 10 years ago.

And yes I still think you are wrong too.. Mainly about the history of our hobby and roleplaying. But I also appreciate no inciting ad hominem attacks. Even moreso I appreciate responses with substance. Maybe in another time or place or discussion there can be more direct question answering. I thought a few of mine were missed. But I don't think we're getting anywhere. My point is: roleplaying has not been about rewarding the portrayal of fictional characters since its' inception. And, what should be quite obvious with the history of GNS, GDS, and GEN debates for the last ten years, there is an entire second half to roleplaying games and RPG design that the Big Model misses completely.

The fact that some games will always be manual simulation games, what were traditionally called roll-playing games, and do not necessarily require either definition of roleplaying is well founded. That's the point I was attempting to make in this thread and did way back in page one in regards to the 3 types of design.

 

[Hussar]

My point is: roleplaying has not been about rewarding the portrayal of fictional characters since its' inception.

And this is where we disagree I think. I would change your line to "Roleplaying was not about rewarding the portrayal of fictional charaters at the time of its inception". But, within a very, very short amount of time, certainly by the release of first edition AD&D, there were a number of games out there that did reward this. Star Frontiers specifically rewards portrayal of characters in its xp system and that's 1982. The James Bond RPG also did so and was released in 1983.

To be honest, I've never played any RPG's published in the '70's other than 1e D&D, and Moldvay Basic which is heavily based on OD&D. So, I don't know how Tekumel or Metamorphasis Alpha rewarded players. So, honestly, you may very well be right there, I wouldn't know. But, I think you are pushing too hard on the idea that it was somehow the Forge which promoted the idea of "theater" games. The idea was already there in force, very close to the beginning of TTRPG's.