Bring Back Verisimilitude, add in More Excitement!

[Crazy Jerome]

That's a very, very different thing that the claim that the whole concept is a crock and that if someone finds the rules hamper immersion for them than it must be the person with the problem and never the rules.

You realize that no one has said this anywhere in this topic?

Edit for clarity: There have certainly been some crocks advanced at points, but not the one you described above.

 

[nnms]

nnms, a big part of my long point is that focusing on process has never been 100% even in trad.

Right. And that's why I'm talking about how the narrative calls up the resolution mechanic and it gets used. It's not all process. It's a process to set up a point where the result is unknown/contested and then the system resolves it. The payoff of resolution is part of the enjoyment. It's especially potent when the people at the table have large stakes in the outcome and can fall flat when it is irrelevant to the people at the table.

But I am not willing to concede that the answer to every simulation preference is "just model the process the character goes through, and it will all work great!" Not only do I know I wouldn't like it, I'm also pretty sure that most of the trad simulation guys won't like it, either. Process models tend to freeze assumptions about particular verisimilitude goals into mechanics.

I'm not arguing for a "just model the process the character goes through, and it will all work great!" I'm describing the procedures of play that are used in traditional play in incredibly general terms, and that is one specific method that fits as a possible expression of those procedures.

How something is described, the ways another participant can describe their character's interaction with the described element, the use of resolution mechanics to determine the result and the interpretation of those results back into the shared fiction can very widely.

These techniques can also be used for purposes other than simulationism. There's actually a lot of this type of approach in Dogs In the Vineyard, for example, and the goal of that game is thematic exploration and Story Now! But it still shares the same general description, interaction, resolution circuit as its base structure. And even during its compound system references, they all contain mandatory interpretive narrations of the results at every step of the way.

If you think I'm talking about anything more specific than a general approach to play that has been present in RPGs for over 40 years, you're reading things into what I am saying.

Instead, try to imagine what variables must be available within the framework I'm talking about such that it does describe the general procedures of play of most RPGs out there. If it doesn't then you're adding in ideas about extreme focus on process from the character's 1st person perspective that I am not.

You asked what the people who were asking for more of a simulation approach wanted. I told you. So don't then take what I say and make it line up with your ideas about 1st person immersion process play which you think I really mean. That type of play is just one of many, many ways you can arrange the variables involved in this very general description of the procedures common to many, many traditional RPGs.

 

[Sylrae]

You realize that no one has said this anywhere in this topic?

Edit for clarity: There have certainly been some crocks advanced at points, but not the one you described above.

I'm inclined to disagree. That was exactly what I this (and his subsequent replies to our replies) to be pushing. Its entirely possible thats not what he meant, but its definitely what he said.

The whole "verisimilitude" argument is a crock. We play a game with flying dragons and powerful wizards where players can magically and instantaneously "heal" from life-threatening injuries, crushed psyches, exhaustion even dehydration or disease.
Any loss of "immersion" due ANY rules set we use is a product of our own bias and imagination shortcomings, not the rules themselves.

Any loss of "immersion" due ANY rules set we use is a product of our own bias and imagination shortcomings, not the rules themselves.

This part particularly.

 

[nnms]

You realize that no one has said this anywhere in this topic?

Edit for clarity: There have certainly been some crocks advanced at points, but not the one you described above.

No, it's definitely been the contention of people in this thread that the desire for verisimilitude is nonsense and should be abandoned wholesale. And that if rules present people with moments that break their immersion, the problem is with the people and not rules.

[MENTION=48520]Sylrae[/MENTION], I'd give you XP, but I have to wait. I would like to ask you though, if my description of that circuit of description, interactions, resolution, interpretation back to description seems like an accurate way of talking about typical pre-4E play that you enjoy.

 

[Sylrae]

Instead, try to imagine what variables must be available within the framework I'm talking about such that it does describe the general procedures of play of most RPGs out there. If it doesn't then you're adding in ideas about extreme focus on process from the character's 1st person perspective that I am not.

You asked what the people who were asking for more of a simulation approach wanted. I told you. So don't then take what I say and make it line up with your ideas about 1st person immersion process play which you think I really mean. That type of play is just one of many, many ways you can arrange the variables involved in this very general description of the procedures common to many, many traditional RPGs.

I agree with you, but I want a more first person than I remember previous editions of D&D allowing for, though still in the same general area in terms of playstyle. A bit more cinematic Unisystem a-la Ghosts of Albion, but with action points as an optional rule instead of a base assumption.

 

[nnms]

I agree with you, but I want a more first person than I remember previous editions of D&D allowing for, though still in the same general area in terms of playstyle. A bit more cinematic Unisystem a-la Ghosts of Albion, but with action points as an optional rule instead of a base assumption.

Cool. I get exactly what you're saying. I'm more of a fan of being able to describe my character in 3rd person. Mostly because I find that when I play a heavily 1st person game, I can really find the experience too intense. My natural instincts when it comes to play acting is to fall into a method actor mode. I like the safety of some distance from emotional immersion play, but still don't want the jarring moments of game systems where there's a disconnect between mechanics and narrative at some point during their use.

 

[LurkAway]

Did Legends & Lore ever publish the vote results of the 'Nod to realism' poll?

 

[Tallifer]

And honestly, we need to either face the fact that the game requires metagame restrictions on character power, or come up with an alternative that makes real-world sense without turning it into a game of awesome Wizards and pathetic Muggles.

Not at all. In mediaeval literature and most fantastic literature before D&D, magic was painstaking, costly, ritualistic, sacrificial and usually wicked.

One just has to restore some of the restrictions of the traditional literature and it makes for a sensible and interesting story. Such is not likely for any edition of D&D however.

But for example's sake, magic could require rituals and sacrifice. Magic could require many many years of study just to learn a few spells. Magic could be socially stigmatized. Magic could require deals with the devil, or with the fey, or finding exotic components.

That would be a game with a feel consistent with our world. After all, in the real world there are millions of people who believe in various forms of magic: but each of these forms of magic have severe restrictions.

Astrology is unreliable and takes much study to learn. Faith healing requires the gods' blessings. Shamanism is ritualistic or uses herbs and dreams. Miracles like parting the Red Sea do not seem to happen any more. Most miracles are limited to stigmata, the image of a saint on a tortilla or exorcism. One could argue that channeling extraterrestrials is also magical, and likewise of limited power and effect.

"Realistic" magic would mean that the wizards would be always the weak characters and the fighters would be the killing machines and rich landed nobles which they in fact were in the middle ages or in Tolkien or Lewis et cetera.

But in the end, we all love our comic book D&D (and I speak as someone who recognizes the gonzo of my old D&D games in the 1980s). Even Gandalf could not cast a Wish spell or turn back time.

 

[Sylrae]

Not at all. In mediaeval literature and most fantastic literature before D&D, magic was painstaking, costly, ritualistic, sacrificial and usually wicked.

One just has to restore some of the restrictions of the traditional literature and it makes for a sensible and interesting story. Such is not likely for any edition of D&D however.

But for example's sake, magic could require rituals and sacrifice. Magic could require many many years of study just to learn a few spells. Magic could be socially stigmatized. Magic could require deals with the devil, or with the fey, or finding exotic components.

That would be a game with a feel consistent with our world. After all, in the real world there are millions of people who believe in various forms of magic: but each of these forms of magic have severe restrictions.

Astrology is unreliable and takes much study to learn. Faith healing requires the gods' blessings. Shamanism is ritualistic or uses herbs and dreams. Miracles like parting the Red Sea do not seem to happen any more. Most miracles are limited to stigmata, the image of a saint on a tortilla or exorcism. One could argue that channeling extraterrestrials is also magical, and likewise of limited power and effect.

"Realistic" magic would mean that the wizards would be always the weak characters and the fighters would be the killing machines and rich landed nobles which they in fact were in the middle ages or in Tolkien or Lewis et cetera.

There are a couple games that have that sort of magic system. CJ Carella's Witchcraft, or Ghosts of Albion are the ones that spring to mind. Witchcraft uses Mana, though, which is sortof a metagame restriction. Ghosts of Albion uses a fatigue system. A pretty good one too.

And Ghosts has all kinds of combat maneuvers and cool stuff that melee characters can do, without them necessarily being restricted use powers. - It's also mechanically compatible with the Buffy RPG and the Angel RPG, so you can allow options from those games in a GoA game as well.

But in the end, we all love our comic book D&D (and I speak as someone who recognizes the gonzo of my old D&D games in the 1980s). Even Gandalf could not cast a Wish spell or turn back time.

Instead of putting the metagame restrictions in to dumb down wizards, we could expand the abilities of the non-magic guys. Make them a little more like batman or ironman at the higher levels. No big power boost in attacking, but a huge boost in ability to handle problems in other ways.

But in the end, I do like my fantasy games that are less based in realism (D&D style). Though I think it could benefit from taking a little bit of inspiration for how to design some of the game mechanics from the design philosophies of the Eden Studios cinematic unisystem games.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

One just has to restore some of the restrictions of the traditional literature and it makes for a sensible and interesting story. Such is not likely for any edition of D&D however.

The thing is, you can't have this be balanced. It makes a horrible game.

Most literature has magic that changes from extremely weak to extremely strong at the drop of a hat. A wizard in a book or movie might spend the entire story following behind the party doing almost nothing because "Magic takes a lot out of you and should be used sparingly" only to cast a spell that defeats the dragon at the end(after the hero fights it for 10 minutes in a pitched battle, of course).

When in a game, people are going to be staring at the wizard saying "If you can cast a spell powerful enough to kill this dragon...why are you waiting until I fight it for 10 minutes first?" It also runs into the problem of how fun it is to play a wizard who has to sit there and not cast spells for 10 minutes(which might be an hour or 2 in real life) during a battle.

The same thing applies to non-combat magic. Within the same story, you'll find that one minute the wizard is claiming that he'll need rare herbs from a cave filled with evil creatures that takes a month to get to in order to create a potion to disguise someone...and the next they are casting a spell which causes them and 5 of their friends to fly up a mountain on a moments notice after they fall.

These things make great plot devices but not balanced or fun games. Inevitably, we need meta-game based restrictions on things to make things more fun. Otherwise we end up with one ability that is the "best" one that a character will use over and over again.