Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Mark CMG]

Yes. Did you read the next few paragraphs, where I specifically contrasted rules-oriented reference points vs setting-oriented reference points? I think you somehow missed it

Nope. You seem to argue that it is possible from both sides (rules "realism" and non-rules "realism") and I just wanted to be clear before making my own statement that "realism" is better delineated in the "setting, GM instruction, and group discussion." Thanks.

 

[LurkAway]

Nope. You seem to argue that it is possible from both sides (rules "realism" and non-rules "realism") and I just wanted to be clear before making my own statement that "realism" is better delineated in the "setting, GM instruction, and group discussion." Thanks.

Yes, I argued that nods to "realism" is theoretically possible via one way or the other (or a compromise/combination of both). Disclaimer: I didn't make a judgement call on which is "better". In the case of an ultra-light ruleset (vs something like 3E), the rules-oriented reference points are missing, so there really isn't a choice, is there?

 

[Mark CMG]

Yes, I argued that nods to "realism" is theoretically possible via one way or the other (or a compromise/combination of both). Disclaimer: I didn't make a judgement call on which is "better". In the case of an ultra-light ruleset (vs something like 3E), the rules-oriented reference points are missing, so there really isn't a choice, is there?

I, however, was making a judgement call. The "nod to realism" in my estimation is a relative condition based on setting and group dynamics. As such, a ruleset without a tight setting errs to try and include such a condition. A ruleset that is meant to be setting free (or nearly so), would do better to allow the setting material and the group guide "realism" within the individual game and have the rules strive for internal balance without dictating a level of "realism." Just my opinion, of course, but I think it is a better approach.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I, however, was making a judgement call. The "nod to realism" in my estimation is a relative condition based on setting and group dynamics. As such, a ruleset without a tight setting errs to try and include such a condition. A ruleset that is meant to be setting free (or nearly so), would do better to allow the setting material and the group guide "realism" within the individual game and have the rules strive for internal balance without dictating a level of "realism." Just my opinion, of course, but I think it is a better approach.

Yes. You also need to distinguish between those who want developed backgrounds versus "develop in play". And then you need to distinguish between those who want a mutable ruleset that will be deliberately mutated for each campaign, versus those that want to beat the ruleset into something they like, and use it for a long time. That doesn't even include preferences and abilities on improvisation, either.

Say I start next month with nothing but p. 42, and run a highly "develop in play" game from scratch. Nothing is established at all, not even a character's name, until it arises in play. But once it arises, we record it--either as a detail or as at least a pattern that applies. So if Yzgote the Wizard manages something like "fireball", and we decided at the time he can do that or something like it once per day, then that is established.

There would be some groups doing that who would be interested in building up the details over time, and then playing not only with those details in the same system, but in the same campaign world. The more they add, the more interesting it gets. Over time, it might even turn into something that other people could pick up, play, and produce similar play experiences.

Not me. I might have fun running that kind of game, but the last thing I'd want to do is use all that material as a starting point for a new game. In part, it would be a pain to organize and use productively. However, mainly my objection would be too many reference points have constrained future play. Isn't that the objection a lot of people have with Forgotten Realms?

To cater to both audiences, you need reference points that are clearly optional and examples, but still evocative. That's a tall order.

 

[El Mahdi]

The "nod to realism" in my estimation is a relative condition based on setting and group dynamics. As such, a ruleset without a tight setting errs to try and include such a condition...

I don't entirely agree with this. A can and do understand the dangers of making a game system that attempts to be as realistic as possible right from the start. I think that can also nullify attempts at incorporating a "complexity dial" (I think it would, by definition, be quite complicated right from the start).

But completely ignoring realism in the base system, and leaving it entirely up to setting or groups I think is a mistake. I find that it's much easier to "ignore" realism in favor of gamist or narrativist play, than it is to try and add realism back in later. I think it leaves setting authors/designers, DM's and groups in a situation having to almost "re-write" the rules chasis in order to even nod to realism, let alone go full out simulationist.

I think in order to pull off a system with variable style focus and complexity, the starting rules have to have a nod to all styles in it's chasis.

 

[pemerton]

Does anyone see "storyteller" now and not think D&D 2E, White Wolf, and the kind of adventures that were spawned for them?

Agreed.

The reason this matters is that people who self-identify as "storytellers" on those polls and/or answer the kind of questions that will so identify them, will react more poorly to narrativist techniques than most. The "storytellers" are a major piece of the camp that wants that simulated world to tell the story in.

I'll trust your intuitions on this, but want to add, based on my intuitions: the narrativists will react poorly to the storytelling/simulation techniques that "storytellers" in the White Wolf/2nd ed style want!

From my perspective, reference points are what a setting, GM instruction, and group discussion are meant to engender.

Agreed.

I find that it's much easier to "ignore" realism in favor of gamist or narrativist play, than it is to try and add realism back in later.

I've never tried to go in the direction of adding simulation into a non-simulationist game. But I find that it can easily become a big (and annoying) challenge to try to drift/hack a simulationist ruleset into non-simulationist play, because the simulationist aspects of the rules keep throwing themselves in the way and sucking up time and energy at the table.

With a very crunchy simulationist ruleset (or crunchy modular/optional rules over the ultra-light core ruleset), the rules themselves can act as reference points for what is "realistic". T

<snip>

Alternatively, with an ultra-light Page 42+ ruleset combined with a comprehensive default campaign setting, then you can instead nod to "realism" by referencing the in-game/fictional "rules".

<snip>

I find that with D&D, the rules are a major way to determine what is "realistic", instead of referencing the fluff to learn what is "realistic". Probably because D&D fluff (in novels or supplements) isn't quite cohesive or reliable or dependable enough to understand what is "realistic" for PC behavior and world building.

I think genre/setting is adequate for D&D as for Star Wars. And if, at a given table, it fails to be so - ie there are disagreements over what is genre-permissible - I don't think a ruleset is going to save things, because the disagreements will just spill over into disagreements over what should be house-ruled. And if a GM has enough authority to hose down house-ruling disagreements, s/he should have enough authority to hose down disagreements about the limits of genre/setting.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've never tried to go in the direction of adding simulation into a non-simulationist game. But I find that it can easily become a big (and annoying) challenge to try to drift/hack a simulationist ruleset into non-simulationist play, because the simulationist aspects of the rules keep throwing themselves in the way and sucking up time and energy at the table.

The closest I have come to trying that is trying to make Fantasy Hero more simulationist than it is. Of course, Hero is a hybrid anyway, and because it is already modeling effects instead of processes, and then demanding that you provide the flavor, this isn't as big a deal as it would be with a more pure system. Plus, and supporting your point, half the trouble for (4th ed. FH) is not so much setting up reference points for the fiction in a effects-based game, as it is coping with the superhero simulation that was still very present in the rules. It doesn't help any that the skills in 4th edition Hero are a mishmash of genre expectations, simulation, and apparently trying to "split the baby" design goals.

Thus, I think that effect-based design is a good neutral starting point for a game that is design explicitly to be drifted into one of several competing gaming styles, but hardly the whole solution. Page 42 being one of the more effect-based parts of 4E makes it as good a candidate as any in that ruleset, as such a starting point.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Really, one of the biggest stumbling blocks for any design focused on simulation, that is meant to apply to a wide audience, is that it is hard not only to drift it out of simulation, but also harder to drift it to other simulation. Or at least it is once those other simulations become different enough to deserve that label.

GURPS probably pulls off that trick as well as anyone, and it still feels like "GURPS with magic" or "GURPS with laser rifles" or "GURPS with fluffy, psionic rabbits" no matter how much you change the simulation.

This is a fundamental problem that D&D has fought with since the first new class was introduced and any kind of option discussed. Take, for example, the fighter class, and at 4th level the fighter gains some kind of ability. If you limit it to one particular ability, you are making a strong statement about the world being simulated. You can try to make that ability broadly useful and characteristic to compensate, but you can't entirely avoid that strong statement. OTOH, if you let the fighter pick from a list of three to five abilities, you have now, inevitably, watered down each possible simulation just a little. (Well, maybe not with the fighter, because some good choices can be made here. But across all classes and levels, you'll have some mistakes.)

Pull those abilities out into "feats" or "powers" or "magic items appropriate for about 4th level" or any number of things, and you'll become more flavorful, but inevitably lock the simulation down even more.

Thus, as was stated by someone a few weeks back, the answer that often gets suggested is, "Make a fighter class with few or even no choices that exactly models what I want in my game." The designers can't do that.

 

[Hussar]

Alright, forget the survey, I'll try again...

With an ultra-light Page 42+ ruleset alone, nodding to "realism" is a tricky beast, because there's almost no reference points for a common "realistic" baseline for the group. It's as challenging as acting in front of a blue screen.

With a very crunchy simulationist ruleset (or crunchy modular/optional rules over the ultra-light core ruleset), the rules themselves can act as reference points for what is "realistic". Those reference points, however, can be imperfect or mismatched like with fireballs that don't do collateral damage or jumping off 100" cliffs and surviving.

Alternatively, with an ultra-light Page 42+ ruleset combined with a comprehensive default campaign setting, then you can instead nod to "realism" by referencing the in-game/fictional "rules". For example, if you combine Page 42 with a Star Wars setting, then you don't need rules to tell that you light sabres and wookies are "realistic" for that campaign.

I find that with D&D, the rules are a major way to determine what is "realistic", instead of referencing the fluff to learn what is "realistic". Probably because D&D fluff (in novels or supplements) isn't quite cohesive or reliable or dependable enough to understand what is "realistic" for PC behavior and world building.

However, all you're doing is dumping the work of making something "realistic" onto the game designer rather than with the individual group. And, as has been amply demonstrated, what I or you might find "realistic" could be completely different. Thus, by defining a baseline "realism" in the rules, you turn off anyone who disagrees with your view of realism.

OTOH, no one comes to the game a blank slate. Most gamers are going to have at least a basic knowledge of genre conceits based on fiction - dragons are big and scary, getting hit with a sword hurts, wizards do magic. That sort of thing. There's more than enough genre fiction out there in a multitude of forms that it's a pretty easy assumption to make.

So, why not start with a mechanical framework (page 42) that tells you what the ballpark should look like relative to a given level? Then the players can determine what they feel is realistic. If a fireball does X damage, that will get established at the table. It might do different damage next time, depending on the narrative that's going on - after all, fireball's actually DO do different damage based on die roll and level right now.

The group will determine what is consistent.

The downside of this is that this kind of game really, really doesn't appeal to a casual gamer. It requires that the players be invested in making sure that the game is fun, rather than playing on autopilot and relying on the mechanics.

I could maybe see a basic version of the P42 D&D being much more structured - say up to about 5th level where you establish pretty strong thematic elements in the characters and the world around them. Once everyone is on the same page, then you open things up to our putative Page 42 D&D and let the players take a much greater level of control over the game.

 

[LurkAway]

However, all you're doing is dumping the work of making something "realistic" onto the game designer rather than with the individual group. And, as has been amply demonstrated, what I or you might find "realistic" could be completely different. Thus, by defining a baseline "realism" in the rules, you turn off anyone who disagrees with your view of realism.

I could have the same problem if the system is dumping the work of making something "realistic" on the game group, and then when I define what I might find realistic and have the narrative control to alter the story accordingly, I could completely turn off any player who disagrees with my view of "realism".

So if the problem has to do with individual disagreements over "realism", then why is each group assumed to be capable and willing to easily deal with the ongoing conflict resolution? At least with a published product, everyone can know what to expect from the system or setting before the session. I don't see why overall one way must be worse or better than the other.

This may be sound bad, but theoretically/ideally, I'd like to trust a great professional author (for setting-oriented reference points) or a great professional designer (for rules-oriented reference points) more than Bob who never thinks about D&D until the session or Joe who spends hours determining how quickly Gollum sinks depending on viscosity of lava or Jane who wants to jump off 100' cliffs just because. And God forbid if I was in the same group as an another Enworld user with an equally opinionated but opposite playstyle

Or to put it another way, I can act in front of a blue screen if left to my own imagination. However, if I have to co-act in front of a blue screen with multiple strangers and no script, I think everyone would pause frequently to inquire, argue and resync. However, if the blue screen is replaced with a scene-specific background, I think that will more likely unite everyone (at least compared to a blue screen).

For that reason, I have staked my position that a ultra-light ruleset is best with a comprehensive campaign setting to most easily achieve cohesive nods to realism. If you don't care about nods for realism or the group happens to agree on mostly everything, it doesn't matter.