More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher

[BryonD]

I certainly read a lot of posts from self-describes "sim" D&D players (mostly 3E) on these boards and wonder why they aren't playing one of those other systems

There are other really good options.
For me, 3E simply hit the sweet spot best.

 

[Starfox]

I guess my question is, in what sense is this sort of play really giving you wargaming or realism-sim? If the GM manipulates action resolution to produce the plot-appropriate outcomes, where is the wargaming? And how is the game being run as a sim? Those aren't rhetorical questions, they're genuine. But they're also sceptical to this limited extent: that when I've seen, or played under, GMs running this sort of game, it plays out pretty much as Pulsipher describes in his article: player skill and choice is subordinated to the GM's priorities.

But I'm sure I haven't seen everything there is to see under the sun!

Basically, the setup is always the same; GM presents the situation, players decide how to tackle it based on their characters' personalities and abilities. Player agency is largely in selecting what situation to tackle.

What this kind of game is after is not simulation but verisimilitude (if I understand that word right). The main focus is immersion, the joy is to meet challenges from the character's perspective. Wargaming-wise, there is a constant stream of little tactical situations. These are rarely balanced, but must still be passed with a minimum of fuzz and while maintaining your characters' ethics and roles. Realism-wise, its a matter of what you're simulating - simulating "clash of the titans" is certainly different from simulating the life of a 6C feudal peasant. Pathfinder is closer to the former than the later, and other systems I play even more so. Obviously there can be no simulation of a magical battle with cloud giants around a cloud castle (as such things do not exist and both giants and cloud castles would collapse under their own weight to begin with), so it is verisimilitude and staying close to genre that is the goal, not simulation.


Then again, I stated from the start that not all games are as good at each aspect. Pathfinder might seem lacking in the wargame and simulation aspects to you. To me it is more lacking in complexity (there is too much) while I like its wargame and simulation qualities. It all depends on the participants' preferences.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think you're looking at this too pessimistically.

I am being pessimistic, certainly.

While there was a reasonable amount of simulation snobbery of C&S, RM etc players against D&D, I think it was also healthy that there were flourishing systems and fanbases to support a variety of playsytles. I certainly read a lot of posts from self-describes "sim" D&D players (mostly 3E) on these boards and wonder why they aren't playing one of those other systems

Honestly, I think that's part of the problem. There are a lot of good reasons to play a system that doesn't 'support' your style in the sense typically used today (and that sense is 'over-reward' or 'penalize other styles' or something), and D&D is beneficiary of a number of them because it is so widely-known.

Personally, one of the things I really liked about 3e was the way the rules worked as a fairly consistent set of 'laws of physics' for the world. The way PCs and Monsters could take levels in classes, for instance. It /could/ have gone even further in that direction (and could have been a /lot/ better-balanced while doing it), but there was a lot of fun to be had with it to the degree that it did. Conversely, one of the things I really liked about 4e was the way it /didn't/ do that nearly as much, and instead had rules that were fairly consistent in emulating genre conventions. I haven't found a corresponding virtue in 5e's ruleset, but then I haven't gotten to see the whole thing yet.

But I've played RQ, and I've played a lot of RM. Pulsipher's characterisation of those systems, and also his comment that D&D can't deliver that, fits accurately with my experiences. And I know from experience that those systems can be fun!

In the 80s I didn't get to play RQII as much as I'd've liked, but I did enjoy it. I also enjoyed D&D. The systems are extremely different - RQ was arguably significantly better in the technical sense at the time -but they were still each playable in a broad range of styles.

I guess my question is, in what sense is this sort of play really giving you wargaming or realism-sim? If the GM manipulates action resolution to produce the plot-appropriate outcomes, where is the wargaming? And how is the game being run as a sim?

I suppose you'd have to accept some fuzziness and matters-of-degree around 'wargaming' and 'sim' to see how they'd be compatible with the GM fudging things in favor of plot. One way that was used a lot in D&D, though, was simply not letting the players know it was happening - something for which the DM screen is handy.

It's also possible for the campaign to play to one predilection more than the others at time, over its course. So you could have a campaign that includes a few genuine battles that are played out with the dice falling where they may and tactical acumen provided by the player(s) of the character(s) leading troops being critical, a few set-piece battles, some puzzles, traps, moral quandaries, and logistical issues to sort out in detail, some personal interactions, and yet still a broad story arch and dramatically appropriate climax and denouement. That's not a matter of choreographing some almost-impossibly-precise and complex paragon of gamesmanship, either - it can grow quite organically from the players (including DM) each pursuing their enjoyment of the game while allowing others the same privilege. It's when the predilections rise to the levels of prejudice, and letting another player enjoy the game in a different way becomes intolerable that you have the weird sort of acrimony we saw in the edition war, and mere preferences held up as incompatible 'styles' that must be segregated from eachother.

That is, I thought that was a recent phenomenon, but the OP quoted article gives an example of someone going there way back in the early years of the hobby.

 

[pemerton]

What this kind of game is after is not simulation but verisimilitude (if I understand that word right). The main focus is immersion

That makes a lot of sense to me. As far as D&D goes, I think of 2nd ed AD&D as the poster child for this sort of approach. When I say that, does that make you think I'm understanding you properly, or have I misread you?

I suppose you'd have to accept some fuzziness and matters-of-degree around 'wargaming' and 'sim' to see how they'd be compatible with the GM fudging things in favor of plot. One way that was used a lot in D&D, though, was simply not letting the players know it was happening - something for which the DM screen is handy.

This goes back to "illusionism", the term that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] used. So it's sometimes wargame, sometimes not, but the players don't know when.

It's when the predilections rise to the levels of prejudice, and letting another player enjoy the game in a different way becomes intolerable that you have the weird sort of acrimony we saw in the edition war, and mere preferences held up as incompatible 'styles' that must be segregated from eachother.

That is, I thought that was a recent phenomenon, but the OP quoted article gives an example of someone going there way back in the early years of the hobby.

Again, I think this is a little harsh.

It's not that sim-players have n place and must be segregated. Rather, I read it as a competely reasonable statement that if you are looking to enjoy sim-realism play, D&D won't deliver (and Gygax even says as much, in multiple places, in his DMG). But other games, like C&S, will.

 

[Manbearcat]

The Paizo adventure paths, and specifically the players guides that come with them, are very much in this vein, so I think it can be said to be pretty mainstream.

Basically, I am saying you're right, and that it is not a problem.

I think it is very mainstream.

I don't think its "a problem", per se. Its certainly not a problem insofar as its a mainstream mode of play and people have fun.

I just think that there may be a contention at its core that strains credulity; that being that each of these agendas function in harmony with one another rather than pushing against each other. That can't possibly be true (for the reasons I state above). At any one time, a GM will have to subordinate one interest for another (or possibly two others), be it worthy climax over player agency in action declaration and resolution or living/breathing world over worthy climax. I would say those two prioritizations are the most predominant.

I thought that was a very strange decision on the DM's part. I've run games like that before - Star Wars - but I think you need to make sure that, as the DM, you work with the players (and vice-versa). When they jump into the river you carry them along the current, you don't trap them in an eddy.

What you describe is unfortunate because I think your response is a pretty common one for an analytical, experienced player who is looking for a certain type of experience. Its emotionally and immersively jarring from a genre perspective to have the autonomy of your, very reasonable (and intentionally helpful for the GM), "move" subordinated by the GM's will.

If it was coming from another angle, the "wargaming" perspective, it would be dissatisfying to have your strategic planning, tactics, and finally your action declaration upended by by an agenda at odds with that, which could either by the living/breathing world or the GM-imposed climax. Worse yet, is when the GM's model that spits out the living/breathing world doesn't match your own and not only have they imposed on your player agency but they've simultaneously hindered your immersion interests.

Great GMing requires an understanding that you can always get better and you can always learn something new. I think a lot of long-time GMs might be far too steeped in their sense of their proficiency in their craft such that they are not disinclined toward (a) learning from their players or (b) learning from new approaches. Methinks your GM could use a does of both.

I think always adopting and maintaining a philosophy of "I'm not as good as I think I am and I'm not as good as I'm going to be" is good medicine for GM's whose sense of themselves and their craft has ossified.

Interesting. As I said in my OP, I've tried to use RM for that, but there are problems. I can see how CoC avoids them: because the players aren't meant to exercise must agency, the fact that the system overrides that agency isn't a problem. And that loss of agency is precisely the story that is meant to be produced.

Yes and yes.

Also, @LostSoul , I've probably been guilty of being that GM on occasions in the past - especially in my early RM days - as I haven't known properly how to keep all my balls in the air!

If I were a player in a sim-heavy game I would be very averse to my GM having any balls in the air regarding a worthy climax, outside of initial situation framing. I wouldn't want climax to be GM-imposed. I would want all elements of the framing to be clear so that my decision-points are as well-informed as I can get them. Come what may. Whatever climax, dud or provocative, emerges from those decision-points and mechanical resolution is my (our) own to wear. This is, of course, a classic Step On Up (Wargamer) + Right To Dream (Simulation) hybrid. Those agendas can play nice with each other. When GMs get their hands in the cookie jar of climax-imposition/enforcement, that is when things can go pear-shaped. It better be with an extraordinarily deft touch (illusionism) or your players' wargaming interests would need to be rather milquetoast.

 

[pemerton]

I just think that there may be a contention at its core that strains credulity; that being that each of these agendas function in harmony with one another rather than pushing against each other. That can't possibly be true (for the reasons I state above). At any one time, a GM will have to subordinate one interest for another (or possibly two others), be it worthy climax over player agency in action declaration and resolution or living/breathing world over worthy climax.

For this sort of play, isn't the most important tenet of GM advice White Wolf's "golden rule" ie the GM needs to know when to use and when to suspend/fudge the action resolution mechanics?

If I were a player in a sim-heavy game I would be very averse to my GM having any balls in the air regarding a worthy climax, outside of initial situation framing.

In practice, though, it's not quite that simple. For example, in RM a player might declare some modestly complicated manoeuvre (like [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s motorcycle shenanigans from the other thread). And then you, as GM, have to assign it a difficulty. In this judgement, the sim aspect is almost never clear cut, in part because we don't really know what degree of real-life skill a +30 or +50 modifier equates to, in part because as a GM I mightn't know much about motorcycling, etc.

Being too strict on the sim can shut down the player's dramatic agency in a way that also hurts their sim. I think this is what happened to LostSoul.

One occasion when I think I got in right in RM, on the dramatic agency side of things, was applying the jumping rules and acrobatics rules when the elven athlete and archer was jumping up from the lower deck of a galley, through the hatch to shoot at targets on the upper deck (then dropping back down to cover). The required number of die rolls (jump + shoot, with the acro bonus being a % multiplier to the normal archery bonus) was about right to give that good "sim" feel, and the resulting chances of success were enough to make luck important, which gives that classic gambling fun that is part of any RPG and especially part of a crit-roll based system like RM.

In objective terms was it sim-compliant? Probably not - the feat seems moderately ludicrous, although I don't know much about either jumping or archery. But no one complained at the time!

 

[Manbearcat]

For this sort of play, isn't the most important tenet of GM advice White Wolf's "golden rule" ie the GM needs to know when to use and when to suspend/fudge the action resolution mechanics?

For anyone interested in reading it:

V;tM 2e, p52
The Golden Rule
Remember that in the end there is only one real rule in Vampire: there are no rules. You should fashion this game into whatever you need it to be - if the rules get in your way, then ignore or change them. In the end, the true complexity and beauty of the real world cannot be captured by rules; it takes storytelling and imagination to do that. Indeed, these rules are not so much rules as they are guidelines, and you are free to use, abuse, ignore and change them as you wish.

This and the AD&D2e "a rule0 for everything" really injected this GMing principle into the bloodstream of TTRPG culture. Obviously, we still see it to this day within a non-insignificant strain of the D&D community and several frequent posters on this board.

The answer to "know when to suspend/fudge the action resolution mechanics" naturally becomes whenever the rules get in your way of fashioning this game into whatever you need it to be. "System doesn't matter." As I'm sure anyone who has read my posts knows, I have a stridently unfavorable opinion of this principle and the GMing techniques and play experience (specifically for myself as GM but also for most of the players I have run games for) that emerge from it when it anchors play.

In practice, though, it's not quite that simple.

You'll get no disagreement from me there.

Being too strict on the sim can shut down the player's dramatic agency in a way that also hurts their sim. I think this is what happened to LostSoul.

<snip>

In objective terms was it sim-compliant? Probably not - the feat seems moderately ludicrous, although I don't know much about either jumping or archery. But no one complained at the time!

I think this is why high concept simulation can consistently churn out favorable play experiences while process simulation tends to struggle in the hands of all but the most deft and synched users (GM and table). And done so with less headaches for all parties involved, to boot. This is a point @Balesir brings up often (of which I agree with completely). Assuming the resolution mechanics are reasonably robust, modeling a genre with merely a tacit nod to process requires much, much less overhead and handling time than modeling (a) the component parts of a stochastic system, (b) the stochastic system itself, and (c) attaining consistent table consensus on interpretation of both a and b.

 

[Starfox]

That makes a lot of sense to me. As far as D&D goes, I think of 2nd ed AD&D as the poster child for this sort of approach. When I say that, does that make you think I'm understanding you properly, or have I misread you?

Personally I never liked 2E and didn't play it much, but the general opinion of 2E here seems to mesh with what you're saying. So no, you did not misread me. (got to love all that negation)

 

[Emerikol]

Self-proclaimd simulationists on these boards probably do sit mostly in the "wargame" camp, but most of them are not simulationists in the GNS sense (at least, not purist-for-system sim). For instance, they tolerate hit points as a health mechanic and turn-by-turn initiative as an action economy - whereas I think it is probably universal across purist-for-system simulationist RPGs is getting rid of these D&Disms.

Actually this is Exhibit A for someone who doesn't know what the S in GNS means. If you believe the S in GNS has anything to do with accurate modeling of events then you've failed. They are not related. The guys who play these massive operational board games with a zillion rules are NOT GNS simulations. They are just plain English dictionary simulationists. The two are only passing related. Those super hyper simulationists though are still using turns when they play those hyper detailed games.

The people doing the S in GNS are probably better described by bawylie in his discussion of narrative mechanical unity. Not saying that was the Forge intent so much as it represents the people who think they are S but who instead are NMU.

I'm going to get with Bawylie and try to do a post on NMU at some point on my blog.

 

[Emerikol]

Lol. Give up on 'simulation,' and GNS but add in another forge theory, and 5 more words that people are going to have quibbles with over the definitions.

I think actor stance is not really something too many people dispute. I'm not avoiding debate on terms I am comfortable with but I am avoiding simulation because I feel both sides are confused on what the forge people meant.

I know exactly what a dissociative mechanic means and after the fire of the D&D boards, I consider myself an expert at applying and defending the concepts.

For some reason, many fans of 4e seem dead set on preventing any analysis of playstyles that results in one or more of the playstyle groups disliking 4e. Tons of people dislike 4e and there are distinct patterns in the reasons they give for their dislikes. So a playstyle does exist which rejects the form of the game provided by 4e. Any reasonable person would stop denying such a playstyle exists and instead focus on figuring out what exactly it is that unifies them in there dislike.