Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[Aldarc]

Definitely not Realism! I see how the literature angle works, but from a gaming perspective I think it's a disastrous term. 'Naturalism' is much better, but doesn't feel like it's quite there. I think 'Illusionism' captures one aspect of it very well, but I suspect a lot of people would find it insulting, which certainly isn't the point.

How about "Imaginary Naturalism"?

One problem I often encounter with discussions of simulationism is that there are often two distinct, but overlapping, senses of the meaning, which sometimes creates some unintentional equivocation: (1) simulationism as emulating a sense of "realism" (or physics engine) and (2) simulationism as emulating a sense of genre.

There are fair number of posters who talk about valuing realism in terms of (1), but they would probably, for example, buck against games that simulate the superhero genre and associated tropes like Fate, Masks, Marvel Heroic, or Sentinel Comics RPG: i.e., type (2) simulationism.

 

[niklinna]

Definitely not Realism! I see how the literature angle works, but from a gaming perspective I think it's a disastrous term. 'Naturalism' is much better, but doesn't feel like it's quite there. I think 'Illusionism' captures one aspect of it very well, but I suspect a lot of people would find it insulting, which certainly isn't the point.

Edwards did use "Illusionism" in a particular way, and a lot of people did find it insulting!

 

[niklinna]

How about "Imaginary Naturalism"?

One problem I often encounter with discussions of simulationism is that there are often two distinct, but overlapping, senses of the meaning, which sometimes creates some unintentional equivocation: (1) simulationism as emulating a sense of "realism" (or physics engine) and (2) simulationism as emulating a sense of genre.

There are fair number of posters who talk about valuing realism in terms of (1), but they would probably, for example, buck against games that simulate the superhero genre and associated tropes like Fate, Masks, Marvel Heroic, or Sentinel Comics RPG: i.e., type (2) simulationism.

Yes, again, even though Edwards pointedly distinguished Purist for System and High Concept Simulationism, he still put them both under Simulationism, and that really rubs some people the wrong way. They are both simulating things, but they are simulating very different things!

 

[The Shadow]

How about "Imaginary Naturalism"?

Hmm. Maybe? I think we can do better, but darned if I see how just yet.

One problem I often encounter with discussions of simulationism is that there are often two distinct, but overlapping, senses of the meaning, which sometimes creates some unintentional equivocation: (1) simulationism as emulating a sense of "realism" (or physics engine) and (2) simulationism as emulating a sense of genre.

Oh goodness yes. As a (now) dyed-in-the-wool narrative player, I highly value genre emulation. I want the game to actively support the feel of the genre we're in.

Simple example: In our first Fate Core game, the swords & sorcery one I mentioned before, we decided to treat money as long-lasting Boosts - that is, as aspects you could invoke once in appropriate situations, but then they go away. (Particularly nice hauls might be worth more than +2.) So you could use that 'Priceless Ruby' for a +4 to impress a noble, but then it's gone.

Our GM came up with the further brilliant idea that these resource Boosts would automatically go away at the end of a story arc. So we'd be in a hurry to spend everything before the plot threads tie up. The same way that, say, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser manage to spend a king's ransom between adventures!

There are fair number of posters who talk about valuing realism in terms of (1), but they would probably, for example, buck against games that simulate the superhero genre and associated tropes like Fate, Masks, Marvel Heroic, or Sentinel Comics RPG: i.e., type (2) simulationism.

I haven't found a superhero game for Fate that I genuinely like yet. That genre cries out for more granularity than most. Cortex, which I've recently encountered, seems much more suitable.

 

[rmcoen]

Late to this party, so let me tangent the current conversation for a sec and respond to the OP.

1) I love having mooks for the PCs to mow down / wade through / confuse and frighten / whatever. Go for it. Last session the party manipulated an already assured war victory against an enemy town into an overwhelming landslide with illusions, fog, and a well-rolled shatter spell (and the ranger set about quietly murdering scores of his Favored Enemy). The session before that - softening up the target just mentioned - the bard distracted three dozen enemy citizens and warriors while the others destroyed seige weapons and dueled the enemy leader (and the ranger set about quietly murdering scores of his Favored Enemy); for their escape, the bard then frightened all the gate guards with an amazing and eerie bagpipe performance (and a convenient Nat20). Level 8 PCs against dozens to hundreds of normal goblins, with some bugbears and leveled hobgoblins as hardpoints.

2) I house-ruled in a couple different longer-term consequences of combat. I won't go into the details; it probably takes a few days to recover from a bad fight, but no one is losing a hand or an eye. But a "win" from a fight can still impair the characters several days later. Several "important to the PCs' goals" skill checks have failed because someone still had an Exhaustion Level from being dropped to 0hp recently (disadvantage on all skill checks). Some of those checks were important to current storylines, some self-imposed timelines, and some "just fluff" - the bard is still embarrassed, game months later, at the mention of his performance at Fort Lurstin where everyone chipped in with magical and mundane assistance for an amazing show for the just-rescued soldiers... and the bard rolls "20! Ah, crap, I'm exhausted, hang on... a 2." [Also it was a major backslide in his personal quest for fame and glory, against his NPC rival.]

3) Based on storylines and player choices, some other consequences have been far more extreme. Several PCs have "gone out in a blaze of glory" to end risks or defeat enemies. A few have retired due to having achieved their personal goals, or just reached a point in their story where the risks of adventuring "just don't make sense any more". One PC - through a time manipulation - sacrificed 2 levels by retroactively writing himself out of the entire multiple-session sidequest, in order to arrive at the end of it to save the party. Another PC lost her sight for months by abusing a special power she had (and overestimating her abilities) [she was able to partly compensate with some magic and significant limitations, and eventually crafted a potion that restored her]. Another straight up became the "bartender is secretly a retired adventurer".

4) Characters die in my games. I don't want it - I have plans and plots that involve the PCs; I give them Fate Points to temporarily avoid it. The players don't want it - they all have their own stories and plans and ties to the game world. And it still happens. Sometimes they get resurrected. Sometimes they stay dead. Once, a character came back as a LBEG vampire! But "Stupidity kills" (tm), and also... I don't balance the world to them. The red dragon of the current campaign is ON THE MAP I gave them at the campaign start; they can go there any time. They almost got killed entering giant territory at level 4 (lost a horse just traveling nearby; a following scouting mission turned into "how quietly can we run away?"). At level 7 and 8 they were fighting... 7hp goblins and 13hp hobgoblins for a while. If they get themselves in over their heads... they can run, they can be creative, or they can die. [But d@mn if I wasn't surprised when they killed a CR 15 Purple Worm at level 6!]


So yeah, this is a story and a game, but if there are no consequences, then a lot of the "game" is gone. Loss doesn't have to mean death. But losses have to matter. And not all "win" results are shiny. Reading ASOIAF is shocking and compelling because main characters (PCs) die - and that's so highly unusual in our entertainment. But at the game table, if Ned Stark's buddy just casts revivify within a minute and ol' Ned grabs a sword and fights his way free... well actually, ok, that might be pretty exciting! Lemme try again. Watching Star Trek (TOS), no matter what happens, when Kirk, Spock, and McCoy beam down to the surface, you KNOW that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy will all be beaming back up. And that takes the suspense away. [Final seasons and series finales, though... all bets are off, and it's exciting again!]

 

[Pedantic]

Definitely not Realism! I see how the literature angle works, but from a gaming perspective I think it's a disastrous term. 'Naturalism' is much better, but doesn't feel like it's quite there. I think 'Illusionism' captures one aspect of it very well, but I suspect a lot of people would find it insulting, which certainly isn't the point.

Illusionism is nearly always used pejoratively, to describe GM failures of simulation. That is, a player suggests a course of action, and the world is adjusted around the player's choice to ensure the outcome is the same regardless of what the player proposed. It's particularly galling, as a result to describe the entire style as "illusion," because it suggests that failure is endemic or inevitable, or worse, the intended course of play.

 

[bloodtide]

You CAN subvert this, like @bloodtide suggesting the goblins being the BBEGs or something like that, but you can't do it TOO MUCH.

I disagree. I do it "too much" as in 100%. Whatever random stuff a player or group of players think about how anything "must" be in a game. And this is a big deal for a lot of players. They sit down and think up a whole set of rule about how the world must be, mostly based on their whims. Sure they will try to say "everyone" thinks the same. And they will try to point out a movie or two that agrees with their viewpoint. Though they ignore all other movies that don't agree with thier viewpoint.

It just makes no sense for anyone to think this way.

I'm not much of a "sim" guy any more, but I used to be. I think what's being looked for is a game world that has a sort of life of its own. Like the real world, it doesn't care whether you live or die, it'll do its own thing regardless. If you want to make a mark on it, you'd better be prepared for it to make a mark back. It owes you nothing.

I agree here.

Worse, I see so many players with the idea that their character (aka themselves as they self insert) are born/created a hero. So they player feels that no matter what they do it makes them a great hero, and worse that they don't even need to take any actions to be a hero. They randomly do some stuff in the game, mostly mindless combat, then ask "Does my character get to be king now?"

 

[Lanefan]

Where my view is that people who are playing characters that consistently annoy other people are duty-bound to not run those kind of characters or find a game where they don't. People are not playing by themselves, and you don't get to ignore what effect its having on others; the term for that is "selfish".

Selfish if done wrong, perhaps, but the term that more often leaps to mind IME is "entertaining".

If the players-as-players are laughing at what your character does even though the players-in-character all want to kill it, you're doing it right.

 

[Aldarc]

Hmm. Maybe? I think we can do better, but darned if I see how just yet.

Oh goodness yes. As a (now) dyed-in-the-wool narrative player, I highly value genre emulation. I want the game to actively support the feel of the genre we're in.

Simple example: In our first Fate Core game, the swords & sorcery one I mentioned before, we decided to treat money as long-lasting Boosts - that is, as aspects you could invoke once in appropriate situations, but then they go away. (Particularly nice hauls might be worth more than +2.) So you could use that 'Priceless Ruby' for a +4 to impress a noble, but then it's gone.

Our GM came up with the further brilliant idea that these resource Boosts would automatically go away at the end of a story arc. So we'd be in a hurry to spend everything before the plot threads tie up. The same way that, say, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser manage to spend a king's ransom between adventures!

I like this a lot. I would definitely be curious how you handled magic or rituals as per the sort that, for example, Elric of Melniboné would perform.

I haven't found a superhero game for Fate that I genuinely like yet. That genre cries out for more granularity than most. Cortex, which I've recently encountered, seems much more suitable.

I had a good game going for Venture City. In hindsight, however, Masks would have been a more appropriate game for the tone and sub-genre we were going for. I do think that Cortex would work well, but I have an easier time grokking superhero powers in Fate than I am with SFX in Cortex. I have heard good things about Sentinel Comics as well.

 

[Lanefan]

Thank you for the link, I didn't realize that the term went all the way back to Usenet! (Though in retrospect I'm not surprised.)

The concept goes back even further than that - I remember discussions (and arguments!) within our crew over reality-simulation vs gameplay concerns back in the early-to-mid-80s; the specific terms "simulationist" and "gamist" may have come later but the ideas behind them - and conflicts between them - go back a long way.