Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[Micah Sweet]

Where is my apology for you grossly misrepresenting my argument or is that on the way soon?

See above. I am sorry.

 

[pemerton]

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. The phrase, "magical elf-game" makes me see red, as its almost always used dismissively, and simulation as a playstyle is definitely being questioned in this thread as to its legitimacy (and often in the style of the Forge, which I strongly dislike in large part because of its stance against simulation). I also prefer the term verisimilitude to realism.

Here we go again.

In what way is The Forge against simulation? @Pedantic is clearly for simulation, and not far upthread I posted passages from the Right to Dream essay that agree precisely with what Pedantic said.

I don't know how much Rolemaster, RQ or C&S you've played but I'm in the thousands of hours for the former, and in the dozens for RQ. (I've never played C&S.) I think I have as much familiarity with purist-for-system RPGing as anyone else posting in this thread. It's not "questioning its legitimacy" to point out what it is actually about, which is to say system determination of outcomes without the need for participant decision-making. Which then produces the various features that Pedantic mentioned and that I elaborated on with reference to the Forge essay.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here we go again.

In what way is The Forge against simulation? @Pedantic is clearly for simulation, and not far upthread I posted passages from the Right to Dream essay that agree precisely with what Pedantic said.

I don't know how much Rolemaster, RQ or C&S you've played but I'm in the thousands of hours for the former, and in the dozens for RQ. (I've never played C&S.) I think I have as much familiarity with purist-for-system RPGing as anyone else posting in this thread. It's not "questioning its legitimacy" to point out what it is actually about, which is to say system determination of outcomes without the need for participant decision-making. Which then produces the various features that Pedantic mentioned and that I elaborated on with reference to the Forge essay.

Ron Edwards is on record multiple times speaking against simulation. I'm not making this up.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The G part of RPG can be packaged into the resolution mechanic, creating a strong whole, while separately both are weak.

And even if it's not really a game, I don't see a problem with that. I, personally, adore Blades in the Dark, but I'm not entirely sure how much of a game it is: after all, I've been playing it for a couple of years now, and I can't exactly say I've got "better", "more skillful" at it.

Interesting, but I don't really agree about BitD, there is a great deal of expertise you can build in terms of navigating this sort of game structure. I'm not sure I would say the mechanical part of the game has all the pure strategic depth of some games, but I don't think it is any less a skill game than the original D&D game I played back in 1975.

But I think we differ in our opinions as to where the G part of games does/should reside. I think strong operating rules which govern the 'Process of Play' such as those present in Apocalypse World (and thus at least some of its descendants) are, if not absolutely necessary for G to exist, vital in terms of evolving play in the kind of direction you speak of.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Is it of the essence of a game that one gets better at it?

I looked up a dictionary definition just now, the one Google gave me was:

'A form of play...', check.

'...especially a competitive one...', no check, but the definition does acknowledge that it isn't a requirement.

'according to rules,' check.

'...and decided by skill, strength, or luck.' RPGs are usually decided by some combination of skill and luck, the exact ratio depending on the game. (At least, I haven't heard of one decided by strength!)

Granted that skill is involved in play, must play develop skill? I can think of games, generally those involving hand-eye coordination, at which I have remained singularly inept despite some degree of effort. (I'm blind in one eye and have terrible vision in the other.) They are still games despite that.

Awesome! We can play ping pong. First guy to return the ball wins! hahaha. (hint: it will be competitive).

 

[The Shadow]

Ron Edwards is on record multiple times speaking against simulation. I'm not making this up.

@Micah Sweet is right. I stopped lurking at the Forge in part because Edwards was so toxic on the subject. Really, @pemerton, despite how great his essays are, in his posts he can be very insulting and abrasive. I'm not going to repeat some of the things I read from him, but they were beyond the pale of civilized discourse - well beyond calling Sim badwrongfun.

 

[Pedantic]

I agree with this, but with two caveats or glosses.

(1) I think, in a RPG, the "board state" has to include fiction (or at the very least point to some fiction) as well as statistical/numerical/geometric facts. Otherwise we're in boardgame territory. This is why all the classic purist-for-simulationist games move away from hit points: hit points are a statistical/numerical fact, but barely point towards any fiction. Some RPGing can handle that deferral of the fiction (ie until someone is reduced to zero hp, we don't really know what happened) but it's intolerable to the purist-for-system impulse!

I think I agree, but I don't think your conclusion follows. This still seems to give primacy to the fiction over the mechanics. The point, to my eye, is that a fiction that fails to describe the mechanics at play is wrong. Remedies to resolve that include either changing the mechanics to support the desired fiction, or changing the fiction to reflect what a given mechanic is actually doing (or of course, compromising to fulfill some other aesthetic that has more value and is worth the dissonance).

This is my point about "realism" being orthogonal. Realism is not so much desirable, as useful. "Realistic" settings, whether that's actual realism or intuited genre norms or even ultimately false projections about how reality works provide a lot of detail for not a lot of mechanical effort. I can see where the impulse comes from, and we can see the games it spawned, but I think it's idiosyncrasy, not a truth of the form.

(2) I think the connection between whatever they say about the world is true and the impulse to realism is more than coincidental. The first is easier to accept, it seems to me, the more that the second is satisfied. Thus, for instance, someone who accepts the first and then tries to apply it to D&D hp-based combat confronts the fact that this character is hit again and again with a sword, yet not dead nor even (it seems) set back in ability. Which suggests a type of absurd reality (if we ignore the impulse to realism) or else suggests that, in fact, what the mechanics are telling us is not true of the world, but rather (as Gygax set out in his DMG) is a type of "deferral" of the fiction until we sort the whole thing out. (Later on, the approach that Gygax described very clearly in his DMG, with reference both to hp and to saving throws, would be labelled "fortune in the middle". That idea of "in the middle" (of the resolution process) corresponds to my language of "deferral" of the fiction.)

I don't think this gives enough credit to the malleability of the fictional setting. Look at something like Andrew Rowe's books, which pretty clearly wear their influences on their sleeves and reify a bunch of weird class/level things to functional parts of the setting's reality. It's a disservice to insist simulation must refer to some actual process of the actual world; rather, it's more convenient and easier to do so if your only goal is simulation. Once you want to do anything else with your system (like say, play a game using it) your priorities are likely to change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think I agree, but I don't think your conclusion follows. This still seems to give primacy to the fiction over the mechanics. The point, to my eye, is that a fiction that fails to describe the mechanics at play is wrong. Remedies to resolve that include either changing the mechanics to support the desired fiction, or changing the fiction to reflect what a given mechanic is actually doing (or of course, compromising to fulfill some other aesthetic that has more value and is worth the dissonance).

This is my point about "realism" being orthogonal. Realism is not so much desirable, as useful. "Realistic" settings, whes.her that's actual realism or intuited genre norms or even ultimately false projections about how reality works provide a lot of detail for not a lot of mechanical effort. I can see where the impulse comes from, and we can see the games it spawned, but I think it's idiosyncrasy, not a truth of the form.

I don't think this gives enough credit to the malleability of the fictional setting. Look at something like Andrew Rowe's books, which pretty clearly wear their influences on their sleeves and reify a bunch of weird class/level things to functional parts of the setting's reality. It's a disservice to insist simulation must refer to some actual process of the actual world; rather, it's more convenient and easier to do so if your only goal is simulation. Once you want to do anything else with your system (like say, play a game using it) your priorities are likely to change.

Are you seriously taking the stance that realism is objectively not desirable to anyone? I can't begin to explain how wrong you about that. There is no advantage to telling people they are wrong about their wants and feelings.

 

[The Shadow]

Are you seriously taking the stance that realism is objectively not desirable to anyone? I can't begin to explain how wrong you about that. There is no advantage to telling people they are wrong about their wants and feelings.

Perhaps a better way of saying it is that realism is not an end in itself. I don't think anyone wants realism just for the sake of realism, do they? They want it for the sake of something else that they value.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps a better way of saying it is that realism is not an end in itself. I don't think anyone wants realism just for the sake of realism, do they? They want it for the sake of something else that they value.

Sure. What I value is verisimilitude, creating and interacting with a setting that feels real, that exists outside of the PCs and doesn't care about them for any reason outside of their in-game existence and the actions they take. I refuse to accept any argument predicated on the idea that this isn't  really what I want. I know my own mind, and the vast majority of the time that's what I want, over story or plot (though both are important) as a player or a DM. A consistent, PC-independent setting. I know I'll never get all the way there, but that's my goal, and I'll never stop trying for it.