Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[AbdulAlhazred]

Rolemaster does not really purport to simulate a world. It is purist-for-system in the sense of the Right to Dream essay. Here's how these games are described:

These games' five-element structure is consistent: System + Color thereof, Setting, then Character + Situation. I'm trying to think of one which switches the role of character before setting, which might include some some superhero games. It might seem odd that Color is placed so high in priority, but consider the engineering-text model for the game text of GURPS - this is, actually, Color for System. . . .​

​

Purist-for-System designs tend to model the same things: differences among scales, situational modifiers, kinetics of all kinds, and so forth.​

I think that Rolemaster might be another game that puts Character ahead of Setting.

The significance of this description becomes clearer when we see how "High Concept" or "genre" simulation is described:

At first glance, these games might look like additions to or specifications of the Purist for System design, mainly through plugging in a fixed Setting. However, I think that impression isn't accurate, and that the five elements are very differently related. The formula starts with one of Character, Situation, or Setting, with lots of Color, then the other two (Character, Situation, or Setting, whichever weren't in first place), with System being last in priority.​

In other words, a system like RM or RQ - and also at least some approaches to Classic Traveller - prioritises system, a mechanical process of resolution which itself establishes colour and "theme" in the sense of focusing on those issues of scale, kinetics etc that are mentioned. The goal isn't to model a world: it's to make certain elements of the fiction salient, and to then have a mechanical resolution process that can take those as inputs and generate appropriate outputs. If the system breaks down when the parameters are varied even within reasonable limits, or if it needs intervention from a human operator to ensure that results "make sense", then the game is not doing what it is mean to do.

Whereas high concept/genre sim is quite different: the point of the PC build rules, for instance, isn't to produce mechanical elements of character that feed into a resolution engine: it's to produce characters with clear (and often colourful) descriptors which can then be fed into setting and/or situation. And there is a significant expectation of human operator intervention to make sure that those descriptors and that colour are respected in the outcomes of play. Every CoC or D&D module that has advice to the GM on what to do if the players miss a necessary clue, or every bit of advice about not rolling the dice and just going with what "makes sense" for the character, is something that would be out of place in purist-for-system play but is part and parcel of high concept sim play.

This is how we can tell that, within this taxonomical framework, 5e D&D is essentially a high concept/genre sim game. The closest D&D gets to being purist-for-system is if played in a type of AD&D style that differs from Gygax's own "skilled" play and focuses more on letting the system do its own thing for its own sake. The known problems with this are that AC, hit points, saving throws and even spell slots don't make much sense when looked at through this lens - they're hard to take seriously as "models" of anything in the fiction - and so the natural drifts towards vitality + wound points, armour as damage reduction, all take place, and we end up in the same general terrain as RM, RQ, C&S etc. I'm sure you're familiar with that drift because you were there the first time it happened in the late 70s/early 80s and have no doubt seen versions of it (even, on these boards, @Lanefan's versions) played out again and again and again.

Interesting. I think there are a lot of 'mixed' games. That is games often focus on specific areas and are fairly 'purist' in those areas, depending largely on the mechanics and character attributes and such to resolve situations, with the understanding that this will produce a certain kind of outcomes. I think this is the case with D&D combat, generally speaking, in its classical TSR forms (though I'm sure I need not point out that some of what you call HCS crept in with 2e particularly). Spells are a bit of a different beast there, having a good bit of rules structured character, but then overlapping into the OTHER, purely High Concept part of D&D where you have social interactions and various other things that are resolved almost entirely free-form (though again, interestingly 2e/late 1e adds a light flavoring of optional mechanics). B/X being noted as having an especially strong mechanical approach to exploration, which 1e shares, but 2e mostly elides.

Other games are pretty mixed as well. You've noted Traveller, which leaves you pretty much on your own in terms of things like navigating on a planet or exploring a ruin (though skills provide a small amount of structure). OTOH finding a patron, operating a vacc suit, or even the combat systems in general mix in a fair bit of system providing color.

I don't think it would actually be too hard to design something like a PbtA game this way either, where it had some very hard, what I call light process sim, rules structures, and then outside of that one particular focus the rest of the game could rely on some very general and typical PbtA moves. Like, you have really particular rules for racing your race car where all the various factors come into play, the moves are all detailed, focused, and realistic in terms of their descriptions and ranges of outcomes. Once you 'leave the track' you enter into the social and political world where its all much looser and more typical PbtA-esque play loop. One could feed into the other in terms of acquisition of resources, the effects of the character's personal interactions on their ability to focus, etc. sort of like what happens in Rush.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Guns don't work on general in D&D? Where is that written?

It doesn't have to be written! I mean, I agree it also doesn't have to be so, but there are all these genre conventions, and the even more basic 'world conventions'. They simply exist because you cannot play without situations that meet the player's expectations to at least SOME degree.

You CAN subvert this, like @bloodtide suggesting the goblins being the BBEGs or something like that, but you can't do it TOO MUCH. Once the PCs in one of my games visited the Feywild (it was a 4e game). They met a talking turtle, OK, odd but not actually unexpected for Fairyland. The Turtle was at a bridge that seems to be a way between worlds, a World Crossing. So they travel down a road with the turtle, and come to a fair. They do some stuff there, and then they ask the turtle "OK, which way is the path back to the bridge." The answer given was "You can't get there from here!" Of course they were nonplussed and rather irritated the turtle by insisting that it has to be logically possible to retrace your steps. Finally some other NPC offered up that logic is for silly mortals and doesn't apply in this realm. There is indeed NO WAY to from the fair to the bridge, even though the road goes from the bridge to the fair. At least in that universe you CANNOT MAP the Feywild, its rules simply are not logical. Its fine to have a place like that, but try to imagine playing a whole campaign in it, it just wouldn't work, heck, even the GM can't tell how things work!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just as an aside, I think there are absolutely games that are trying to simulate a world within the limits of practicality. GURPS used to hit this pretty hard when it started out (though over time it introduced more at least optional genre elements into the mechanics (I make this distinction because I still maintain there's a difference in level in which genre and world emulation elements operate on, even though they can be entwined--and these are kind of easily separated when you ask which ones a normal and sane member of the setting could at least theoretically be aware of without breaking the genre), as does its nephew EABA. There can be failures to do this of course, but those usually have more to do with failures on the designer's part to actually understand what they're emulating.

And all I'm saying is, the number of factors and interactions, the sheer amount of data needed, to MEANINGFULLY model something like a world is not possible. So yes, you can COLOR everything as being part of a web of cause and effect relationships which you have modeled. but the number of assumptions being made in lieu of a way to build such a model is so large that at some point we have to find some reason to pick one option vs another that is not based on simulation, but something. It could be 'what will make a good game', or 'what is most genre-appropriate' etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And all I'm saying is, the number of factors and interactions, the sheer amount of data needed, to MEANINGFULLY model something like a world is not possible. So yes, you can COLOR everything as being part of a web of cause and effect relationships which you have modeled. but the number of assumptions being made in lieu of a way to build such a model is so large that at some point we have to find some reason to pick one option vs another that is not based on simulation, but something. It could be 'what will make a good game', or 'what is most genre-appropriate' etc.

So the level of simulation can't meet your standards, so it's pointless? That's a level of callous disregard for how others prefer to play I find deeply insulting.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think @AbdulAlhazred, in saying that "world sim" is impossible, is taking the word "world" more-or-less literally. If in fact it is being used non-literally, to refer to some little fragment of the world, then maybe his claim becomes less plausible.

Although even consider, say, a simulation of what happens when a character heaves a boulder over a cliff. What/who is at the bottom of the cliff that is in danger of getting squashed? Even in Rolemaster, one of the most purist of purist-for-system RPGs, the GM basically has to just make that up. There is no system for modelling what is at the bottom of a cliff.

Right, and 'simulating' that would be basically unimaginably complex, as it would require a vast amount of detailed knowledge of the fantasy world that nobody is going to make up. I mean, part of the problem here is that you can kinda call any MODEL a 'simulation', but it is practically meaningless at a certain point to do so, as it simply means everything is a simulation of something else, and I'm sure we are not going there. The really key takeaway for me is that our models/simulations within RPGs are SO COARSE that, to me, they feel entirely like devices simply intended to let us hang lamp shades on. (I mean mechanics serve additional purposes, but in the sense of relating to verisimilitude).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So the level of simulation can't meet your standards, so it's pointless? That's a level of callous disregard for how others prefer to play I find deeply insulting.

I'm not at all using any terms like 'pointless'. I think it simply serves its purpose in a way which is not as obvious as some people seem to think. In fact it has a few purposes, and we talked about one just on this or the previous page, which is allowing people's expectations and understanding of the world help them navigate the imaginary construct of the game world.

So, you may say you have a simulation of gravity in D&D, the point is, "if you fall, it hurts!" which allows us to establish fictional position, etc. Its unimportant really whether we are simulating gravity or just making a game rule that suites our purposes. In other cases the purpose might simply be to 'lamp shade' a determination like "how many orcs are there here?" or something like that.

 

[The Shadow]

I'm not convinced that the word "simulation" is a good one for what certain playstyles are doing. It certainly has a way of leading into the weeds!

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.

It's not that one is simulating the real world, so much that one wants an intense sense of verisimilitude. A sufficient illusion of reality to immerse oneself in.

Anyone who's more into the playstyle, please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Say what you will about Ron Edwards (and there's plenty to be said), he did say something so insightful about the difference between "sim" and "narr" that it crystallized a lot of inchoate feelings that eventually helped set me on the road to "narr".

It was that both types of game, if set in (a version of) Japan, might well have a code of bushido. But their attitude toward it would be different.

A "sim" samurai player would regard it from the start as a fact about how to play his character, and play it to the hilt consistently. A "sim" game system might treat bushido as a disadvantage that gives points back because it constrains play.

A "narr" samurai player would treat bushido as something that the character is on a collision course with - seek to put the character into situations where he has to choose between it and other things he holds dear. A "narr" game system wouldn't reward you for taking it, but for testing it.

I would add that a "narr" world, like any consciously fictional world, isn't neutral to the characters at all. The characters are its sole reason for being! Or at least, pace Tolkien, for its being instantiated in this story, right now.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not talking about a "little fragment"; I'm talking about depth and scale. When doing a model of anything, you don't need to emulate everything down to the subatomic level, because for the most part that is just background noise to the parts you're looking at. Similarly, you can bake in things that are below or outside the level of what you're looking at in a world simulation for the rules about the parts you are looking at. That doesn't mean your bake-ins are going to be right or at least look right to people; that's a question of your success in what you're doing. But you're still simulating the world here, even if its zoomed out beyond certain things.

RM and RQ don't model economics, seasons (in any meaningful way), thus don't model famines versus rich harvests (even though they have plant growth spells), etc. They are focused on only a few little bits of the world, and what makes them purist-for-system simulationist is that they adopt a particular approach to resolving action declarations that pertain to those things.

I'd argue that's because to the degree its liable to be significant, its normally assumed to be baked in to the set-up; in other words, if anyone is liable to care what gets squashed, the GM will have considered it when setting up the situation.

How is that not just an example of exactly what @AbdulAlhazred said, that it's not simulation but simply imagination?

 

[pemerton]

I don't think it would actually be too hard to design something like a PbtA game this way either, where it had some very hard, what I call light process sim, rules structures, and then outside of that one particular focus the rest of the game could rely on some very general and typical PbtA moves. Like, you have really particular rules for racing your race car where all the various factors come into play, the moves are all detailed, focused, and realistic in terms of their descriptions and ranges of outcomes. Once you 'leave the track' you enter into the social and political world where its all much looser and more typical PbtA-esque play loop.

Just picking up on this: 4e D&D is at an appropriate level of abstraction an illustration of your idea. Combat is resolved via a tight mechanical framework; everything else is resolved via the far "looser" framework of skill challenges.

 

[niklinna]

I'm not convinced that the word "simulation" is a good one for what certain playstyles are doing. It certainly has a way of leading into the weeds!

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.

It's not that one is simulating the real world, so much that one wants an intense sense of verisimilitude. A sufficient illusion of reality to immerse oneself in.

If you go back to early sources, you see pretty quickly that some folks advocating Simulationism weren't trying to model the whole world, but were trying to have play unfold without the influence of narrative/dramatic tropes or demands:

"Simulationism" is a term coined in February 1995 on the newsgroup on the forum rec.games.frp.advocacy (rgfa).[1] Here I want to explain it, and put it into context. Over the next two years on rgfa, it was defined negatively as the rejection of certain methods. The definition was that it was against using meta-game information (like whether a character is a PC, whether this is on-screen or background, or who the players are) to affect in-game resolution. Thus, it rejects methods like die-roll bonuses for how cool a maneuver sounded to the GM, or requiring drama points to allow players to alter background. Instead, what happens should be based on thinking only about what would happen in the game-world as a alternate reality.

Arguments that Simulationism is trying to actually model a whole world, and that it is therefore hopeless or pointless, are rather like catching a tennis ball at a football game and trying to get a home run (not to mention obviously predictable as insulting to proponents of Simulationism). Sure, as @The Shadow said, perhaps it's a poor name, but it's the name in the historical record, just like all the terms The Forge coined that people complain are terrible. Sure, Simulationism is just using your imagination—so is Blades in the Dark, so is Apocalypse World—but you're using your imagination with different constraints on what is plausible and desired.

Anyone who's more into the playstyle, please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Say what you will about Ron Edwards (and there's plenty to be said), he did say something so insightful about the difference between "sim" and "narr" that it crystallized a lot of inchoate feelings that eventually helped set me on the road to "narr".

It was that both types of game, if set in (a version of) Japan, might well have a code of bushido. But their attitude toward it would be different.

A "sim" samurai player would regard it from the start as a fact about how to play his character, and play it to the hilt consistently. A "sim" game system might treat bushido as a disadvantage that gives points back because it constrains play.

A "narr" samurai player would treat bushido as something that the character is on a collision course with - seek to put the character into situations where he has to choose between it and other things he holds dear. A "narr" game system wouldn't reward you for taking it, but for testing it.

I would add that a "narr" world, like any consciously fictional world, isn't neutral to the characters at all. The characters are its sole reason for being! Or at least, pace Tolkien, in its being instantiated in this story, right now.

This represented a pretty big shift, away from narrative/dramatic concerns being used to influence or fudge otherwise Simulationist system outputs (trying to get a desired particular outcome), and to them being used to drive the action, right at the core, yet with unpredictable outcomes.

Edit: Fixed a typo.