Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[pemerton]

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

Please point me to this record.

Edwards is a huge Champions player, and Champions is a primordial Sim game.

You can read him here saying that

Pound for pound, Basic Role-Playing from The Chaosium is perhaps the most important system, publishing tradition, and intellectual engine in the hobby - yes, even more than D&D. It represents the first and arguably the most lasting, influential form of uncompromising Simulationist design.​

Where is this alleged failure to give simulationism its due?

Micah Sweet, I don't know what your play history is with Champions/Hero, RQ, RM, C&S, GURPS or similar, classic purist-for-system RPGs. What things is Edwards saying about them that you disagree with? My play experience with RM is massive, and with RQ and allied systems is well above zero. And in my view Edwards is an insightful commentator on the, which is unsurprising given his own experiences with Champions and RQ.

@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.

I don't really see how this bears upon whether what he says about purist-for-system simulationism is true or false.

I've played thousands of hours of RM. I don't need Edwards judgement - abrasive or otherwise - to tell me whether or not that was valuable RPGing. I can work that out for myself. (Some of it was time-sinky. Some of it was wonderful. I got better at it after I read Edwards's essays.)

I'm interested in analysis of RPGing. My assertion is that what distinguishes purist-for-system RPGing from other approaches is the emphasis on resolution process (ie the system in action without the need for participant decision-making) and certain associated approaches to framing and consequence narration. There is nothing in purist-for-system RPGing that involves "trying to simulate a world", which as @AbdulAlhazred has pointed out is a quixotic goal.

The point can be reinforced in other ways too. For instance, both RuneQuest and HeroWars/Quest can be used to play in Glorantha. Glorantha doesn't become a more or less "real" setting depending on which PC build and resolution system is used.

In my Prince Valiant game the setting is a loose interpretation of mediaeval Europe. That is pretty real, and we can get as fine-grained as we want, with our Celtic Britons and our Celtic Dacians our Huns and Constantinople and Cyprus and our use of a historical atlas to work out where the castles are in Cyprus.. That doesn't have any bearing on the fact that Prince Valiant is not a purist-for-system simulationist RPG.

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.

From the point of view of GM prep, this appears to be a desire to write a "setting bible" that is (perhaps) updated from time to time.

From the point of view of action resolution, this appears to be a desire to resolve actions through a combination of metagame-free resolution process and GM decision-making by extrapolation from the prep.

These are well-known approaches to RPGing. No one thinks they don't exist: they were practically normative from c 1980 to c 2010.

The RPGs most frequently used to pursue this approach are AD&D and 3E D&D (and variants thereof). I reckon the majority of GURPS play also probably aims for this, and quite a bit of RQ play too.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, sure, but was anyone in fact equating it with a loaded term like 'authenticity'? If they were, we certainly haven't been talking the same language!

I've seen both "authenticity" and "verisimilitude" used in the past. It should be noted than depending on exactly what its being discussed for simulation the distinction between those and "realism" can be--subtle. The useful reason to substitute them is it largely allows avoidance of some of the all-or-nothing discussions that have cropped up in this very thread.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Every setting product ever created does not assume the existence of any particular PCs. They instead describe themselves and offer ways to insert the PCs i to the world. The world as described is independent of the PCs.

Our base assumptions here are, I think, simply too different for us to understand each other.

I don’t know if that’s the case. I think what you’ve said above is a good start. I’ve played plenty of games like that. These days, I tend to look at all the setting stuff as simply fodder for play, which to me means fodder for the PCs since they are what animate the setting. Do you disagree with that?

How do you handle PC creation? I imagine you pick a setting and everyone makes characters according to the rules/lore of that setting? Is there more to it?

Are the rules your world’s physics, at least as much as possible?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Please point me to this record.

Edwards is a huge Champions player, and Champions is a primordial Sim game.

You can read him here saying that

Pound for pound, Basic Role-Playing from The Chaosium is perhaps the most important system, publishing tradition, and intellectual engine in the hobby - yes, even more than D&D. It represents the first and arguably the most lasting, influential form of uncompromising Simulationist design.​

Where is this alleged failure to give simulationism its due?

Micah Sweet, I don't know what your play history is with Champions/Hero, RQ, RM, C&S, GURPS or similar, classic purist-for-system RPGs. What things is Edwards saying about them that you disagree with? My play experience with RM is massive, and with RQ and allied systems is well above zero. And in my view Edwards is an insightful commentator on the, which is unsurprising given his own experiences with Champions and RQ.

I don't really see how this bears upon whether what he says about purist-for-system simulationism is true or false.

I've played thousands of hours of RM. I don't need Edwards judgement - abrasive or otherwise - to tell me whether or not that was valuable RPGing. I can work that out for myself. (Some of it was time-sinky. Some of it was wonderful. I got better at it after I read Edwards's essays.)

I'm interested in analysis of RPGing. My assertion is that what distinguishes purist-for-system RPGing from other approaches is the emphasis on resolution process (ie the system in action without the need for participant decision-making) and certain associated approaches to framing and consequence narration. There is nothing in purist-for-system RPGing that involves "trying to simulate a world", which as @AbdulAlhazred has pointed out is a quixotic goal.

The point can be reinforced in other ways too. For instance, both RuneQuest and HeroWars/Quest can be used to play in Glorantha. Glorantha doesn't become a more or less "real" setting depending on which PC build and resolution system is used.

In my Prince Valiant game the setting is a loose interpretation of mediaeval Europe. That is pretty real, and we can get as fine-grained as we want, with our Celtic Britons and our Celtic Dacians our Huns and Constantinople and Cyprus and our use of a historical atlas to work out where the castles are in Cyprus.. That doesn't have any bearing on the fact that Prince Valiant is not a purist-for-system simulationist RPG.

From the point of view of GM prep, this appears to be a desire to write a "setting bible" that is (perhaps) updated from time to time.

From the point of view of action resolution, this appears to be a desire to resolve actions through a combination of metagame-free resolution process and GM decision-making by extrapolation from the prep.

These are well-known approaches to RPGing. No one thinks they don't exist: they were practically normative from c 1980 to c 2010.

The RPGs most frequently used to pursue this approach are AD&D and 3E D&D (and variants thereof). I reckon the majority of GURPS play also probably aims for this, and quite a bit of RQ play too.

If that's true, is the whole issue just some kind of terminology problem? Your posts read to me as unnecessarily jargon-filled, and I already told you I don't care for the Forge.

I get the second part of your post; as a long-time AD&D-based player, that's pretty much how I play. What are you trying to say in the first part? I can't parse your Forge-isms.

 

[pemerton]

Every setting product ever created does not assume the existence of any particular PCs. They instead describe themselves and offer ways to insert the PCs i to the world. The world as described is independent of the PCs.

Glorantha is a "setting product". It seems to fit your description. But HeroWars is, presumably, not a RPG that you want to play.

When I started my first RM game, the setting was the World of Greyhawk (which I always default to for trope-standard FRPGing). One of the PCs was from the village of Five Oak (which is described in the City of GH boxed set). The player described his PC's magician mentor living inside a great hollow oak tree on the edge of the Gnarley Forest. Everone else, including me as GM, went along with that. Is that an example of what you don't like?

 

[The Shadow]

See, your entire argument is the same, "you don't want what you say you want" I am already on record as saying I am sick of hearing about my preferred playstyle. Sim is no less valid than gamist or narrative play, no matter what the Forge and Edward's have to say about it.

What I'm taking Umbran's point to be is that there are lots of ways to scratch the "simulation" itch. I don't think anyone can deny that J. R. R. Tolkien worked harder than just about anyone else to make his world as intensely realized, as living and breathing, as possible. It was a lifelong obsession. But he didn't play roleplaying games in Middle Earth that I know of, he wrote stories and essays about it.

So, to the extent you've chosen to realize the worlds of your imagination in the context of a game with other people, there must be something about that particular realization that appeals to you apart from the simulation. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that there's something about the game that engages your delight in simulation better than other ways.

What is that? I'm not at all trying to tell you your preferences are wrong! I'm just trying to understand what they are. Why a game instead of another mode of expression?

The question can very easily be turned back on me, so I'll try to answer it. Why do I like stories produced in games better than those I write myself?

I think there are several reasons besides the obvious one of socializing with friends. First - I don't know what's going to happen next! Yes, there are solo RPGs that can supply that, but they are still limited by my own imagination. The collision between multiple people's imaginations and agendas produces fascinating debris!

Second - playing the role provides much the same fun of acting, but without the pressure of a large audience or the need to memorize lines. There is a pleasure in seeing what this other person I inhabit wants to do and strive to do it.

Third - the vicissitudes of my character provide much the same catharsis as reading great fiction, but because in a sense I've "lived" it myself, the experience is more intense.

Fourth - for much the same reason, the experience of play can let me "try out" being a different kind of person. When I was younger, I was very shy and awkward, but RPGs gave me a safe space to learn to be more assertive and personable. Likewise, I'm unmarried but the game can in a sense let me experience being a loving but flawed father.

 

[Thomas Shey]

"Deconstruction of X" is itself a genre, so I don't find this to be at odds with what I said.

Note his comment was "to be read as" deconstruction, not deconstruction. Deconstruction is usually done to serve one or more specific points, where what he's talking about is actively avoiding the less naturalistic genre conventions, which in the case of some genres will largely deconstruct them simply as a side effect.

As an example, you don't have to pry off too many conventions of the superhero genre before it looks nothing like conventional superhero stories, to the point you'll often get people to refer to them other ways ("people with powers" stories has been popular IME) so as not to have people expect to have people with codenames, costumes, and powers that are more destructive to the environment than to other humans. People-with-power stories are not automatically deconstructions, but they can be, and its easy to read them that way as a default.

 

[pemerton]

What are you trying to say in the first part? I can't parse your Forge-isms.

By "the first part", do you mean this?

I'm interested in analysis of RPGing. My assertion is that what distinguishes purist-for-system RPGing from other approaches is the emphasis on resolution process (ie the system in action without the need for participant decision-making) and certain associated approaches to framing and consequence narration.

 

[Pedantic]

LitRPG is a really interesting thing to watch happen. The way this describes it undersells it a bit too, there's plenty of it that is adopting game elements while playing coy about being a game, and just making things like level or class a part of the world's physical laws.

Yeah. You've got these overlapping progression fantasy, LitRPG and to some degree "westernized" cultivation novels that are currently all floating in web novel, self published and boutique house spaces, and if we're honest are often pretty bad right now (like, some authors very much view editing and punctuation as optional bad, genre content aside, which can also be unsavory).

It's going to be interesting in another decade when scholarship starts to appear around it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t know if that’s the case. I think what you’ve said above is a good start. I’ve played plenty of games like that. These days, I tend to look at all the setting stuff as simply fodder for play, which to me means fodder for the PCs since they are what animate the setting. Do you disagree with that?

How do you handle PC creation? I imagine you pick a setting and everyone makes characters according to the rules/lore of that setting? Is there more to it?

Are the rules your world’s physics, at least as much as possible?

The setting stuff is the most important part of gaming for me, far more than fodder. How the PCs interact with the world that exists independent of them (outside of their actions) is what's most valuable to me at the table.

I allow my players to make whatever character they want that can be made to fit into the setting. If the player wants to add to the setting, and there is room for it, I allow that as well, after which it becomes part of the existing setting that again exists independently of the PCs.

I look for or create rules that mirror physics as much as is practical for my table and my players. Often this is not as "realistic" as I would like, but I try my hardest within my player's tolerances.

This is why I love Level Up. We play 5e, because that's what my players want, and Level Up comes much closer to my gaming desires than WotC's version.