Why do RPGs have rules?

[Imaro]

Notably, GDS did not care much about "incoherence" and in fact expected the majority of games were admixtures of its three approaches. You can argue the model was still incomplete, but expecting the binning to be complete was not one of its problems.

I'm going to take some time and read up on this model as it seems, at a fundamental level, much more in line with my experience in actual play than what I've seen espoused by those who subscribe to the Forge model.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A story about a bear ISN'T a simulation, which is why the bear/goldilocks discussion is baffling. However, it can be the output of a simulation, which itself can be built around the mental model of a bear and can therefore have bear-like properties like a sense of smell keener than a bloodhound's.

But you can't necessarily tell from a story what play agenda generated it, especially without any dialogue from those who were generating it.

Story: "The fearsome dragon roared and blew fire at Conan, who barely dodged it and then threw his mighty axe--which embedded itself to the haft right between the dragon's eyes. It fell out of the sky with an enormous crash! Thus ended the days of Treacher Leech, the last of the western dragons."

Is that story the output of a play agenda that's mostly Gamist, mostly Dramatist, or mostly Simulationist? You can't tell. But what if I add a dialogue transcript from the players?

Transcript A:

GM: the dragon blows fire at you! DC 18 Dex save!

Conanist: I use my Inspiration. I've been saving it all session for this fight. [Rolls] 13, 18. Made it! Because I have Evasion from my Rogue levels, I take no damage.

GM: okay, your turn.

Conanist: let me see, I'm 10 squares away and my move would only take me 8 squares, so I couldn't attack this turn. Boromir is making death saves so I can't afford to Dash, and besides that would just give the dragon more attacks on me, so I guess I'll throw my axe. [rolls] Critical hit! [rolls] Brutal critical, plus another 10d8 because I'm spending a 4th level spell slot on a ranged Divine Smite, makes 78 points of damage!

GM: the dragon only had 45 hit points left and is now at zero. The axe embeds itself right between the dragon's eyes. The dragon falls to the ground with a crash!


Transcript B:

GM: the dragon blows fire at you! [rolls] It is aimed squarely at where you're standing!

Conanist: I haven't retreated yet this turn so I'll try a Dodge and Retreat to move to another hex before it gets here. [roll] Success!

GM: Your turn.

Conanist: Well, the dragon is only six yards away and I'm very skilled with an axe (skill 21). Its armor is thick but I was able to damage it before, and usually skull armor isn't THAT much thicker than body armor. And this thing is big, I think you said SM +4, right?

GM: about 50' to 60' long with eyes the size of softballs, SM +4, right.

Conanist: I'm going to throw my axe, aiming for its head, right between the eyes. That would count as a skull hit, right?

GM: right. Let's roll. [both roll]

Conanist: hit!

GM: dodge fails!

Conanist: eat hot iron, dragon! [rolls] 19 damage baby!

GM: DR 9 on the skull makes that... 40 injury to the brain, which is a major wound [roll] and the dragon is knocked unconscious and falls 10' to the ground [rolls] taking another 18 points of falling damage [rolls] and dying!


Transcript C:

Okay, doing a good job of writing a FATE- or Dungeon-World-style transcript is beyond me. But I assert, without proof, that not only could both these games do a dragon-slaying fight, but that they wouldn't look like A or B. Prove me wrong!


Can you tell what the people in A, B, and C value in their games?

Honestly? Your 'A' and 'B' read largely the same to me, they're both clearly task based pass/fail systems. One references a meta-currency, one doesn't, but that's a pretty minor difference in my book.

I mean, I am not missing your point, there are different agendas in RPG play. Honestly, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Is D&D combat a 'simulation'? I think that's an argument you can make, yes. I don't think RPGs do any simulating AT ALL beyond that very tactical immediate level though. Depicting a bear is not a simulation of a bear, its a story about a bear. RPGs vary, as you have observed, in how much of each they do at a certain level, but in terms of 'world sim' I just don't think the word 'simulation' is descriptive and can be attached to that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I can see how it can be the case in the AD&D days, I'm not sure if it's applicable now, when the internets exist, AND the current edition is "mature", with more or less established meta.

I think you're seriously overestimating how many people just can't be bothered to look up such things. Its easy to be biased in your perceptions here if you draw conclusions from what you do see online.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm going to take some time and read up on this model as it seems, at a fundamental level, much more in line with my experience in actual play than what I've seen espoused by those who subscribe to the Forge model.

GDS and the Six Cultures are far more useful ways to look at RPGs than anything the Forge has championed, imo. They also have the added benefit of not pushing a worldview that actively excludes portions of the gaming population from being relevant (which sadly I have experienced in this and similar threads from some folks).

 

[Imaro]

Honestly? Your 'A' and 'B' read largely the same to me, they're both clearly task based pass/fail systems. One references a meta-currency, one doesn't, but that's a pretty minor difference in my book.

I mean, I am not missing your point, there are different agendas in RPG play. Honestly, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Is D&D combat a 'simulation'? I think that's an argument you can make, yes. I don't think RPGs do any simulating AT ALL beyond that very tactical immediate level though. Depicting a bear is not a simulation of a bear, its a story about a bear. RPGs vary, as you have observed, in how much of each they do at a certain level, but in terms of 'world sim' I just don't think the word 'simulation' is descriptive and can be attached to that.

So you're not really trying to understand why some consider simulation a valid playstyle you've already decided simulation isn't a valid playstyle. Wish you had stated that upfront as it would have saved a ton of back and forth.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm going to take some time and read up on this model as it seems, at a fundamental level, much more in line with my experience in actual play than what I've seen espoused by those who subscribe to the Forge model.

It distinctly had some issues, mostly as a consequence of it starting as a dialogue between people who were focused on games meeting story needs (Drama) and those who mostly interested in presenting a coherent world and the interactions therein (Simulation), with Game being distinctly an afterthought. There were other issues that came up frequently, but as a model for discussion it certainly served some purpose at least.

 

[loverdrive]

You're not wrong, but at what point in your equation do you include the Table's authority in the game?
Presumably, at some point the Table can negate a DM narrative, yes?

I'm not talking about the narrative, though.

I'm talking about the test of player skill at playing the game. The player negotiating about the challenge at hand a) runs contrary to the Czege principle (which I personally don't subscribe to, but still) b) again, hinges upon the GM being willing to negotiate and c) kinda defeats the point of a test of skill in the first place.

Games that are chiefly concerned with narrative, embrace that success or failure of the characters are at best nebulously correlated with players' decisions, and instead focus on keeping the narrative interesting and engaging. They don't pretend like there's any skill involved in killing a dragon and saving a princess, and the success is actually earned by smart plays.

 

[loverdrive]

So you are assuming bad faith DM'ing. Whether it's optional or not you still have those benchmarks and a DM that sets an encounter budget at 9000 over the guidelines is purposefully choosing to end the game... it's akin to flipping the board in a chess game or breaking all the principles in an AW game. The question is why would you sit down to play and choose to do this with any game?

I don't think it really matters whether it's over 9000 or just a couple of points beyond the guidelines. They are still unenforceable and, thus, completely meaningless.

The fundamental issue doesn't go anywhere: GM has to pull punches and can't create the most brutal adversity she can, so overcoming this adversity matters jack. It's completely arbitrary and isn't set in stone to verify and retry.

 

[AnotherGuy]

But from the player side of things, everything is a knowledge check. You can catch the GM off-guard and win an encounter, sure, but if she is determined to beat you into a bloody pulp and counter your every move, she will, because the ultimate deciding factor determining success or failure in a game like dnd isn't the player skill, it's GM's willingness to crush them underfoot.

Would you characterise a teacher and her students in the same way? The ultimate deciding factor determining success of failure in a test isn't the student's knowledge, but the teacher's willingness to crush them underfoot?
The teacher can marked more strictly (in Languages) or set harder questions (in Science and Maths)...etc

 

[chaochou]

I don't think it really matters whether it's over 9000 or just a couple of points beyond the guidelines. They are still unenforceable and, thus, completely meaningless.

Not only are they meaningless, but just a couple of pages earlier the same poster was saying that sim play was about plsyers avoiding a metagame.

And yet here we are talking about how the players will know a 'good faith' GM will stay within a 'CR budget'. No doubt we'll now be told that CR budgets are themselves a simulation... I give it a page...