Why do RPGs have rules?

[Imaro]

I don't see that as contradictory to what was said. "Folks place simulation on a pedestal." Anyone placing one priority above others is placing that priority on a pedestal.

If I put my wife on a pedestal, it doesn't mean I think everyone does.

No but you are saying you consider your wife to be objectively BETTER than everyone else. Anyone placing one priority over others doesn't necessarily believe that, and no one in this thread talking about simulation has stated anything like that.

EDIT: To further expound on why this point is important... there is a narrative felt by both trad gamers and non-trad that the other side demeans their preferences, thinks their preferences are superior, etc. What this statement did was, without any cause try to stir that up here when no one has taken that position and the conversation has been relatively civil. this is how the "well those who go for simulation think their preferences are superior" narrative starts only its started by someone who isn't advocating for simulation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, my questions at the bottom (is this Simulationism/Immersionism..."Gamey Nonsense"...something else) were actual questions for folks to interrogate and answer independently of my own thoughts on the matter, because the interrogation of this issue I brought up seems a pretty central to this conversation. Further, "Gamey Nonsense" (as one of the epithets that was levied at 4e Defender mechanics) here isn't invoking Forge Gamism as an agenda (the design agenda whereby a system has integrated imperatives and system/procedure architecture which enables and demands that GM's devise and players, step up, face and defeat challenges via the skillful play paradigm embedded in the game). "Gamey Nonsense" here means sufficiently (or totally) artificial with respect to how the design of game engine levers, widgets, et al (design paradigm in total with respect to 4e Defender mechanics) work outside of the constraints of Simulationist/Immersionist priorities. There were many iterations of this attack levied at various 4e design elements (Defender mechanics well among them). One of the more prominent ones was the Dissociated Mechanics attack of days of yore.

Outside of that, I do agree with your 3 and 4 and, much more importantly, that shared referents by the participants at the table are necessary (but not sufficient) to avoid Simulationism/Immersionism-prioritizing games from breaking down. And along those lines, that is one of the primary reasons a moment of play will break down. And I'm not just talking about Simulationism games (although that is the vast number of instances of breakdown). I'm talking about moments of Narrativism-designed games where a player might unconsciously smuggle in a Sim orientation to play whereby they map an outside (external to the game engine or the game's fiction or both) referent onto a moment of play that isn't/can't/shouldn't be governed by that outside referent.

There are other potential points of breakdown. For instance I am still a bit unsure about the Stonetop seeker Work With What You Have move. This is simply a question of what the designer intended. Magic is a nebulous concept, but a lot of things link to it. ST doesn't have tags for this stuff, so the intent is pretty unclear, is this move magic? If so, then what is the purpose of the move which builds on it (I forget the name). Narrative play can leave us in a somewhat ambiguous place like this sometimes. Frankly, ST is a draft/PT so no complaints but I think these types of games need some careful guidelines or fairly clear rules around stuff like that.

Which maybe lets me ask, what is the best way to think about these sorts of regulatory rules?

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is an issue that will emerge with any priority though (if you are using priorities as a lens). The reality is most groups are going to have a mix of players, so you will adapt. Few tables will be pure this or that. But I think that is a much larger topic than whether a given priority is real. If you have players who want realism, and you are doing heavy genre emulation, you are going to have to bring in more realism if what you are doing is not landing with them. If you want to run the thing as a game, RAW, but the players keep trying to go beyond the rules and focusing on stuff like what their characters would do, you are also going to either have to adjust or maybe find another group. I think honestly where people run into issues, is trying to impose a gaming ideology on the table. It can be handy to have various schools of thought to draw on. And it is absolutely fine to have a GMing style or an RPG point of view, but I have never encountered the platonic group who perfectly fits any one of these styles or approaches.

Sure, I think it's okay to have different priorities at different times in a game, or with different people.

This is also related to a question I asked to @Micah Sweet ... if a GM has simulation as a priority, I don't know how visible this may be to the players. Certainly most games present plausible events based on what's already happened and what makes sense. How do players know what priority a GM has? Do they all need to be on the same page? Does simulation or any other play priority mean different things to the different participants?

No but you are saying you consider your wife to be objectively BETTER than everyone else. Anyone placing one priority over others doesn't necessarily believe that, and no one in this thread talking about simulation has stated anything like that.

EDIT: To further expound on why this point is important... there is a narrative felt by both trad gamers and non-trad that the other side demeans their preferences, thinks their preferences are superior, etc. What this statement did was, without any cause try to stir that up here when no one has taken that position and the conversation has been relatively civil. this is how the "well those who go for simulation think their preferences are superior" narrative starts only its started by someone who isn't advocating for simulation.

I don't think it's specifically about better so much as more important in some way. Like... higher in some way, hence, on a pedestal. But regardless, when someone places a priority above others, that's what they're doing. It doesn't mean that they think their way is objectively better than others.... it means it's their view. People have flat out said they place importance on simulation over gamism and narrativism, or on narrativism above the others, and so on.

I think you're being awfully specific on this definition and we're getting into the weeds.

What about the rest of the post you quoted, but left out? Let's move on from the semantics and discuss the actual question. Here it is again:

Do you think that the idea of simulation becomes more important than what's actually happening at the table? Do you think that folks may at times attribute their aesthetic choices to simulation? How does a GM untangle simulation from all the other elements and considerations of craft? Given the potentially wide range of possible outcomes of any action, how do we settle on one outcome over others in a simulation?

What's actually happening at the table that gets labeled as simulation?

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but those rules have nothing in them which is derived from any actual experience with or practical knowledge of real trap design. In fact they're designed along UTTERLY gamist lines!

No. No they're not utterly gamist. Like RPGs, traps contain elements of multiple game methods. The rules themselves are gamist. But a pit trap is simulating.........................a pit trap. It simulates it by 1) being an open pit, 2) causing you to fall(simulating gravity) when you fall prey to one, and 3) taking damage at the end of the fall(simulating damage from a fall). And the narrative is the PC falls into the pit due to X.

Just about every RPG ever made has some combination of narativist, gamist and simulationist portions. Whether a given game is gamist, simulationist or narativist depends on the primary focus since like the traps above, it will contain all three elements.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I hope you recognize that the sentence in bold is a non sequitur. This is where it matters substantively, as discussed upthread, that "a crude, low-quality model" should not be conflated with "not a model". The GM is not forced to decide between the four options proposed by you: gamism, narrativism, personal animosity, or sexual attraction. Other options exist, and one of them is to attempt faithful extrapolation, either on a sort of FKR basis or from published rulebooks for 5E or some other game.

I direct you to the last bit of my post, people do what they can actually do. With no knowledge at all about traps, aside some completely contrived notions stemming from TV, our GM absolutely does what is possible, falls back to decision heuristics that they can act on. I suggested some but it is not a complete list. Once such a decision is made, sure it'll probably get a plausibility check too! Again, even narrativist play requires coherent fiction. The purpose is not explaining why the DC is X, it's just helping the play reach the same fiction as the GM so they can play in a practical sense. This is why fantasy worlds have gravity that does something analogous to actual gravity. Imagine if that were not true!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, I think it's okay to have different priorities at different times in a game, or with different people.

This is also related to a question I asked to @Micah Sweet ... if a GM has simulation as a priority, I don't know how visible this may be to the players. Certainly most games present plausible events based on what's already happened and what makes sense. How do players know what priority a GM has? Do they all need to be on the same page? Does simulation or any other play priority mean different things to the different participants?



I don't think it's specifically about better so much as more important in some way. Like... higher in some way, hence, on a pedestal. But regardless, when someone places a priority above others, that's what they're doing. It doesn't mean that they think their way is objectively better than others.... it means it's their view. People have flat out said they place importance on simulation over gamism and narrativism, or on narrativism above the others, and so on.

I think you're being awfully specific on this definition and we're getting into the weeds.

What about the rest of the post you quoted, but left out? Let's move on from the semantics and discuss the actual question. Here it is again:

Do you think that the idea of simulation becomes more important than what's actually happening at the table? Do you think that folks may at times attribute their aesthetic choices to simulation? How does a GM untangle simulation from all the other elements and considerations of craft? Given the potentially wide range of possible outcomes of any action, how do we settle on one outcome over others in a simulation?

What's actually happening at the table that gets labeled as simulation?

Well, my players know because I tell them about the style of gaming I prefer, regularly. They know that everything I've put in the setting is there for what I believe are plausible reasons, that creatures behave the way they do, at the table, for the same reasons. In some cases, I rely on the old standard of rolling on a table to determine certain things. All of this is enough simulation for me and mine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I direct you to the last bit of my post, people do what they can actually do. With no knowledge at all about traps, aside some completely contrived notions stemming from TV, our GM absolutely does what is possible, falls back to decision heuristics that they can act on. I suggested some but it is not a complete list. Once such a decision is made, sure it'll probably get a plausibility check too! Again, even narrativist play requires coherent fiction. The purpose is not explaining why the DC is X, it's just helping the play reach the same fiction as the GM so they can play in a practical sense. This is why fantasy worlds have gravity that does something analogous to actual gravity. Imagine if that were not true!

Your priorities are different, so of course your purpose is not explaining why the DC is X. If you had different priorities your purpose might be different, even if the conclusion we both draw is the same.

 

[Imaro]

Sure, I think it's okay to have different priorities at different times in a game, or with different people.

This is also related to a question I asked to @Micah Sweet ... if a GM has simulation as a priority, I don't know how visible this may be to the players. Certainly most games present plausible events based on what's already happened and what makes sense. How do players know what priority a GM has? Do they all need to be on the same page? Does simulation or any other play priority mean different things to the different participants?



I don't think it's specifically about better so much as more important in some way. Like... higher in some way, hence, on a pedestal. But regardless, when someone places a priority above others, that's what they're doing. It doesn't mean that they think their way is objectively better than others.... it means it's their view. People have flat out said they place importance on simulation over gamism and narrativism, or on narrativism above the others, and so on.

I think you're being awfully specific on this definition and we're getting into the weeds.

I think the entire post was trying to create the "steel chair effect" and you could have let the actual poster say what they meant if they didn't mean what I took from it instead of white knighting but here we are.

What about the rest of the post you quoted, but left out? Let's move on from the semantics and discuss the actual question. Here it is again:

Do you think that the idea of simulation becomes more important than what's actually happening at the table? Do you think that folks may at times attribute their aesthetic choices to simulation? How does a GM untangle simulation from all the other elements and considerations of craft? Given the potentially wide range of possible outcomes of any action, how do we settle on one outcome over others in a simulation?

What's actually happening at the table that gets labeled as simulation?

I think simulation drives what's happening at the table so I don't really understand your first question. Is an agenda ever more important than what's actually happening during play.

I think it's always possible to make mistakes so yes I think an aesthetic choice could ne mistakenly attributed to simulation though I think most people would be aware when they choose something they find aesthetically pleasing over what would be a more accurate simulation of the outcome.

Let me flip this question to you... how does a GM who wants to play in a no-myth style make sure his own biases and desires, even subconsciously, don't direct the fiction and trajectory of play toward his own desired direction and outcome even though he is claiming there is no pre-structured plot and they are all playing to find out. Couldn't those off the cuff answers, difficulties, NPC actions and so on all be directed by his own desired outcome... even if he honestly thought he wasn't pre-constructing plot?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I direct you to the last bit of my post, people do what they can actually do. With no knowledge at all about traps, aside some completely contrived notions stemming from TV, our GM absolutely does what is possible, falls back to decision heuristics that they can act on. I suggested some but it is not a complete list. Once such a decision is made, sure it'll probably get a plausibility check too! Again, even narrativist play requires coherent fiction. The purpose is not explaining why the DC is X, it's just helping the play reach the same fiction as the GM so they can play in a practical sense. This is why fantasy worlds have gravity that does something analogous to actual gravity. Imagine if that were not true!

Repeating a non sequitur doesn't make it more true. That last bit of your post relies on the non sequitur--and here you're adding another fallacy in the form of a false dichotomy! Since when does not being a one-in-a-million Army Ranger make me someone who has "no knowledge at all about traps, aside from some completely contrived notions stemming from TV"?

I assure you, my knowledge is more than zero, and I don't think that makes me special. Is your knowledge really zero on this subject? How can you genuinely know nothing at all about e.g. clotheslining a runner or rider in the dark, or at the head of a staircase; or setting up a deadfall; or preplacing a crossbow? I don't know 100% and it's fine if you don't know 100%, but you're claiming that 999,999 people in a million have 0% knowledge. Think it over for thirty seconds and tell me if you still believe what you wrote.

Taking one's best guess is absolutely a valid way to GM and doesn't require injecting another agenda. Again, I'm not claiming that doing so is inherently virtuous! I'm just refuting the idea that it's impossible!

 

[Emberashh]

I don't think Mearls et al. made a conscious choice not to explain how to create or use a map key, for instance[1].

By neglect or foul intent, the result is the same.