Why do RPGs have rules?

[Maxperson]

Too many plot holes disrupts the Matrix.

There is no spoon. Unless you are The Tick and then it's a spooooooooooon!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There is no spoon. Unless you are The Tick and then it's a spooooooooooon!

"Not in the face! Not in the face!"

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, but in an RPG context, "You set up camp near the river. Shortly before dusk you see a large brown bear head to the middle of the river. After about 10 minutes it catches a large fish and carries it off to eat."

That's plenty enough to be a simulation of what a bear might do in the woods. There is another thing that bears do in the woods, but this site doesn't allow us to say such things.

In an RPG context you don't need to create a scientific model that takes all kinds of things into account in order to be a simulation.

I've posted the above because this is the example I was asking about. The GM narrates that there's a bear near the camp and that it heads into a the river, and after 10 minutes it catches a fish, and then leaves.

This was sited as sufficient to meet the threshold for a simulation for RPG purposes. As far as we can tell from this example, the GM decided the bear was there because it was plausible for the bear to be there. Nothing more is shared about how this was determined.

So the only qualification for something to be a simulation, as far as we can tell from this example, is that the GM has decided it's sensible based on the information within the game. Plausibility.

Those where the DM isn't trying to simulate anything. Dungeons with layouts and inhabitants that make no sense. Cities located in areas where no city would ever rise. And so on.

Plus, you're now trying to equate simulating one thing(such as the bears) with the entire game being run like a simulation, which just isn't true. You can have instances of simulation and/or entire games run like simulations.

I'm trying to understand what makes the above a simulation, and if it is a simulation, what game doesn't qualify.

What game wouldn't allow a GM to narrate a bear catching a fish in a river?

Ones where the GM's or designer's agenda is entirely focused on Drama or Game.

For example, I don't think any aspect of Diablo 2 is intended as a simulation. It's all just a platform for a hack and slash loot game. I don't think there's a single aspect of the game that arose from the designers asking themselves, "what would logically happen here?" Town portals, loot popping out of dying monsters, zero to hero in 8 hours... It's all done to be a fun game, not a coherent world.

As far as TTRPGs go, Hillfolk/DramaSystem has such rudimentary procedural scene resolution mechanics that it practically screams "use another system for these bits if you care at all about simulation!"

I am only fleetingly familiar with Hillfolk, but I'm reasonably sure the GM could decide that there's a bear catching fish in a river.

As for Diablo... I think there's a distinction to be made with computer games and tabletop games. Certainly tabletop games involve some amount of translation that's typically not present in video games. When we play a game like D&D, there's what happens at the table (we roll a d20 and add a number and compare it to a target, etc) and then there's what happens in the fictional game world (the fighter swings his sword and hits the ogre, etc.). That translation is skipped in video games, so the comparison isn't really apt. We could imagine that picking up the loot takes time, or any other veneer of sensibility over the mechanics... but we don't.

Immersionism or simulationism is a mode of play. We're not looking simply for facts about the game text that explain it's simulationist aspects, but also for facts about the players through or in which those aspects will manifest as immersion or simulation.

As @FormerlyHemlock implied, it's brought about by an agenda.

I don't follow the first paragraph above. As for the second, I think it touches on the question... how is it brought about? Is it just plausibility, as Max has suggested? Is there something more?

I'm not saying I disagree but I do want to note that I don't understand the sentence in bold. It's Greek to me!

I think of simulation as a GM activity, an attempt at dispassionate extrapolation, not involving the players except through their characters, who act within the world and need to see realistic effects. Immersion on the other hand is an experience the players have, which for some players is tied to the quality of the simulation they're "in". Too many plot holes disrupts the Matrix.

Realistic in what sense?

If it's only plausibility, than I'm struggling to imagine a game that doesn't allow it.

 

[Imaro]

I'm trying to understand what makes the above a simulation, and if it is a simulation, what game doesn't qualify.

What game wouldn't allow a GM to narrate a bear catching a fish in a river?

The type of game where you should only be playing out things that are important to the PC's characters...
Or the type of game where scenes serve the purpose of generating escalating adversity that should be hitting the players like a constantly spraying firehose...
Or the type of game where we don't know the truth of if the bear actually caught a fish until it is determined through play...

 

[Old Fezziwig]

The type of game where you should only be playing out things that are important to the PC's characters...
Or the type of game where scenes serve the purpose of generating escalating adversity that should be hitting the players like a constantly spraying firehose...
Or the type of game where we don't know the truth of if the bear actually caught a fish until it is determined through play...

Why would these types of games exclude the possibility of the GM narrating a bear catching a fish in a river?

It's not impossible for this information to be important to the characters. Maybe the presence of fish is important to the characters. Maybe they need to know if the water's befouled. Maybe they're hunting bears.

Nor is it impossible that a bear catching a fish in a river would be an example of escalating adversity. Maybe the characters are lost in the wilderness without proper equipment or they're considerably smaller than a bear. In either case, the bear's a big escalation.

I'm setting aside your third example, as (1) I'm not sure exactly sure what that game would look like or (2) why narrating a bear fishing is impossible, even if the catching of the fish is set off to be determined later.

 

[Imaro]

Why would these types of games exclude the possibility of the GM narrating a bear catching a fish in a river?

Well if we're following their principles it's a pointless narration that goes against the way the game is supposed to be played.

It's not impossible for this information to be important to the characters. Maybe the presence of fish is important to the characters. Maybe they need to know if the water's befouled. Maybe they're hunting bears.

None of this is part of the example...

Nor is it impossible that a bear catching a fish in a river would be an example of escalating adversity. Maybe the characters are lost in the wilderness without proper equipment or they're considerably smaller than a bear. In either case, the bear's a big escalation.

The bear walked away... there is no escalation or adversity in the example.

I'm setting aside your third example, as (1) I'm not sure exactly sure what that game would look like or (2) why narrating a bear fishing is impossible, even if the catching of the fish is set off to be determined later.

The bear caught the fish...

Look the example itself can be changed to fit any of those... but that wasn't what was asked.
None of this was part of the example...

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Well if we're following their principles it's a pointless narration that goes against the way the game is supposed to be played.

Not necessarily. I just gave you examples of how it may not be pointless narration.

None of this is part of the example...

None of it is, but we don't know anything about the characters in this situation. But presumably, as this is an RPG, they're there.

The bear walked away... there is no escalation or adversity in the example.

The presence of a bear can be a big escalation if you're not equipped to deal with bears or capable of dealing with bears. It's absolutely escalation if the game state's gone from Bears = 0 to Bears = 1+. Maybe not for every game at all times (most games of D&D I've played in, there's a point where number of bears isn't a meaningful contributing factor to decision making).

Look the example itself can be changed to fit any of those... but that wasn't what was asked.
None of this was part of the example..

I'm not trying to be contentious, but @AbdulAlhazred asked, "What game wouldn't allow a GM to narrate a bear catching a fish in a river?" You gave an answer, and I proposed that maybe those answers didn't hold.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not trying to be contentious, but @AbdulAlhazred asked, "What game wouldn't allow a GM to narrate a bear catching a fish in a river?" You gave an answer, and I proposed that maybe those answers didn't hold.

You're adding context that isn't there to enable it. I'm taking the question at face value.

EDIT: To further expound on my point...in an rpg game trying to simulate woods with a non-zero population of bears... it serves that purpose with no further context.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm trying to understand what makes the above a simulation, and if it is a simulation, what game doesn't qualify.

(A) What game wouldn't allow a GM to narrate a bear catching a fish in a river?

I am only fleetingly familiar with Hillfolk, but I'm reasonably sure the GM could decide that there's a bear catching fish in a river.

As for Diablo... I think there's a distinction to be made with computer games and tabletop games. Certainly tabletop games involve some amount of translation that's typically not present in video games. When we play a game like D&D, there's what happens at the table (we roll a d20 and add a number and compare it to a target, etc) and then there's what happens in the fictional game world (the fighter swings his sword and hits the ogre, etc.). (B) That translation is skipped in video games, so the comparison isn't really apt. We could imagine that picking up the loot takes time, or any other veneer of sensibility over the mechanics... but we don't.

snip

(C) Realistic in what sense?

If it's only plausibility, than I'm struggling to imagine a game that doesn't allow it.

(A) I thought you were asking which RPGs weren't about simulation, not which RPGs "didn't allow" GMs to have bears catch fish for other reasons. It's very hard to imagine a GM in a game of Hillfolk narrating a bear catching a fish because in Hillfolk, narration is mostly the job of the players: Hillfolk is a game about players talking to other players in character, and as part of setting the scene a player might say, "In this next scene, Bob approaches Alice as she's watching a bear catch fish, in order to talk about how guilty he feels for tattling on her sister Eve." Bob's player must have an emotional agenda in mind, such as wanting Alice to forgive him, and after the scene everybody will vote on whether they think Alice granted his "petition" or denied it, and based on the result somebody gets a drama token. Can you see how that's very different from a play agenda that's about attempting to faithfully model a gameworld? The bear is just scenery--nobody cares what the gameworld is doing.

Hillfolk/DramaSystem does have procedural scenes where it matters what the gameworld is doing, but as I said Hillfolk's mechanics for such scenes are so rudimentary (and the scenes themselves are so pointless unless Alice does something like say "I will forgive you if you can catch a deer for me", leading to a procedural deer-hunting scene for Bob) that it's clear simulation is not in any way a priority for Hillfolk, and you could sub out Hillfolk's deer-catching rules for OD&D rules or GURPS or whatever.

(B) The translation in Diablo 2 from rolling numbers and doing math on them to swinging swords and damaging monsters is there just as much as it is in D&D/etc. The GM may do the rolling dice and math for you, or the computer may do the rolling dice and math for you, but in both cases random numbers are generated and math is done and the swords get swung and monsters get damaged. And what does that have to do with the discussion anyway? You didn't address in any way my observations on Diablo 2's lack of interest in simulation (as opposed to Game or Drama). It's not like Diablo 2's designers couldn't make you take more than an instant to pick up 5655 gold pieces. They could have made you stop and start scooping coins into your pouch, which gets heavier and weighs you down more and more as it gets full. They deliberately didn't, even though it's unrealistic, because simulation of a realistic world isn't a design priority for Diablo 2.

(C) Realistic in the sense of being self-consistent and not falling apart under examination. And again, you're asking the wrong question: it's not "what game doesn't allow it [an attempt at dispassionate extrapolation, not involving the players except through their characters, who act within the world and need to see realistic effects]?" but "what game doesn't involve it [an attempt at dispassionate extrapolation, not involving the players except through their characters, who act within the world and need to see realistic effects]?" And again I will point to Diablo 2 and (for the most part) DramaSystem. Dispassionate extrapolation is mostly irrelevant to both of them.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

EDIT: To further expound on my point...in an rpg game trying to simulate woods with a non-zero population of bears... it serves that purpose with no further context.

Thanks for this. I'm following you now. It seems like a real narrow agenda for a game, but, sure.