Why do RPGs have rules?

[Maxperson]

There is no such example. I didn't say there was. I said that the formation of mountains is a geological process.

Except when it's not, such as when Middle Earth was created. Fantasy realism/simulation is a thing.

What model is being simulated? There needs to be a model of some sort. We only have the real world to use as an actual model for how mountains form.

This is false. We also have fantasy models that stem from fantasy world building.

Otherwise, it's just imagination. Which is fine... but then it loses the lofty claim of being "more realistic" than other methods. Which is, I expect, the actual issue that most folks have.

This isn't true, either. If something is unrealistic both as a model of something in the real world AND a model of fantasy world building, then it is less realistic than something that models either one of those two things.

Setting aside that I thought the lightning bolt example that @pemerton shared involved magic...

Magic isn't enough on its own. It also has to have been established prior that lightning bolts in that setting are super uber duper.

we're not just back to the idea that everything must be known prior to being introduced in play. How can we possibly address all such instances ahead of time? It's a strange requirement that I expect most people don't even attempt to adhere to.

You don't need to address everything ahead of time. That's not possible. That doesn't mean that realism/simulation doesn't stem from prior established things. Improvising on the spot can be the establishing event, but it's going to have realism issues since it wasn't established ahead of time.

Going back to @pemerton's lighting bolt. The first time is unrealistic as it hasn't been established ahead of time, but further lightning bolts are now established by that world building event to be super uber duper that cut buildings in half. Of course he should up the damage considerably to match that fact.

 

[pemerton]

I think your bar is not any where near where most people into this style of gaming would set it.

I would say trust is huge here, much more so than expertise (at least for me as a player). I have been in Rob's games and the reason I enjoy them, and the reason the world he presents feels real, and the reason you feel like you are really there, comes down to how he thinks about the role of the GM, how he behaves as a GM towards the players and that he strives for a consistent world.

<snip>

the medieval world Rob presented, obviously shaped to certain D&D-like fantasy conceits, was highly navigable. He put considerable thought and weight into institutions. Were they accurate to what a scholar might want? I don't recall, but to me that wasn't the point. The point was having institutions that felt real, made sense, and operated in ways consistent enough that you try to function within them as a player.

I can't speak for Rob, but my impression is he is saying it is a fantasy setting that draws inspiration from history.

<snip>

There are also going to be parts of the setting you intentionally want to be different. Some people take history whole cloth, others just use it as a spring board to further groundedness and ideas. It also isn't something that needs to be comprehensive. What these details add is a word I know a lot in this thread will hate: verisimilitude. It also makes for more depth to engage in and embeds real world processes, simplified granted, that makes for a more consistent and believable world.

This prompted some thoughts:

(1) To the extent that the setting is readily amenable to player cognition, and that players can engage with and "manipulate" it, that makes me doubt that it is actually realistic. A mediaeval village is, for a typical contemporary American or Australian, a foreign place. And a striking thing about going to foreign places, at least in my experience, is that they are hard to engage with because norms are different, social cues are different, practices are different, motivations are different, etc.

This relates to what you are saying is my "high bar". But to be clear, the "bar" I'm focusing on here is realism, which is a virtue that some posters have claimed for "simulationist" RPGing.

(2) On the ideas of verisimilitude, consistency and believability, I don't see how the worlds that are part of my Torchbearer play, or my Burning Wheel play, are any different in these respects. I can see the contrast you are drawing between, say, your play with @robertsconley (on the one hand) and relatively shallow "dungeon of the week" play (on the other hand). But multiple posters in this thread have asserted or implied that the same contrast obtains between the sort of play you are describing, based on heavy GM prep, and the sort of play that comes out of @AbdulAlhazred's Dungeon World or my Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant. And to be perfectly frank I'm not seeing it. When I play Thurgon in Burning Wheel, the knightly order and the family and the connections between things are all very vivid, and I engage them as a player and the action flows from them. And much the same is true, in my view, in the Prince Valiant game that I GM.

I think it is this assertion, that there is a type of seriousness or verisimilitude that non-"simulationist" RPGing of necessity must be lacking, that is regarded as doubtful by me, @AbdulAlhazred and @hawkeyefan.

(3) In your posts, what you point to that strikes me as different from some of my RPGing is expressed in these phrases: "the world he presents", "highly navigable", "function within". These all point to a relationship between GM, players and setting that is different from my typical approach. But they don't point to anything distinctive about the fiction itself - I am asserting that equally verisimilitudinous, consistent and believable fiction can arise out of different relationships between GM, players and setting.

 

[pemerton]

Here is Vincent Baker, from the AW rulebook (p 115), on how the GM can disclaim decision-making:

Sometimes, disclaim decision-making. In order to play to find out what happens, you’ll need to pass decision-making off sometimes. Whenever something comes up that you’d prefer not to decide by personal whim and will, don’t. The game gives you four key tools you can use to disclaim responsibility: you can put it in your NPCs’ hands, you can put it in the players’ hands, you can create a countdown, or you can make it a stakes question.​

​

Say that there’s an NPC whose life the players have come to care about, for instance, and you don’t feel right about just deciding when and whether to kill her off:​

​

You can (1) put it in your NPCs’ hands. Just ask yourself, in this circumstance, is Birdie really going to kill her? If the answer’s yes, she dies. If it’s no, she lives. Yes, this leaves the decision in your hands, but it gives you a way to make it with integrity.​

​

You can (2) put it in the players’ hands. For instance, “Dou’s been shot, yeah, she’s shuddering and going into shock. What do you do?” If the character helps her, she lives; if the character doesn’t or can’t, she dies. You could even create a custom move for it, if you wanted, to serve the exact circumstances. See the moves snowball chapter, page 151, and the advanced f***ery chapter, page 267.​

​

You can (3) create a countdown. See the countdown section in the fronts chapter, page 143. Just sketch a quick countdown clock. Mark 9:00 with “she gets hurt,” 12:00 with “she dies.” Tick it up every time she goes into danger, and jump to 9:00 if she’s in the line of fire. This leaves it in your hands, but gives you a considered and concrete plan, instead of leaving it to your whim.​

​

Or you can (4) make it a stakes question. See the stakes section in the fronts chapter, page 145.“Will Dou live through all this?” Now you’ve promised yourself not to just answer it yourself, yes or no, she lives or she dies. Whenever it comes up, you must give the answer over to your NPCs, to the players’ characters, to the game’s moves, or to a countdown, no cheating.​

Here are pp 145-6 on Stakes:

Stakes should be concrete, absolute, irrevocable in their consequences. People’s lives. Maybe not necessarily their lives or deaths, at least not every time, but always materially significant changes to their lives. Resolving the outstanding question means that nothing will ever be the same for them.

They should also be things you’re genuinely interested in finding out, not in deciding. It’s the central act of discipline that MCing Apocalypse World requires: when you write a question as a stake, you’re committing to not answer it yourself. You’re committing to let the game’s fiction’s own internal logic and causality, driven by the players’ characters, answer it.

That’s the discipline and also the reward. Your control over your NPCs’ fates is absolute. They’re your little toys, you can do anything to them you choose. Raise them up and mow them down. Disclaiming responsibility for the two or three of them you like best is a relief. And when you write down a question you’re genuinely interested in, letting the game’s fiction answer it is uniquely satisfying.​

The approaches that Baker sets out here seem pretty close to some of the GMing techniques associated with "simulationist" RPGing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think it is this assertion, that there is a type of seriousness or verisimilitude that non-"simulationist" RPGing of necessity must be lacking, that is regarded as doubtful by me, @AbdulAlhazred and @hawkeyefan.

I am not, and I don’t believe others are saying that non simulationist RPGing is less serious or lacking verisimilitude. I don’t even particularly embrace the simulationist label. People are just saying it prioritizes things like verisimilitude. Seriousness isn’t something I strive for at all. The only major differences I see are things like how the GM is expected to make decisions about setting, how the Gm should approach rulings, what role story should play, etc. it is just a play style difference. People talking about it here are not saying it’s better than your style, or that you would find it sufficiently realistic. We are just saying it exists and works well for us. It achieved the degree of believability and immersion in a setting we are looking for, in the way we are looking for. But it is just one among many ways to approach play (and I engage in other types of play as well as more blended styles because I always prioritize having a functional table, which means being flexible on style)

 

[Bedrockgames]

This prompted some thoughts:

(1) To the extent that the setting is readily amenable to player cognition, and that players can engage with and "manipulate" it, that makes me doubt that it is actually realistic. A mediaeval village is, for a typical contemporary American or Australian, a foreign place. And a striking thing about going to foreign places, at least in my experience, is that they are hard to engage with because norms are different, social cues are different, practices are different, motivations are different, etc.

A gm who does this stuff well, can very much make it feel like visiting a foreign place. A place that feels real. You and your character won’t start out with a 1-1 understanding of all the setting details. It takes time to explore and have the GM help explain what you might know about things like a given institution. Asking questions and getting answers from the GM is a pretty standard part of this type of play.

That said I do think the medieval works is generally one gamers have more familiarity with than other areas of history (just due to the media they tend to consume). I find less of s hurdle with medieval settings for most players than when I have run settings inspired by the early Roman Empire or the Song Dynasty.

This relates to what you are saying is my "high bar". But to be clear, the "bar" I'm focusing on here is realism, which is a virtue that some posters have claimed for "simulationist" RPGing.

I have only met one player in this style who set the bar as high as you did in that post (literally expecting expert level understanding of human behavior). And that is a particular type of simulationist player. There is nothing wrong with that but I think you are arguing with a straw man if you believe that is what most folks doing this are after. People have clarified numerous times in this thread they are not seeking computer model levels of realism at all

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I am not, and I don’t believe others are saying that non simulationist RPGing is less serious or lacking verisimilitude.

Count me as someone who does believe that contrived narratives harm my willing suspension of disbelief, and feeling of verisimilitude.

Sometimes that price is worth paying, e.g. so that a new player doesn't have to sit around waiting for his character to be introduced into the narrative. Simulationism is not inherently virtuous. But I'm 95%+ simulationist by inclination; having things like ecologies, technologies, and magic make sense even in retrospect is more important to me than to the average D&D DM or player.

 

[pemerton]

I am not, and I don’t believe others are saying that non simulationist RPGing is less serious or lacking verisimilitude.

Upthread @clearstream has talked about "world facts" "warping". That's just one example.

People have clarified numerous times in this thread they are not seeking computer model levels of realism at all

I haven't said anything about computer models! I do find it interesting, though, that people refer to physical laws, and various sorts of studies, to talk about how falling should be adjudicated, or the geology of mountains; but referring to similar sorts of work when it comes to history, social psychology etc is seen as setting a high bar.

To me, this seems to reflect the engineering tendency in the hobby, which goes back to the wargaming tradition.

immersion in a setting

have the GM help explain what you might know about things like a given institution. Asking questions and getting answers from the GM is a pretty standard part of this type of play.

These phrases/sentences I've quoted, like the ones I quoted in my earlier post that you replied to, seem to point to the difference at hand: a particular way the GM, the players and the establishing of setting are related.

My own preference, for immersion, is to have all this Q&A stuff resolved in different ways - because as I've posted in a past, nothing is less immersive to me than feeling like a foreigner playing a PC in a world where I should in fact be at home. Again, for me this highlights play techniques rather than properties of the fiction as what is at issue.

 

[robertsconley]

I think it is this assertion, that there is a type of seriousness or verisimilitude that non-"simulationist" RPGing of necessity must be lacking, that is regarded as doubtful by me, @AbdulAlhazred and @hawkeyefan.

(3) In your posts, what you point to that strikes me as different from some of my RPGing is expressed in these phrases: "the world he presents", "highly navigable", "function within". These all point to a relationship between GM, players and setting that is different from my typical approach. But they don't point to anything distinctive about the fiction itself- I am asserting that equally verisimilitudinous, consistent and believable fiction can arise out of different relationships between GM, players and setting.

I can make a film drama about a medieval life.
I can write a novel dramatizing medieval life.
I can create a wargame depicting medieval life.
Or a board game that focuses on nonviolent aspects of medieval life.
Or a computer game that has about living a life of a character in medieval times.

All these and more draw on the same wellspring of knowledge of medieval. They can be criticized, praised, and debated about how accurate they are and how entertaining their take is. When done well they can all immerse the participants and leave them with a sense of verisimilitude. But each of them has a different way of doing this due to how they work as entertainment as a result each has their own experience, strengths, and weaknesses.

In RPGS, simulationism accomplishes the above by having the referee create a setting, and the players experience it as their characters. But crucially they can only interact with the setting as their character and from the character's PoV. The players do not have any out-of-game mechanics or procedures that they can use to impact the campaign. The referee is the only participant with complete knowledge of what is going on in the setting. The players know what their characters know.

When done well the ensuing fog of war adds to the sense of verisimilitude and immersion of being in a world that has a life of its own. The fact the mechanics are focused on how life works in the setting creates confidence that things can be discovered. Which makes the players feel their choices and plans have meaning.

This is not the same technique that Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, and other similar types of RPGs use. As a result is it a different experience despite drawing from the same pool of knowledge for the setting.

Finally as I said several times before what I do is a way doing this stuff. Not the only way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

(3) In your posts, what you point to that strikes me as different from some of my RPGing is expressed in these phrases: "the world he presents", "highly navigable", "function within". These all point to a relationship between GM, players and setting that is different from my typical approach. But they don't point to anything distinctive about the fiction itself - I am asserting that equally verisimilitudinous, consistent and believable fiction can arise out of different relationships between GM, players and setting.

I think the fundamental difference is his that relationship is approached. And I am not saying things we are prioritizing can’t achieved through other means. I am all for different systems, approaches and relationships. The style we have discussed tends to work for me but I would emphasize that I tend to play with an eye for drama and I tend to be flexible on ‘rpging schools of thought’ issues. Also I can see how a game like hill folk which also has a very different arrangement, produces immersion, consistency and verisimilitude. It just allows players to contribute world building details through dialogue and it prioritizes dramatic needs. It works great but it does produce a very different feel. There are players in my group I know it won’t work for because if those differences but there are others for whom it fits well. I even incorporate things like slightly different arrangements in these relationships in portions of my own game (though I try to do it in a way people who come from my style will find not intrusive)

 

[Bedrockgames]

I haven't said anything about computer models! I do find it interesting, though, that people refer to physical laws, and various sorts of studies, to talk about how falling should be adjudicated, or the geology of mountains; but referring to similar sorts of work when it comes to history, social psychology etc is seen as setting a high bar.

for me I don’t worry about real world physics. I worry about whether it produced outcomes that seem real. On some areas of a setting I may get particularly nerdy but I am not the kind of player who expects Expertise. I also have a saying in my campaign which is “what movie franchise are we in?”. I do that to help set expectations about what is plausible and what passes for real (Die Hard is going to have very different expectations than Platoon)