D&D is not a world simulator

[Segev]

Yeah, I would never claim BESM is "universal." It isn't even really able to handle all kinds of "anime" games equally well. Though it tries, it will always do the high-adventure sci-fi/fantasy and occult mystery games better than it does the slice of life stories, simply because its mechanics are centered around the higher-intensity action of the former sorts, with the weird powers and cool toys.

And its equipment rules are...shakey...at best; you're best off if you have a highly iconic set of equipment for each character, such that you can characterize it as a "power" rather than trying to figure out how to work it out as an "item." (Note that Item is also a power... and the best way to work out gear-as-powers. When I say "an item" here I'm more referring to something found in-setting and picked up or bought with in-setting resources alone.)


And overall, I definitely share Max_Killjoy's preference for high-fidelity binding between mechanics and setting, because I personally find it to generally lead to greater verisimilitude. Indeed, I CAN justify that Bob the Mighty is going to lose to that army of mooks, because the mechanics say so, rather than me having to look at the rules and say, "But Bob can't even be hit by those guys; why is he in danger?" while the GM, who wanted it to be a serious threat to Bob, is insisting that no man can take on that many warriors and live.

(If the above isn't clear, my apologies. I'm trying to say that if you want the setting to say Bob should lose to an army of mooks, the combat rules - for example - should support it. If the rules actually indicate that, should you play it out, Bob would be untouched and/or win...please have the setting match it. Make rules to match setting, or write setting to match rules, but make them work together, please!)

[Max_Killjoy]

I was going to add this to a post on the previous page, but the thread moved on.


EDIT: I dislike the labeling and pigeon-holing that goes on with GNS and similar "theories of RPG"; I share the desire for fairness with "gamists", the desire for character-driven stories with a certain type of "narrativist", and I'm a compulsive world-builder and world-analyst, which pushes me in a "simulationist" direction. But when people attach any one of those labels to someone else, they start presuming things to be true about that other gamer based just on the label and the idea that "X type gamers want this list of stuff, and don't care about other stuff".

Because GNS, etc, have come to dominate thinking about RPG design, what we get is a spread of games that are each focused (to more or less actual success) on "delivering" to one of the three stereotypes -- G for G, N for N, S for S -- and gleefully ignore what the other approaches have to offer in making a whole and robust game system.

If I vehemently and sometimes even angrily reject GNS or being labelled as any of the stereotypes, there are the biggest reasons -- I don't like the baggage and presumptions, and I don't like what it's done to the hobby.

[georgie_leech]

Exactly -- the characters exist within the setting, it is their "reality". Just about anything they do interacts with that "reality", because they are part of it.

It would be a very specific setting in which certain characters were able to act within a reality without actually being part of it or affecting it.

Okay. For the record, to my knowledge that's all hat people mean when they say you are simulationist, hardcore or otherwise.

EDIT in response to EDIT:

That's fair. People often misuse models of certain kinds of preferences or activities as meaning someone is all of one thing or another with nothing in between. I think it's not wholly justified to hold the model as flawed because of that though, because people will happily lump people into boxes even without pretty labels on said boxes. The model at its best lets people focus on understanding what kind of game you're building or playing, and if you're focussing too much on one kind of element over another. After all, the most successful RPG's are going to blend some elements from all, as an entirely simulationist, narrativist, or gamist game ceases to be an RPG (being simulators, writing stories, or board games receptively). That is, GNS can be a useful lens to examine your own work and that of others, but it shouldn't be used as a tool to hyperfocus on one element to the exclusion of others

[Max_Killjoy]

Okay. For the record, to my knowledge that's all hat people mean when they say you are simulationist, hardcore or otherwise.

If that's ALL that they meant, I wouldn't be so opposed to the label.

However, I think we've seen on this thread that there's a lot of baggage tacked on beyond that.

[Floret]

If that's ALL that they meant, I wouldn't be so opposed to the label.

I can say whole-heartedly that that is indeed all at least I meant with the term.

And I do understand the model in the same vein as georgie worded it. As an inaccurate, oversimplifying model. But a too detailed model would loose usability to a certain degree, and as long as hybrid version have their place of existance (As they are, in my experience, probably 100% of players), it works. If you do not make the assumption that this is indeed an exact representation. (How well does GNS theory simulate the Tabletop Gaming scene? We may never know )

As it stands, I have not seen Gamedesign try to take only one of the three into consideration, and would be surprised to see a game that actually manages to exclude at least one of the aspects - though I have heard DnD4 came at least close with simulationism. All games I have played have their focus in the direction of one of them they find the most appealing/important, but not to the utter exclusion of all others.
I personally do like my rules to simulate things as well, though rule of cool might trump it at certain points. I do not know if a sleepwalker could realistically catch an onion being thrown at him, but really, I do not care, because the resulting situation was awesome. Or funny. Mostly funny.

[kyoryu]

Very well. You are mistaken. It is not that 'disconnected rules' are something that gamists or narrativists enjoy. It's that disconnected rules bother them far less than they do you. All else being equal, of course more connected rules and setting are better than the alternative, but all else isn't equal.

In other words, for some people, if given a choice between "balanced rules that make for interesting gameplay" and "rules that accurately represent 'reality'", they'll pick the first one every time.

For other people, given a choice between "rules that promote interesting situations" and "rules that accurately represent 'reality'", they'll pick the first one of those every time.

And some people will pick "rules that accurately represent 'reality'" over everything else, every time.

Ideally, yes, everyone would like all of those things. However, when forced to choose between them, people choose differently.

(And, no, I don't believe an ideal set of rules that does all of those equally is actually possible)

[Koo Rehtorb]

And some people will pick "rules that accurately represent 'reality'" over everything else, every time.

Frankly, I think this is an impossible goal. Rules that try to achieve this will inevitably fail some portion of the time. Which is just another reason why rules should be designed to resolve conflicts, and the job of representing an accurate reality should be left to the group.

Let's talk about Burning Wheel for a moment. Whenever something comes up that needs to be rolled over there's something called "intent and task". Intent is what you hope to accomplish from the roll, "I want to kill him". Task is the means through which you want to accomplish this intent, "by stabbing him with a sword".

It is up to the group to determine what a valid intent is, and that varies based on the setting you're trying to portray. "I leap sixty feet across the room over the line of guards and decapitate the king" might be a valid intent in some settings. It might be wildly inappropriate in other settings and require additional steps to get to that point, for example, "I want to fight my way through the line of guards to gain access to the king", instead.

Putting the job of representing what is and isn't possible in reality in the hands of the group cuts down on rules bloat dramatically and is more likely to produce better results than leaving it up to an unthinking ruleset.

[Segev]

Frankly, I think this is an impossible goal. Rules that try to achieve this will inevitably fail some portion of the time. Which is just another reason why rules should be designed to resolve conflicts, and the job of representing an accurate reality should be left to the group.

Nah. It just has to be good enough that you're not going to run into the rules flying in the face of the setting's conceits on a consistent basis.

If the setting tells you that the invention of the gun allowed the gnomes to build an empire that pushed back the elven mageocracy, that's cool...until you realize that the rules for the gun make it no better mechanically than a crossbow, and that the elven mages are wielding powers that make them literally invincible if they use them right. There's no amount of "leaving it to the players" that will let them make that setting appear "right."

I mean, sure, they can decide to have their PCs get all excited about stopping a gun shipment and getting ahold of firearms to take into battle against wizards...but unless they throw the rules out the window, they'll do no better after getting those guns than they would have with crossbows they already could have had. Sure, they could be all in a tizzy over the fear of raiding the gun-armed stronghold with their party of high-mages...but when they actually play it out, the stronghold's a pushover because guns just aren't that impressive, mechanically.

It's not generally required that there be NO weird cases where mechanics cause unrealistic results, but those cases had best be rare enough that you aren't hand-waving every third session for the same case.

[2D8HP]

I don't really think that's responsive to "should the setting be coherent". Both sides (as far as I can tell) want settings that are fun and interesting.
It's just that one side cares if those settings make sense and the other doesn't.

In my case "fun and interesting" far out weigh "coherent". The less fun and interesting, the more coherent may matter, but why play setting?

Again, that feels orthogonal to the question of "should the setting follow the rules". If anything, it supports the "follow the rules" position, because if you don't, then you have to do twice as much work. First, you learn the rules for the PCs. Then, you learn the rules for the setting.

Ortho...what?

*"Google's word*

Definition of Orthogonal by Merriam-Webster

*still bewildered*

Prefix "Ortho"

1) Straight
2) Proper
3) Correct

Um....

Even less work (no memorization) an explicit call for DM fiat. Common sense rules.
Boom done.

Just as a catalog spurs imagination more than a blank page, and learning arpeggios, and 12 bar blues helps you write a song more than just being handed a guitar and being told "make some noise with this" does, I want character creation rules to provide a template for the imagination, otherwise the more rules they are, the more of a chore learning them is, though I suppose a set of rules that would make "weapons experts" keep quiet without forcing me to read all the different ways humans can harm each other would be welcome (I especially really don't want to learn anything about modern firearms ever, and yes I remember that Gygax listed so very many mediaeval, renaissance, and early modern pole-arms, IIRC we mocked him for it).

[Max_Killjoy]

Nah. It just has to be good enough that you're not going to run into the rules flying in the face of the setting's conceits on a consistent basis.

If the setting tells you that the invention of the gun allowed the gnomes to build an empire that pushed back the elven mageocracy, that's cool...until you realize that the rules for the gun make it no better mechanically than a crossbow, and that the elven mages are wielding powers that make them literally invincible if they use them right. There's no amount of "leaving it to the players" that will let them make that setting appear "right."

I mean, sure, they can decide to have their PCs get all excited about stopping a gun shipment and getting ahold of firearms to take into battle against wizards...but unless they throw the rules out the window, they'll do no better after getting those guns than they would have with crossbows they already could have had. Sure, they could be all in a tizzy over the fear of raiding the gun-armed stronghold with their party of high-mages...but when they actually play it out, the stronghold's a pushover because guns just aren't that impressive, mechanically.

It's not generally required that there be NO weird cases where mechanics cause unrealistic results, but those cases had best be rare enough that you aren't hand-waving every third session for the same case.

Very good example.

That's exactly the sort of thing I mean when I say "the system is telling me one thing, the setting is telling me the opposite".

[Koo Rehtorb]

It's not generally required that there be NO weird cases where mechanics cause unrealistic results, but those cases had best be rare enough that you aren't hand-waving every third session for the same case.

Well, I certainly agree that IF you're going to design a ruleset as a way to model reality then it is certainly possible to do a better or worse job of it.

But I'm still left with the question of why designing a ruleset that way is a desirable goal at all. It seems like a lot of extra work that gives you nothing in return except the occasional need to explain away unrealistic results, and a healthy amount of rules bloat. It is far easier to make a consistent setting if the rules focus more on establishing genre/theme/gameplay than on modeling physics.

[georgie_leech]

Well, I certainly agree that IF you're going to design a ruleset as a way to model reality then it is certainly possible to do a better or worse job of it.

But I'm still left with the question of why designing a ruleset that way is a desirable goal at all. It seems like a lot of extra work that gives you nothing in return except the occasional need to explain away unrealistic results, and a healthy amount of rules bloat. It is far easier to make a consistent setting if the rules focus more on establishing genre/theme/gameplay than on modeling physics.

Because a sizable subset of players care about that sort of thing. Like, I'm all for playing a game for what it tries to be, but even I'll squint at lazy writing anyway, or obvious fiction/rules disconnects.

[kyoryu]

*"Google's word*

Definition of Orthogonal by Merriam-Webster

Also meaning "at right angles".

So, like, the x and y axes are orthogonal to each other - which means that you can modify x without impacting y at all. They vary completely independently.

Compared with a set of lines one of which is the x axis, and another one which is on a 45 degree angle - you can't move something on that line without impacting its position on the x axis.

So, yeah, orthogonal generally means "they're not related to each other, and can vary completely independently of the other".

[georgie_leech]

Also meaning "at right angles".

So, like, the x and y axes are orthogonal to each other - which means that you can modify x without impacting y at all. They vary completely independently.

Compared with a set of lines one of which is the x axis, and another one which is on a 45 degree angle - you can't move something on that line without impacting its position on the x axis.

So, yeah, orthogonal generally means "they're not related to each other, and can vary completely independently of the other".

Don't ya just love it when English has words that are their own antonym?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Because a sizable subset of players care about that sort of thing. Like, I'm all for playing a game for what it tries to be, but even I'll squint at lazy writing anyway, or obvious fiction/rules disconnects.

But that's what I'm saying. Fiction/rules disconnects arise as a result of making rules that try to govern the physics of a world.

Here's an example: In Dungeon World the resolution mechanics are only ever rolled by PCs. They are 100% a rule focused on how PCs interact with the world. This means in the gnome example above, it is completely consistent in the setting for it to be established that giving gnomes a powerful firearms shipment would give them the ability to combat elven mages, because there are no rules for NPCs using firearms or magic. Divorcing rules from physics cures setting inconsistencies, it doesn't create them.

[georgie_leech]

But that's what I'm saying. Fiction/rules disconnects arise as a result of making rules that try to govern the physics of a world.

I disagree. Whether they're intended to be a model of the setting or not, a sizable section of players will view them as such. That is, Fiction/rules disconnects will arise regardless of whether rules are physics based or not. Ignore them entirely and you will get a sizable pushback from players. See: 4e's Martial Characters and all the vitriol from detractors of the AEDU power system. 4e was not trying to simulate reality with its Power system, but an undeniably large chunk of players didn't like the kind of disconnect between how they imagined their characters and what the mechanics said they could do.

[Max_Killjoy]

I disagree. Whether they're intended to be a model of the setting or not, a sizable section of players will view them as such. Fiction/rules disconnects will arise regardless of whether rules are physics based or not. Ignore them entirely and you will get a sizable pushback from players. See: 4e's Martial Characters and all the vitriol from detractors of the AEDU power system. 4e was not trying to simulate reality with its Power system, but an undeniably large chunk of players didn't like the kind of disconnect between how they imagined their characters and what the mechanics said they could do.

I looked at it and wondered "Why can this power / skill only be used once per X?"

[Max_Killjoy]

Because a sizable subset of players care about that sort of thing. Like, I'm all for playing a game for what it tries to be, but even I'll squint at lazy writing anyway, or obvious fiction/rules disconnects.

As an aside, "modelling physics" is a pretty exaggerated way of describing it, at least for most gamers who care about such things.

[georgie_leech]

As an aside, "modelling physics" is a pretty exaggerated way of describing it, at least for most gamers who care about such things.

Probably, but to an extent it is true. Maybe not that the printed rules are the whole sum of rules that govern a setting, but that the ones that are printed are generally assumed to be true models of what the in-universe actions are. At least, insofar as they make sense with the presented setting

EDIT:

I looked at it and wondered "Why can this power / skill only be used once per X?"

There is no true in-universe (or simulationist) reason. It's partially for game balance, and partially to emulate that pulp-fantasy feel where the heroes have their bread and butter techniques (at-wills), their signature moves (Encounters), and their once-a-book/episode-last-ditch super moves that they pull out when the chips are down (Dailies). This is the kind of verisimilitude sacrifice that seems to drive you crazy, but for me or other less simulationist players, the trade off in balance, simplicity, and "fun" makes it worth the cost.

[kyoryu]

Actually, playing a lot of hockey, I do find that's it's fairly accurate that there are "special" things you can pull out of your ass once in a great while, but can't just do as your bread and butter move. It just jibes with experience as a *result*, even if the *mechanism* doesn't have any mechanical logic behind it.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I disagree. Whether they're intended to be a model of the setting or not, a sizable section of players will view them as such.

I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is then surely the fault lies with the players who read the rules the wrong way. Possibly also the rules for not framing it clearly enough for those players to understand.

See: 4e's Martial Characters and all the vitriol from detractors of the AEDU power system. 4e was not trying to simulate reality with its Power system, but an undeniably large chunk of players didn't like the kind of disconnect between how they imagined their characters and what the mechanics said they could do.

I think that's because people got something they didn't expect because of their past experiences with previous editions. 4e is an excellent game at what it does, but it didn't do what many fans of D&D wanted it to do.

[2D8HP]

at least for most gamers who care about such things.

While I do recall being smitten with the rules and yes coherence of Pendragon decades ago, except for my 1978 Birthday present, as a DM/GM I've chiefly judged RPG's by setting first, and then the rules by how much hassle do they look like they'd be to learn and teach, seldom "coherence".
As a player it's been setting first, and then how much and how easy it is to make a PC I want to play, other than that, the rules haven't mattered to me much as a player. In the '80's I played Runequest, and I remember just how much more sense both the rules and setting made compared with the hodgepodge of rules and tropes that was D&D, but I also remember that I didn't get the same joy in play.

How much "sense" a set of rules has made has never caused me to walk away from a game.
What has?

1) Rude OOC behavior on the part of some other players.
2) Dull setting.

I'd still like to try "simulationist" Pendragon, and I've bought a couple of the new "narrativist" games that I'd like to try (Dungeon World and FATE), but I still gladly play "gamist" D&D (did I get the classifications right?).

I can't stress this enough, making sense is fine, but if "coherence" comes with the cost of rules "bloat", or reducing setting information, I'd rather go without it.
Lots of interesting fluff and deferring to the GM's judgement is fine for me. Too many rules just means more to argue about, and memorize.

[Segev]

Well, I certainly agree that IF you're going to design a ruleset as a way to model reality then it is certainly possible to do a better or worse job of it.

But I'm still left with the question of why designing a ruleset that way is a desirable goal at all. It seems like a lot of extra work that gives you nothing in return except the occasional need to explain away unrealistic results, and a healthy amount of rules bloat. It is far easier to make a consistent setting if the rules focus more on establishing genre/theme/gameplay than on modeling physics.

I have found that rules which do not reflect character capabilities lead less to RPGs and more to storytelling. While that can be fun, I also find that storytelling without a firm grounding in setting rules feels...weaker, to me

Perhaps it it unsurprising that my favorite air Thor is Brandin Sanderson. His stories take place in worlds with well-defined rules. And much of the story emerges from them.

[Cosi]

I have a question for GNS proponents: What is the value of using GNS? What predictions does it make about game design? What problems can it be used to solve when designing a game?

Gamist: The rule says that level 20 Fighters have a certain amount of hit points, and the character can't do enough damage to kill them, so they live. Whether this means that level 20 Fighters are tough enough to live through a dagger to the throat, or if they have some nebulous luck that lets them roll over at the last moment, or some other explanation, is left to the preferences of the reader.

How is the "gamist" desire to have a game that is not balanced in such a way that throat stabbings are threats to 20th level Fighters different from the "simulationist" desire to not have a game where 20th level Fighters are immune to throat stabbing present it as a threat to them? Aren't they both desires people have about how the story operates in relation to the rules?

Simulationist: the rules are trying to model a situation where someone is getting stabbed, but the closest rule in the books don't match what happens when someone is specifically stabbed in the throat while helpless, because the model/rules aren't granular enough to account for this. This is an edge case where the rule breaks down, so we should either adjust the rule to account for this, or add a new rule to account for this type of situation.

No. The "simulationist" (or at least, the people who are being described as simulationists) don't want the rules to proscribe every possible result. They want the setting to be consistent with the results proscribed by the rules. That means not that we should adjust the rules so that they specifically resolve throat stabbings in some particular way, but rather that when we find the rules governing throat stabbings to be in conflict with the setting descriptions of what happens to people who are stabbed in the throat, we should adjust either the rules or the setting so that they match.

Maybe that means changing the rules for coup de grace to be more lethal. Maybe it means removing the setting's claim that the emperor Gronk the Great was stabbed to death in his sleep by a chambermaid. Maybe it means something in the middle.

The Gamist is concerned with whether the rule makes sense from a balance/fun perspective: should (N)PC's be able to just ignore HP via clever planning? The Narrativist is concerned with whether the rule serves the... well, narrative. Assassinating someone by sticking a dagger in the neck usually kills the hapless victim, and rewards the whatever careful planning was needed to set it up, so the target dies. The Simulationist is concerned with whether the in game actions match up with the out-of-game actions we use to model the scenario, and given that what we predict would happen and what the model says would happen conflict (and that our real world experience suggests that our expectation isn't wrong), that there's a problem with the rules.

So where exactly does someone who would like the thing the rules say happens to match the fluff say happens fall? Because that category seems to be a) excluded and b) the people you are actually arguing with.

Seriously, Max's actual signature has a quote about how he cares about "versimilitude" rather than "realism", and you are still insisting that what "simulationists" like him want is for the game to accurately model reality. Does that not seem off to you at all?

The cons are a certain amount of immersion or versimilitude being sacrificed,

That word does not mean what you think it means. It doesn't break versimilitude to focus more on balance, unless you balance in a paradigm that is inherently versimilitude breaking (e.g. 4e's AED system). If you just gave everyone at-wills and nothing else, the game would be just as balanced and the versimilitude concerns wouldn't exist, at least as they regard the oddity of Martial dailies.

Although that system seems like it would not be mechanically compelling, which seems like something that "gamists" (or at least someone) would want in a system.

At their worst, they can create jarring moments where characters can't perform basic actions without special features (like only gnomes with a special feat in Pathfinder being able to goad foes into a rage)

But that is something the "simulationists" in this conversation consider a failure state. Surely, even if we accept that there are trade offs between these categories, these categories can't trade off with themselves.

It really looks like GNS is both incomplete (what about people who value mechanical complexity) and inconsistent (the results of "simulationism" are things people nominal described as "simulationists" don't actually want). Why am I supposed to care what this theory says again?

For other people, given a choice between "rules that promote interesting situations" and "rules that accurately represent 'reality'", they'll pick the first one of those every time.

"represent reality" is either poor word choice or rhetorical slight of hand. The rules aren't intended to represent reality, they're intended to represent the setting. And they have to do that before you can have interesting situations or compelling roleplaying or anything else. Because the point of RPGs is to ask "what would my character do", and you cannot answer that question if you do not have a setting that can be consistently analyzed and understood.

In my case "fun and interesting" far out weigh "coherent". The less fun and interesting, the more coherent may matter, but why play setting?

But if the setting isn't coherent, how can you play in the setting? If the setting isn't understandable, how can you decide what actions to take?

But that's what I'm saying. Fiction/rules disconnects arise as a result of making rules that try to govern the physics of a world.

No, they arise as a result of failing to do that. Take, for example, animate dead. As the current combination of rules and setting for 3e is specified, you can make a bunch of mindless automata that perform unskilled labor indefinitely. But, apparently no one does that. So there is an inconsistency between the setting and the rules. This didn't happen because the designers said "the setting reflects the rules". It happened because the designers put something in the setting without considering its effects on the setting.

I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is then surely the fault lies with the players who read the rules the wrong way.

"Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."

If you made a game that doesn't do what people want, you should fix the thing you can change (the game) rather than the thing you can't (the people).

I think that's because people got something they didn't expect because of their past experiences with previous editions. 4e is an excellent game at what it does, but it didn't do what many fans of D&D wanted it to do.

Not to derail this thread or anything, but no it isn't. Even if you take it at face value (No Setting, Combat Only, Final Destination) 4e is still terrible. It's simultaneously fiddly and grindy, it has huge power differentials despite the different classes feeling incredibly same-y, and the math wasn't worked out until the edition was basically over.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I have found that rules which do not reflect character capabilities lead less to RPGs and more to storytelling. While that can be fun, I also find that storytelling without a firm grounding in setting rules feels...weaker, to me

Perhaps it it unsurprising that my favorite air Thor is Brandin Sanderson. His stories take place in worlds with well-defined rules. And much of the story emerges from them.

I certainly can't argue with a preference like that. This opinion at least makes sense to me. Thank you.

No, they arise as a result of failing to do that. Take, for example, animate dead. As the current combination of rules and setting for 3e is specified, you can make a bunch of mindless automata that perform unskilled labor indefinitely. But, apparently no one does that. So there is an inconsistency between the setting and the rules. This didn't happen because the designers said "the setting reflects the rules". It happened because the designers put something in the setting without considering its effects on the setting.

And it will always fail at least some portion of the time. Because reality is complicated and we lack the ability to accurately describe everything in real life, let alone pack it all into a 300 page rule book. You can certainly do a better job of it by focusing on events that are most likely to come up, but problems will always arise.

"Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."

If you made a game that doesn't do what people want, you should fix the thing you can change (the game) rather than the thing you can't (the people).

I am open to the possibility that some books could be edited for clarity. There is also the fact that nothing is designed for everyone. Accepting that it won't work for some people and focusing on the people it does work for may be the way to go.

[kyoryu]

I have a question for GNS proponents: What is the value of using GNS? What predictions does it make about game design? What problems can it be used to solve when designing a game?

Well, I'm not a GNS proponent, and I could go on for quite some time as to why that is.

"represent reality" is either poor word choice or rhetorical slight of hand.

It's almost like the word 'reality' was consistently in quotes for a reason.

Because the point of RPGs is to ask "what would my character do", and you cannot answer that question if you do not have a setting that can be consistently analyzed and understood.

I find that a lot of people seem to think that this boils down to an ability to mathematically figure out their chances of doing various things. Which seems silly.

Apart from that, almost any game will give this, so it doesn't seem like a useful distinction. I mean, if you know the rules, no matter how "nonsensical" they are, you can get a good idea of what will happen, yes?

But if the setting isn't coherent, how can you play in the setting? If the setting isn't understandable, how can you decide what actions to take?

Unless you're playing in Wonderland, I find very few games fail this.

If you made a game that doesn't do what people want, you should fix the thing you can change (the game) rather than the thing you can't (the people).

Different people want different things.

Now, I think WotC made some errors with 4e. Mostly, it did a lot of things that "looked like" D&D, but didn't *work like* D&D. When you have "Saving Throws" that aren't saving throws in any classic sense, and when your hp math is entirely different, and when you call spells "spells" and "rituals", then there's just enough "this doesn't look right" to piss people off.

Not to derail this thread or anything, but no it isn't. Even if you take it at face value (No Setting, Combat Only, Final Destination) 4e is still terrible. It's simultaneously fiddly and grindy, it has huge power differentials despite the different classes feeling incredibly same-y, and the math wasn't worked out until the edition was basically over.

I completely disagree. But, again, different people like different things.

[Talakeal]

Personally I find the GNS to be a fairly useful tool for describing broad game design decisions or player motivations. For example, at the time it was hard to vocalize a lot of the complaints about 4E that can be easily summed up at "It has far less focus on the simulationist components compared to previous editions."

It also makes it easier to read player preference. Gamist is a much nicer term than "munchkin" or "power-gamer," which is what a lot of the gamist guys got labeled as in the old days. It is also really nice to recognize the divide between narrativist and simulationist players rather than lumping them together as "story guys". As a simulationist leaning gamer myself I was often directed towards fluffy narativist systems by gamist players who assumed I would like a story-focused game and then didn't understand why I hated it (and I didn't really have the words to tell them at the time).

I personally prefer simulationist play because it is the easiest to role-play in. I can actually get in my character's head and think like them, behaving as a real person would behave in that situation rather than having to be constantly worrying about "dissasociative mechanics" or "narrative story structure / genre tropes".

This is the kind of verisimilitude sacrifice that seems to drive you crazy, but for me or other less simulationist players, the trade off in balance, simplicity, and "fun" makes it worth the cost.

I don't know about you, but I can't think of anything less fun that being told I can't do something for no reason.

[georgie_leech]

I don't know about you, but I can't think of anything less fun that being told I can't do something for no reason.

Less "no reason" and more "the simple solution for letting Fighters do Cool Things was limiting how often they could achieve Cool Things." They usually do something similar for casters in most of the earlier editions, in theory. I would have preferred something genuinely different, because I think that something like a stacking penalty for attempting the same signature move over and over better models why warriors only do their special move every so often without sacrificing "it's only smart to use this once," or Dailies only being usable while Bloodied and doing some extra crazy thing in exchange for some sort of exhaustion penalty or something...

But I understand that expecting unique power systems make balancing harder, and my favourite part about 4e is the interesting but well balanced tactical combat, so I don't mind the choices they made. I don't play 4e for the simulation aspects; I don't play it to get lost in a world, I play it for high fantasy skirmishing. Being able to consistently nail that "my players gave it their all and scraped through the boss fight by the skin of their teeth but triumphed in the end" sweet spot that aim for is something I haven't been able to get reliably without fudging in other editions. I have other games if I want to be immersed.

[Dimers]

I have a question for GNS proponents: What is the value of using GNS? What predictions does it make about game design? What problems can it be used to solve when designing a game?

Personally I find the GNS to be a fairly useful tool for describing broad game design decisions or player motivations.

Yes. Like JaronK's tier system, GNS is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's a way of looking at things to figure out more closely why they do or don't work, and what might be done to improve play experience based on what your particular players want. GNS, like the tier system, neither fixes broken things nor directly creates better things. But it does help you define areas that can be improved.

I'm a hardcore gamist. My motivation is maybe 20% story, 5% simulation and 75% gameplay. When I looked at the 13th Age system for the first time, I could see that it'd be more story-oriented than I need and a bit simplistic for play, but still reasonably close to what I like -- and its simulationism is low enough to suit me. Now when I go to play an actual game of 13th Age, I know what to expect. My expectations don't clash with the system ... thanks to a rough GNS analysis.

[2D8HP]

But if the setting isn't coherent, how can you play in the setting?

Good catch! In this case it's my writing that's incoherent (I'll have to edit that post).

In my case "fun and interesting" far out weigh "coherent". The less fun and interesting, the more coherent may matter, but why play setting?

What I ment was "If the game setting isn't fun and interesting enough for me to forgive any rules/setting incoherence then I'm not going to play the game in the first place. I last played RPG's with settings I didn't like in the early '90's, just so that I could still do some role-playing, I'm more selective now.

If the setting isn't understandable, how can you decide what actions to take?

While we use other RPG's as counter-examples, the thread is mostly about D&D right? I just don't recognize the game you describe. I imagine Fafhrd or the Gray Mouser in a story, Errol Flynn as Captain Blood or Robin Hood, or Sinbad in the Arabian Nights, and (with perhaps a bit more of a survival instinct, unless I've gotten bored in which case perhaps a bit less), and I model my PC's actions on theirs.
I have my PC's attempt to climb, fire arrows, woo nobles, swing swords, run, jump and hide, mostly leaving thoughts of how to adjudicate my PC's odds of success to the DM.

I do sort of get what your saying though, in that I played what was basically a Conan expy PC in an otherwise all Magic Users played by college students party, and the adventure had an awful Alice in Wonderland meets Monty Python on LSD vibe, at a DUNDRACON in '79 or 1980 (maybe that's why I never went to college and seldom play Spell-casters?).
*shudder*
If your experiences of D&D was mostly like that I can see why you wouldn't like it, but to me the fault lied with the DM's adventure (and those snooty Mages!), the rules having very little to do with it.

I also remember having a good time playing Shadowrun (and I dislike anything Cyberpunk!) which I credited to the GM.

Ultimately I think the setting outline, and the GM's and your fellow players ability to improvise matter more than the game rules.