D&D is not a world simulator

[Tanarii]

I've had squads of enemies scatter after seeing enough of their fellows bite the dust in my RPGs - it's the PCs that never seem to want to run away.

You can make them paranoid enough they'll think about it early on. But yeah, players not used to very lethal games tend to wait until it's too late. Then they panic. Then when they roll new characters, they're a little more cautious. Then when they roll new characters, they're a lot more cautious. Until eventually they're sufficiently paranoid.

[kyoryu]

It was a trend for a while in the early 2000s, for example in classic World of Warcraft or the first Dragon Age. Of course, enemies running away in those games is always a bad thing as you are still flagged as in combat (and thus can't rest) until you chase down the runners, and they almost always come back with friends.

WoW did that a lot less than EverQuest did.

[Wardog]

As a side note, has anyone ever noticed that in D&D there is a weird lack of Self-preservation instincts in... anyone except the PCs?

Seriously, why does EVERYONE fight to the last man? When four to six dudes just killed 10 of my buddies in 6 seconds, I'm either gonna surrender or get the hell outta there. I don't care if we've got 30 more guys. Screw that. I'm gonna live.

DMs in the future, please remember that the badguys want to survive more than they want to kill the PCs UNLESS they're unintelligent. (And even most animals will retreat when they are injured.)

I would think that animals would be even more likely to retreat if injured (or before the fight began if they thought you looked too big and scary). Animals won't die for their country, or seek revenge at any cost, or want to die gloriously.

[Kane0]

Animals won't die for their country, or seek revenge at any cost, or want to die gloriously.

Soldier squirrels, man. You wouldn't believe.

[Cosi]

Simulation implies it is attempting to model the underlying thing it represents. An abstract set of rules for conflict resolution is just a way of resolving conflicts. The math doesn't have to model anything in the in-game world. It just needs to present a way for resolving situations.

What things exist in the game world other than conflicts and the start state?

Questions like "how extensively should the world be simulated" are different from "is D&D a world simulator".

The setting is the world, the reality -- the rules are just the map.

This is the exact opposite of the truth. I mean, unless you believe that Eberron is a real place you can actually interact with. Eberron exists as a series of defined rules elements and possible interactions with them.

On "World Simulator": I'm not sure of the actual definition but in terms of how the phase was used by Kawi2awa (who started this thread) I think the mean in terms of emulating large sections of the world and daily life. D&D does not do that, leaving most of those matters to narration or glossing over the details entirely. (The example was wounds getting infected.)

Yes it does. The fact that it simulates things poorly (or not at all) doesn't make it "not a simulation" it just makes it "less accurate of a simulation". Weather simulations still simulate weather even though they don't have defined interactions at the quantum mechanical level. For any thing in a simulation, having it not happen is a totally valid simulation. You may not like it, but no one is saying you have to like it.

Last time we danced this dance it took us 6 pages and we derailed the thread. So I am going to try and keep this short. Mundane as in "boring, as-seen-in-real-life" no because a D&D fighter isn't balanced against that. Mundane as in "not popping off spells/non-magical" than I would say ShadowRun is an example. A cyborg may not be seen on the streets, but it sure is not a wizard.

I agree. Shadowrun presents a great solution to the problem of "make high level Wizards and Fighters equal". But that's not the problem which the poster I responded to claimed had been solved. He wants a solution that also satisfies "Fighters have abilities that are believable in the real world."

The way I took the OP was that the D&D game rules for PCs and their (most commonly) activity of dungeon and wilderness adventure, aren't necessarily a representation of the physics engine of world.

So what is the physics engine of the world? Because if it isn't the rules, then you end up with holes all over the setting (see: why do people in a world with create food and water and magic traps farm). Having the answer be "the PCs are special snowflakes" is inherently unsatisfying, because it means that the world doesn't behave predictably outside the PC's actions. Which in turn means the PCs can't predict the results of their actions, and thus can't role-play.

Which again illustrates how D&D isn't a comprehensive world simulator. If the game world made any kind of practical sense, such murderhobos shouldn't live long enough to amass that kind of wealth, not to mention- why is so much loot just left lying around in the first place?

You're going to have to explain why the PCs should be killed off more than they are. There's a word for "people trying to kill you so you don't amass wealth" in D&Dland and that word is "adventure".

The piles of loot thing actually makes more sense if you accept that the rules govern the operating of the world. That castle full of wights? It's not there because the DM said so. It's there because there used to be a castle full of normal people, but the Wightpocalypse happened and now it's full of wights.

[Tanarii]

So what is the physics engine of the world? Because if it isn't the rules, then you end up with holes all over the setting (see: why do people in a world with create food and water and magic traps farm). Having the answer be "the PCs are special snowflakes" is inherently unsatisfying, because it means that the world doesn't behave predictably outside the PC's actions. Which in turn means the PCs can't predict the results of their actions, and thus can't role-play.

But you've made it clear you're inherently a simulationist with this argument. But as I showed with a Gygax quote, that wasn't the original intent of the D&D rules.

But to answer your question: The in-world physics (which includes magic in D&D) are the physics engine of the world. The rules aren't necessarily a direct attempt to model that. They are (at the minimum) an abstraction meant to allow us to play a game of adventuring.

Just because you find it "inherently unsatisying" that they are game rules for playing adventurers, and not a simulation modeling the in-game reality, doesn't mean everyone does. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's BAD that you have that preference. But speaking from personal experience, what I think is bad is the assumption that the rules MUST be a simulation attempting to model the in-game world. Because when I assumed that was the case, it caused me to make all sorts of horrible interpretations of, and ruling on, rules that didn't originally have any such purpose.

[Cosi]

But you've made it clear you're inherently a simulationist with this argument. But as I showed with a Gygax quote, that wasn't the original intent of the D&D rules.

Could you try phrasing that in terms of things that are meaningful, rather than GNS babble?

Also, "Gygax said this" is probably the worst possible argument you can make for a position given the percentage of things Gygax said that are terrible ideas. Unless this is some kind of weird appeal to authority where things are permanently assigned the meaning attached to them by their creator? I can imagine a few examples of how obviously stupid that idea is, but they're too political to post here.

But to answer your question: The in-world physics (which includes magic in D&D) are the physics engine of the world. The rules aren't necessarily a direct attempt to model that. They are (at the minimum) an abstraction meant to allow us to play a game of adventuring.

You've put yourself in a deeply stupid dilemma there.

If the rules of magic in the setting aren't known to the players/DM, they can't be used to model the setting. Remember, the setting isn't a place that exists independently of the game. It cannot have rules that are not processed through the players/DM.

If the rules of magic in the setting are known to the players/DM, but are different from the rules of the game, taking the same action can have different effects depending on whether or not the person taking it has the PC tag. That is incredibly stupid. And it gets even stupider if people can switch between PC and NPC. And it still has the net effect of "the rules of the game are the rules of the world".

You can't appeal to "in-world physics" for D&D, because it's not real and there aren't any in-world physics that aren't game rules to appeal to.

But speaking from personal experience, what I think is bad is the assumption that the rules MUST be a simulation attempting to model the in-game world. Because when I assumed that was the case, it caused me to make all sorts of horrible interpretations of, and ruling on, rules that didn't originally have any such purpose.

That sounds like you've been playing games with rules that don't do what you want. You should try playing games with rules that do what you want.

[georgie_leech]

Could you try phrasing that in terms of things that are meaningful, rather than GNS babble?

Also, "Gygax said this" is probably the worst possible argument you can make for a position given the percentage of things Gygax said that are terrible ideas. Unless this is some kind of weird appeal to authority where things are permanently assigned the meaning attached to them by their creator? I can imagine a few examples of how obviously stupid that idea is, but they're too political to post here.



You've put yourself in a deeply stupid dilemma there.

If the rules of magic in the setting aren't known to the players/DM, they can't be used to model the setting. Remember, the setting isn't a place that exists independently of the game. It cannot have rules that are not processed through the players/DM.

If the rules of magic in the setting are known to the players/DM, but are different from the rules of the game, taking the same action can have different effects depending on whether or not the person taking it has the PC tag. That is incredibly stupid. And it gets even stupider if people can switch between PC and NPC. And it still has the net effect of "the rules of the game are the rules of the world".

You can't appeal to "in-world physics" for D&D, because it's not real and there aren't any in-world physics that aren't game rules to appeal to.



That sounds like you've been playing games with rules that don't do what you want. You should try playing games with rules that do what you want.

Or, you know, the rules are meant to let you play the game rather than defining how the in-game universe works. Unless you're arguing that stabbing enough kobolds really does improve your lockpicking skill, or that in the 3.5verse the most powerful healing agent possible, capable of removing unbounded amounts of damage, is a bucket of water?

[Tanarii]

Could you try phrasing that in terms of things that are meaningful, rather than GNS babble?

But GNS is the entire point. That makes it meaningful.

Also, "Gygax said this" is probably the worst possible argument you can make for a position given the percentage of things Gygax said that are terrible ideas. Unless this is some kind of weird appeal to authority where things are permanently assigned the meaning attached to them by their creator? I can imagine a few examples of how obviously stupid that idea is, but they're too political to post here.

Yeah it wasn't supposed to be an argument. It was supposed to be a historical note about the origins of the game.

You've put yourself in a deeply stupid dilemma there.

If the rules of magic in the setting aren't known to the players/DM, they can't be used to model the setting. Remember, the setting isn't a place that exists independently of the game. It cannot have rules that are not processed through the players/DM.

Of course it exists separately from the game. It exists in the head of the players. That doesn't mean the in-game world and the rules for resolution of actions are the same thing.

That sounds like you've been playing games with rules that don't do what you want. You should try playing games with rules that do what you want.

No it means I used to be like you. I though the entire purpose of rules was to be a model for the world in our heads we were trying to play in. Then after some people came at me pointing out that wasn't automatically the intent, I was forced to take a look at things like GNS, and understand that hey, actually rules can have multiple purposes. And in understanding the underlying theory behind them, it's possible to make the rules work for you, instead of constantly fighting them.


edit:

Or, you know, the rules are meant to let you play the game rather than defining how the in-game universe works.

To someone who prefers simulation, they like them to be one and the same.

To someone stuck in simulation thinking, unable to see that there exists any other possibility, this kind of statement is nonsense. I used to be one of those people. Luckily I was bludgeoned over the head enough to understand that it's not the only possibility.

[Cosi]

Or, you know, the rules are meant to let you play the game rather than defining how the in-game universe works. Unless you're arguing that stabbing enough kobolds really does improve your lockpicking skill, or that in the 3.5verse the most powerful healing agent possible, capable of removing unbounded amounts of damage, is a bucket of water?

How else could those things possibly operate in the game world? The game world isn't real, we have only rules (and setting info) to describe it. The map is the territory.

But GNS is the entire point. That makes it meaningful.

No, it's not. GNS is attempting to analyze RPGs by breaking them down into "role", "playing", and "game". It's not coherent.

Of course it exists separately from the game. It exists in the head of the players. That doesn't mean the in-game world and the rules for resolution of actions are the same thing.

Uh, what? You still have yet to explain how there could possibly be parts of a fictional setting that aren't created by people in the real world (in this context "rules"). Until you do that, any amount of "they aren't the same" is just prattle.

it's possible to make the rules work for you, instead of constantly fighting them.

I agree. It's just that I prefer the apparently incomprehensibly mystical strategy of "writing rules that do what I want" rather than insisting that people who want to use the rules as written to understand the world they describe are doing it wrong.

If you make a toaster that burns down people's houses when they use it to toast bagels, you don't insist that they don't really want bagels. You make a toaster that toasts bagels.

[Beleriphon]

If the rules of magic in the setting are known to the players/DM, but are different from the rules of the game, taking the same action can have different effects depending on whether or not the person taking it has the PC tag. That is incredibly stupid. And it gets even stupider if people can switch between PC and NPC. And it still has the net effect of "the rules of the game are the rules of the world".

How about this. The Avernum CRPG series have a bunch of magic stuff in them the player never gets to use. Ever. For example the archmage Erika (if you foolishly, soooooo foolishly) decide to try and kill her in the game she unleashes spells and abilities that your PC wizard/cleric type character can never, ever use. There's X and Solberg do the same thing. My interface with the game isn't the reality of the world, its the interface as a player I interact with the world through, the rules of the game simulate enough of the world for me to play the game, but the rules aren't the entirety of the world the game shows me.

In much the same way as Skyrim's rules facilitate adventuring around a specific place in the Elder Scrolls setting, the rules D&D uses are an interface the game uses to allow the characters to interact with the make believe environment and they only simulate enough interaction to facilitate the game play its designed for. Much like Skyrim isn't designed as a farming simulator (there's no option for the Dovahkiin to grow cabbages using shouts that control the weather, despite the fact one could make a mint doing so) the D&D rules are not the be all end all of every possible action or interaction in D&D-land. They are designed to facility interaction between characters in a game, and those rules don't have to apply the same way to every type of character.

Should the rules we do have apply consistently ever time we use them? Sure, in so far as one can write rules to cover every possible imaginary scenario a human can come up with. The D&D rules aren't meant to be used to simulate everything the players can interact with in the game, that's silly since the rules don't cover every possible interaction. But at the same time the rules we do have, largely combat, are meant to provide an interface for the players to interact with and provide a way to resolve situation the game is meant to played for (ie. stabbing orcs in the face and taking their stuff). The D&D rules have expanded to provide more interfaces for different types of situations, but they're still just an interface for the players to use, they don't necessarily represent the way any other type of character encountered has to interact with the world. I don't think the king needs to make diplomacy rolls using his 15 charisma and +6 to diplomacy skill to convince his daughter to go marry the prince from another kingdom, he either does or doesn't based on what the DM decides will happen, because the players are interacting with that. If they choose to interact with, then we use the rules to have the player affect a situation. Otherwise the rules don't matter, since they don't govern the actual interactions of the world until the players become involved.

[Segev]

I like my rules to simulate the physics of the world well enough that I don't wind up with my characters interacting with the world in ways entirely alien to the fiction/fluff about the world.

If the rules make it so that swinging down on a chandelier is a terrible tactic, I don't want the setting to insist that it's something that's done all the time by the most successful of swashbucklers. If the rules say that magic lets you bring back the dead if you have enough money, I don't want the game's fluff to treat assassinating the king as if it's the end of the kingdom. It should be perfectly valid for a mid-high level party to say, "Okay, if he dies, we'll resurrect him." A high-level party could even spring for true resurrection. I would like a D&D setting to treat it as such.

If the fluff, on the other hand, says that magic is done by focusing one's will and using ritual implements to shape and aid in the focus, and that different qualities of ritual components can require more or less willpower (and personal energy) to pull off the effects, then the rules had better not tell me that I have specific, single-effect spells with durations and casting times measured precisely and which are cast out of a limited number of spell slots per day.

I expect to be able to play the kinds of characters and do the kinds of things described in the world's fluff. The rules need to support this.

[ComradeBear]

Uh, what? You still have yet to explain how there could possibly be parts of a fictional setting that aren't created by people in the real world (in this context "rules"). Until you do that, any amount of "they aren't the same" is just prattle.

This qualifier doesn't add up. A distinction between a fictional world and the rules for games occurring within that universe is not dependent upon that universe existing spontaneously. Examples are easy to find.

40k is a good example. Often the lore and the various games are at odds. Dark Heresy does not function like Only War, and neither functions like the wargame. These do not cause them to be different universes, though they ARE varying lenses through which the universe is viewed, making them different games with different methods of resolving conflict based on what the game wants to accomplish.

It should also be noted that 40k BEGAN as a tabletop rpg, not a wargame, under the name Rogue Trader. So there is a precedent for tabletop rpgs expanding into many different kinds of games with different purposes and rulesets while portraying the same universe.

So this point doesn't mean anything, nor does it counter the idea that the rules and the fiction of a game are not necessarily identical.

Edit:

I expect to be able to play the kinds of characters and do the kinds of things described in the world's fluff. The rules need to support this.

This is a noble goal, though for some fictional settings it is better to have multiple rulesets for different purposes (as with 40k) rather than trying to create a massive tome of rules the size of wikipedia if it were printed.

So for instance a game about swashbuckling pirates is best-off having different rules from one about courtly intrigue, even if the two take place in the same universe, because the experience of each game will be very different from one another. A third game taking place in the darkest dungeons of the world will be vastly different from the other two as well.

Fluff and mechanics CAN coincide, but the rules serve to facilitate a specific gameplay experience, not to dictate the fluff of a world. Sometimes the rules and the fluff come into conflict. This usually happens in games that try to model too much at once, rather than doing one thing and doing it really well.

[Beleriphon]

I like my rules to simulate the physics of the world well enough that I don't wind up with my characters interacting with the world in ways entirely alien to the fiction/fluff about the world.

Sure, that makes sense, the rules need to be consistent in terms of the way the game expects the game to be played.

If the rules make it so that swinging down on a chandelier is a terrible tactic, I don't want the setting to insist that it's something that's done all the time by the most successful of swashbucklers. If the rules say that magic lets you bring back the dead if you have enough money, I don't want the game's fluff to treat assassinating the king as if it's the end of the kingdom. It should be perfectly valid for a mid-high level party to say, "Okay, if he dies, we'll resurrect him." A high-level party could even spring for true resurrection. I would like a D&D setting to treat it as such.

There are reasons that might now work, although it should be a valid option in some instances.

If the fluff, on the other hand, says that magic is done by focusing one's will and using ritual implements to shape and aid in the focus, and that different qualities of ritual components can require more or less willpower (and personal energy) to pull off the effects, then the rules had better not tell me that I have specific, single-effect spells with durations and casting times measured precisely and which are cast out of a limited number of spell slots per day.

Again, consistency important. But the interface for the game only needs to match enough in game fiction to make the game work, the rules aren't necessarily the be all end all of how that in game fiction is supposed to work.

I expect to be able to play the kinds of characters and do the kinds of things described in the world's fluff. The rules need to support this.

They do and they don't to a degree. A game might be about more less modern world archaeologists delving into lost tombs and finding amazing ancient artifacts while fighting Nazi/Communists/space-hipsters/whatever. We're pretty much aware that dentists are thing in the game's universe, we don't need rules for dentists to play this game though since our characters aren't going to be running a dentistry practice.

[Cosi]

How about this. The Avernum CRPG series have a bunch of magic stuff in them the player never gets to use. Ever.

So, to a lesser or greater degree, does any game where players must choose between abilities. If I must choose between learning fireball and stinking cloud, whatever choice I make the game will contain an ability I can't use. The only difference between that and your example is that I could have hypothetically had stinking cloud in the alternate universe where I picked it instead of fireball, while I will never get the magical abilities of various archmages in Avernum. But the principle is much the same.

I don't think the king needs to make diplomacy rolls using his 15 charisma and +6 to diplomacy skill to convince his daughter to go marry the prince from another kingdom, he either does or doesn't based on what the DM decides will happen, because the players are interacting with that.

Ah, but this is a different question! "Should we consider X an element to be simulated or part of the start state of the game" is not "does the game simulate X". Also, the interaction in question is between two NPCs controlled by the same player (the DM). In a squad based game (perhaps something like the wargames in which D&D finds its origins) we would not expect the units in a player's army to have to be convinced to work together.

It should also be noted that 40k BEGAN as a tabletop rpg, not a wargame, under the name Rogue Trader. So there is a precedent for tabletop rpgs expanding into many different kinds of games with different purposes and rulesets while portraying the same universe.

No, those things have the same start state: the Warhammer 40k fluff. Because they have different rules, they are different universes. Rogue Trader games occur in a galaxy where things are required to be stable given the Rogue Trader rules. Warhammer 40k Miniatures Wargames occur in a galaxy where things are required to be stable given the Warhammer 40k Miniatures Wargame rules. Are they similar? Sure. But they're no more the same than playing in Greyhawk is the same in 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e.

We're pretty much aware that dentists are thing in the game's universe, we don't need rules for dentists to play this game though since our characters aren't going to be running a dentistry practice.

But what if the players need to interact with a dentistry practice? Perhaps it's situated on top of some artifacts they need to dig up, or a front for the enemies they're fighting, or one of the players makes money as a dentist to fund their adventures. If we simply don't model things the way your side suggests, the game stops. If we model a world, even very roughly, the game continues, using rules for running a business to model dentistry.

[Max_Killjoy]

The rules are the map -- the setting, characters, atmosphere/feel, concepts, etc, are the actual territory.

No one expects a map to show every last tree limb and blade of grass, and yet attacks on "simulation-based" rules too often come down to an exagerated false dichotomy, an assertion that mapping is pointless because you can't account for every last possible interaction.

The irony is that well-crafted rules are coherent, consistent, and associated, allow players (including the GM) to extrapolate existing rules to smoothly apply to novel situations. Because the rules derive from "the world" directly, they can be extended to cover additional parts of "the world" with relative ease.

In contrast, rules that are disassociated and/or a jumbled mess of situational specifics, require a new special ruling for every single novel situation that occurs.

Furthermore, rules that are disassociated from the "fictional reality" tend to result in "what he heck?" moments -- results that fail to be internally consistent and coherent -- far too often.



The question is not whether an RPG ruleset "simulates" something -- all RPG rules "simulate" something -- but rather whether they "simulate" what you want them to "simulate".


(I use the quotes here because I find the GNS/Forge theorizing a bit suspect. A well-crafted set of rules flows from the setting, is fair and balanced, and gets out of the way of the story that emerges from gameplay. That is, it has all three elements, and yet doesn't get lost in an attempt to fixate on any one.)

[Tanarii]

I like my rules to simulate the physics of the world well enough that I don't wind up with my characters interacting with the world in ways entirely alien to the fiction/fluff about the world.

Can't disagree with your preference. Which is why it's important to distinguish between "this is what I like in my rules" and denying that any other way of thinking about rules is possible, let alone just being badwrongfun.

[Beleriphon]

Ah, but this is a different question! "Should we consider X an element to be simulated or part of the start state of the game" is not "does the game simulate X". Also, the interaction in question is between two NPCs controlled by the same player (the DM). In a squad based game (perhaps something like the wargames in which D&D finds its origins) we would not expect the units in a player's army to have to be convinced to work together.

Its not though, at least a world sim go. How non-players interact in the fiction don't matter as far the rules go. If the rules were a world sim then one would expect to use the rules to simulate these interactions. But we don't because it doesn't matter until the players come along, since the rules govern how the players interact with the fiction of the setting.

But what if the players need to interact with a dentistry practice? Perhaps it's situated on top of some artifacts they need to dig up, or a front for the enemies they're fighting, or one of the players makes money as a dentist to fund their adventures. If we simply don't model things the way your side suggests, the game stops. If we model a world, even very roughly, the game continues, using rules for running a business to model dentistry.

But the game doesn't need dentistry rules, because the game isn't about running a dentistry practice. There don't need to be detailed rules for drilling into molars, bicuspids, root canals, or general tooth care. One could get away with a background saying "You're a dentist, you can dentist effectively", in a game that focuses on fighting Nazis and generally trying to be Indiana Jones expies having dentistry be anything more than a passing reference is very slim. It doesn't mean there aren't dentists, it just means the game does try to model how to be a dentist.

To return to Skyrim. The character can become a master alchemist, but they can't hang out running an alchemy shop in Whiterun, because that's not what the game is about. It doesn't mean such things don't exist (clearly one does) but the game doesn't focus on that aspect of the setting for the player, because its not what the game is trying to do.

[ComradeBear]

No, those things have the same start state: the Warhammer 40k fluff. Because they have different rules, they are different universes. Rogue Trader games occur in a galaxy where things are required to be stable given the Rogue Trader rules. Warhammer 40k Miniatures Wargames occur in a galaxy where things are required to be stable given the Warhammer 40k Miniatures Wargame rules. Are they similar? Sure. But they're no more the same than playing in Greyhawk is the same in 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e.

Apart from edition differences, you're going to have a very hard time proving they aren't all within the 40k universe than I will proving they ARE.

Lore in 40k is rather murky at best, on purpose. Conflicting accounts, differing opinions about the same conflict, plenty of unanswered questions. Thousands of unnamed worlds and trillions of human lives that could potentially exist. While the adventures may not be CANON to the series, they definitely take place within the same universe, as described within their pages. Since they examine different portions of said universe to provide a different play experience, they utilize different rules. It is worth noting that the 40k universe is only partially defined within rulebooks at all. At no point did I proclaim that these adventures were considered Canon (though to a degree they may as well be), but that they all occur within the same fictional universe. And that much is obviously true, save for minor changes to previous lore (lore which often doesn't affect the games because they aren't reliant upon those pieces of lore. The existence/nonexistence of the Squats means nothing in a Dark Heresy game, because they aren't mentioned.)

But what if the players need to interact with a dentistry practice? Perhaps it's situated on top of some artifacts they need to dig up, or a front for the enemies they're fighting, or one of the players makes money as a dentist to fund their adventures. If we simply don't model things the way your side suggests, the game stops. If we model a world, even very roughly, the game continues, using rules for running a business to model dentistry.

This brings up the question of why the GM is putting a dentistry practice into the game in a way that requires mechanics, in a game that has no way to support such a thing because that's not what the game is about. Sure, it's theoretically possible for the players to entirely abandon the campaign premise for rhe sake of opening a dentist shop, but at that point the game is over because the GM didn't sign up to play Dentists and Drills and has no obligation to force the system to fit this new fiction. If you want to play Dentists and Drills, then find a system that works for that.
If your players are just going to passingly interact with a dentist once, then you make up something that works for right now. And then you're done. The rules do not need to (nor should they try to) account for every single possible thing that could possibly happen. Do one thing and do it really well, instead of trying to do everything and (almost always) doing it poorly.

[Max_Killjoy]

Its not though, at least a world sim go. How non-players interact in the fiction don't matter as far the rules go. If the rules were a world sim then one would expect to use the rules to simulate these interactions. But we don't because it doesn't matter until the players come along, since the rules govern how the players interact with the fiction of the setting.

However, rules should be such that they do not contradict what we see the NPCs doing, and that the NPCs and their interactions with the world could be represented within the rules if necessary.

But the game doesn't need dentistry rules, because the game isn't about running a dentistry practice. There don't need to be detailed rules for drilling into molars, bicuspids, root canals, or general tooth care. One could get away with a background saying "You're a dentist, you can dentist effectively", in a game that focuses on fighting Nazis and generally trying to be Indiana Jones expies having dentistry be anything more than a passing reference is very slim. It doesn't mean there aren't dentists, it just means the game does try to model how to be a dentist.

Why would one design a ruleset along such narrow lines as "just like Indiana Jones fighting Nazis"? This isn't a boardgame.

The campaign may focus on fighting Nazis as an Indy expy, and different rulesets may be more suited for that sort of game than others, but starting out with such a narrow focus is going to inevitably lead to wonky results as soon as anyone steps the least bit out of the initial focus, even if it's entirely within the flow of the campaign to do so.

To return to Skyrim. The character can become a master alchemist, but they can't hang out running an alchemy shop in Whiterun, because that's not what the game is about. It doesn't mean such things don't exist (clearly one does) but the game doesn't focus on that aspect of the setting for the player, because its not what the game is trying to do.

Skyrim is a video game, and is limited to exactly what exists in the code and data. No on-the-fly extrapolation is possible, everything must be added to the code and data.

CPRGs are TERRIBLE as guidelines for actual RPGs.

[2D8HP]

A well-crafted set of rules flows from the setting, is fair and balanced, and gets out of the way of the story that emerges from gameplay. That is, it has all three elements, and yet doesn't get lost in an attempt to fixate on any one.)

OK M. K., I have to ask:
Rules that fit your three criteria plus my criteria of:

1) Easy for me to learn (ie either inherently so or based on the rules I know best TSR's D&D or Chaosium's BRP)
2) I can play PC's like the young and old versions of Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser or Moore's Jirel, in a Swords and Sorcery setting.
3) Quick PC creation, not a long "mini-game",
like GURPS or HERO.
4) My FLGS can get me a real box or book with the rules, I don't want a PDF!

What rules are those?
(If you say Pathfinder or Runequest I will scream!)

[Beleriphon]

The campaign may focus on fighting Nazis as an Indy expy, and different rulesets may be more suited for that sort of game than others, but starting out with such a narrow focus is going to inevitably lead to wonky results as soon as anyone steps the least bit out of the initial focus, even if it's entirely within the flow of the campaign to do so.

I think the premise of Indy fighting Nazis who want to steal priceless relic for their nefarious purposes is a pretty good premise for a game system. Our hypothetical rules doesn't need the extra layer of being a dentist and doing the work. What it might need is something to say the character is a dentist and can do dentistry when they want to. Maybe even make a living off of it, but like Indy we see enough to know he works as an archaeology professor, teaches classes, but generally speaking the important stuff is what happens out in the field, which is what the story and by extension a game based on that kind of story needs to focus on.

So again, we don't need detailed rules for dentistry, running a dentistry practice, determining out much our dental hygienists get paid, whether they're going to go on strike next week because they didn't get a big enough raise, or whether the College of Dentists is going to have surprise audit next week. If we had those rules, doesn't that make the game about being a dentist, rather than an intrepid archaeologist and friends?

A game about being a dentist could be fun but its a different game than one that has the one where the SWAT teams raids drug labs.

Skyrim is a video game, and is limited to exactly what exists in the code and data. No on-the-fly extrapolation is possible, everything must be added to the code and data.

CPRGs are TERRIBLE as guidelines for actual RPGs.

They actually aren't terrible because they tend to have fairly narrow focus, and good ones focus the player on the things the designers want to focus on. The structure, pacing and world building that goes into the best of them tends to be much greater and far better than any RPG run by a single person (largely because the biggest are built by teams of at least several dozen people). Think about it, D&D has rules for fighting, and how players do things related to being adventurers. But does your D&D need rules for detailed accounting and cattle ranching? How about beer brewing? These are all things that take place in the setting, but the rules don't cover them because its usually unnecessary for the type of game D&D is about. Just like Skyrim doesn't have rules for setting up shops and making money as a merchant, but there are computer games about that but they don't have rules for running around shouting dragons to death. Thus the rules aren't a world simulation, the rules are an adventurer simulation. You might be able to extrapolate the existing rules to cover something they don't do by default, but assuming the cover every single possible situation one could come up with in the fictional milieu is a fools errand.

[ComradeBear]

However, rules should be such that they do not contradict what we see the NPCs doing, and that the NPCs and their interactions with the world could be represented within the rules if necessary.

I agree with this, but probably not on the way you imagine. A system that gives me a way to create on-the-fly rulings fits this need. Because said on-the-fly rulings are specifically for fringe cases.

Why would one design a ruleset along such narrow lines as "just like Indiana Jones fighting Nazis"? This isn't a boardgame.

The campaign may focus on fighting Nazis as an Indy expy, and different rulesets may be more suited for that sort of game than others, but starting out with such a narrow focus is going to inevitably lead to wonky results as soon as anyone steps the least bit out of the initial focus, even if it's entirely within the flow of the campaign to do so.

His point isn't weakened any by expanding to "Archeological Adventures in the 1940s."

The point is still solid even if his specific example strikes you as overly narrow. (Hence attacking the example rather than the point.)

CPRGs are TERRIBLE as guidelines for actual RPGs.

I agree with this except for the elitist "actual" rpgs moniker for tabletop rpgs. Let's not stoop to gatekeeping what is and isn't an "actual" rpg...

[Max_Killjoy]

I agree with this, but probably not on the way you imagine. A system that gives me a way to create on-the-fly rulings fits this need. Because said on-the-fly rulings are specifically for fringe cases.



His point isn't weakened any by expanding to "Archeological Adventures in the 1940s."

The point is still solid even if his specific example strikes you as overly narrow. (Hence attacking the example rather than the point.)


I agree with this except for the elitist "actual" rpgs moniker for tabletop rpgs. Let's not stoop to gatekeeping what is and isn't an "actual" rpg...

It's not a matter of elitism or gatekeeping, it's a matter of how much actual roleplaying goes on when playing many of the CRPGs that have come down the pipe.

[Segev]

Again, consistency important. But the interface for the game only needs to match enough in game fiction to make the game work, the rules aren't necessarily the be all end all of how that in game fiction is supposed to work.



They do and they don't to a degree. A game might be about more less modern world archaeologists delving into lost tombs and finding amazing ancient artifacts while fighting Nazi/Communists/space-hipsters/whatever. We're pretty much aware that dentists are thing in the game's universe, we don't need rules for dentists to play this game though since our characters aren't going to be running a dentistry practice.

I never said anything about handling things not expected to come up. It's nice if it can, but I'm fine with a DM having to ad hoc something if it's not part of the core storytelling of the setting. Dentistry, if it comes up, is still going to be a peripheral thing to adventurer-archeologists warring with foreign spies over mystic artifacts.

Can't disagree with your preference. Which is why it's important to distinguish between "this is what I like in my rules" and denying that any other way of thinking about rules is possible, let alone just being badwrongfun.

I generally won't tell anybody who enjoys what they're doing that they're having badwrongfun. I will tend to evaluate game design quality, and if the rules actively get in the way of the feel of the setting, that's bad design.

The d20 Wheel of Time rules are actively bad game design, because they shoehorn 3.0 sorcerer-casting onto the Channeling concept of that setting...and it just does NOT work well. White Wolf games suffer from some bad design in their chargen because they want you to start with "balanced" stats, but the game is best played if you have some areas of great strength and other areas you just aren't any good, AND the chargen resources buy high stats at linear costs, while the XP system buys increasing stats at geometric costs. That is, it costs more to buy your 5th dot than it did to buy your 4th dot with XP, but it costs the same if you're doing it with starting dots or bonus points (both of which only happen at chargen).

[ComradeBear]

It's not a matter of elitism or gatekeeping, it's a matter of how much actual roleplaying goes on when playing many of the CRPGs that have come down the pipe.

As much as you want to do. I can pretend I'm whoever I want within the constraints of Skyrim. So yeah, it's a matter of gatekeeping/elitism.
(As is suggesting you can't roleplay in a CRPG. I've roleplayed in a flight sim game all by myself.)

[Max_Killjoy]

As much as you want to do. I can pretend I'm whoever I want within the constraints of Skyrim. So yeah, it's a matter of gatekeeping/elitism.
(As is suggesting you can't roleplay in a CRPG. I've roleplayed in a flight sim game all by myself.)

I didn't suggest that you couldn't.

It's a hard fact that a CRPG is going to be a different beast than an RPG, and that the constraints are tighter and the path actually supported by the game itself is more narrow. You can imagine whatever you want, but that's true in any game; one can imagine the pieces in checkers to be soldiers or whatever, that doesn't make checkers an RPG. An actual roleplaying game is more than "I imagine myself to be", more than just pure make-believe -- the other half is the structure of the game.

At some point, when the CRPG says 'YOU WILL BE CAPTURED HERE" and that's what happens... "imagining" that your character(s) aren't captured is a total disconnect from what's going on in the game.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think the premise of Indy fighting Nazis who want to steal priceless relic for their nefarious purposes is a pretty good premise for a game system. Our hypothetical rules doesn't need the extra layer of being a dentist and doing the work. What it might need is something to say the character is a dentist and can do dentistry when they want to. Maybe even make a living off of it, but like Indy we see enough to know he works as an archaeology professor, teaches classes, but generally speaking the important stuff is what happens out in the field, which is what the story and by extension a game based on that kind of story needs to focus on.

So again, we don't need detailed rules for dentistry, running a dentistry practice, determining out much our dental hygienists get paid, whether they're going to go on strike next week because they didn't get a big enough raise, or whether the College of Dentists is going to have surprise audit next week. If we had those rules, doesn't that make the game about being a dentist, rather than an intrepid archaeologist and friends?

A game about being a dentist could be fun but its a different game than one that has the one where the SWAT teams raids drug labs.

I didn't realize we were talking about detailed rules for the minutia of dentistry -- in most games, it can probably be covered by one or two skills. I read the comment as "if the players themselves won't be dentists, dentistry can be utterly ignored and treated as if it doesn't exist".

They actually aren't terrible because they tend to have fairly narrow focus, and good ones focus the player on the things the designers want to focus on. The structure, pacing and world building that goes into the best of them tends to be much greater and far better than any RPG run by a single person (largely because the biggest are built by teams of at least several dozen people). Think about it, D&D has rules for fighting, and how players do things related to being adventurers. But does your D&D need rules for detailed accounting and cattle ranching? How about beer brewing? These are all things that take place in the setting, but the rules don't cover them because its usually unnecessary for the type of game D&D is about. Just like Skyrim doesn't have rules for setting up shops and making money as a merchant, but there are computer games about that but they don't have rules for running around shouting dragons to death. Thus the rules aren't a world simulation, the rules are an adventurer simulation. You might be able to extrapolate the existing rules to cover something they don't do by default, but assuming the cover every single possible situation one could come up with in the fictional milieu is a fools errand.

The narrower the focus of the rules, the more likely the game is to end up in territory completely uncovered by the map. This might be fine in a CPRG where the character(s) literally cannot leave the established territory, but a TRPG is not constrained to fixed territory unless the GM is railroading.

Even if the rules of a TRPG don't explicitly cover "beer brewing" or "cattle ranching", they shouldn't make wandering into that territory a PITA to deal with. That is, the map should be easy to expand.

No one is asserting that the rules as published need to cover every last possible situation in exactly minute detail -- such an objection is veering dangerously close to a strawman.

[ComradeBear]

I didn't suggest that you couldn't.

It's a hard fact that a CRPG is going to be a different beast than an RPG, and that the constraints are tighter and the path actually supported by the game itself is more narrow. You can imagine whatever you want, but that's true in any game; one can imagine the pieces in checkers to be soldiers or whatever, that doesn't make checkers an RPG. An actual roleplaying game is more than "I imagine myself to be", more than just pure make-believe -- the other half is the structure of the game.

At some point, when the CRPG says 'YOU WILL BE CAPTURED HERE" and that's what happens... "imagining" that your character(s) aren't captured is a total disconnect from what's going on in the game.

So the goalposts are moving from "playing a role" defining it to "Level of freedom" defines it. Ok.

Except that Roleplaying games are not defined by the level of freedom. They're defined as Games in which you assume the role of a character or characters in a fictional setting, and participate in the development of these characters. How they develop and whether you do acting or make structured decisions at predetermined points is irrelevant to a game being an RPG.

CRPGs are not misnamed nor are they any less "Actually rpgs" than trpgs. They are less flexible, yes, and a very different kind of game. But implying they're secretly not REALLY RPGs is both factually inaccurate and elitist af.

[Max_Killjoy]

So the goalposts are moving from "playing a role" defining it to "Level of freedom" defines it. Ok.

The goalposts are exactly where they've always been. Going through the motions and playing out a very very limited set of choices available isn't really roleplaying.

There's a word for acting out a role that's handed to you -- it's called acting.

Except that Roleplaying games are not defined by the level of freedom. They're defined as Games in which you assume the role of a character or characters in a fictional setting, and participate in the development of these characters. How they develop and whether you do acting or make structured decisions at predetermined points is irrelevant to a game being an RPG.

CRPGs are not misnamed nor are they any less "Actually rpgs" than trpgs. They are less flexible, yes, and a very different kind of game. But implying they're secretly not REALLY RPGs is both factually inaccurate and elitist af.

The more a game falls under "you will assume this assigned role and follow it through this predetermined story", the less it is really an RPG. Responsiveness to player input and openness of character design are key features. This is true whether it's a video game or a tabletop game. No one mistakes a "choose your own adventure" book for an RPG, and yet do the same thing on a computer, and it's sold as a "CPRG".

There's really no secret here.

Any impression you have of elitism is ENTIRELY your inference.


On that note, I'm not going to derail the thread further on this topic. Feel free to slam me some more for whatever character faults you imagine I have.