The challenge isn't "just about surviving" in my game…
I suspected it was not.
May as well put a quarter slot on my DM screen, frankly.
I never thought of it like that before.
(And, in a game where Raise Dead and Reincarnate aren't exactly rare, character death is basically an inconvenience, not a game stopper)
Now this I thought of as a quarter slot on my GM screen.
My example of the green dragon in the woods wasn't to say I pointlessly kill characters.
Again, I suspected you did not.
Heck, I don't WANT them to go into the woods before they're ready to handle it
Do you communicate this in any way? I suspect you do, so let me rephrase. How do you communicate this? From your statement, I take it that we are in agreement that a pointless PC death is…well…pointless. That would make you less laissez-faire than I, and others, may have taken you for.
If the world is ONLY about the players, you go way too far in the opposite direction…
Some detail can add atmosphere, but the story should be mostly about the PCs.
Besides, the point of this thread was "Gygaxian Naturalism"
Yes, but I got all excited seeing the two of you going at it.
Some people like it, some don't, but I don't cater to those who don't, frankly.
Bully for you and your inflexibility. :P
|
The challenge isn't "just about surviving" in my game…I suspected it was not.
May as well put a quarter slot on my DM screen, frankly.I never thought of it like that before.
(And, in a game where Raise Dead and Reincarnate aren't exactly rare, character death is basically an inconvenience, not a game stopper)Now this I thought of as a quarter slot on my GM screen.
My example of the green dragon in the woods wasn't to say I pointlessly kill characters.Again, I suspected you did not.
Heck, I don't WANT them to go into the woods before they're ready to handle itDo you communicate this in any way? I suspect you do, so let me rephrase. How do you communicate this? From your statement, I take it that we are in agreement that a pointless PC death is…well…pointless. That would make you less laissez-faire than I, and others, may have taken you for.
If the world is ONLY about the players, you go way too far in the opposite direction…Some detail can add atmosphere, but the story should be mostly about the PCs.
Besides, the point of this thread was "Gygaxian Naturalism"Yes, but I got all excited seeing the two of you going at it.
Some people like it, some don't, but I don't cater to those who don't, frankly.Bully for you and your inflexibility. :P
LOL, I was just reading along on this thread and HD's example of a green dragon being something you might not want to hit right away brought up a funny memory:
I was running a party of 7-8th clerics and paladins while I was in the Army, and a new guy asked to join. His character schtick was an Evil Dragon Hunter dedicated to Bahamut. I played along and gave him some lowly jr. adult dragons to beat on with the party.
Before he had ever arrived on scene I had dropped a massive ancient Red Dragon up on a volcano in a distant part of the world. When this guy heard abuot this terror, he just HAD to go after it. Now, I had already terrorized the other players with anecdotes about Skatharion (the dragon) laying waste to armies and towns. This guy didn't wanna hear it. He decided to climb the volcano and try his luck mano-y-mano.
Now, I tried to warn him off, but he would hear nothing else. As he was hiking up the narrow path along the volcano's side, I had Skatharion come flying down off the caldera. At that point it was still 2E, but I had statted this dragon out using some of the optional kick-@zz rules for dragons from some article out of Dragon Magazine. The dragon roared by, wing buffeting and clawing. The dragon hunter got a couple hits in, but sustained a LOT of damage and was swept off the ledge. I was merciful and had Skatharion fly away at that point. My mighty dragon slayer limped back to civilization a little humbler and ready to go after dragons his own size ...
Some players deserve special, providential stories. Others do not.
Great example of the latter category.
I have always GM'd, and frequently played in, "Old School"/Gygaxian games, where PC death is potentially around every corner. If I want a guarenteed happy ending where the hero always wins, I'll read a book or watch a movie. That route is a hell of a lot quicker, than months of Saturday afternoons at the game table.
If there is NO legitimate risk of death during the game, then ultimately, what's the point of it. You can butter it up with all the window trappings, plot & story lines, and RP you want. But if I know that I'm going to survive, I'd certainly take a lot of liberties that common sense wouldn't allow, knowing the GM is going to let me slide, to make sure the "happy ending" goes through as planned. What's the point of that?
Letting players slide in this way is neither good role-playing, nor good collaborative story-telling, nor good world-building, nor good game-mastering.
I play similar to HD, in that if the PCs ask "Whats going on in town? Anything new on the rumor mill?" I then give them a few rumors. Usually one or two thats "level appropriate", one "below level", one "high level" and one final "not your problem, yet". If possible, I make them related, or at least seem related.
If you actually think about it though, what you describe here isn't "natural" at all. I mean think about it, the party goes in to town picks up a set a of rumors with distribution N. They come back 3 levels later and now the rumors they get are distribution N+3. 3 more levels and the distribution of rumors is N+6. As they level, strangely the distribution of rumors is also increasing in difficulty of the challenge.
|
|
I play similar to HD, in that if the PCs ask "Whats going on in town? Anything new on the rumor mill?" I then give them a few rumors. Usually one or two thats "level appropriate", one "below level", one "high level" and one final "not your problem, yet". If possible, I make them related, or at least seem related.If you actually think about it though, what you describe here isn't "natural" at all. I mean think about it, the party goes in to town picks up a set a of rumors with distribution N. They come back 3 levels later and now the rumors they get are distribution N+3. 3 more levels and the distribution of rumors is N+6. As they level, strangely the distribution of rumors is also increasing in difficulty of the challenge.
No, the rumors are "n" neutral, at least in my world. The players decide what they can handle. If they bite off more than they can chew, well, Darwinism is a beautiful thing...
Seems nice and "naturalistic" to me...
I play similar to HD, in that if the PCs ask "Whats going on in town? Anything new on the rumor mill?" I then give them a few rumors. Usually one or two thats "level appropriate", one "below level", one "high level" and one final "not your problem, yet". If possible, I make them related, or at least seem related.If you actually think about it though, what you describe here isn't "natural" at all. I mean think about it, the party goes in to town picks up a set a of rumors with distribution N. They come back 3 levels later and now the rumors they get are distribution N+3. 3 more levels and the distribution of rumors is N+6. As they level, strangely the distribution of rumors is also increasing in difficulty of the challenge.No, the rumors are "n" neutral, at least in my world. The players decide what they can handle. If they bite off more than they can chew, well, Darwinism is a beautiful thing...
Seems nice and "naturalistic" to me...
Well derek, I wasn't talking about you. :P
Still, are we to assume from your comment that there is the exact same EL distribution in rumors in your game when the PCs are level 1 as there is when they are level 17? In that case the great majority of hooks early on are meant to be ignored because most are too powerful (because they have to cover all levels of play) and the great majority of hooks later on are meant to be ignored because they are too weak (because they have to cover all levels of play). Am I drawing the right conclusion from your "No, the rumors are "n" neutral, at least in my world." statement?
|
|
I play similar to HD, in that if the PCs ask "Whats going on in town? Anything new on the rumor mill?" I then give them a few rumors. Usually one or two thats "level appropriate", one "below level", one "high level" and one final "not your problem, yet". If possible, I make them related, or at least seem related.If you actually think about it though, what you describe here isn't "natural" at all. I mean think about it, the party goes in to town picks up a set a of rumors with distribution N. They come back 3 levels later and now the rumors they get are distribution N+3. 3 more levels and the distribution of rumors is N+6. As they level, strangely the distribution of rumors is also increasing in difficulty of the challenge.No, the rumors are "n" neutral, at least in my world. The players decide what they can handle. If they bite off more than they can chew, well, Darwinism is a beautiful thing...
Seems nice and "naturalistic" to me...
Well derek, I wasn't talking about you. :P
Still, are we to assume from your comment that there is the exact same EL distribution in rumors in your game when the PCs are level 1 as there is when they are level 17? In that case the great majority of hooks early on are meant to be ignored because most are too powerful (because they have to cover all levels of play) and the great majority of hooks later on are meant to be ignored because they are too weak (because they have to cover all levels of play). Am I drawing the right conclusion from your "No, the rumors are "n" neutral, at least in my world." statement?
The world exists. It doesn't come in level appropriate chunks. If the players think a problem is "beneath them" because they're "too high level" to be concerned, oh, well. Of course, if there's a paladin in the party, leaving innocents to the hands of bandits because they're not "tough enough" to bother with....
Not everything has to be the XP reward, sometimes it's just the right thing to do. What's the point of being a big bad hero if you can't stomp some bandits once in a while?
|
|
And not every group of bandits needs to be led by some high level caster just to make the fight tough for the party. Not every fight, not every threat to a community has to be "earth shattering". How is only running into level appropriate encounters anything like "natural"?
Edit: And it doesn't have to "cover all levels of play", it just has to seem like something that would happen. Dragons have to live someplace, bandits terrorize trade routes, orc tribes go to war, things happen in a living world all the time. They just don't always happen to correspond with some artificial "level appropriateness".
Seriously, do dragons just magically appear in the world when the party reaches a certain level? Do bandits cease to exist? I just don't design my campaign like that, I have to believe it to sell it, after all.
Again, IMO all three aspects need to be addressed and work together for table-top roleplaying to realize its strengths: Narrative elements driving the Simulation of NPCs to provide challenging Game encounters; IMO focusing primarily on Game mechanics at the expense of Narrative and Simulation, in todays digital world, is a mistake since computer/console RPGs can handle that aspect better than people. In this context, the disassociation of 4e Game mechanics from the Narrative and Simulation aspects is germane in that it makes it more difficult to integrate the three aspects within the campaign setting (which is what the article is pointing out). One of the big draws of 3.x was the effort that went into the unification of Game mechanics and Narrative/Simulation elements (yes, it wasn't perfect or successful in all cases, but it was better than "out of the box" BECMI D&D or AD&D); this made it easier to fit all three aspects together consistently and comprehensively in a coherent campaign setting.Computer and console Games can also handle simulationism more effectively than any tabletop game. Consider flights sims as an example, there isn't a single tabletop game that can do as good a job of making them realistic as a computer game can. If that was applied to RPGs then you'd be left with just narrative as the strength of tabletop versions. One day that will happen - Dragon Age, supposedly coming out later this year, has Grease spells that will catch fire and other environmental effects of spellcasting. And most already have a more realistic approach to light sources and shadows than anyone playing a tRPG has time to work with.
Computers can handle a limited subset of Simulating the campaign setting better than tabletop gaming, but they are still very poor at handling everything characters (both PCs and NPCs) can do in a believable manner. This has nothing to do with graphics, "cut scenes," or other tricks, but with the ability to model the interaction of the PCs with an entire setting. Even in "sandbox" style computer games, the available options cannot match those open to play with a live DM. Can the player climb any wall? What about trees? Can trees be set on fire? What about any wooden object, to include buildings? I won't even get into canned attack routines and unrealistic behavior of monsters/NPCs...
With tabletop RPGs, the only limits on your actions are your imagination and the how those actions are modeled by the rules. Some rules systems do a better job of Simulating the wide variety of possible actions than others, but the ability of a live DM to decide how to apply the rules in any given circumstance is a great strength that computers cannot match - at least yet. Possibly they'll be able to do so eventually, but the human brain still beats any computer when it comes to determining which general principle to applies to a specific situation (and how); where the computer beats the human brain is the precision with which it can apply a principle once determined.
I noticed you deflected my question,
but since this is what you want to talk about, I'll give you my views.
The world exists. It doesn't come in level appropriate chunks.
Of course, but does it only exist if it happens "on stage" (during game play) or does parts of it exist even if the PCs don't actively interact with it? A common issue is using the bathroom. Groups rarely play out the use of a bathroom (unless the DM wants to get them in the "end"), does that mean the characters don't use the bathroom? As for the level appropriate chunks, no the game world does look that, but how do the characters interact with it?
If the players think a problem is "beneath them" because they're "too high level" to be concerned, oh, well. Of course, if there's a paladin in the party, leaving innocents to the hands of bandits because they're not "tough enough" to bother with....
Very good. Now let's switch that situation around. A powerful dragon is demanding human sacrifices from a community. Should a paladin not try to help the people just because the dragon is "too tough"? Remember the game world is not set up with "level appropriate chunks", so the paladin can't necessarily say, "When I get higher level I'll deal with it." because he might never get higher level and these people need his help now.
Not everything has to be the XP reward, sometimes it's just the right thing to do. What's the point of being a big bad hero if you can't stomp some bandits once in a while?
Once in a while? Sure. But if the setting was truly "neutral towards the PCs" and "natural" shouldn't there be just as many opportunities to do it when the PCs are 15th level as there were when they were 2nd level?
And not every group of bandits needs to be led by some high level caster just to make the fight tough for the party. Not every fight, not every threat to a community has to be "earth shattering". How is only running into level appropriate encounters anything like "natural"?
I am not arguing for "natural" game play, because I believe it is a self-deception for those that think they are playing with it. Which my comment to The Black Bard was meant to show. That he wasn't playing it "naturally" either. The difference was just in degrees.
Edit: And it doesn't have to "cover all levels of play", it just has to seem like something that would happen. Dragons have to live someplace, bandits terrorize trade routes, orc tribes go to war, things happen in a living world all the time. They just don't always happen to correspond with some artificial "level appropriateness".
Couldn't then it "just happen" that all of the current situations that draw the PCs attention are things that are situations that approximately match their abilities levels (remember that the DMG suggests that random encounters fall between Party level-6 to party level+2, so some wiggle room is certainly understandable). Could it be that "Fate" is placing the PCs exactly where they are most needed. Or is the concept of "Fate" too non-fantasy for most people?
Seriously, do dragons just magically appear in the world when the party reaches a certain level? Do bandits cease to exist? I just don't design my campaign like that, I have to believe it to sell it, after all.
And I would suggest that just because something didn't happen "on-stage" doesn't mean it didn't exist. Just because the paladin didn't learn of the powerful dragon demanding human sacrifices until he was powerful enough to have a chance at defeating it doesn't mean it wasn't there all the time. He just didn't know about it until then. Again, the right person at the right time. Of course, I know some will suggest that I am using "Fate" to coddle the players (won't kill them), that would be an ignorant position to suggest. If you have played KotOR, then you might remember old Jolee Bindo's story about destiny.
If there is NO legitimate risk of death during the game, then ultimately, what's the point of it.
I understand your point and I respectfully disagree. By that, I do not mean that you are wrong and I am right. Simply, that I prefer a different philosophy.
I would like to add that I have never explicated told my players I will not kill their characters. There have been deaths in my campaigns.
A concept that I see tossed about frequently that really gets to me is, "If the players do something stupid, they deserve to die." At face value, this seems reasonable. Actions should have consequences.
However, I believe, on a deeper level this mentality causes many of the problems that creep up in role playing games. Specifically munchkinism, meta-gaming and excessive caution (15 minute adventure day anyone?). If players are so afraid of their characters dying due to bad tactical choices it follows that they would take steps to improve their survivability. After just a few deaths, I am sure this could get to extreme/disruptive levels quickly. You could argue the players are learning the wrong morale of these stories but how often do the GMs put these life lessons in proper context?
I only have my own personal experience to draw from, but it seems to me the most common context placed around these lessons is ridicule.
Further, if my character is a single die roll away from death at any time, I am not personally inclined to put forth any effort into background or character development (beyond leveling up). All of that time is wasted at the first misstep.
Characters in cinema and literature often do foolish things for the betterment of the story or to further develop their personality.
Is not part of being a hero to take on overwhelming odds?
I think, for the most part, we are all on the same page. Both sides of this debate (myself included) are using extreme examples to make our point. I get the feeling we are all somewhere in the middle and arguing over degree.
If the world is so natural and unconcerned with the burden of the PCs, why are there not tables of diseases to randomly inflict on unsuspecting characters?
"I am sorry, Joe Bob. Grognard the Barbarian just died of a heart attack. Roll up a new 17th level character."
|
|
I noticed you deflected my question,
** spoiler omitted **
but since this is what you want to talk about, I'll give you my views.The world exists. It doesn't come in level appropriate chunks.Of course, but does it only exist if it happens "on stage" (during game play) or does parts of it exist even if the PCs don't actively interact with it? A common issue is using the bathroom. Groups rarely play out the use of a bathroom (unless the DM wants to get them in the "end"), does that mean the characters don't use the bathroom? As for the level appropriate chunks, no the game world does look that, but how do the characters interact with it?
If the players think a problem is "beneath them" because they're "too high level" to be concerned, oh, well. Of course, if there's a paladin in the party, leaving innocents to the hands of bandits because they're not "tough enough" to bother with....Very good. Now let's switch that situation around. A powerful dragon is demanding human sacrifices from a community. Should a paladin not try to help the people just because the dragon is "too tough"? Remember the game world is not set up with "level appropriate chunks", so the paladin can't necessarily say, "When I get higher level I'll deal with it." because he might never get higher level and these people need his help now.
Not everything has to be the XP reward, sometimes it's just the right thing to do. What's the point of being a big bad hero if you can't stomp some bandits once in a while?Once in a while? Sure. But if the setting was truly "neutral towards the PCs" and "natural" shouldn't there be just as many opportunities to do it when the PCs are 15th level as there were when they were 2nd level?
And not every group of...
If they run into an emergency situation beyond their means, they should figure out a way to let someone who can handle the situation know. Call up the army, get the King's wizard involved. Again, the players are involved in their story, but the setting doesn't revolve around them. And, if asking for help is something distasteful to the players, well, there are plenty of examples from literature and other media where poor saps bite off more than they can chew, and are remembered fondly for their bravery, but are used as a cautionary tale against hubris and foolish pride
Shouldn't the NPCs have already done that? I mean if all you had to do is send a message to the local Lord and they would make it all better, what do you need a band of hoodlums (adventurers) for?
|
|
If they run into an emergency situation beyond their means, they should figure out a way to let someone who can handle the situation know. Call up the army, get the King's wizard involved. Again, the players are involved in their story, but the setting doesn't revolve around them. And, if asking for help is something distasteful to the players, well, there are plenty of examples from literature and other media where poor saps bite off more than they can chew, and are remembered fondly for their bravery, but are used as a cautionary tale against hubris and foolish prideShouldn't the NPCs have already done that? I mean if all you had to do is send a message to the local Lord and they would make it all better, what do you need a band of hoodlums (adventurers) for?
Pres Man, you sure are right. You've taught me the evils of my ways. The players are all mighty, what was I ever thinking?
Thank you! You've made my prep time easier now, as I don't need to develop anything out of the range of the group's character's ability to see.
Man, I'll save $300 a year just in map making supplies!
;)
|
|
I wonder why you need rules for that sort of thing. Looks like Role-playing to me.I'm still waiting for WoW to allow me to take my pouch of gold, go wenching and drinking, wake up with a massive hangover, wonder where I lost my money pouch, and figure out why my inn room somehow wound up on Avernus.
But then, I don't play WoW because none of that can happen...
Um, because I can "roleplay" to my heart's content, and I'm STILL not going to be able to emulate that in WoW?
Take a u-turn, you missed the point three miles back...
Computers can handle a limited subset of Simulating the campaign setting better than tabletop gaming, but they are still very poor at handling everything characters (both PCs and NPCs) can do in a believable manner.Since you didn't bother to quote the paragraph where I explained the advantages of tRPGs were down to the presence of a human DM, I'll assume you were being serious. This is a council of desparation for simulationism in games. It CAN be done. Computers don't handle some of the things you're mentioning in most cRPGs, but the reason is not the inability of a computer to handle these things. It's rather more to do with limitations of time available to the creators and a desire not to make an interface too cluttered.
There are also the limitations on programming all of those options (and their effects) into every single environmental object. Theoretically, it can be done, but the memory limits on loading and processing that degree of complexity would bring even a high-end personal computer to its knees. Lighting effects (which you continue to cite as an example) are extremely simple in comparison. It's only been within the last 5 years or so that computers (more accurately, graphics cards) have been able to accurately render lighting and shadow effects on the fly; they are still a long way from handling character interaction with the environment with anything close to the completeness available in table top gaming.
Talk to me about computer Simulation when they can handle the entire ruleset of a table top RPG.
Pres Man, you sure are right. You've taught me the evils of my ways. The players are all mighty, what was I ever thinking?
Thank you! You've made my prep time easier now, as I don't need to develop anything out of the range of the group's character's ability to see.
Man, I'll save $300 a year just in map making supplies!
;)
Well I am glad to here the light of truth is finally penetrating that dark pit that is your soul. ;)
Of course I have never suggested the way you describe gaming is bad or wrong or badong or anything. Suggesting that a different way of playing is just as reasonable doesn't mean your way is not reasonable.
I just think that people that get all wrapped up with ideas of "naturalism" are ultimately self-deluding themselves. Not that considering making the setting "natural" is a bad thing, but ultimately most choices are subjective ones, and thus are not "natural".
You've made my prep time easier now, as I don't need to develop anything out of the range of the group's character's ability to see.
Extremes again. I believe the level of detail provided for things outside the PC's perspective is directly proportional to the degree with which they are expected to act upon it. That is not to say that you only give a one word description of the dragon you do not expect them to take on, but that the dragon gets less detail than the bandits.
Rolls die, consults table.
Nature exists in a state between conflicting extremes.
Talk to me about computer Simulation when they can handle the entire ruleset of a table top RPG.
At least for me personally both of these arguments are pretty much a side issue. I don't think most people get together with friends to role play only because the DM can manage to create a better simulation of a fantasy world then the computer.
Fundamentally getting together with friends to play a RPG is a social experience. Your hanging out, hopefully having a good time with others. CRPGs, no matter how well designed, don't really fit into that space. They are not, in and of themselves, social experiences. They may well be entertaining and they often deal really well with issues about having limited amounts of gaming time available but they are not particularly social activities.
My feeling is that one should be recruiting new players into table top RPGs not based on the strengths of the rule set in question or the fact that it can better handle some aspects of simulation then a computer. Concentrate instead on the fun to be had around the table.
Ultimately I play pen and paper RPGs because they provide a great reason to get together with friends and razz the guys while engaging in a steady stream of double entendres with the girls. What I'm after, and I think this is true of the rest of the players as well, is at its heart a social experience and an MMO or CRPG can't provide you with that.
Talk to me about computer Simulation when they can handle the entire ruleset of a table top RPG.At least for me personally both of these arguments are pretty much a side issue. I don't think most people get together with friends to role play only because the DM can manage to create a better simulation of a fantasy world then the computer.
Fundamentally getting together with friends to play a RPG is a social experience.
That's one of the primary reasons I prefer table top RPGs to computer/console/online RPGs.
However, the stronger Narrative and Simulation aspects also play a role, IMO. I find I can get more completely into character when I can act in character and have those actions affect the campaign setting. The limited options available in computer RPGs, compared to table top RPGs, just make it harder for me to suspend my disbelief.
CRPGs, no matter how well designed, don't really fit into that space. They are not, in and of themselves, social experiences. They may well be entertaining and they often deal really well with issues about having limited amounts of gaming time available but they are not particularly social activities.
Most of the MMOs do have a social aspect, so that's been changing. The time commitments involved (especially with Guild membership) can also be greater; instead of once every week to once a month, MMO Guild "game sessions" or "runs" can occur as often as 3-5 times a week.
My feeling is that one should be recruiting new players into table top RPGs not based on the strengths of the rule set in question or the fact that it can better handle some aspects of simulation then a computer. Concentrate instead on the fun to be had around the table.
With "fun" being relative, IMO the true strength of table top RPGs is the richness of the gaming experience. It's just easier for a live DM/GM to adjudicate the effects of character actions on the fly than it is to design every potential action and consequence into a computer program ahead of time.
This feeling of lack of "Gygaxian Naturalism" in 4e is in part due to its dissociated game mechanics. I don't agree with everything in this piece, but it's well worth a read.
Benoist, I finally went back and read this essay and one or two other of J. Alexander's related pieces. Very interesting in their own right, and also for how they touch back on some of the issues raised (much) earlier in this thread. Thanks for sharing.
I wonder if the sheer volume scared CourtFool off of his project...
I agree. I don't particularly like the term of "GN" for this very reason. It feels needlessly pompous.
Would it help deflate the pompous feel if I mentioned that "Gygaxian" sounds like something Dr. Suess would come up with for an adjective?
Maybe the Gygax is the Lorax's cousin, except he speaks for owlbears instead of trees?
I wonder if the sheer volume scared CourtFool off of his project...
I hesitate to comment further before reading through the entire thread. I am a slow reader and I have not had the time to read through the first 400 posts.
You and others have mentioned there is a magical definition that yet eludes me buried in those posts. I would be happy to continue talking out of my fluffy, white bum…but I figure that would just be the last straw for some.
Take your time. If you feel like you find the magical definition, please let me know. I suspect we have an essentially contested concept...
I suspect we have an essentially contested concept...
I have read through the first couple hundred posts and had thus far decided that Gygaxian Naturalism meant different things to different people. And then you had to go out and throw this succinct term that summed up all my findings.
I can concede that there is ‘something’ in 3.5 that is absent in 4e. However, I also see that there is ‘something’ in 3.5 that is also, very much in 4e. In addition, there is ‘something in 2e that is absent in 3.5.
To me, this all really boils down to preference. One man’s flaw is another man’s feature.
I think I am beginning to see people’s objection when I start bandying about the term ‘Gamist’.
|
|
Not sure who to quote, but about the computer VS DM thing. The reason at the moment that computer loses out is simply that a computer only understands rules, whereas a DM understands the idea that the "rules" are mere guidelines. There is a great article in Cosmos magazine that has a very good run down of the state of play in computer "intelligence". It seems unlikely the DM will be replaced with a computer for at least 20-30 years!
And to the Dragon attacking a town of low levelers. Brilliant stuff, town wiped out. Adventures escape (barely) with only a few other survivors, the lone Paladin vows to his/her deity that one day that dragon will pay...
To quote Robocop "I LIKE IT." Now my paladin player has an awesome reason to level.
I'm with Derek I'm afraid, there ARE things that my players can't kill that live in the world... Means players don't say things like "let's travel to the next town" and head off, they actually consult NPC's on safety etc before leaving. Having players think that everything is "their level" in the world for me lessens the RPing experience and makes DMing a tad dull.
S.
Well, essentially contested doesn't mean that it boils down to preference, it just means that there is no widely-agreed-upon consensus on what the concept or notion is at its core. So not just role-playing or verisimilitude or Gygaxian Naturalism (I guess we'd all agree that, whatever it is, it has to do with Gygax? Still, pretty minimal.) fall in this category, but justice, beauty, etc.
Still, let's say it boils down to preference in this case, for the sake of argument. That fits with the social analysis that is at the heart of G-N-S: you prefer gaming, somebody else prefers narrative, etc. But for those who think there is something called role-playing, that is different from simply telling a story, simply playing a game, or simply running a simulation, then there remains the need to say what that thing is, and hence the contesting.
Here is what some have tried to point out re the computer, and I'm not sure it's been fully appreciated. Computers can run simulations. Computers can play games. Can computers create stories? My answer is that story-telling is an intentional and creative act, and that computers cannot tell stories. They may be able to mimic story-telling, but there is dissatisfaction with that imitation. Perhaps one should even say that they simulate story-telling in the context of a game.
If you think that a RPG is a game in a very unique sense, then the computer claim runs into trouble. I propose that RPing is an activity with story at its heart, which includes all narrative elements: setting, characterization, plot development, etc. However, it is shared story-telling, and story-telling whose resolution takes place ex tempore, no matter how much preparation goes into it ahead of time and how many constraints those preparations impose. (This, btw, is why people object to rail-roading.) The problem with simulation language is that it gets used in two ways that makes it confusing. Sometimes it's used to describe world building and integrity of story/game world. But those can surely be comprehended under the narrative elements -- setting and narrative realism. Using it to talk about random elements outside of the control of those co-creating the story (GM, players, and perhaps game material authors) that challenge their resources and make the world seem more real since the story is not completely under anyone's control either individually or collectively, that seems to me to more promising. We randomize elements, and come up with rules that resolve things outside of human control because that is how life is and it makes rping more realistic, more like life. These cannot be too random, or we wouldn't enjoy success. They cannot be too predictable either, or we wouldn't feel that real-life element of risk.
I've tried to say some of this before, but perhaps this is more relevant to the more recent parts of the discussion, and if I'm really lucky, clearer and more developed. It starts with G-N-S because that's what everyone talks about, but attempts to move beyond it and what I perceive to be its weaknesses.
Well, essentially contested doesn't mean that it boils down to preference...
Agreed. What I should have said is that many are attaching their preference to the term. Much like I have done with GNS.
I'm coming into this discussion REEEEEALY late, but here's a programming metaphor.
Computers are often asked to imitate or emulate real life. So the programmer begins by assigning programming metaphors to various things in the real world (objects/classes, database tables, etc).
Depending on the level of detail that the programmer wants to deliver, he can code the program to N-levels of abstraction, basically meaning that there are N levels of code that assist in making the program work and that there are N levels of code to maintain if an exception to the program comes along.
It's similar to the biological species naming conventions (Linnaean name?). These levels of biological detail are often revised when new species don't fit existing descriptions in each level of classification.
The result of this is that when making rules for a game you really have to start out with a goal or scope in which you define "Am I trying to simulate reality?" in which case I will need very flexible and a high number of levels of code, or "Am I trying to make a game that's easily learnable and playable?" in which case you need less flexibility and detail because you can decide how things work.
Roleplaying games, of course, are somewhere in between. However, when you take all this and put it up to the measure of "Does this suspend the player's disbelief?" you more often than not will side with simulating reality and develop more complex layers of code.
Why?
Because when you start telling a story, the human brain needs simile and metaphor to understand concepts it hasn't dealt with. Humans need detail to understand a story. Humans need to believe "it could happen". For me, that realism and tenacity of experience is what embeds the story in memory. It's the same way I can remember many many D&D stories and interesting dramatic situations, but ask me to recall any game of Monopoly I've ever played, and I can't do it.
Too much game and not enough realism leaves me feeling like it never happened.
That just means we were waiting for you, Veector.
Good points, but you jostle lose one reflection:
That sense of realism (or verisimilitude, perhaps GN) IS the game. Without it, we're really talking about another game. Maybe Monopoly plus a miniatures war game, but not the game that we used to call D&D.
That just means we were waiting for you, Veector.
Good points, but you jostle lose one reflection:
That sense of realism (or verisimilitude, perhaps GN) IS the game. Without it, we're really talking about another game. Maybe Monopoly plus a miniatures war game, but not the game that we used to call D&D.
Of course, the trick has always been to have rules just complex enough to seem real while not being overly complicated to bog down the game.
For example, I love d20 Modern. I just love the setting and what they've done with that game. However, the driving rules (for chase scale anyways) are absolutely horrible and do not feel like real car chases.
So to solve that I had to think what would make it seem more real. The answer I discovered was somehow using concepts from Steve Jackson's Car Wars in the game. Just enough complexity for realism. I wouldn't be able to stand it if the rules for car chases were exactly like Car Wars (protractor anyone?).
I think you hit the nail on the head. "How much verisimilitude does it take to get the player(s) to suspend disbelief?" And how do you have a mechanic that facilitates the story telling and gives it some independence and integrity from the players (including the GM)?
I think you hit the nail on the head. "How much verisimilitude does it take to get the player(s) to suspend disbelief?" And how do you have a mechanic that facilitates the story telling and gives it some independence and integrity from the players (including the GM)?
Quite. And, for myself, with 4th Edition I saw a line being crossed. Certain game mechanics in 4th Edition make the simulation feel too much like a game for me. Specifically healing surges and the powers that are usable "per encounter" to name a couple of the glaring ones.
I personally just don't like that much abstraction. This isn't limited to 4th Edition. As I mentioned earlier, the same problems crept up in d20 Modern with the driving rules and also the Wealth system. The real reason that I agree with the blog about 4E rejecting "naturalism" is that they set out as a core design goal to get new players into the game by simplifying mechanics.
On the other hand, if you take the rules for a game like "Toon" the simulation there works because you're told that the game world exists for comedy, not ultra-realism. I guess with d20 System games, I'm expecting hyper-reality based on "what if" scenarios. "What if magic were real?" "What if superheroes really existed?" etc...
"How much verisimilitude does it take to get the player(s) to suspend disbelief?"
Is this not separate from Gygaxian Naturalism (GN), though? How much verisimilitude is going to be different from person to person (preference). Or are you suggesting that GN is a specific level of verisimilitude? In which case, the title is slightly misleading and should be along the lines of "4e moves too far away from GN".
Shows CF his cards.
I'm a little bit of an opportunist, but not too much so. I've said all along that my real interest is verisimilitude in play. Now, because I appreciate Gygax and the old game, I was taken with James M's (Grognardia) proposals. I want to know, what is this thing called Gygaxian Naturalism? What can I learn about 4e's loss of it and the ways that it was manifested in the old game? Good answers to those questions will help me improve my 3.x/Pf games. But a lot of game theory keeps coming into those answers, and I'm a critic of game theory, and have not had those criticisms laid to rest by anybody. So I continue to ask about this G.N., I continue to throw my vision of RPing out there for what I think it has to offer, for how it might connect with G.N. And I occasionally have fun by morphing into a Gygaxian authority who smites people or utterances.
Maybe that was a little to tangential to your question, so let me add:
I assume Gygaxian naturalism is a particular style of adding verisimilitude. My surmise based on what we've been given up to this point is that it comprises certain mechanical elements that foster a sense of verisimilitude. Some people think there is a canon or body of work that particularly instantiates this style of verisimilitude. Does that help?
I apologize, Mairkurion {tm}, if it felt like I was trying to back you into a corner. That was not my intent. I am genuinely curious despite my flippant quips.
I have had some very frustrated experiences with role playing groups and GNS theory helped me understand where other people, and myself, were coming from. We could argue the perils of labels and the failures of GNS to cover every and all aspects of role playing games. However, I have found the labels and concepts expressed useful.
I suspect people are finding that sort of usefulness from Gygaxian Naturalism now. This thread has helped me see that. So while I do not understand or even know whether I agree with the concept or not, I appreciate why people are using it.
I suspect that our play styles are different. Probably not so much that we could not enjoy gaming together. In my opinion, fun trumps all else including verisimilitude, drama, narrativism, ect. From that, one might think that I lean on the gamist side. I guess you could use that as an example of where GNS comes up short, but I digress.
NO, no, nothing like that. Ever once in a while, I feel like I have to say that again in this thread so I'm not misleading anybody.
It depends on what your (or anyone's) idea of "fun" is. An example: I played a couple of times with a group who's interaction was very well captured by G-N-S: the entire thing was about social struggle between the personalities gathered. Now, sure, I know even on a good day, gaming with my favorite people, we're scuffing up against each other a little--we're human. But that's not why we play, those are inevitable side-products. We play to tell great stories: to develop our characters, build a world, attempt and risk in our pushing the plot forward, and enjoy each other's creativity, wit, teamwork, etc. It's also about enjoying the unexpected outcomes of our actions. That's our idea of fun. This other group made me want to become one of those multiple murder/suicide guys: almost nothing was done as far as the elements I highlighted above was concerned. This did not seem fun to me because no secondary reality was created among us and enjoyed. (For that matter, so much time was taken with social/personal struggle, that monsters weren't killed and loot wasn't taken, either!) Thing is, these gamers, whom I cannot think of in complementary terms, do this every week. Have for years, will continue to do so for years, with basically the same pool of individuals going in and coming out, with very occasional (like-minded?) new faces. In spite of the invitation to return, I would never do so. It was not fun to me, I can only conclude that it is fun to them. Whatever that fun is, it's not role-playing -- at least not primarily. If it's a game, it's primarily a different kind of game.
In this context, verisimilitude has some fluidity. Can we keep the band together? Is everyone's minimum requirements for suspension of disbelief met, so that we can inhabit the world together and create our story? The verisimilitude makes for the fun, rather than is a competitor with it. Now, let's say that we decide we want to have Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. We think it would be fun to run up vertical surfaces, and come close to flying, but without a spell. The question becomes not, is that realistic? but could we come up with a set of conditions that quiet those voices saying, "that's silly, it could never happen," with anesthetizing agents of reason? These spell out conditions under which the unthinkable becomes imaginable, realistic within its context. It's a naturalizing of the supernatural.
In your example of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, are you suggesting there needs to be some rule set or campaign background provided to explain the Wire Fu?
For me, I am fine with that being the level of realism set by the GM. My comfort level with any level of realism is largely dependent on my mood at the time. Although, consistently, too much realism would disrupt my immersion. In my opinion, too much detail interrupts the game/story. I doubt I could succinctly explain exactly what level is ‘too much’.
To return somewhat to Gygaxian Naturalism (GN) and at least one example put forward, someone mentioned that random monster charts are the epitome of GN.
I can concede that a random monster chart could add realism, although, I would argue not necessarily. It can also add to a feeling of a living, breathing world outside of the PC’s perception. However, I find it a rather hollow addition. A living, breathing world is not quite that random.
A random monster chart can add fun (as defined by me in this context) to a game. Sometimes, you just want to bash on things. Or you want something to happen to breath life into the story. However, in my experience there tend to be an over reliance on such charts.
If someone starts rolling for a random encounter for each hour of rest the party takes, I roll my eyes. This is just my preference. I want the story to be specifically about the other players’ and my character. We should not be attacked by a roaming red dragon because the dice said so. We should be attacked by Grognardian, the ancient red dragon, because we stole the horn of dragon egg locating.
Of course that requires you have, what I like to term, pro-active players. But I think that is another thread.
In your example of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, are you suggesting there needs to be some rule set or campaign background provided to explain the Wire Fu?
For me, I am fine with that being the level of realism set by the GM. My comfort level with any level of realism is largely dependent on my mood at the time. Although, consistently, too much realism would disrupt my immersion. In my opinion, too much detail interrupts the game/story. I doubt I could succinctly explain exactly what level is ‘too much’.
To return somewhat to Gygaxian Naturalism (GN) and at least one example put forward, someone mentioned that random monster charts are the epitome of GN.
I can concede that a random monster chart could add realism, although, I would argue not necessarily. It can also add to a feeling of a living, breathing world outside of the PC’s perception. However, I find it a rather hollow addition. A living, breathing world is not quite that random.
A random monster chart can add fun (as defined by me in this context) to a game. Sometimes, you just want to bash on things. Or you want something to happen to breath life into the story. However, in my experience there tend to be an over reliance on such charts.
If someone starts rolling for a random encounter for each hour of rest the party takes, I roll my eyes. This is just my preference. I want the story to be specifically about the other players’ and my character. We should not be attacked by a roaming red dragon because the dice said so. We should be attacked by Grognardian, the ancient red dragon, because we stole the horn of dragon egg locating.
Of course that requires you have, what I like to term, pro-active players. But I think that is another thread.
Hmmm...I certainly think random monster charts are a pretty iconic element of the old style way of playing the game but I'd not see them, per se, as the epitome of GN. In large part because they come with flaws significant enough that they are a prime candidate for either removal or at least revamping even by a DM that tries to play in a style reminiscent of historical GN.
A better example of quintessential GN would be a weather table broken down by month and region of the world. Fundamentally the actual weather is still random but you don't get sandstorms in the arctic.
Random Monster Tables can also be improved upon to make them closer to the kind of verisimilitude thats being striven for using GN mechanics by making the random monsters encountered actual denizens of local. In this case a dragon attacks not so much just because the table says so but instead Grognardian the Dragon attacks - he does so because his lair is plotted in the adventure hence he lives nearby and from that we can presume that there is some chance of him spotting the PCs while out hunting or otherwise going about his business.
Thats not to say that this is inherently the best method for gaming. It has its benefits in the sense that it does a pretty good job of creating verisimilitude but it comes with some pretty big weak points. Lets presume that Grognardian is one of the most important and special parts of the adventure. The adventure goes to great pains to make his lair an interesting battle ground full of 3d elevation and, in his lair, Grognardian will utile magic and some of the contents of his hoard to make for a spectacular fight. In this case if the PCs encounter Grognardian outside of his lair and kill or even badly wound him and drive him off then we are likely to get a pretty anti-climatic battle when the players shortly invade the dragons lair.
A potentially epic scene has just gone down the drain replaced with a rather anti-climatic scene. Still even the anti-climatic scene does have a silver lining - in having things play out anti-climatically the players definitely get a strong sense of verisimilitude, after all the real world is not an endless series of musical scores that build to resounding crescendo's. In allowing the scene to play out in such an anti-climatic manner the DM may have deprived his players from a scene that potentially could have been epic but he also strengthened the sense the world just is.
Whether this was or was not a worthwhile trade off would depend on the group in question and many DMs might try and split the difference - this sort of anti-climatic scene is absolutely possible...but never with a Dragon!
CourtFool,
Yes, if I had “Wire Fu” in a game, I'd want both in-world rationale (what you called campaign background) and mechanics within the rule set to facilitate play. I'm not sure what you mean by “set by the GM.” If you mean GM fiat with no effort put into the creative structuring process, then I probably am not so excited about that. Sure, at some points we have to accept GM fiat not only as game-moving/Gordian knot cutting necessity, but to provide presumption upon which to play. However, if those occur in areas where suspension of disbelief is at stake, and happen frequently, I predict that the kind of immersion in story/setting that I strive for, that I crave, will be less and less. I agree with your comment about “too much realism” if by it you mean “play getting bogged down by too great of details.” Too much explanation is like too much description or too much mechanics or too much GM—I take balance to be even more essential to rping than to single author composition.
I think that you are largely right about the monster tables. To be done right, (cf JMcD's comments) you'd need monster tables based not merely on regions, but on their micro-ecologies. While there is always the off-chance that the party will run into something unexpected down by the old mill stream (and hence a chance for it on a random table), most of the time they should run into what frequents the old mill stream, or even makes it home there. And the more out-of-the-ordinary this is, the more likely that it would be tied to the story-line, and hence a piece of GM knowledge and plot providence. Still, if handled rightly (and this would take a lot more work than the old monster tables), it would make the world seem more real with that possibility that both the players and the GM could be surprised by the unusual, just as we experience the real world. (I have a hard time convincing some people that I ran unto a pygmy hippo in the Washita River in Oklahoma while canoing with friends...but I did!)
Jeremy, very fine points.