A note on abstractions in games

[raniE]

Spun off from a comment in this thread about abstractions, I thought I'd start a separate thread about it as this goes way beyond just animal stats in games. We'll start with the comment that inspired me to write this.

Games are imperfect abstractions. Water (checks notes) also remains wet.

I can't recall a game which effectively models a sabre-toothed 'cat,' frex. Those honkin' canines may have served a very specialized purpose, to damage large blood vessels in their prey's soft tissue at the neck or belly; they suggest that a sabretooth's strategy was to induce massive blood-loss with a single bite, not to rip its prey to pieces. This goes back to the idea of risks to predators: biting once then waiting for your prey to die from exsanguination is less likely to result in injury than, say, grabbing it by the throat and holding on in order to asphyxiate it, or trying to break the bones of the neck. This is particularly true in the case of the sabretooth as those big canines could break against bone, making it harder to hunt effectively and putting the animal at risk of a deadly infection.

If we're modeling that correctly, the sabretooth should cause damage from its bite, then there should be a significant chance of the wound continuing to bleed, round after round, while the cat stalks the dying victim. I can't recall a game which does that.

The best thing, in my opinion, is to offer guidance to referees on behavior, not just the 'rawrr!' numbers.

Okay, so I think we can all agree that games are imperfect abstractions of the real world. No set of game rules can hope to entirely accurately model the real world, partly because anything even approaching that level of detail would be unmanageable, and partly because we don't actually understand how the real world works (if we did there wouldn't be a disconnect between quantum mechanics and general relativity).

So, what we do have are sets of rules of varying complexity that all try to model something. But what is it they try to model? And how can we tell if they're successful?

Now I'll illustrate this with an example from a different kind of game, grand strategy computer games. I like Paradox Interactive grand strategy games. One of my favorites is Crusader Kings 2, where you play as a dynasty somewhere in Europe, North Africa or Asia as far east as India in a time period from the mid 700s to the mid 1400s. One of the most common starting dates (and the default and earliest starting date if you do not have any expansions) is 1066. When playing from this start date, inevitably one of the first things that happens is that the Holy Roman Emperor declares war on France over the parts of Flanders that France controls but the Emperor thinks should lie under his jurisdiction, crushes France's military fairly swiftly and thus takes these lands. After this loss, France almost inevitably falls apart into various constituent parts, usually the Kingdom of France and the Kingdom of Aquitane, and thus loses most prominence. Because of how the game works, this is a perfectly reasonable outcome. As a model of how the world worked, it is a terrible outcome. It didn't happen in reality, and in an alternate history game, things which diverge from reality should, in my opinion, usually be less likely to occur than things which did happen. Thus, this kind of outcome would be reasonable to see in one game, but not in virtually all games in which you do not play as the ruling dynasty of France.

In my mind, most RPGs aim for some sort of realism, or verisimilitude at least. Not in that everything functions like the real world and the rules are super detailed to get as many finicky bits modeled correctly, but in the sense that everything not called out as such (magic, monsters, super advanced technology, etc) should generally work how the real world works. This is so the players can better immerse themselves in the game and be able to make decisions based on what is happening in the fiction, rather than only what the game rules say. As long as the rules of the game generally generates outcomes that fit this type of verisimilitude, the level of abstraction doesn't really matter for the purposes of realism.

Now sometimes parts of games aim for something other than emulating the real world. Many games make combat far more survivable for the PCs for instance. But that is then usually called out as the game being more of a heroic fantasy or whatnot. I still maintain that all the other parts of the rules should generate outcomes equivalent to the real world or it becomes impossible to immerse yourself in the game world and to make decisions based on what is happening in the game.

So for the example at hand, since unarmed adult humans generally, but not always, beat adult wolves in a straight up fight (if you want to talk specifically about animals, I recommend the thread I linked at the top), this should be reflected in the outcomes created by the rules. As long as that's true it doesn't really matter if the wolf has half a page of stats or simply "Wolf-10".

 

[David Johansen]

When I'm working out a damage system I generally check to see if Batman can knock out a thug and whether a man with an axe can kill a cow.

 

[Winterblight]

I've switched the order of the quotes

I still maintain that all the other parts of the rules should generate outcomes equivalent to the real world or it becomes impossible to immerse yourself in the game world and to make decisions based on what is happening in the game.

No set of game rules can hope to entirely accurately model the real world, partly because anything even approaching that level of detail would be unmanageable, and partly because we don't actually understand how the real world works (if we did there wouldn't be a disconnect between quantum mechanics and general relativity).

Game rules can be considered successful if everyone around the table is having fun. Some games can be fun without needing verisimilitude. Having said that, the problem with a table full of nerds is that they often have highly focused areas of expertise and knowledge. They are nerds, its their superpower. So computing, martial arts, weapons, armour, history, archery are all topics, that even on a sample of the PUB's patrons, folks are likely to have disproportionate knowledge of compared to the general population.

I've lost track of how many times the archery nerd at our table has lost his shit over the years, or the Iaido black belt has threatened to strap on his swords and demonstrate why something is just blatantly wrong, or the history buff has just looked back over the GMs screen at me with ridicule written over his face. Currently, for my group, we are now in the golden age of RPGing, and now we just chill and play. We will get back to righting the wrongs of the world once we retire.

So, the summary of my own thoughts on this is that while some games do genuinely suck at trying to abstract something, its usually the nerds playing them that are the root of the problem. RPGs are unique in that they have to try and cover everything within their domain and inevitably that leaves holes you in verisimilitude you could jump a horse through.

 

[Ladybird]

Now sometimes parts of games aim for something other than emulating the real world. Many games make combat far more survivable for the PCs for instance. But that is then usually called out as the game being more of a heroic fantasy or whatnot. I still maintain that all the other parts of the rules should generate outcomes equivalent to the real world or it becomes impossible to immerse yourself in the game world and to make decisions based on what is happening in the game.

But ultimately that's the key point; I'm not sure it matters what you want your game to emulate, as long as it does that well; the rules outcomes should feel right for that particular setting. Whether or not a wolf should be a threat depends on where you want them to be on the scale from "nuisance" to "why folk cower around their fires at night", and ultimately nailing that through the rest of the game is more important than emulating reality; as long as the game keeps a consistent tone and attitude, you still enable players to make informed decisions, but you get to step outside the bounds of our world.

 

[raniE]

But ultimately that's the key point; I'm not sure it matters what you want your game to emulate, as long as it does that well; the rules outcomes should feel right for that particular setting. Whether or not a wolf should be a threat depends on where you want them to be on the scale from "nuisance" to "why folk cower around their fires at night", and ultimately nailing that through the rest of the game is more important than emulating reality; as long as the game keeps a consistent tone and attitude, you still enable players to make informed decisions, but you get to step outside the bounds of our world.

Sure, but then that would be one of the things that has been explicitly changed. Basically my point is that if nothing has been communicated on a topic, then it should work like the real world, or like it works ubiquitously in fiction if it is something people are less likely to be familiar with from the real world. So, if nothing has been said about wolves, or even animals in general, being more aggressive and dangerous than in reality, then if the rules make them way more dangerous than they really are a completely reasonable course of action would often lead to a very unreasonable result. And apart from whatever's been spelled out, either by the GM or the game itself or in whatever setting or style is being emulated, players are always going to have to default to reality when it comes time to decide on actions.

 

[raniE]

Where the game rules don't cover stuff is where rulings come in. Usually these will fit what the group as a whole consider realistic or in the style of whatever genre is being emulated, as the players are all there.

I also think that when the results of the game rules fail to fit the players' (including the GM) conceptions of realism or genre emulation is when most complaints about games are born. This is why it's important to have everyone on the same page about what kind of game you're playing before you start, and picking a system that will help you (or at least not hinder you) in getting that kind of game.

 

[Evilschemer]

Not every game is trying to emulate reality. Most games, in fact, are trying to emulate a GENRE or at least an idiom.

For example, the Hong Kong Action Theater game (original edition) had stat + 1d20 vs. a difficulty to hit the target.

Was the difficulty based on range? combat conditions? type of weapon or attack?

No. The difficulty was based on the billing of the target in the credits. The main villain will be much more difficult to hit and kill than a mook.

Is that realistic? No.

Does it emulate film tropes and cinematic fights? Absolutely! I wish more games used this approach. Ditch reality modeling completely. The important thing to model is the experience.

 

[raniE]

I've switched the order of the quotes






Game rules can be considered successful if everyone around the table is having fun. Some games can be fun without needing verisimilitude. Having said that, the problem with a table full of nerds is that they often have highly focused areas of expertise and knowledge. They are nerds, its their superpower. So computing, martial arts, weapons, armour, history, archery are all topics, that even on a sample of the PUB's patrons, folks are likely to have disproportionate knowledge of compared to the general population.

I've lost track of how many times the archery nerd at our table has lost his shit over the years, or the Iaido black belt has threatened to strap on his swords and demonstrate why something is just blatantly wrong, or the history buff has just looked back over the GMs screen at me with ridicule written over his face. Currently, for my group, we are now in the golden age of RPGing, and now we just chill and play. We will get back to righting the wrongs of the world once we retire.

So, the summary of my own thoughts on this is that while some games do genuinely suck at trying to abstract something, its usually the nerds playing them that are the root of the problem. RPGs are unique in that they have to try and cover everything within their domain and inevitably that leaves holes you in verisimilitude you could jump a horse through.

On the other hand the beauty of an RPG is that you can just make something up on the spot that covers whatever problem with verisimilitude the group was having. Because as you say, RPGs need to cover everything and the players have to have som basis for their decisions, and everyone knows something about something. And absent other knowledge, all they really have to go on is the descriptions offered by the GM and their knowledge of the real world.

 

[raniE]

Not every game is trying to emulate reality. Most games, in fact, are trying to emulate a GENRE or at least an idiom.

For example, the Hong Kong Action Theater game (original edition) had stat + 1d20 vs. a difficulty to hit the target.

Was the difficulty based on range? combat conditions? type of weapon or attack?

No. The difficulty was based on the billing of the target in the credits. The main villain will be much more difficult to hit and kill than a mook.

Is that realistic? No.

Does it emulate film tropes and cinematic fights? Absolutely! I wish more games used this approach. Ditch reality modeling completely. The important thing to model is the experience.

Right, but then that should be known by the players. And then you're emulating whatever it is you're emulating, it would be one of those points called out as not functioning how it does in the real world. But even then, at some point you're likely to run into a situation that isn't seen much in actual Hong Kong action films. And when the players need to make a decision on something, they will probably have to assess it using their knowledge of reality, although probably combined with their knowledge of Hong Kong action films.

 

[Winterblight]

On the other hand the beauty of an RPG is that you can just make something up on the spot that covers whatever problem with verisimilitude the group was having. Because as you say, RPGs need to cover everything and the players have to have som basis for their decisions, and everyone knows something about something. And absent other knowledge, all they really have to go on is the descriptions offered by the GM and their knowledge of the real world.

Its certainly one of the strengths of an RPG. However, that gets us back into the realm of rules vs rulings. I don't believe rulings is a panacea that covers what I was alluding to, which in fairness might have only been a problem at my gaming table - those with a higher degree of knowledge in a subject are more likely to have their verisimilitude broken when a rule is counter intuitive to what they know. Its also usually an individual rather than the group as a whole. Movies are a great example of this - guys with handguns consistently outgunning those with automatic weapons. Knights in full plate not being able to stop a single arrow. Martial arts, guys with machetes chopping at the air in the background as they try to get their timing right so the hero can deal with 20 people, one at a time. If you know nothing about guns, martial arts or full plate, you probably won't be even noticing that kind of thing.

I know almost nothing about sport of any kind. If I was playing a sports RPG (shudder at the thought) I doubt I would question any rule whatsoever or have any issue with verisimilitude. The exception to this is halflings in my bloodbowl tournament stopping to eat hotdogs on their go, man I hated that.

 

[raniE]

Its certainly one of the strengths of an RPG. However, that gets us back into the realm of rules vs rulings. I don't believe rulings is a panacea that covers what I was alluding to, which in fairness might have only been a problem at my gaming table - those with a higher degree of knowledge in a subject are more likely to have their verisimilitude broken when a rule is counter intuitive to what they know. Its also usually an individual rather than the group as a whole. Movies are a great example of this - guys with handguns consistently outgunning those with automatic weapons. Knights in full plate not being able to stop a single arrow. Martial arts, guys with machetes chopping at the air in the background as they try to get their timing right so the hero can deal with 20 people, one at a time. If you know nothing about guns, martial arts or full plate, you probably won't be even noticing that kind of thing.

I know almost nothing about sport of any kind. If I was playing a sports RPG (shudder at the thought) I doubt I would question any rule whatsoever or have any issue with verisimilitude. The exception to this is halflings in my bloodbowl tournament stopping to eat hotdogs on their go, man I hated that.

Sure, and sometimes you need to tell someone "look, we're going with movie reality on this one" or something to that effect. It's also where good communication is key. If someone gives you an outline of what they're trying to accomplish, you can say "oh, well that's not going to work because XYZ" and then you won't have them completely flabbergasted 20 steps into a plan when it suddenly is revealed to not work because of differences between the game world and the real world. As long as everyone is on the same page, even if it's the wrong page, it should all be good.

 

[Evilschemer]

Sure, and sometimes you need to tell someone "look, we're going with movie reality on this one" or something to that effect. It's also where good communication is key. If someone gives you an outline of what they're trying to accomplish, you can say "oh, well that's not going to work because XYZ" and then you won't have them completely flabbergasted 20 steps into a plan when it suddenly is revealed to not work because of differences between the game world and the real world. As long as everyone is on the same page, even if it's the wrong page, it should all be good.

DM of the Rings hilariously parodied what you just described, and perhaps the crux of this conversation, in a webcomic.

Apologies for cringe-inducing choice of language there towards the end.

 

[raniE]

Yeah. Of course, it was intentionally parodying bad DMing, but at least it managed to get it right that he told him what would be necessary in order to do it, rather than just letting him start with no knowledge of how difficult it would be. So boring DM, but at least not terrible (in this instance).

 

[zarion]

Just play Toon, it makes everything so much easier!

 

[ffilz]

Complete realism in the rules is impossible. But given that one accepts certain unrealistic things because they are part of the genre or the intent of the game, many other realism issues can actually be handled outside the rules. Many games give movement rates, sometimes at multiple time scales. I guarantee that none of these rules cover all possible movement scenarios. So probably beyond a tactical combat system (where we can assume any mis-match with reality is part of the intent of the rules and thus "safe from realism criticism") if the GM feels like the movement rules aren't realistic, he can appeal to reality instead of rules. Other times, the rules don't address a situation at all and the GM can just make a ruling based on his understanding of reality.

And that's what makes RPGs work. In fact, all of this speaks to the Lumpley Principle:

System (including but not limited to "the rules") is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play.

- from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Baker

So part of that "system" is the shared knowledge of the world, the genre, and the setting.

So then what remains is first, the play group will evaluate the specific RPG they are going to play and generally accept the intent of that game and the genre and setting proposed by the GM (or decided as a group). Then the group may settle on some house rules. Then inevitably something will happen in the game that seems off to someone and there will be a discussion (which could be short or cut off and is "the means by which the group agrees...") followed by a GM ruling.

Now it IS interesting to discuss particular rules and their grasp on reality or even trends in games. Those discussions help folks make initial evaluations of games and inform subsequent discussions of house rule and on the spot rulings.

And going back to the genres we like to play and types of fantasy threads, part of why I focus MOSTLY on D&D type fantasy is because I don't want to get bogged down in appeals to reality. I want to accept the genre conventions and the intent of the rules I'm playing. That is much easier for me with D&D type fantasy games than with other genres.

Frank

 

[Paragon]

Does it emulate film tropes and cinematic fights? Absolutely! I wish more games used this approach. Ditch reality modeling completely. The important thing to model is the experience.

The problem, when you go all the way there, is that you not only need to have players thoroughly buy into the genre conceits, you have to have them agree what those are. Its often safer, in practical terms, to go a comprimise distance (i.e. try not to actively do counter-genre things) and let the rest of it shake out as differences in medium (since usually there's some differences in how different media handle a given genre).

 

[Paragon]

Its certainly one of the strengths of an RPG. However, that gets us back into the realm of rules vs rulings. I don't believe rulings is a panacea that covers what I was alluding to, which in fairness might have only been a problem at my gaming table - those with a higher degree of knowledge in a subject are more likely to have their verisimilitude broken when a rule is counter intuitive to what they know. Its also usually an individual rather than the group as a whole. Movies are a great example of this - guys with handguns consistently outgunning those with automatic weapons. Knights in full plate not being able to stop a single arrow. Martial arts, guys with machetes chopping at the air in the background as they try to get their timing right so the hero can deal with 20 people, one at a time. If you know nothing about guns, martial arts or full plate, you probably won't be even noticing that kind of thing.

I know almost nothing about sport of any kind. If I was playing a sports RPG (shudder at the thought) I doubt I would question any rule whatsoever or have any issue with verisimilitude. The exception to this is halflings in my bloodbowl tournament stopping to eat hotdogs on their go, man I hated that.

This can also be a problem with some game designs. You'll see a game that has what seems a silly degree of detail and nuance in some subsystem because the author(s) are particularly knowledgeable in the area and couldn't just let it go, even though most end-users really won't care and will likely find the subsystem excessive.

But I do think there's a difference between "This section of the rules fails the sniff test even if most people won't notice" and "this section of the rules is abstracted in a way that loses a lot of sometimes important nuance about a topic." The former can be more problematic than the latter even if they tend to bother the same people.

 

[Evilschemer]

The problem, when you go all the way there, is that you not only need to have players thoroughly buy into the genre conceits, you have to have them agree what those are. Its often safer, in practical terms, to go a comprimise distance (i.e. try not to actively do counter-genre things) and let the rest of it shake out as differences in medium (since usually there's some differences in how different media handle a given genre).

That's fair.

Here's another example of what I'm talking about regarding emulation of genre compared to simulation of reality, then to take it back to abstraction in gaming.

When playing a game inspired by Wuxia and Kung Fu movies, is it important to know that the world record for the long jump is 8.95 meters (29 feet) or the high jump is 2.45 meters (8 feet)? Should that reality limit the capability of our wuxia heroes?

in regard to abstraction in game design, should the game accurately capture the bell curve of human ability in regards to how high or how far that person can jump with some random element to represent the normal scattering of results for each attempt?

Or is it sufficient to say that all player characters can leap a distance equal to their Strength (18 = 18 feet or 5.464 meters) and a height of 3 + Strength Modifier in feet (18 = 7 feet or 2.133 meters)?

In this case, D&D 5E design DOES set a baseline that would seem to limit our wuxia heroes, AND uses an abstraction that reflects reality without MODELING reality.

Then, for genre emulation, the game then gives monks - the Wuxia characters of this game - the ability to spend 1 ki and double their jumping distance.

I don't know that I have a point, other than to provide more helpful examples.

 

[TristramEvans]

My preference in regards to genre games is for them to provide, through the system, a model of the reality as expressed by the source material, without enforcing the stereotypes or genre tropes through the rules.

 

[Paragon]

That's fair.

Here's another example of what I'm talking about regarding emulation of genre compared to simulation of reality, then to take it back to abstraction in gaming.

When playing a game inspired by Wuxia and Kung Fu movies, is it important to know that the world record for the long jump is 8.95 meters (29 feet) or the high jump is 2.45 meters (8 feet)? Should that reality limit the capability of our wuxia heroes?

in regard to abstraction in game design, should the game accurately capture the bell curve of human ability in regards to how high or how far that person can jump with some random element to represent the normal scattering of results for each attempt?

Or is it sufficient to say that all player characters can leap a distance equal to their Strength (18 = 18 feet or 5.464 meters) and a height of 3 + Strength Modifier in feet (18 = 7 feet or 2.133 meters)?

In this case, D&D 5E design DOES set a baseline that would seem to limit our wuxia heroes, AND uses an abstraction that reflects reality without MODELING reality.

Then, for genre emulation, the game then gives monks - the Wuxia characters of this game - the ability to spend 1 ki and double their jumping distance.

I don't know that I have a point, other than to provide more helpful examples.

Well, that's part of the gig, of course: is your game Wuxia heroes and only Wuxia heroes? Are all the opponents similarly talented? Otherwise you still need to have some vague idea what the normal people can do. That's one of the issues with a lot of really stylized genres; while a lot of people have unrealistic abilities, they aren't always evenly distributed; even when there's no avowed reason for them, some people are up to doing things others aren't, and while those things are very much a genre staple, they aren't simply the background assumption.

The classic example of this I use is the poster boy: superhero games. Superhero games make all kinds of unrealistic assumptions about people's capability, but they're not applied evenly (and sometimes they aren't applied in a simple fashion; Batman does a lot of things that are unreasonable even with a highly skilled human, and some of them are things we'll accept from him but wouldn't necessarily for a different character who was much more blatantly superhuman in other ways, because they're his particular gig).

 

[robertsconley]

Okay, so I think we can all agree that games are imperfect abstractions of the real world. No set of game rules can hope to entirely accurately model the real world, partly because anything even approaching that level of detail would be unmanageable, and partly because we don't actually understand how the real world works (if we did there wouldn't be a disconnect between quantum mechanics and general relativity).

Sure, with the caveat that many hobbyists don't consider how well the rules model reality. They view it as a game. Approach it like any other games and play it by its rules. Like other games how well it received is how well the group likes the rules and the system. For them the above point is not relevant. Although I happen to agree with it.

So, what we do have are sets of rules of varying complexity that all try to model something. But what is it they try to model? And how can we tell if they're successful?

To me the point of a RPG system is as an aid to help me adjudicate what the players of my campaign do as their character. So the criteria I use.

1) Does it cover the factors I think are important at an interesting level of detail.
2) Can I tie its mechanic to specific things that the player do as their character or what happens to them?
3) Is it presented and organized well.
4) Does it discuss its mechanics tersely and concisely?

System that hit all of this I tend to like. For me in the past that has been the Hero System, Harnmaster, Traveller, and GURPS. None of these are perfect but overall they achieve the four criteria I laid out.

In the past ten years thanks to the research done on the origins of our hobby, I expanded what I enjoy considerably. The main issue was #2 how to tie various mechanics to what the players do or to what happens to them. Especially in the case of classic D&D.

Because of how the game works, this is a perfectly reasonable outcome. As a model of how the world worked, it is a terrible outcome. It didn't happen in reality, and in an alternate history game, things which diverge from reality should, in my opinion, usually be less likely to occur than things which did happen. Thus, this kind of outcome would be reasonable to see in one game, but not in virtually all games in which you do not play as the ruling dynasty of France.

Well they have mods out there that "fixes" this. As for why it is this way in the first place, you have to look how Paradox developed the game's AI. Maybe this was the best of a bunch of bad choices. One way to determine this is run with one of the modded AIs and see how that does.

Now sometimes parts of games aim for something other than emulating the real world. Many games make combat far more survivable for the PCs for instance. But that is then usually called out as the game being more of a heroic fantasy or whatnot. I still maintain that all the other parts of the rules should generate outcomes equivalent to the real world or it becomes impossible to immerse yourself in the game world and to make decisions based on what is happening in the game.

Sure it is a great idea in principle but as the example of the CK2 AI illustrate when dealing with a lot of moving parts it comes down which one of a bunch of bad choices you pick from?

For example I deal with writing Motion Control software for metal cutting machines. To make the machine even move, you have to introduce error. For high precision operation, you design the mechanics, the motors, and electronics so that the error is lowered than the desired precision. But it doesn't escape the fact that in order to move at all you have to have some error. Because the way it works is that T+0 you are still and then at T+1 you want to be at X. But you are not. And that difference is the error. And that number which causes the control algorithm to calculate a speed to turn the motors at. Throughout the run you are never quite where you need to be. Because if you were then there no need for motion.

Given the fact that the mechanics are physical gears and shafts. That you have X space to cover. Everything has mass. Means often the best design is really the best of a bunch of bad choices.

As long as that's true it doesn't really matter if the wolf has half a page of stats or simply "Wolf-10".

Except people may only enjoy the playing a campaign involving their characters and wolves if the wolves looked like the following.



Instead of Wolf-10 or the following.



or

 

[ka maat]

No system perfectly covers everything reality presents. They're designed to simulate a genre, not duplicate it. I like GURPS and HERO, but they don't duplicate reality or any genre perfectly.

They're games. They give us stories with win conditions to fulfill conclusion. Expecting them to present reality or mimic a genre perfectly is foolish.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Right, but then that should be known by the players. And then you're emulating whatever it is you're emulating, it would be one of those points called out as not functioning how it does in the real world. But even then, at some point you're likely to run into a situation that isn't seen much in actual Hong Kong action films. And when the players need to make a decision on something, they will probably have to assess it using their knowledge of reality, although probably combined with their knowledge of Hong Kong action films.

...do a lot of people use a system designed to emulate a genre, and not clue the players in? That seems like a disaster in the making.

 

[robertsconley]

They're games. They give us stories with win conditions to fulfill conclusion. Expecting them to present reality or mimic a genre perfectly is foolish.

I disagree in part. A Roleplaying campaign is a way with pen, paper, dice, & a human referee to pretend to be a character having adventures in some imagined setting. A system like AD&D, GURPS, etc is just a tool to help make the above happen.

 

[Fenris-77]

I disagree in part. A Roleplaying campaign is a way with pen, paper, dice, & a human referee to pretend to be a character having adventures in some imagined setting. A system like AD&D, GURPS, etc is just a tool to help make the above happen.

I agree, but I also think its trivially obvious that a lot games do not seek to emulate the real world in any particular regard. When someone suggested above that the goal was genre emulation I think that's closer to correct, but I don't think genre is the right world. In many cases what RPGs strive to emulate is the decision making and consequences from a particular type of fiction. Genre expectations can certainly play a part there of course, but genre is probably too broad a descriptor.

 

[David Johansen]

Wolf, size small to medium, hd 1d6 or 1d8, move 12", sharp teeth -2 to hit verses metal armour, 1d6 or 1d8 damage, Alpha wolves may have up to 6 HD, Iconic wolves may have 7 - 12 HD, Mythic archetype wolves may have 13 - 20 HD. Wolves with multiple hit dice have an equal number of attacks against creatures of 1 HD or less. English wolves speak English, naturally, honestly, what did you expect?

 

[opaopajr]

I agree, but I also think its trivially obvious that a lot games do not seek to emulate the real world in any particular regard. When someone suggested above that the goal was genre emulation I think that's closer to correct, but I don't think genre is the right world. In many cases what RPGs strive to emulate is the decision making and consequences from a particular type of fiction. Genre expectations can certainly play a part there of course, but genre is probably too broad a descriptor.

Diagetic! (which is not about high blood sugar...)

 

[TristramEvans]

 

[robertsconley]

In many cases what RPGs strive to emulate is the decision making and consequences from a particular type of fiction.

This is at odds with the central premise of roleplaying campaign which is to pretend to be a character having adventures within a setting.

Form what I seen game mechanics trying to emulate decision making and its consequence on work by narrowing the focus of a campaign to the point one has to wonder whether why the author trying to use a roleplaying game at all.

Take for example the upcoming Dune RPG. The Dune novels are stories about particular people within that setting starting with Paul Atreides. The game mechanics of a Dune RPG can help describe the attributes of a character. Can describe various locales and technology in terms of game mechanics. Used to abstract large scale details like the power and resource that a noble house or character controls.

Beyond that there is little the author can do to control a player or incentive a player to act like a character within the Dune setting.

My view a setting has it own logic stemming from how the NPCs act, what motivates the NPCs, and details like technology, environment, supernatural elements, and/or physics. A player will act like a character in Dune because that what makes sense when the referee roleplay the NPCs are presents the environment as a Dune setting. Not because that the best way to manipulate the mechanics of a game.

 

[Fenris-77]

This is at odds with the central premise of roleplaying campaign which is to pretend to be a character having adventures within a setting.

Form what I seen game mechanics trying to emulate decision making and its consequence on work by narrowing the focus of a campaign to the point one has to wonder whether why the author trying to use a roleplaying game at all.

Take for example the upcoming Dune RPG. The Dune novels are stories about particular people within that setting starting with Paul Atreides. The game mechanics of a Dune RPG can help describe the attributes of a character. Can describe various locales and technology in terms of game mechanics. Used to abstract large scale details like the power and resource that a noble house or character controls.

Beyond that there is little the author can do to control a player or incentive a player to act like a character within the Dune setting.

My view a setting has it own logic stemming from how the NPCs act, what motivates the NPCs, and details like technology, environment, supernatural elements, and/or physics. A player will act like a character in Dune because that what makes sense when the referee roleplay the NPCs are presents the environment as a Dune setting. Not because that the best way to manipulate the mechanics of a game.

I dont think it's at odds at all. Pretending to be a a character having adventures in a setting us fine, but once you start talking about what characters and what setting, then you start talking about what kind of action drives that kind of game, and what mechanics can be used to represent that kind of action.

If you want to run Dune you need a system that handles the kind of actions and conflict that would happen in Dune. That's very different from, say, the actions and conflict in a Zombie survival game. The mechanics model the kinds if action and conflict demanded by the kind of fiction you want to represent.

 

[robertsconley]

I dont think it's at odds at all. Pretending to be a a character having adventures in a setting us fine, but once you start talking about what characters and what setting, then you start talking about what kind of action drives that kind of game, and what mechanics can be used to represent that kind of action.

If you want to run Dune you need a system that handles the kind of actions and conflict that would happen in Dune. That's very different from, say, the actions and conflict in a Zombie survival game. The mechanics model the kinds if action and conflict demanded by the kind of fiction you want to represent.

My view is that system mechanics are useful for determining the result of weaving a basket, striking an enemy. Even some types of human interaction between two NPCs to give a better feel to the various outcomes.

But when it comes to why a basket is woven, why an enemy is struck, or why two NPCs talk to each other. Those are things that don't work well as game mechanics. And the attempts I seen at handling these through game mechanic feel silted and forces. What I have seen work is for the human referee to handle these things assisted by advice and guidelines given by the author. Because only a person is capable of juggling all the nuances of why something happens in a setting not an algorithm expressed by game mechanics.

When algorithms are being used instead of human judgement the result is the players orient towards manipulating the algorithms not focusing on pretending to be a character in that setting whether it is Dune, Middle Earth, or Westeros. In essence the algorithms becomes the setting.

To be clear I am not saying that can't be fun. Wargames are similarly constrained but within what they focus on can be very fun to play. But it not the same as pretending to be a character having adventures in that settings nor does it have the richness compared to a human referee who been taught and coached how to roleplay characters within that setting.

 

[TristramEvans]

I dunno, I like Pendragon's Passions, even though my tastes otherwise mechanically seem to suggest I shouldn't.

 

[Fenris-77]

My view is that system mechanics are useful for determining the result of weaving a basket, striking an enemy. Even some types of human interaction between two NPCs to give a better feel to the various outcomes.

But when it comes to why a basket is woven, why an enemy is struck, or why two NPCs talk to each other. Those are things that don't work well as game mechanics. And the attempts I seen at handling these through game mechanic feel silted and forces. What I have seen work is for the human referee to handle these things assisted by advice and guidelines given by the author. Because only a person is capable of juggling all the nuances of why something happens in a setting not an algorithm expressed by game mechanics.

When algorithms are being used instead of human judgement the result is the players orient towards manipulating the algorithms not focusing on pretending to be a character in that setting whether it is Dune, Middle Earth, or Westeros. In essence the algorithms becomes the setting.

To be clear I am not saying that can't be fun. Wargames are similarly constrained but within what they focus on can be very fun to play. But it not the same as pretending to be a character having adventures in that settings nor does it have the richness compared to a human referee who been taught and coached how to roleplay characters within that setting.

I feel like we're talking at cross purposes. I don't disagree with anything in your post, but at the same time you seem to feel that that same content is somehow contra to what I had to say. I wasn't referring to minutiae at all, but rather the core actions and decisions that represent a type of fiction.

 

[robertsconley]

I dunno, I like Pendragon's Passions, even though my tastes otherwise mechanically seem to suggest I shouldn't.

I think Pendragon's Passion are well designed. While I don't think a player who is versed in the Arthurian Mythos needs them to roleplay a character that acts like they live in King Arthur's world. I think are extremely useful as an aid to those who are not as well versed.

 

[robertsconley]

I wasn't referring to minutiae at all, but rather the core actions and decisions that represent a type of fiction.

Core actions and decisions are about why a character does what they do. I think game mechanics are a poor way of dealing with that aspect of the campaign. There are exceptions like Pendragon Passions but in general I find most attempt lacking and amount to the players playing a dice game rather than actually roleplaying as a character within the setting.

 

[Fenris-77]

Core actions and decisions are about why a character does what they do. I think game mechanics are a poor way of dealing with that aspect of the campaign. There are exceptions like Pendragon Passions but in general I find most attempt lacking and amount to the players playing a dice game rather than actually roleplaying as a character within the setting.

I would disagree. They could be bad, but dont have to be. Blades is a great example. You're obviously talking about personal tastes here, as I am, so there is perhaps some built in difference in what we like as well.

 

[Lessa]

I agree, but I also think its trivially obvious that a lot games do not seek to emulate the real world in any particular regard. When someone suggested above that the goal was genre emulation I think that's closer to correct, but I don't think genre is the right world. In many cases what RPGs strive to emulate is the decision making and consequences from a particular type of fiction. Genre expectations can certainly play a part there of course, but genre is probably too broad a descriptor.

How about fiction emulation, then? EDIT: forget it, I just noticed you found Genre too broad a term and fiction is even broader.

 

[Fenris-77]

How about fiction emulation, then? EDIT: forget it, I just noticed you found Genre too broad a term and fiction is even broader.

I went with 'particular type of fiction' hoping it would be more useful and specific than genre. Fantasy, for example, is pretty useless as a tag for an RPG. Things like Sword and Sorcery and the like are a little better, but still not great. A lot of games tend to include touchstone fiction in their opening, and that's what I was thinking of. SO when I say, for example, that Scum and Villainy emulates the fiction of Star Wars or Firefly, that would be the level of granularity I'm talking about. Not all games are that specific of course, but the broader one would be described differently and with broader terms that match their approach.

Fiction Emulation is a fine term for the general idea though.

 

[Lessa]

About Pendragon:

Remember that it's passions (and virtues) have another function besides being a tool for roleplaying: they feed into a gameplay loop of glory accruing that's all about emulating the source material's themes and tales. This in my view separates it from ye olde "fantasy adventure through physics simulation" games like, say, GURPS or AD&D, where "rules are there just to resolve physical interactions and get out of the way of roleplaying (as much as possible)".

 

[TristramEvans]

I was thinking over the last day about Pendragon's Passions, and I think I may have hit on why they don't bother me in the same way a lot of other "personality mechanics" do. It's that the Passions are meant to be things outside of the characters' control, overwhelming emotions that they get swept up by, over-riding their intellect and general sense.

I see them as akin to sanity mechanics. Many years back I got into an extended argument over at TheSite in regards to whether Sanity Mechanics were, as the poster (who it was I can't recall) put it "storygame mechanics". His reasoning was that it was because they removed choice from the player, and held to the ideal that the PC's mentality or psychology should always be in the control of the player role-playing them. While I can understand and empathize with this position overall, my counterpoint was that no one IRL chooses to go insane, and that Sanity mechanics in RPGs were equivalent to wounds. A character doesn't chose to take wounds, the are a consequence of the choice they make to engage in a physically hazardous activity. While taking wounds does "limit" the player's choices inherently, they don't contradict player agency. The reality is some things in life are completely out of a person's ability to control.

Likewise Sanity mechanics in games like Call of Cthulhu and Unknown Armies, I see as representing mental from stress, having one's sense of reality undermined, horrific revelation, etc ; essentially psychological "Wounds".

And to that end I see Passions in Pendragon as representing an "External" force over the thought processes of a character - obviously not external to their mind, rather external to their conscious thought.

I also think the Passions mechanic would be really good to adapt to a high drama setting, such as the Gothic novel settings of the 18th-19th centuries (Walpole, Bronte, and the like)