Why do RPGs have rules?

AbdulAlhazred said:

Its a depiction. It may be 'naturalistic' in that it depicts activities which people with knowledge of bears might expect of an actual bear. It doesn't 'simulate' anything at all.

Click to expand...

AbdulAlhazred said:

And yes, simulations include a model (a mathematical/logical description of how the state of a system evolves over time) and an initial state (which the model takes as input to produce states at times t+1, t+2, etc.).

Click to expand...

AbdulAlhazred said:

Calling a story a simulation, and attributing to it attributes of simulation is a category error.

Click to expand...

AbdulAlhazred said:

I would probably merely point out that the bear in the river story is unconstrained, ANYTHING can happen, and there is no constraint, no limits, on what that is. A dragon could reach up from out of the river and swallow the bear. A pixie could land on the bear's back and magically give it wings so they fly off together. The bear could drown. The bear could eat a good meal of fish. The bear could catch nothing. The bear could be a high level druid using shapechange.

Click to expand...

AbdulAlhazred said:

Do you see how I've shown the nature of the category error here?

Click to expand...

Imaro said:

I'm curious... is simulating a realistic world or verisimilitude even talked about in games like Agon, Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World? Like is there even a mention of it... I don't believe so but I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Imaro said:

Its not just about coherent fiction though. You can have coherent fiction that isn't necessarily trying to simulate anything.

If your PC's enter a forest, camp for a night and the GM doesn't mention you seeing bears but later an NPC tells you they were attacked by a bear in the forest... The GM and players still have coherent fiction, even though the GM is not necessarily trying to simulate a forest filled with bears. This could be especially true if they are playing to find out what happens.

Click to expand...

Maxperson said:

Yes, yours was not a simulation in the context of an RPG. A lightning bolt won't blast a house in two, so that was purely a non-simulation(but cool) fantasy moment.

Remember, simulation in the context of an RPG =/= simulation in the real world.

Click to expand...

AbdulAlhazred said:

Now is it a simulation?
View attachment 285904

Click to expand...

Maxperson said:

It simulates(in the RPG context) what a bear would realistically be doing.

You don't get to change the RPG context of simulation in order to poo poo the style of play. It exists whether you want to admit it or not.

It's not just a story. Hell, all a model does is randomly pick which story from those you put into the model gets narrated, so it's "just telling a story" as well.

Sure, all of those things could happen. And more. That doesn't change my example from a simulation of something that could realistically happen in the fiction.

No. Because simulation in the context of an RPG =/= simulation in real life. That's YOUR category error. You're conflating RPG simulation with real world simulation and then using real world simulation to argue. You aren't going to be effective doing that.

Click to expand...

Maxperson said:

Is the house split in two? I didn't say it wouldn't do damage. That house isn't even close to being cut in half.

Click to expand...

AbdulAlhazred said:

I'm not poo pooing anything at all. I think its actually important, in order to understand a thing and thus appreciate that thing in the best way to analyze it objectively and look at what it really is. You all claim to object to @pemerton's use of the term 'railroad' for the EXACT SAME REASON. Its just a different foot, different shoe... And I don't agree that we should entirely use words in a completely different sense just because we're talking about RPGs. 'Depict' and 'Simulate' are simply not the same thing, and it behooves nobody to call a bear a fish. You will just have a very smelly experience if you do!

Click to expand...

AbdulAlhazred said:

, post: 9028873, member: 82106"]
How is this forest less a simulation than the river with the bear in it? Can we come up with an actual set of rules which defines which is and is not a simulation?

Click to expand...

AbdulAlhazred said:

Absolutely! Dungeon World, the GM's move must "follow from the fiction" that is it must be logically coherent and plausible (though far-fetched things could happen, if they are, for example, fantastic and interesting, but they still need to follow from the fiction at some level). Likewise we can see that OBVIOUSLY fictional position is a constraint on player's action declarations, otherwise no game would exist at all! I mean, if nothing coheres, and thus has some plausibility and verisimilitude then what stops me from simply declaring that my character scoops up 10,000 gold pieces from the ground and pops one into the tree next to the trail and gets a beer dispensed?

ALL play, maybe with a VERY few exceptions like Toon which actually prove the rule by making fun of breaking it, relies entirely on the players IMAGINING chains of cause and effect, plausible outcomes, etc.

Click to expand...