Tuesday 12 September 2017

Confessions of a realist

I strongly suspect that one of the things which holds me back, both as a writer of rpg materials and as a GM, is that even when I'm running games about magical zombies fighting robots from space I really, truly want things to actually make sense.

When people talk about 'realism' in RPGs, it's usually in relation to physics and biology: whether it's 'realistic' for someone to survive that fall, or carry that much gold, or hold their breath for that long, or whatever. I don't actually care about any of that. What I care about is logic: how many soldiers could a settlement of that size really support? Where exactly are these cave-dwelling bandits getting their fresh water from? Is this trade route economically plausible? Could you actually run a secret society like that without anyone noticing it was there? How many people can be eaten by monsters every year before the village becomes demographically unviable? I don't obsess over these things, but it bothers me when the answers are obviously implausible. It bothers me a lot more than it probably should.

Image result for fantasy army
The army you imagine your holdings supporting.
Related image
The army your holdings will actually support.

In some ways this constrains me. It means I very seldom use traps, because I just can't get past the sheer impracticality of most of them. (Would you live in a house where accidentally treading on the wrong floor tile resulted in messy and instantaneous death?) It means that I barely ever use puzzles: 'try to guess the wizard's password' is OK, but 'solve this riddle / logic puzzle to progress' just leaves me wondering why anyone would bother building a security system which deactivated itself if the intruders were able to pass an arbitrary intelligence test. Catalogues of random weird stuff, in the style of McKinney's Isle of the Unknown, are almost useless to me. I crave explanations: who built all these random statues with random magical powers, and why? What possible purpose could they have served, given that most of them seem to exist purely to fuck with people who try to tamper with them? Intellectually, I know that asking these questions is missing the point: the traps and the puzzles and the magic statues exist because those sorts of things are fun to interact with during games of D&D. But they still nag at me, to the point where I tend to assign explanations for the things that appear in my games just for my own peace of mind, even if it's very unlikely to ever come up in play.

In other ways, though, this kind of realism can be beneficial, because the more deeply things are embedded in their fictional worlds, the more ways PCs have to interact with them in play. If there are logical reasons why things work the way they do, then it's much easier for players to find logical ways to manipulate them; and the more things happen 'just because', the more you lose that. I like my players to be able to say: 'They must be getting food from somewhere, so let's cut their supply lines', or 'This was obviously meant as a security system, so there must be some way to get through the room without setting it off', and actually have those deductions pay off. If the Generic Orc Warriors need to have food sources and fresh water and chains of command and somewhere to sleep and somewhere to shit and so on, then the possibilities for dealing with them multiply: the PCs can poison their food, or drug their water, or intercept and rewrite their orders, or rig their latrine to explode, or whatever. But if they get their warriors and supplies from nowhere in particular, then the PCs have far fewer options for dealing with them in ways other than kicking down the door and stabbing everyone in the face.

This isn't any kind of manifesto - I don't think that there's any optimal level of logical coherency that D&D games can have, or that anyone with too much or too little of it is Doing It Wrong. But I do think that they lend themselves to rather different modes of play: one more weird and anarchic and freewheeling, the other more logical and coherent and internally self-consistent. (Law vs. chaos, if you will.) I think players will swiftly pick up on the extent to which the game world around them can or can't be expected to make sense, and as a result, it's probably quite important to pick a level and stick to it, as suddenly shifting this around will just leave everyone feeling disorientated and confused.

Unless, of course, that's the objective. Having the game world itself shift progressively from internally self-consistent realism to high Gygaxian nonsense-logic the further the PCs went from civilisation might be a rather nice way of demonstrating that they have ventured into a place where the normal rules do not apply...

Image result for alice in wonderland

15 comments:

  1. I'm not sure if this is intended, but the last paragraph is how I've usually imagined the Hill Cantons world of Ursine Dunes et al.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sort of? It's explicitly the case that the Hill Cantons world gets weirder and weirder the further you go from civilisation, but I'm not sure whether that extends to causality as well as content. Everything in the Slumbering Ursine Dunes is deeply *odd*, but I seem to recall them mostly behaving in fairly logical ways given their natures and situations...

      (A Red and Pleasant Land, on the other hand, is very much governed by nonsense logic, which is why you literally have to go through the looking glass to get there!)

      Delete
    2. Everything published is I think from the Borderlands band of things, where things logically extrapolate and there's discernible social construction, but there are also Werebear pikemercs with no discernible system for feeding themselves in dense gatherings, and robodwarves. It's more interested in evolving towards gonzo gygaxianish picaresques than directly reveling in screwy causality and nonsense ala RPL/Alice, but it still seems to be in the vein you're talking about.

      That said this definitely seems to more of a headcanon that plausibly fits the text than something explicit in it.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I can see that. I think I just assumed that the bears were importing food for themselves from outside somewhere, because the Dunes are a ritual site for them rather than their actual homeland, but I may be overthinking it. And I can well believe that as you get even further from civilisation, logic breaks down even more...

      Delete
  2. When my half-ogre half-minotaur wild mage with psionics is riding his alicorn in battle with a two-headed red/blue dragon cleric of Orcus, I want it to be realistic too

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UPDATE: somehow I didn't have you on my blogroll, and I've just corrected that.

      Delete
    2. Well, like I mention in the post, there are different kinds of realism. 'How does the psychic kill people with his mind?' is a different sort of question to 'how do these three orcs survive indefinitely in a 10' square room despite having no access to fresh food, water, or even air?' One kind of realism doesn't imply or prevent the other!

      Delete
  3. This is exactly my own feeling on this topic. I can play in games that don't adhere to that type of logic, but I can not design an adventure or world that gleefully shirks any connection to plausibility.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This seems to be the same issue as in the ideas of Combat as Sport/Combat as War, just applying to a larger scope.
    As I see it, D&D stands out from other RPGs as having originated as gameplay mechanics that have fantasy decoration. Like you can put whatever pictures you like on a pinball machine but it doesn't make it a fantasy, sci-fi, zombie, or racing game. It's still always straight pinball
    Adding a full fantasy world inhabited by rational people to that is a second step, but since people want it to still be D&D and hang on to those gameplay elements that were created in a vacuum unconnected to the idea of a plausible world.
    Which is why I am drifting away from D&D. There are other games with similar simplicity to B/X that don't drag those gameplay elements with them that conflict with the fiction of a fantasy world.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Possibly call it "consistency"?

    ReplyDelete
  6. i think that isle of the unknown shoul be some sort of a rorschachs blot. you stare into it till you see a shape.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only way I'd ever use it as written would be by setting my PCs loose on it, waiting for them to come up with a *really crazy* theory to explain all the random nonsense they kept running into, and then immediately incorporating that explanation, whole-cloth, into the backstory of the campaign...

      Delete
  7. I'm a madman and often put int ventellation, chimneys, water sources, and latrines as appropriate within dungeons. A fully calculated foodweb isn't needed but stray peddlers, tended pools of blindfish, and grottos of edible fungus go a long way to making dungeon dwellers seem to have enough to eat (there's also melch).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it really doesn't take very much. You don't need details. You just need *something*.

      'Where are these goblins getting their food from?'
      'Probably from the fungus forest in the last cave.'
      'Well, let's block the tunnel and starve them out!'

      It's as simple as that, and it opens up so many more ways for the PCs to interact with the surrounding world...

      Delete