Reverse Engineering world from game mechanics

[Doctor Xero]

I think we basicaly agree that we as players follow the rules, not the characters.

I would add that that usually characters are like modern Americans and Europeans in that we all genuinely believe that we are following rules and work hard to discover what the game mechanics of our universes may be -- we call this work to discover our game mechanics Science (and our efforts to explore/evoke our responses to said game mechanics Art).

That's why I suggest that player-characters would notice differences if placed in a different rules system only if the differences between rules systems were intended to replicate differences between the Laws of Reality of two different universes.  And even then, only the scientifically-inclined would notice unless the differences were radical (e.g. if a player-character in the Champions/Hero System universe suddenly discovered how far more lethal a fall from a great height is when she has plane-walked into the A-D-&-D universe or suddenly discovered that her maximum running speed had suddenly shiftered radically downward when she plane-walked into the Call of Cthulhu universe).

Doctor Xero

[simon_hibbs]

That's why I suggest that player-characters would notice differences if placed in a different rules system only if the differences between rules systems were intended to replicate differences between the Laws of Reality of two different universes.

I think that's right, if your game rules say things about the game world that you want to be said, it's probably reasonable for the characters to behave apropriately. In a heroic game characters can do heroic things, and therefore you expect them to behave in a heroic manner.

I think the 'problem' can come when there's a marginal missmatch between what you'd realy expect to happen in the game world and the game rules, which after all aren't an exact simulation but can only ever be 'good enough'. Precise magical effects expressed in arbitrary real world units of measure are an example of this. Hex based movement in GURPS might be another. Won't the characters notice that their movement is always in 'quantum' units of so many metres per second? Well no, because I think we are only using these as a convenience for the purposes of game play. As you say they're rules for us, not for the characters. I as a player might say 'my character advances 5 hexes' while playing GURPS, but in a narative fiction account of the action you'd never see any mention of hexes or metres in this context.

I'd be interested in considering the difference between narativist and gamist game systems in this area, but time is pressing. I'll think on it and maybe post later.


Simon Hibbs

[lumpley]

Simon, I'm with you all the way, except: there's no real reason why your game rules have to be a simulation of the game world, "good enough" or a'tall.  We've come to expect simulations because that's what we've mostly got, but that's sort of an accident of history, not essential to roleplaying.

Put another way: the problems you're identifying are problems only with games that purport to simulate the game world.  Games that regulate the players' input more directly - take my Nighttime Animals game for instance - don't have any such potential mismatches.

-Vincent

[simon_hibbs]

Simon, I'm with you all the way, except: there's no real reason why your game rules have to be a simulation of the game world, "good enough" or a'tall.  We've come to expect simulations because that's what we've mostly got, but that's sort of an accident of history, not essential to roleplaying.

This is why I sometimes used the term 'model' in my posts rather than simulation. The game rules are a mechanical means of generating results. Some games try to generate results that 'realisticaly' simulate game world activities. Other systems use game rules intended to produce results similar to what you get in various forms of fiction. These narativist mechanics simulate, or model narative fiction conventions and tropes rather than physical actions, but they are still simulations.

Note I never actualy used the phrase 'simulations of the game world' because that's not always what we're simulating.


Simon Hibbs

[M. J. Young]

That's why I suggest that player-characters would notice differences if placed in a different rules system only if the differences between rules systems were intended to replicate differences between the Laws of Reality of two different universes.  And even then, only the scientifically-inclined would notice unless the differences were radical (e.g. if a player-character in the Champions/Hero System universe suddenly discovered how far more lethal a fall from a great height is when she has plane-walked into the A-D-&-D universe or suddenly discovered that her maximum running speed had suddenly shiftered radically downward when she plane-walked into the Call of Cthulhu universe).

If I understand your caveats aright, I would agree.

Player characters do notice changes between universes in Multiverser, largely because the bias rules can make a significant impact not merely on the difficulty of doing certain things but on what is possible. Technological devices can go from easy to use to unreliable or even non-functional; magic similarly can be stronger, weaker, impossible. Although it's rare, even the ease with which characters walk can be impaired by very low bias in the body area.

So if you'll allow that significant changes in the difficulty of doing various tasks constitutes a difference in the laws of reality between two universes, I'd agree.

--M. J. Young

[contracycle]

Note I never actualy used the phrase 'simulations of the game world' because that's not always what we're simulating.

Oh, I think there might be some use to that approach.  I expect the systematic model to be as accurate a model of the game world as a real model of the real world would be.  That is, I expect the model to abstract those things above or below its level of detail, but I also expect it to be a reliable guide to the actually possible within that scope.

I don't think that characters are likely to actually notice the measurement units of weapon ranges and the like; but I would expect them to be able to determine what the max range is - whether metric or Imperial - and clear undergrowth from a perimeter that wide, if they needed to.

[Doctor Xero]

Player characters do notice changes between universes in Multiverser, largely because the bias rules can make a significant impact not merely on the difficulty of doing certain things but on what is possible. Technological devices can go from easy to use to unreliable or even non-functional; magic similarly can be stronger, weaker, impossible. Although it's rare, even the ease with which characters walk can be impaired by very low bias in the body area.

So if you'll allow that significant changes in the difficulty of doing various tasks constitutes a difference in the laws of reality between two universes, I'd agree.

I've always had a certain fondness for the befuddlement of hero and villain alike in Last Action Hero when they cross over from their native reality to that film's version of the real world : " Think of villains, Jack.  You want Dracula?  I'll fetch him.  We'll have a nightmare with Freddy Krueger, hold a surprise party for Hitler, Hannibal Lecter can do the catering, and then we'll have a christening for Rosemary's Baby!  They're lining up to get here, and do you know why, Jack?  Because in this world, the bad guys can win! "

^_^

Doctor Xero

[Dauntless]

I personally view system rules as an abstraction for what the game world reality is like.  It is not game reality, but a model or representation of it.  If it is not seen this way, then there really shouldn't be a need for having a GM.  While I dislike rules-lite systems and like more detailed and complex rules, I also realize that rules should only be there to help the GM arbitrate things or to make thigns more consistent.  But the final word is the GM's and not the system-rules.

If you think about it, we as real living breathing people in this world do the same thing.  We try to find our limits and chances of success at things.  So really, we are trying to deduce the nature and essence of the reality that we live in here in the real world.  So I don't see it as a problem that characters would want to do the same in a game.

The problem is two-fold however.  The first is that our real reality is vastly complex.  There are so many unknown variables and so many hidden variables that we'll never know that it is impossible (probably) for us to ever figure out certain things with precise certainty.  And this is where games don't have that benefit.  Because game rules are simplified models it is easy to extrapolate from game events the precise system mechanics involved.  And it's far easier to do this than to come up with Physics or Calculus to explain things in the here and now.  There's no easy way to solve this problem, because no matter how complex we make the game rules, it will be orders of magnitude more simple than the rules of the real world we live in.

The 2nd problem is that because we are playing a game, everything is quantified.  Because everything is quantified (numerically speaking) there is no mystery.  A player knows exactly what his character's stats are, and he knows that Spell A can go exactly X amount of meters.  The random element of games usually dictate success or failure, and not the limits of the system itself.  For example, let's say I have a Strength of 10.  Most games define this as being able to lift a certain amount of weight before being encumbered and doing a certain range or bonus to hand to hand damage.  Few games see the number 10 not as static value, but rather an average probablity.  So for example, on some days the character may feel stronger and lift more weight, and on other days he may be weaker and have less force behind his punch.  The randomness is seen in rolling for damage, but not in the attribute itself.

Moreover, we in the realworld often only have vague ideas about how good we are at things.  Strength is a bad example here, because it is easily quantified.  In general most physical tasks can be figured out fairly well (we generally speaking now whether we have a lot of endurance compared to other people, or are more dextrous or agile....but we probably won't know...."yeah, "I'm in the 90th percentile of the most agile people in the world").  What about charisma, or attractiveness, or intelligence?  These are all things which in the real world are dangerous for us to try to quantify.  And yet in our games we know exactly how good we are compared to other people.  And this makes it very easy for the players to deduce things about the world around them.

So a solution to this problem is to make many of the game attributes transparent and unknown to the player other than through qualitative modifiers.  Through trial and error a player may figure things out, and realize that he gets better with time (through experience).  But then again a character may not.  It's entirely possible that a character has very high stats, but unfortunately manages to fail more often than he succeeds through bad luck.  As a consequence, he'll become less confident in his abilities despite having in reality, good attributes.  

When you hide the variables from the players, it becomes much harder for them to deduce how the game world works.  But some system mechanics must be revealed to the players.  For example, I use a Pool points in Focus and Drive that players can use to increase their chances.  However, they don't know their limits necessarily.  They may only have 2 points to spend and will say they want to spend 4.  They will get all the bad stuff for spending 4 points, but will only get the positive benefits for spending 2.  This in conjunction with not knowing the exact levels of their attributes or even their skills means that you don't run into that dreaded, "let's see, I have a Bow skill of 7, with an Dexterity of 10, and by spending 2 points of concentration and 10 Action Counts of aiming, I should be able to hit that man-sized target at 80m as long as I roll a -1 or better!".

By hiding the variables (or at the least obfuscating them) then it's like trying to fit a jigsaw puzzle together without a picture to help you.  The underlying pieces are there, but you won't have any help.  Another way to help avoid the absolute deduction problem is to varying variables or varying system mechanics.  For example, my probability function changes according to the type of task.  There are low variance tasks, average variance tasks, and high variance tasks.  Some tasks are more dependent on luck and chance than on skill, and others are more reliant on skill and ability than on chance.  If the player doesn't know which task type he's performing, then he can't readily calculate his odds of success (though trial and error will help).