The old rules emulation debate

[rancke]

Yep. It's one or the other. Possible both.

The thing is, it's practically axiomatic that game rules are at the very least simplified, often distorted, representations of the underlying +reality, simply for the sake of playability, whereas setting details, at least in the authorial voice, are supposed to be true and accurate. So when the rules don't match the setting details, the rules must be presumed to be wrong until and unless the contrary is proved.

Of course, since we are talking about a fictive reality, the option of retconning it is always there.


Hans

 

[aramis]

The thing is, it's practically axiomatic that game rules are at the very least simplified, often distorted, representations of the underlying +reality, simply for the sake of playability, whereas setting details, at least in the authorial voice, are supposed to be true and accurate. So when the rules don't match the setting details, the rules must be presumed to be wrong until and unless the contrary is proved.

Of course, since we are talking about a fictive reality, the option of retconning it is always there.


Hans

Not really, Hans. Many games are rules first, setting second. D&D, T&T, Gamma World... and at least for the first year or two, Traveller.

 

[rancke]

Not really, Hans. Many games are rules first, setting second. D&D, T&T, Gamma World... and at least for the first year or two, Traveller.

Yes, really, Wil. All those rules reflected underlying realities in simplifed terms. Traveller even more so than the rest of your list.

(Well, I never saw a copy of the T&T rules, but I would be most surprised if it wasn't the case with T&T too).


Hans

 

[aramis]

Yes, really, Wil. All those rules reflected underlying realities in simplifed terms. Traveller even more so than the rest of your list.

(Well, I never saw a copy of the T&T rules, but I would be most surprised if it wasn't the case with T&T too).


Hans

WRONG.
Not a one of them had a default setting nor "history" to reflect. The settings came later. The rules defined the default setting for D&D and T&T, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Including where Gygax, in D&D, states there is no particular "reality" being emulated by D&D. (Volume 1, page 4.)

These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity — your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors, and the fact that you have purchased these rules tends to indicate that there is no lack of imagination — the fascination of the game will tend to make participants find more and more time. We advise, however, that a campaign be begun slowly, following the steps outlined herein, so as to avoid becoming too bogged down with unfamiliar details at first.​

T&T tells the GM to develop his own game world, and to date, still strictly avoids putting "setting" into the core. Any setting present arises from the mechanical inclusions. Deluxe will actually change this - the 8th edition will be the first with a setting explicitly included, and at nearly 40 years from its first publication (1975).

There's no underlying reality - only what the GM gets into his skull and what the rules create. Which is why every original edition D&D campaign was a fundamentally unique setting and experience - the rules were vague, and didn't create a strong setting, and there was NO setting fluff.

CT Bk1-3 was much the same. It was released as pure rules, with just enough text to make sense of the Careers. We know there's an imperium, with nobles. We know each world has its own laws. In the exact same way we know that high level fighters have followers in D&D - because it's in the mechanics.

99% of the feel of Traveller isn't the OTU. It's the tropes which are built into the traveller rules (and many of which, GT gets wrong, By the way).

Until Mega was released, Traveller's core rules had more implied than explicit setting, and unless you bought the supplements, your ability to run the OTU was negligible, because it wasn't in the rulebooks. Hence, most people's games varied widely.

That the rules can be measured against our reality doesn't mean that our reality is the same as the game emulating an underlying reality - the game is a reality of its own - the mechanics defined the setting for a great many players.

I'll also take Arneson's word over yours - there was no singular "reality" behind his rules, which are the core of old school D&D. Gygax and Arneson both chose multiple, sometimes contradictory settings to inform their game designs (both jointly and separately), and it's utterly presumptuous to claim they tried to emulate some singular reality when they have both repeatedly and explicitly stated that they hadn't, and that the rules needed to be tweaked if one wanted to emulate some particular reality.

Hans, you're blinded both by your adherence to universal systems and your insistence upon Traveller having "some common reality behind it poorly reflected by the rules." You have never accepted that the CT rules were written before the setting, even tho' it's explicit that Marc came up with the rules after watching Star Wars, but informed by older sci-fi in mishmash.

If there is a common reality behind Classic Traveller, is sure as hell isn't the OTU... because the OTU almost needs a setting book of its own. Even MT was mechanically CT hybridized with Striker, not a serious attempt to emulate the setting.

 

[HG_B]

The thing is, it's practically axiomatic that game rules are at the very least simplified <snip>

What I was getting at is it is just sloppy & lazy to put out a product where something major happens that can't be emulated in the prior published rule set and not create the rule in said product...

 

[rancke]

WRONG.

Not a one of them had a default setting nor "history" to reflect. The settings came later. The rules defined the default setting for D&D and T&T, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

I didn't say anything about a default setting nor history. I said "underlying reality". Expressed in simplified form.

I find it difficult to elucidate. It's like arguing with someone who claims that 2+2 isn't 4. After repeating "Yes, 2+2 IS 4", there's really no way to argue further. Nor should there be any need to do so.

So let's try it the other way around. Can you mention any rule from any of these rulesets that aren't simplified representations of a more complex underlying reality? To avoid getting side-tracked, perhaps it would be best to leave out anything involving imaginary physical laws. Not that I don't think rules involving imaginary physics aren't simplified representations of a more complex "reality" too, but I know that it's impossible to prove that, say, the minimum size of a jump field doesn't happen, by a huge coincidence, to be exactly 100 times an arbitrary Terran volume.

There's no underlying reality - only what the GM gets into his skull and what the rules create. Which is why every original edition D&D campaign was a fundamentally unique setting and experience - the rules were vague, and didn't create a strong setting, and there was NO setting fluff.

Yes there is an underlying reality. Go on, quote a rule. Any rule not involving imaginary physics (in which I include magic). They all reflect a more complex underlying reality.

CT Bk1-3 was much the same. It was released as pure rules, with just enough text to make sense of the Careers. We know there's an Imperium, with nobles. We know each world has its own laws. In the exact same way we know that high level fighters have followers in D&D - because it's in the mechanics.

And the mechanics reflect a more complex underlying reality. The reality that powerful people tend to attract followers. Though in reality it would not the exact same number and composition, and the details would vary by culture and economy.

99% of the feel of Traveller isn't the OTU. It's the tropes which are built into the traveller rules (and many of which, GT gets wrong, By the way).

That's a sidetrack, but I can't think of a single trope that GT got wrong. Some of the rules and some of the details, sure, but all the tropes were spot on.

Until Mega was released, Traveller's core rules had more implied than explicit setting, and unless you bought the supplements, your ability to run the OTU was negligible, because it wasn't in the rulebooks. Hence, most people's games varied widely.

The very fact that the early Traveller rules were extremely generic contributed to their simplified nature. Obvious all armies weren't organized the same way, so the character generation system for army characters simplified army life a lot to encompass them all.

That the rules can be measured against our reality doesn't mean that our reality is the same as the game emulating an underlying reality - the game is a reality of its own - the mechanics defined the setting for a great many players.

I very much doubt that anyone actually believed that the rules defined the setting. For example that there were only one type of pistol manufactured from one end of the universe to the other, despite the fact that the rules only featured one. Most people would probably accept the notion that there were a great number of different makes and brands, some of the subtly different, other quite a bit different, but the rules simplified that hugely unmanageable number of pistols to one set of characteristics.

I will go so far as to say that anyone who doesn't accept that notion is being totally unreasonable.

I'll also take Arneson's word over yours - there was no singular "reality" behind his rules, which are the core of old school D&D. Gygax and Arneson both chose multiple, sometimes contradictory settings to inform their game designs (both jointly and separately), and it's utterly presumptuous to claim they tried to emulate some singular reality when they have both repeatedly and explicitly stated that they hadn't, and that the rules needed to be tweaked if one wanted to emulate some particular reality.

Nothing Arneson said in your quote contradicts what I'm saying. You are, for some reason I can't understand, misunderstanding what I'm saying despite the many times I've explained it.

Hans, you're blinded both by your adherence to universal systems and your insistence upon Traveller having "some common reality behind it poorly reflected by the rules." You have never accepted that the CT rules were written before the setting, even tho' it's explicit that Marc came up with the rules after watching Star Wars, but informed by older sci-fi in mishmash.

Of course I accept that the earliest CT rules were written before the OTU was established. I just don't see what relevance that has to the discussion.

If there is a common reality behind Classic Traveller, is sure as hell isn't the OTU... because the OTU almost needs a setting book of its own. Even MT was mechanically CT hybridized with Striker, not a serious attempt to emulate the setting.

I agree completely that the common reality is far more fundamental than the OTU. Though I will say that with the OTU it became evident that all the realities that the rules supported were supposed to be every bit as complex as our own.

I repeat, I don't think there's a single rule in CT or any other roleplaying game that isn't a simplified expression of a more complex reality. There might be one or two, but I doubt it.


Hans

 

[whartung]

What I was getting at is it is just sloppy & lazy to put out a product where something major happens that can't be emulated in the prior published rule set and not create the rule in said product...

Hogwash.

There is absolutely room for rule bending or complete contrivances for the sake of story telling.

The story has to have veto authority on "reality" as expressed by rules. Yes, that means GMs can "make stuff up". Pin it on "The Ancients", "Magic", "Alien Technology", "freak storm", "Gods Will", whatever you like.

Back In The Day, in the Star Fleet Battle magazine "Captians Log", they used to have stories about encounters and what not along with a scenario. It was Grade C science fiction, but, you know, it is what it is.

Later, they mandated that the stories had to match the rules and game play. What a terrible mistake. Talk about leaky abstractions. Worst. Stories. Ever.

What before were roaring dogfights of star cruisers with commanders matching wits against alien invaders, became forced narrative hammered on top of game mechanics. Crap like "Advance to warp 2.3! Turn 60 deg port! Close to 150,000 kms! Fire disrupters. 50% missed sir, enemy shield reduced 17%! 17%? He must have had some reinforcement!" Whee. Absolutely terrible.

I understand the players need to work within a rule set to participate, but that doesn't mean that rule set is applied to get them in to that situation, or necessarily get them out once they arrive at their destination.

"During a routine jump in your Free Trader, currently gorged with 20 tons of plastic Industry Convention give aways such as key chains, pens, and logo'd Regina Hula Dancers to glue to the dash of Air Raft, you find yourself pulled out of jump and heading towards a strange planet." "Unpossible, Rule 27a on page 47 of The Player Know It All Book for Pedantics says..."

Yea. No, sorry. Story wins.

 

[aramis]

I didn't say anything about a default setting nor history. I said "underlying reality". Expressed in simplified form.

I find it difficult to elucidate. It's like arguing with someone who claims that 2+2 isn't 4. After repeating "Yes, 2+2 IS 4", there's really no way to argue further. Nor should there be any need to do so.

What I'm seeing is someone saying A+B=4, and claiming both are integers over 2.

I very much doubt that anyone actually believed that the rules defined the setting. For example that there were only one type of pistol manufactured from one end of the universe to the other, despite the fact that the rules only featured one. Most people would probably accept the notion that there were a great number of different makes and brands, some of the subtly different, other quite a bit different, but the rules simplified that hugely unmanageable number of pistols to one set of characteristics.

Then you're in an ivory tower... many of us used the idea that sure, lots of brands, but none of them are different enough to matter.

It's like the 20 different versions of the M9 specification... all of them are autopistols based upon the Browning 9mm pistol model M9.

What isn't defined doesn't not exist.

And to be blunt, the Draft does not exist in the Canon Fluff until MT, and being drafted into "other" which is strongly a crime-oriented "service" - it's a clade, not a class, and calling it a simplification for play reinforces a setting trope absent in GT - people who can't find work wind up involved in Crime. Many in the real world, if not most, wind up on the public dole, but in Traveller, they turn to crime, and quite obviously organized crime.

The Draft also isn't present in GT - it's a game artifact that has defined the setting for many. It's also a cultural expectation for those children of the 50's 60's and 70's US that there is a Draft.

 

[whartung]

Yes there is an underlying reality. Go on, quote a rule. Any rule not involving imaginary physics (in which I include magic). They all reflect a more complex underlying reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulović

Pull that in a game and you'll get "BS! Unpossible."

 

[rancke]

Then you're in an ivory tower... many of us used the idea that sure, lots of brands, but none of them are different enough to matter.

Which is exactly my point! The rule reflects a more complex reality that has been simplified by the rule to make it playable. They aren't different enough to matter at the level of complexity the rules express. That doesn't mean they aren't different. If the rules really reflected the underlying reality faithfully, it would require long lists of different pistols, all of them with the same game stats.

It's like the 20 different versions of the M9 specification... all of them are autopistols based upon the Browning 9mm pistol model M9.

What isn't defined doesn't not exist.

You're contradicting yourself here. Those 20 different versions of the M9 specification do exist, but the rule simplifies that to a single version. In other words, the rule simplifies a more complex reality for the sake of gamability (And quite right too).

And to be blunt, the Draft does not exist in the Canon Fluff until MT, and being drafted into "other" which is strongly a crime-oriented "service" - it's a clade, not a class, and calling it a simplification for play reinforces a setting trope absent in GT - people who can't find work wind up involved in Crime. Many in the real world, if not most, wind up on the public dole, but in Traveller, they turn to crime, and quite obviously organized crime.

The Draft also isn't present in GT - it's a game artifact that has defined the setting for many. It's also a cultural expectation for those children of the 50's 60's and 70's US that there is a Draft.

Now you're just messing with my head. I didn't mention the Draft in this thread, but when we've discussed it previously, I've been arguing the point you just made here.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

Hogwash.

There is absolutely room for rule bending or complete contrivances for the sake of story telling.

Sure,if the players are brain dead. Otherwise, they will want to know how that Scout Ship could tow a GG out of orbit. But, if you like running Trav like an FRPG, go for it.

 

[aramis]

Which is exactly my point! The rule reflects a more complex reality that has been simplified by the rule to make it playable. They aren't different enough to matter at the level of complexity the rules express. That doesn't mean they aren't different. If the rules really reflected the underlying reality faithfully, it would require long lists of different pistols, all of them with the same game stats.



You're contradicting yourself here. Those 20 different versions of the M9 specification do exist, but the rule simplifies that to a single version. In other words, the rule simplifies a more complex reality for the sake of gamability (And quite right too).

But they all fire to the same specification, and use interchangeable parts. And the iraqui version is part-compatible with the US version... except for firing pins - and isn't actually built to the M9 standard, but still fires just like one.

There's no "underlying reality" - there's class definition. Any 9mm automatic pistol is a Traveller "Autopistol 9mm" from the venerable 9mm Mauser to the M9 beretta.

The definition by mechanics, in practice, leads the GM to create a reality. And it often doesn't reflect whatever the Designer had in mind when the designer HAS a world in mind.

When I started playing traveller, there was no "OTU" to be seen. The tropes, including marines with Cutlasses, week in jump, drafted into Crime, were all present in most GM's games because they were part of the rules that defined "a generic Traveller universe." Only when I started buying the Supplements and Adventures did I see a setting. ANd still, I defer to the rules over the fluff whenever determining what a character can or cannot do. If the results are unsatisfying long term, I'm willing to change the rules, but the RULES still define the setting more.

 

[rancke]

But they all fire to the same specification, and use interchangeable parts. And the iraqui version is part-compatible with the US version... except for firing pins - and isn't actually built to the M9 standard, but still fires just like one.

That may be true for pistols built to a specific standard, but are you seriously trying to tell me that all pistols using 9mm bullets have interchangable parts? Or use the same 9mm bullets for that matter?

There's no "underlying reality" - there's class definition. Any 9mm automatic pistol is a Traveller "Autopistol 9mm" from the venerable 9mm Mauser to the M9 beretta.

And we're back to the Traveller rule that says that there is only one kind of 9mm pistol being a simplification of reality.

The definition by mechanics, in practice, leads the GM to create a reality. And it often doesn't reflect whatever the Designer had in mind when the designer HAS a world in mind.

Nonsense. Far more often he decides that the bad guys have "one handgun each, plus two rifles and a shotgun between them", whereupon he checks the rules to see what the stats for handguns and rifles and shotguns are. The rules are there to support the adventures the referee dreams up, not to inspire his adventures (That can happen, sure, but it's not how it usually happens).

When I started playing traveller, there was no "OTU" to be seen.

You're not paying attention to what I write. In the post above I specifically stated that the OTU is not the basic reality underlying the CT rules. It's just one of many realities that conform to the basic reality underlying the CT rules.


Hans

 

[Fritz_Brown]

OK, I'm gonna send you *both* to your rooms! Sheesh! You're both right, actually, insofar as you are talking past each other (in this particular case).

Hans is saying the rules define a certain reality - and they do. Pistols go bang and hurt people; there's this thing called "jump"; communications aren't faster than travel, etc. Wil is saying that there is no such thing as an "original universe" in any of these games - and there wasn't. There were no Imperiums or Barrier Mountains or whatnot.

Now that we've established that, touch gloves and come out swinging at the bell.

 

[DaveChase]

I am just waiting for the 'Bold Beat Stick of Death'

LOL

Dave Chase

 

[Enoki]

Rules for games such as Traveller, or wargames, or anything else do not have to reflect "reality" 100%. They don't even have to reflect history or scientific reality.

Games are first and foremost for the enjoyment of those who play them. If reality is what you want then a simulation is what you should seek. For simulations of things historical the best measure is can they reproduce it. That is, can you get the historical outcome doing things the way they were done originally and recorded in history? Unfortunately, few simulations really achieve this.

Interestingly.... or maybe not to the audience here... I spent, off and on, 20+ years developing a tactical WW 2 miniatures wargame that actually does simulate reality. My starting point was Striker oddly enough. Some of the GDW staff bought copies of the game in LA at conventions on a couple of occasions too. What made it stand out at conventions was it was run there in 1/35th scale!
Yes, I really do, and still have literally battalions worth of 1/35th WW 2 miniatures....

But, I digress. Traveller is first and foremost for entertainment I would think. So long as the rules are coherent and consistant what difference does it make if they are completely realistic? I for one do like that they try to remain within scientific possiblity and the 18th century feel of communications along with the nobilty and such are a nice touch.
I'd think of the space portion sort of like the Patrick O'Brien series of Master and Commander. That is, a cross between science fiction and pre-20th century warfare.

I have lots of old rules sets, some people have never heard of particularly for miniatures. But that doesn't ever change the premise: If you are not having fun doing the game why the hell are you playing it?

 

[mike wightman]

The Traveller rules have defined the setting - the designers did it deliberately. Every time they wrote a new rule book they altered the setting to include it and to hell with compatibility with what had been written before.

There was no intention to have an underlying reality because that's not what they wanted - they wanted a sandbox setting to illustrate how the rules could be applied.

 

[rancke]

Hans is saying the rules define a certain reality - and they do. Pistols go bang and hurt people...

Not quite.

Wil says that the rules define a certain reality: pistols weighs 1000 grams loaded and use 9mm caliber bullets that are interchangable for all pistols in the universe.

I say that the rules describe a certain reality, in a simplified way for the sake of gamability. We usualy pretend that all pistols weigh 1000g loaded and use the same ammunition, because that's the easiest and it doesn't usually matter; however, this is a simplification of reality and if the referee says the bullets the bad guys use in their pistols are not interchangable with those of the PCs, this is OK, because the rules don't actually define all pistol ammunition as interchangable; they just describe them as interchangable, but that's merely a simplification of the underlying reality.

EDIT: Oops. I forgot one very important thing. The referee has to justify the bad guys' ammunition being incompatible by having their weapons be from a source where it makes sense that they aren't compatible with Imperial guns. He can't say that the guns from that Imperial Army shipment the bad guys stole are incompatible with the guns the PCs use. It has to be, for example, locally manufactured guns from a factory that didn't export offworld, or something like that.


Hans

 

[shadowcat20]

Ok, I am going to regret this......


The whole bullet argument is what is getting me. Round, and barrel length are the major factors in the performance of a weapon. Bullets are the deciding factor not the size, action, or interchangability (SP?) of the gun parts. If the OTU has their own type of SAAMI specs for manufacturing bullets then all weapons of that type will perform basicly the same. When you start playing with the cartridges (.380 and 9mm are only different by 1 or 2 mm case length but serious performance differences) say straight necked vs bottlenecked or length, or even powder charge weight difference it affects the performance more than gun construction would. It may also be different powder types in the same bullet or type of primer could affect performance.

So changing the rounds from world to world may add or subtract a few points of damage from weapon. Gun works the same but ammo makes the difference. Case in point is look at the different ranges, damage, ect from the same weapon with different rounds, HE,HEAP, Tranq so on.

As for settings, D and D was before Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Forgotten relms and so on. Traveller gave you rules for generating planets, subsectors, and sectors in the basic set before Supplements were produced. You were expected to make your own Imperium. Later it was filled out in publications or farmed out to judges guild, game lords, FASA ect.

The diference between gaming today and 35 years ago is DM's today expect nuts and bolt settings. Back then before the flood of aftermarket companies we made it up ourselves.

OK, Incoming (Crawls back in his hole)

 

[rancke]

The whole bullet argument is what is getting me.

It's just an example, and possibly not the best.

Round, and barrel length are the major factors in the performance of a weapon. Bullets are the deciding factor not the size, action, or interchangability (SP?) of the gun parts. If the OTU has their own type of SAAMI specs for manufacturing bullets then all weapons of that type will perform basicly the same.

The entire OTU won't have a single set of specs for pistols, because in Charted Space alone there are half a score of major, several dozen medium, and hundreds of minor political subdivisions, some of them bitterly hostile to others.

When you start playing with the cartridges (.380 and 9mm are only different by 1 or 2 mm case length but serious performance differences) say straight necked vs bottlenecked or length, or even powder charge weight difference it affects the performance more than gun construction would. It may also be different powder types in the same bullet or type of primer could affect performance.

So changing the rounds from world to world may add or subtract a few points of damage from weapon. Gun works the same but ammo makes the difference. Case in point is look at the different ranges, damage, ect from the same weapon with different rounds, HE,HEAP, Tranq so on.

And in most cases going into such detail would be more trouble than it was worth. So the rules don't go into such details. If the rules define the setting, that would mean that there were no such details, because the rules didn't mention any. If the rules describe a simplified version of the setting, there are such details, even though the rules don't mention them.


Hans