Quote from: RandallS;581926For me, it's just the opposite, the system adjusts to the setting -- but then I am a real believer in Rule 0 and in my Rule 0a (Setting needs trump the RAW every time.)

I agree entirely.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581915The right answer to "how did something like this evolve???", if we're being immersive, is to respond "how the hell do you know what evolution is?"

You're making my point for me, although you don't realize it.

The game is not being played by paleolithic hominids; it's being played by mechanistic post-renaissance modern humans, a.k.a my friends on the other side of the table.

GMs and sourcebooks are a lousy interface to a fictional culture, and the players' ability to extrapolate from what little information they get from those is determined by how well they can apply what knowledge they already have abut human culture, history, and psychology.

The more bizarre, arbitrary and nonsensical elements are added to a setting, the more you're going to get assumption clash and the game bogging down as the players question the GM constantly on what is or is not true about the setting because they have no basis for judgment.

Quote from: daniel_ream;581944You're making my point for me, although you don't realize it.

The game is not being played by paleolithic hominids; it's being played by mechanistic post-renaissance modern humans, a.k.a my friends on the other side of the table.

But if you are playing paleolithic humans, then you need to understand how the world works in the eyes of a paleolithic human, not in the eyes of a 21st century human. Having a 21st century scientific explanation of how totem spirits work is rather pointless, since in the real world, they obviously don't. Being able to see e world through the eyes of the paleolithic human, in this case, is the challenge and goal of immersion here, so the only understanding you need is that the Paleolithic human has, so you can internalize and emulate it.

Demanding that you understand how evolutionary forces played out in Middle Earth is rather missing the point.

Don't forget most humans today still believe in supernatural beings or forces are at work in the world! Nealy half of Americans believe the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, that the first human was crafted by a supernatural being out of dust, and his mate fashioned out of his rib.

QuoteGMs and sourcebooks are a lousy interface to a fictional culture

Sourcebooks, true. GMs? No. Not if the GM is doing their job. BAD GMs are a poor interface to a fictional culture.

Quoteand the players' ability to extrapolate from what little information they get from those is determined by how well they can apply what knowledge they already have abut human culture, history, and psychology.

And yet those limitations don't lessen my ability to imagine what it would be like to live on Barsoom. Because we can also apply knowledge we already have about fictional worlds.

If someone announces they're running a game on Barsoom, I have a frame of reference for that which is fantastic and not at all based on the real world or real science, but would allow me to achieve emulation and versilimitude nonetheless.

So reality isn't what's needed, it's just a common frame of reference which can come from fictional sources just as it can from non-fictional ones.

QuoteThe more bizarre, arbitrary and nonsensical elements are added to a setting, the more you're going to get assumption clash and the game bogging down as the players question the GM constantly on what is or is not true about the setting because they have no basis for judgment.

The players do not need to know everything about the setting, only what their characters would know. It's not hard to establish those basic assumptions, particularly if source material is available that is similar. Historical accuracy and real world science can, potentially be source material in a certain kind of game, but do not need to be.

The premise that if a player doesn't have a perfect working knowledge of every aspect of biology, ecology, sociology, and particle physics of the game world, then it won't seem real leaves me to wonder how those people function in the real world where a large portion of the time a great number of things that happen will appear to a casual, normal, ordinary real world observer as bizarre, arbitrary, and nonsensical. So much so, as mentioned, a majority of humans STILL believe in supernatural forces at work in the world even today.

As for expectations, it's not difficult to level-set expectations with a simple discussion before play begins, along with a review of source material being emulated. It's only common sense that you'd do that. Avoiding expectation clash doesn't require that everything in a game world make real world sense, only that it be internally consistent and everyone shares the same frame of reference, which need not be reality-based.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581956Sourcebooks, true. GMs? No. Not if the GM is doing their job. BAD GMs are a poor interface to a fictional culture.

Bullshit.  Even the most contrived Star-Trek style aliens with forehead ridges monolithic culture requires more to understand it than a good DM.  A DM may be able to communicate a few basic tenants easily in play, but not a richly detailed culture including language, art, fashion, cuisine, taboos, customs, beliefs, familial relations, etc.

For an outline of some aspects of 'culture', you can look at this lecture outline:
http://frank.mtsu.edu/~jbwallae/1010/lectur04.htm

Most DMs try to simplify the process.  They might say something like 'the Rohirim are like Vikings, but they ride horses instead of sail around in Long Boats'.  Even that simplistic explanation doesn't really do justice to the culture...  No, a good DM is not going to communicate the complexities of a foreign culture in anything like a comprehensive or 'effective' fashion in a normal game.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;581973Bullshit.  Even the most contrived Star-Trek style aliens with forehead ridges monolithic culture requires more to understand it than a good DM.  A DM may be able to communicate a few basic tenants easily in play, but not a richly detailed culture including language, art, fashion, cuisine, taboos, customs, beliefs, familial relations, etc.

Why can't they? Are they illiterate and mute?

QuoteMost DMs try to simplify the process.  They might say something like 'the Rohirim are like Vikings, but they ride horses instead of sail around in Long Boats'.  

That doesn't sound like a very good GM to me, if that's the totality offered for a sandbox game. For a one off that may be sufficient.

A good GM would definitely provide more depth and/or reference source material (no need to reinvent the wheel). A good player will pay attention to it.

Emulation requires that everyone involved do their homework.

QuoteEven that simplistic explanation doesn't really do justice to the culture...  No, a good DM is not going to communicate the complexities of a foreign culture in anything like a comprehensive or 'effective' fashion in a normal game.

Can you explain what precisely you mean by "do justice to a culture" in the context of having enough of a shared frame of reference for emulation and versilimitude for any given group? Because I think you're starting to have a different conversation than I am

The point  being discussed here wasnt the quality of a fictional culture created by a GM, but was that the game world doesn't have to function according to real world scientific principles. It can function according to magical or mythic principles, provided everyone has a shared frame of reference by which to understand the internal consistency of the setting and thus have level-set expectations.

Agree?

Because a culture is such a complex thing, that nothing short of direct experience can prepare you for all the nuances.  Do you know the Japanese are embarrassed if you ask them to be quiet?  If you were setting a game in Feudal Japan, where would that be on the list of 'setting details'?  That's the kind of thing that someone born in the culture would automatically know, but unless someone is 'told', they won't.  

When you say a player only needs to know what a 'paleolithic human' would know in order to play him, you're talking about a vast amount of knowledge that the player can't access without confirmation from the GM.  Does your player know the best place to find flint for making stone tools?  Do you know some good hunting spots?  What plants do you know are edible?  How abundant are they - what extra steps do you need to take to secure adequate nutrition each day?  

There's a huge amount of information that goes into operating in any society.  Now, a good DM can hit the highlights when they come up, but hitting all the details well in advance unless they have a comprehensive real-world example to use is such a monumental task as to be virtually impossible and not worth devoting too much game-time to - since most of the details of a culture aren't THAT important to enjoying the game in even the most detailed sandbox.

I think for the purposes of play, you just need to know some basic stuff to get into the culture. If you travel or spend any amount of time with people from different cultures that helps you think of the finer details. Big difference between realism and believability. I dont expect anyone at the table to have advanced degrees at anthropology. Nor do i expect to encounter that level of detail (though i think it is great if the gm does get into the deep cultural details of a setting provided he has the time and isnt a task master about it at the table).

Quote from: daniel_ream;581944GMs and sourcebooks are a lousy interface to a fictional culture, and the players' ability to extrapolate from what little information they get from those is determined by how well they can apply what knowledge they already have abut human culture, history, and psychology.

The more bizarre, arbitrary and nonsensical elements are added to a setting, the more you're going to get assumption clash and the game bogging down as the players question the GM constantly on what is or is not true about the setting because they have no basis for judgment.

+1

And I think game designs need to address this issue head on to be worth anything. As metagamey as some rules may be, they take the place of the missing information and intuitions a 'real' citizen of that fictional world would have.

It's like reading two different topics... There's a title and its stated argument, and then there's this other discussion on setting. At least someone could've made a separate topic for their separate discussion by now.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;582015+1

And I think game designs need to address this issue head on to be worth anything. As metagamey as some rules may be, they take the place of the missing information and intuitions a 'real' citizen of that fictional world would have.

Vreeg's First rule, People.
Match the sytem with the setting and game you want to play...becasue eventually, the gameand setting WILL match the system.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;582000Because a culture is such a complex thing, that nothing short of direct experience can prepare you for all the nuances.  Do you know the Japanese are embarrassed if you ask them to be quiet?  If you were setting a game in Feudal Japan, where would that be on the list of 'setting details'?  That's the kind of thing that someone born in the culture would automatically know, but unless someone is 'told', they won't.  

When you say a player only needs to know what a 'paleolithic human' would know in order to play him, you're talking about a vast amount of knowledge that the player can't access without confirmation from the GM.  Does your player know the best place to find flint for making stone tools?  Do you know some good hunting spots?  What plants do you know are edible?  How abundant are they - what extra steps do you need to take to secure adequate nutrition each day?  

There's a huge amount of information that goes into operating in any society.  Now, a good DM can hit the highlights when they come up, but hitting all the details well in advance unless they have a comprehensive real-world example to use is such a monumental task as to be virtually impossible and not worth devoting too much game-time to - since most of the details of a culture aren't THAT important to enjoying the game in even the most detailed sandbox.

This all day long. With Wolf and Dead banging on I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said. How things operate within a different society is really hard but you don't even have to go that far. It is extremely hard to even understand another person. Every degree of difference between you and another person pushes you farther and farther away from being able to understand them. Differences in race, gender, age, era, religions, culture, health, experiences, every single difference between us makes it harder for any one of us to be able to fathom what someone else does/think. This gets worse if we don't even know about them to begin with.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581481That means that, as a GM for a sandbox, you either need to enjoy worldbuilding as an activity unto itself so your time isn't "wasted" or you need to use an established and well-fleshed out published world and be good at filling in the gaps more or less on the fly.

Managing a sandbox campaign that much different then other types of roleplaying campaigns because player just don't go in random directions, they pursue specific goals which allows you to stay a step ahead.

Also there is a larger world that has its own life both at the large and small end of things. Those events will impact what the players are trying to achieve. As well as being altered by the players do.

Finally running a sandbox on the fly isn't that tough of a chore. No harder than sitting down and keying up two levels of the Tomb of Al'kecor. It does require a different sort of preparation. The referee needs to develop a good "Bag of Stuff". Tables, notes, and memorized materials that can be used in a variety of combinations to create what the players are seeing and interacting at that moment.  It only seems harder because there isn't nearly forty years of published examples behind it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;581490One of the big gorillas in the room that no one seems to mention is that 1e's mechanics are more conducive in sandbox than later edition mechanics.

ANY RPG can be used for sandbox play by virtue of the fact they all focus on individual characters in a setting whose actions are adjudicated by a referee.

Where complexity and design comes into play is for the novice referee. The more detailed games require more to learn it would be hard to juggle learning both the sandbox style, create locales and detailed character and combat rules.

Older edition D&D has a virtue in that the dungeon is a very easy format to master for novices. Make a maze with room, number key each room, and write down what in each of them. The character starts at the entrance.

Quote from: jhkim;581508OK, I'd agree with that.  Do you think anyone is arguing that we should accept all metagaming?  I haven't seen that claim so far, but maybe I missed something.  

It seem to me there is a lot of confusion over what metagaming is in this thread. For me metagaming is a problem that occurs during actual play. Using out-of-game considerations in the playing of a character or adjudicating actions.

Metagaming doesn't applies once the session ends as nobody is playing the campaign. I don't know why Charles decided to play a fighter, maybe it was because he really wanted to hack stuff. Or maybe it because it played a dozen different types of spellcaster and he is tired of it. Or because a novice want to play a magic-user and Charles figure he will make a fighter to be his "bodyguard". Who knows. But if the player have their characters react to the what happening in the campaign as if they are really there, then it is all good. And the same is true of the referee.

Quote from: daniel_ream;581676You can say anything at all, including that humans have red skin and lay eggs.  

They do on Barsoom, I heard that John Carter fellow had himself a real hotties, a princess even.

Quote from: daniel_ream;581676The elephant in the room is that if you're going to resort to A Wizard Did It for everything, then any claim to "emulation" or "verisimilitude" is just going to go out the window.  You can say anything at all, including that humans have red skin and lay eggs.  But at that point, you've unmoored yourself and your players from any ability to immerse in the setting, because anything could be true for any or no reason, and there's no way to make sensible in-world decisions about anything.

You are not the first person to argue this nor the last. What you are missing is that there is realism and then there is "realism" like that found in comic-book superheroes, or in horror film i.e. genre realism.

"emulation" or verisimilitude" works just find with genre realism as long as that what everybody expects. In fact bring the rules of the genre realism can lead to a campaign that sucks as bad as the hard core realistic campaign that allow for impossible results to occur.

And it is a bit of an art because you can't always just extrapolate from the premises there are conventions that need to be followed to successfully emulate a genre. And just to make it merrier the referee is also translating something from one medium to another so that gets fun. For example many action films revolve around the exploit of a single individual while RPG nearly always involve a group of people.

Quote from: daniel_ream;581676Having studied late antiquity and medieval economics and technology a fair bit, one thing that always makes me laugh is when old-school modules are held up to me as shining examples of immersive sandbox play, and the first thing I note upon reading them is "what do these people eat?"

Again immersive sandbox play has nothing to do with realism. I could run a immersive sandbox with Champions as easily I could to with Harnmaster. Regardless of what the campaign focuses on, a key element of success is learning how to translate realism or genre convention into something that is playable and fun for RPGs.

And why people are talking about sandbox campaign and why they are interested in them is the fact so much that has been written and published is fairly linear. That players and referees like choice. It why alternatives to D&D exist and it is why now people are talking about alternatives to how adventures have been presented for the last thirty eight years.