I guess I'm still pretty confused.

Claim 1: If a game doesn't have explicit dedicated subtables for drowning and falling, that's a flaw in the game.

You don't seem to hold this.

Claim 2: If a game doesn't have procedures for converting (arbitrary?) real-world values into game-mechanical ones, that's a flaw in the game.

You do seem to hold this. (With the Window, I've never really played that thing, I was just imagining a case where a GM made up some tables correlating die size to falling distance or whatever.)

The reason I asked about social mechanics is because I was wondering which real-world values were important. A really attractive woman or anyone with a lot of money can get me to do things I regret, against my better judgment, for instance. If I were playing myself in a game I would not do those things because my fantasy would be that I have more integrity than I actually do (probably, nobody bothers to try to tempt me because I don't have anything other people want), and I would bitterly resent a GM who made me roll to do that. But realistically lots of people betray themselves for love or money against their inner values every day.

If you want to simulate all the way down there's no role-playing left. Vincent Baker has articulated this concept in terms of a 'fruitful void' and thinks that you shouldn't make rules for the most important thing in a game. This is why there are no rules for passing judgment in dogs in the vineyard.

Following this up with the widespread prejudice against social mechanics, I'd say the reason this is important is because for a lot of people in traditional play, the game is about being your character, and if you make rules for how you can be your character (as opposed to how you interact with stuff) you're inserting a wedge into one of the most basic and interesting features of play. (That being, character immersion.)

So you can choose to not simulate something because it's really important. You can also choose to not simulate something because it's not very important. (Old D&D often did it anyway, of course.) Acne occurrence subtable? Bowel movement occurrence table? Hassle depositing paycheck table? Fill gas tank check? (The last might be important in a game about racing I guess.)

Given that, I guess I don't see the big deal if games like Wushu or My Life with Master decide that the interaction between characters and their physical environment isn't important enough to what's going on in the game to warrant any special die roll procedures or subtables. I don't see why this makes them inferior games. Ditto a game like Dogs in the Vineyard where climbing up a cliff or falling off it only matters if you're chasing someone up it or getting thrown off it by someone (i.e. where the cliff is a prop in the conflict with another human being). I don't see why this ought to be regarded as a flaw.

Quote from: CalithenaI guess I'm still pretty confused.

Claim 1: If a game doesn't have explicit dedicated subtables for drowning and falling, that's a flaw in the game.

You don't seem to hold this.

Well, right -- I'm pretty sure (tell me where I'm wrong) that I never said anything about sub-tables... I did say that I wanted rules at the right abstraction level for the game: so for a game like RISUS, I wouldn't require tables of any kind (there's pretty much 2 tables in the game. One is super hero lift).

For the record:

• I'm not asking for trigonometry problem-complexity in all games
• I'm not demanding that all rules be used wherever they might be appropriate

Maybe someone else is saying that, but as far as I can tell, no one's saying it here. And certainly, it's not me.

Just trying to be clear...

Quote from: CalithenaClaim 2: If a game doesn't have procedures for converting (arbitrary?) real-world values into game-mechanical ones, that's a flaw in the game.

You do seem to hold this. (With the Window, I've never really played that thing, I was just imagining a case where a GM made up some tables correlating die size to falling distance or whatever.)

That you're correct about -- that is my opinion.

And if the Window had a table like that I'd consider it a better game for it.

Quote from: CalithenaThe reason I asked about social mechanics is because I was wondering which real-world values were important. A really attractive woman or anyone with a lot of money can get me to do things I regret, against my better judgment, for instance. If I were playing myself in a game I would not do those things because my fantasy would be that I have more integrity than I actually do (probably, nobody bothers to try to tempt me because I don't have anything other people want), and I would bitterly resent a GM who made me roll to do that. But realistically lots of people betray themselves for love or money against their inner values every day.

GURPS and Hero both support this (with disadvantages, primarily).

I don't particularly like those rules -- but since they're optional (as in, a player can opt out of taking them) I'm okay with the game philosophy behind them.

I'm guessing that when you're min-maxing your latest GURPS characters (I kid! I kid!) you wouldn't voluntarily invoke game mechanics that would invite your GM to roll to make behave that way?

Me either.

By the way: I *would* appreciate real-world values for things like persuasiveness and beauty. If a game has Attractiveness (GURPS) or Comeliness (Hero), I'd like to know what score correlates to News Anchor / Movie Star / Super Model...

The *principle* is that games should provide a framework and examples to help me (and the players) to understand game-to-real-world mappings.

That's very different from asking the game to simulate any specific interaction, yeah?

Quote from: CalithenaIf you want to simulate all the way down there's no role-playing left. Vincent Baker has articulated this concept in terms of a 'fruitful void' and thinks that you shouldn't make rules for the most important thing in a game. This is why there are no rules for passing judgment in dogs in the vineyard.

Following this up with the widespread prejudice against social mechanics, I'd say the reason this is important is because for a lot of people in traditional play, the game is about being your character, and if you make rules for how you can be your character (as opposed to how you interact with stuff) you're inserting a wedge into one of the most basic and interesting features of play. (That being, character immersion.)

I think, as a general principle, there should be rules for important -- even most-important -- things in the game. Combat -- life and death -- is very important in a lot of games and should have rule support.

There are game areas that rules should stay away from, and I think social interaction is one of them -- but that's not because of relative importance.

The concern about "simulating everything until there's no roleplaying left" strikes me as a non-issue -- even in theory.

Quote from: CalithenaSo you can choose to not simulate something because it's really important. You can also choose to not simulate something because it's not very important. (Old D&D often did it anyway, of course.) Acne occurrence subtable? Bowel movement occurrence table? Hassle depositing paycheck table? Fill gas tank check? (The last might be important in a game about racing I guess.)

Given that, I guess I don't see the big deal if games like Wushu or My Life with Master decide that the interaction between characters and their physical environment isn't important enough to what's going on in the game to warrant any special die roll procedures or subtables. I don't see why this makes them inferior games. Ditto a game like Dogs in the Vineyard where climbing up a cliff or falling off it only matters if you're chasing someone up it or getting thrown off it by someone (i.e. where the cliff is a prop in the conflict with another human being). I don't see why this ought to be regarded as a flaw.

Asking for drowning and falling rules isn't about a desire to simulate things.

It's certainly *not* about a desire to simulate everything.

It's also not a desire to have a comprehensive set of rules that covers every situation including falling lanterns.

Games that only care about conflict with other characters and don't provide rules for the environmental are, IMO, missing something important.

I'd consider them incomplete; I think games based on the principle you described above (no-rules-for-the-most-important-things) are philosophically flawed.

For games that do provide rules for the environment but don't provide any guidance for mapping from the real world to game terms (e.g. The Window) are flawed as well; they're missing a piece I think is important and valuable.

BTW: Games that do provide these things -- even the games I really like -- have flaws; virtually all games have flaws. I'm not saying those games suck (even DiTV, which I have little interest in).

That help?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: CalithenaIf you want to simulate all the way down there's no role-playing left. Vincent Baker has articulated this concept in terms of a 'fruitful void' and thinks that you shouldn't make rules for the most important thing in a game. This is why there are no rules for passing judgment in dogs in the vineyard.

Then why the heck was blakkie going ballistic the other day on this very issue? This is the very same thing I said... :O

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThen why the heck was blakkie going ballistic the other day on this very issue? This is the very same thing I said... :O

-clash

I was taken aback by that too, isn't that exactly what those of us saying you can't judge what a game's about by what it has rules for have been saying for years?

-E, I guess I get where you're coming from now, but I'm still unconvinced, and likely to stay that way. Still I do appreciate the time you put into clarifying your position.

QuoteThere are game areas that rules should stay away from, and I think social interaction is one of them -- but that's not because of relative importance.

I would be very surprised if you could articulate these areas in terms of something that was not important to people playing the game.

Quoteisn't that exactly what those of us saying you can't judge what a game's about by what it has rules for have been saying for years?

Yes. (Although, it connects up with some interesting things differently than I had heard prior to my encounters with the Big Model.)

For the love of Sanity, move this to frickin' THEORY!!!

Quote from: Calithena-E, I guess I get where you're coming from now, but I'm still unconvinced, and likely to stay that way. Still I do appreciate the time you put into clarifying your position.

Thanks. This has been a useful thread for me also, in terms of clarifying my own position and seeing other people's.

Quote from: CalithenaI would be very surprised if you could articulate these areas in terms of something that was not important to people playing the game.

I would, of course, articulate them in terms of things that are important.

But what I understood Baker's theory to be is that there's a spectrum of importance from not-important to most-important and that each game element where there might possibly be rules would fall somewhere on that spectrum...

And that the game element at the most-important end of the spectrum should have no rules associated with it.

Is that correct? If that's not what he said, then I don't understand.

If my understanding is correct then:

1) I don't think the importance of game elements is fixed at game-design time. I think it's set during play, and varies, possibly radically during the game.

I think theory's misunderstanding of this (and therefore, the misunderstanding of the role of the designer) is one of the fundamental problems with theory.

2) While there might be cases where the element at the most-important end of the spectrum would be something for which there should be no rules, I don't think that would always be the case. It might not even be the case most of the time.

Of course, for each instance of the spectrum and the distribution of elements along it, the exact position of the element and the "should there be rules for this" question would be based on player (GM-inclusive) priorities.

Cheers,
-E.