Opinions on accuracy and realism

[Glendower]

What was different is the world was no longer defined by a mix of my sense of realism/causation and the GM's sense, but rather just the GM's sense. Before with the shared input into the setting, we were able to compromise in a way that made everyone satisfied. (Perhaps even better than any one of us could have provided) Now the game setting strikes me as quite a bit silly, although my guess is that the GM thinks its still fine.

I'm in complete agreement here.

I remember one time a group of us was at a French Canadian Restaurant, and their menus were in French.  One of us, a local Quebec resident, ordered for us without asking for what we wanted, he simply said "don't worry, you'll like it". 

One person was lactose intolerant, and the giant plate of Poutine (fries with cheese curds and beefy gravy) went as poorly as the Cretons on toast went for the vegetarian (Creton is a meat spread).  Neither dish was a good idea for me, the diabetic.  Had he asked us what we wanted, or at least allow us to tell him what we absolutely didn't want, it wouldn't have been such a mess.

That kind of basic negotiation is normal in social activities like going out for dinner or seeing a movie.  The "I like this, I don't like that" kind of conversation is so important to keep an activity fun for all involved.  It is the same for an activity as entirely social as Role playing. 

[contracycle]

Of course, the GM or another player can deny additions to the imaginative space.  But denying these additions means blocking a player from adding his creative touch to the world.  And that results directly in the player being less interested, less attached to the game in progress. They don't get what they want, and yeah, they leave.  I do not think that is the best solution.

Thats not the whole story though.  I contend that for some people, those for whom the Fog of War issue is a positive, the ability to refuse additions to the SIS is more important than the power to add.  The denial maintains continuity and the coherency of the SIS's logic.

Think about the game you played in.  The GM denied additions to the imaginative space.  One player found that to be unfair, and there was an argument.  This was a power struggle for the player to add in his creative touch, and it sucked because had the GM said "You know the guns of this period?  All right!  Tell us more!" and it would have been a rich addition to the game.  It would have added realism for the player who liked the guns, and enrich the experience for everyone involved.

Or, it could have had a totally sucky effect, in which the GM's carefull balanced scenario is now ruined, play comes to a grinding halt, and NOBODY has any fun whatsoever, not even the player who proposed the change.

That, IMO, is the worst possible outcome; much worse than one player having their personal desires frustrated, and having less fun than they might otherwise.

[David C]

I think what you're really asking is, "Realism has trade offs, one of them being fun-factor. What is a good level of realism to strive for and remain being fun?"

Realism is a continuity, on one end is fun and the other is accuracy. Lets define fun as intuitive, simple, and creation of an exciting event. Accuracy is "well this is how it really works."

For example, you could have accurate rules stating that a gun shoots 3,000 feet. However, it's a minis game, and 3,000 feet is 50' on most battle mats. Accuracy would dictate the gun has a 3,000 foot range, Fun would dictate the gun has a 90' range (18" on the battle mat - it's a sniper.) First of all, you need to ask yourself, what's suitable for my game? If your game is a WWII simulator, the guns better be accurate. If your game is WWII with mutants, magic, and mad science, the guns can be anything you like. However, you have to establish the level of suspension of disbelief and stay consistent. Made up guns would work better for this, since it keeps the consistency of the suspension of disbelief. Nobody can argue that a Potbelly Shotgun has a range of 50 yards, because I just made that up (I think.)

Secondly, you have to ask yourself "Is this fun?" When Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion came out (CRPG) a lot of people made realism mods for it. I was reading some reviews, and the one things I kept seeing was "I thought it'd be really cool if I needed to eat, sleep, etc. in the game, but it's actually just a hassle and is boring." Too often, people desire realism without realizing that they don't actually want it. There is a sci-fi RPG I played, it has a neat concept, but the rules are not fun. It has hit locations, rules for grenade fragments, armor thresholds for different parts of your body, how much money you make depending on your skills, how long a skill takes to learn, how your skills are effected if you get gimped by a bullet, etc.

Your game is about the church, magic, and medieval Europe. It sounds fun, (although, it's been done to death.) Honestly, you could do more or less realism depending on what you want. You could do the "Oh, you were stabbed with a sword, well if you don't die, then it'll take about a year to heal." or you could do the "I summon an Angel to heal my multiple wounds." Or something in between.

[Joel P. Shempert]

Hi, Jon,

Think about the game you played in.  The GM denied additions to the imaginative space.  One player found that to be unfair, and there was an argument.  This was a power struggle for the player to add in his creative touch [snip]

It's funny, I have a rather different reading of the situation Kent describes. I don't see it so much as shutting down a player's input, as one participant (in this case, a GM) sticking to an agreed-upon set of play procedures (in this case, the written rules), and another participant trying to wheedle a different result out of the game by invoking considerations from beyond the game. The GM didn't "deny" anything. He just responded to the player's input with his own input: "You get shot" (or whatever), to which the player responded, "no, no, that couldn't happen because blah blah blah real-life firearms knowledge." I think you described it more fairly earlier in the thread:

TThe GM is trying to follow the rules, and the player is challenging these rules. A power struggle results, the player is using his knowledge of firearms and the GM is trying to maintain authority with the game rules.  Neither backs down.  The game grinds to a halt.

Hell, it's the player that denied the GM's input, really! It could very well have gone the other way, with the player trying to use HIS firearm a certain way, and the GM saying "no, you can't do that," but in this case it's the GM's action that's being shut down. I've in fact been in this exact same position; early in my Over the Edge game there were a couple of players who took advantage of OTE's loose mechanics to eke every ounce of effectiveness they could out of action descriptions. For instance: "I place him in a hold [describes hold]." *Rolls, success.* Me: "OK, now he's rolling to try and break out of the hold." Player: "No, see, the thing with this hold is, it's unbreakable because there's no leverage." Me: "Uhhhhh, wha?"

That's not "creative input" that would make a "rich addition to the game". It's creative all right, but it's creative bullying. Especially in this case where it's an elaborate sucker-punch. "I engage the mechanics to do this thing." "OK" "Hah! now that I have succeeded, mechanically, at my thing, I invoke supersecret knowledge to prevent YOU from engaging the mechanics at all!! I win OTE!"

Of course, the other factor here is difference in player expectations. if the GM's thinking, "we're playing this game using these rules to resolve conflicts," and the player's thinking, "We're playing this game and striving for realism so all real-world data relevant to the situation supercedes the rules," then of course there's gonna be a clash. The player in Kent's example may have had other motives than getting his own way or asserting dominance or whatever, but the fact is that the motive largely doesn't matter; the result's the same. It's dickish behavior even if the attitude is, "nothing personal, just striving for realism, man."

As I alluded above, it doesn't especially matter whether it's a GM or Player waving the "realism" club. It can happen either way. Except, I guess, that a GM will often have more authority granted either explicitly or implicitly to enforce the realism. If a player advocates a "realistic" adjudication, if the other players are like, "Nah," all he can do is say "but--but--realism!" The GM in many player groups can say "but--but--realism!" AND fall back on "Hey, that's my ruling." In fact, I've got an AP account along those lines that I should write upsometime. The short version is this: I essentially said, "Ok, I'm taking this action available to me as per the rules," and the GM responded, "No, it doesn't work that way because [realism consideration, which is never applied to any other instances of this kind of action when we play], you've got to do it this (more difficult) way instead." And I was like, "No,that's bullshit," and everyone else was like, "why's he so bent out of shape over this? That's the kind of rulings that GMs get to/are supposed to make!"

Now there's a lot going there, which is why it needs its own AP. But for present purposes, consider how it mirrors the situation in Kent's game: One participant thinks they're playing in an environment where certain procedures are honored, and he can safely plan his actions in line with those procedures. . .then another participant brings him up short with "no, it would be more realistic for it to happen in this other way which contradicts those procedures!" The "GM" and "Player" are flipped in this case, but it's otherwise the same.

So I guess this is all coming down to the point that shared expectations is a key factor in enjoying games at all, and the "realism" issue often suffers in this area. Even if all participants DO value realism equally, they're certainly not going to all have the same opinion on what IS realistic! What past experience has taught me is that the whole "invoking personal, real-world knowledge" thing tends to be toxic--it invariably pulls the rug out from under some participant or other every time it's invoked, it leads to dick-comparing contests especially when more than one player employs the tactic, and it's kind of a false ideal anyway. I mean, i used to think (e.g.) all the little niggling mechanical details of GURPS or Champions seeped pretty "realistic," but in the end the conversion of physics or whatever into hard numbers ends up being arbitrary. I'd much rather trim all that off and have smoothness of play instead.

If people want a realistic feel, however, that's much easier to achieve, but I think it relies a lot more on conventions of description/narration than on mechanics.

Peace,
-Joel

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Jumping in for one minor point ...

Joel, the only quibble I have with your post is that you refer to the player's realism-expectations as "beyond the game" as a contrast to the GM's rules-expectations as, by implication, in or of the game. I suggest that both of these expectations are very much in and of the game - the player's sudden statement that the rifles have X range, not Y range, is not from beyond the game.

To make my point, I have to use my Big Model thinking, which places Color, System, Situation, Characters, and Setting at exactly the same level of importance relative to play as a whole. I chose to do that very carefully - these things must be integrated in order for play to function at all; what we're seeing in this account of play is a failure to do so.

If System proceeds as written (the rules), then Setting goes crashing down in the eyes of at least one participant, which means the Situation cannot function (there's no Setting for it to be in). If Setting proceeds as proposed by the player, then System must be rewritten, and the problem with that is that the GM has based the current Situation's conflict on the System features of the rifles that he knows the characters have. Both of these people are fighting over the integrity of the imagined Situation. For those of you who know or care about my writings on these five components, you know that such disagreement literally cannot stand - it must be resolved or play ceases, shot in its tracks.

I have more to say about the nature of the interpersonal conflict and why, when it occurs, it is so intractable in a traditional role-playing context, but at the moment, this post is only about my quibble, and I hope I've laid that out in a readable way.

Best, Ron

[dreamborn]

I think what you're really asking is, "Realism has trade offs, one of them being fun-factor. What is a good level of realism to strive for and remain being fun?"

Realism is a continuity, on one end is fun and the other is accuracy. Lets define fun as intuitive, simple, and creation of an exciting event. Accuracy is "well this is how it really works."

Realism doesn't have to have trade offs.  What if you designed a game from the very beginning that you wanted to increase realism (accuracy) and enhance game play (fun).  If you could do that you would get the best of both worlds.

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com

[dreamborn]

Your game is about the church, magic, and medieval Europe. It sounds fun, (although, it's been done to death.) Honestly, you could do more or less realism depending on what you want. You could do the "Oh, you were stabbed with a sword, well if you don't die, then it'll take about a year to heal." or you could do the "I summon an Angel to heal my multiple wounds." Or something in between.

My campaign is about magic in 1592, the campaign is NOT limited to Europe the entire world is available to the players.  This period is the Renaissance, it occurs after the medieval period.  Officially the church denies the existence of magic...  My gaming system ORS is not limited to any time period or genre.  CARP is the engine that allows increased realism while simultaneously enhancing game play.  You example would be accurate in a non-magical ORS setting.  The ORS Codex allows magical healing.  Sorry, no character to date has summed an Angel to heal their wounds, there are multiple ways of obtaining healing within the ORS game and my setting without resulting to deus ex machine.

Ron wrote:

If Setting proceeds as proposed by the player, then System must be rewritten

Personally, when I GM, I have dictated that during a particular game the existing rules must be used.  If the player wants he can work with me, using his sources and documents to modify the rules and make the game more realistic NEXT time as long as it doesn't hamper playability.  Of course this assume you have a gaming system that allows for the rules to evolve.  :^)

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Kent,

The topic in this thread is fragmenting and it's resulting in a false, past-one-another conversation. All of my post concerns only the western game and the account of play that concerned the range of the rifles. I am not posting about, and not considering, your game under development.

Now let's talk about your response to David C's post. Here at the Forge, when someone tries to paraphrase your words and fails, don't slap them down as if they were attacking you. They are trying to understand you, and your job is to help them.

Finally, let's talk about a reversal of position that you've undergone in this thread, which is making the discussion impossible to follow, and impossible to proceed with. It looks to me as if you have now cast yourself as the defender of realism as a constructive element of play, especially in reference to the game you're developing. However, you began with an anecdote of play in which the player disrupted play by invoking realism and then the ensuing discussion destroyed play. You even posted, yourself, that the question is not what realism is, but rather what standard everyone prefers to play by. That's your post. You said that.

So it's confusing to everyone. Here they're agreeing with your original point that invoking realism causes trouble, and trying to help with that, and you've turned about and started defending realism against its attackers. This confusion must not continue.

Something disrupted the fun-factor of your play experience. If "realism" wasn't the problem, what was it? You said it was a failure to agree about the realism and rules. I think that's correct and I think that's what this thread might do best to focus on.

Moderator ruling: All discussion of your game in development must cease in this thread. You are encouraged to begin new threads about it in either First Thoughts or, if you've tried it out at all, in Playtesting. I look forward to seeing it there. This thread must stick to its topic of the western game and the range of rifles, and the points about play that arise from there. My post above is a good example and I'd like to see it addressed.

Best, Ron

[dreamborn]

Hi Ron

you began with an anecdote of play in which the player disrupted play by invoking realism and then the ensuing discussion destroyed play. You even posted, yourself, that the question is not what realism is, but rather what standard everyone prefers to play by. That's your post. You said that.

Ah you read but did not understand.  I started the thread using an example where a gaming session was disrupted by a player who desired a level of realism that a Western game did not support.  Yes it destroyed play.  My initial post was trying to get peoples opinion on what they prefer in a game.  You informed me the forum was not a place to do an opinion poll.  Furthermore, I also stated that that as long as everyone agrees to a level of realism then that is what is fun for those people to play.

Finally, let's talk about a reversal of position that you've undergone in this thread.  ...  looks to me as if you have now cast yourself as the defender of realism as a constructive element of play, especially in reference to the game you're developing.

Realism does not have to be destructive.  The way it developed in the game I was illustrating by example was destructive, and not a constructive element of play.  But I ask you is this a problem with realism?  Realism is not the problem, the rigid game rules and mechanics I believe are.  Am I defending it?  Did I ever attack it?  I think I clearly stated

that it's only a game.  I didn't care if it was perfect, as long as both sides could consistently use it the same way.

For game play this is my opinion.  For what I prefer..., I like all the realism possible as long as it doesn't hamper game play and flow, and if it slows things down it is not good.  So am I taking a reversal of my original position, I don't think so.

Something disrupted the fun-factor of your play experience. If "realism" wasn't the problem, what was it? You said it was a failure to agree about the realism and rules. I think that's correct and I think that's what this thread might do best to focus on.

Exactly!  If the rules don't support the level of realism you want, then for that game agree there is a flaw and continue play using the existing rules.  If it really bothers the players and GM then modify the rules between play-sessions and then use the modified rules next game.  (see my previous post)

All discussion of your game in development must cease in this thread

Ron, I was replying to David C, misunderstandings.  If others post things in this or other threads about my game in development can't I correct errors?  Are you telling me that it is ok for others to post things about my game in development incorrectly and I can't reply at all?

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com 

[Ron Edwards]

Sigh ... so many problems illustrated all at once.

1. Please don't respond line-by-line like that. By the time you'd figured out we were agreeing about where the problem lies, you'd already defended your position against a criticism that didn't exist. Instead, reply in paragraphs to points, not in single-line responses to single lines or sentences.

2. The moderator point is for everyone, not just you. I said all discussion of the game in development must cease for this thread. That's David, you, anyone, the elves, and the fence-post.

3. You will not get very far in discussions here by opening with "you don't understand." That's flame-bait in practice, even if not intended as such, and discourteous at the very least. Particularly as you acknowledge later in the same post that I do, in fact, understand what you're saying. Again, read entire posts before replying; do not reply line-by-line.

I consider that you have made a very good point about "realism isn't automatically destructive, even if in this case it was." I've agreed with you about that, and as enough other people have done so, it's probably settled. If you'd like to sum it up as a general point in any way, for the new reader or for someone who reads this thread later, that would be fine. But all I'm seeing now from further discussion is wrangling and confusion, given your shift in topic to your game in development.

It's your thread. If you'd like to sum it up, or if you'd like to isolate a particular topic for its continuance, either one is fine. But it's now (a) gone off-topic (easily solved by starting new threads about your own game in development) and (b) degenerated into people saying X, Y, or Z, trying to help or understand, and you batting them down as not-X, not-Y, and not-Z in a gladatorial context that isn't permissible here. That has to stop.

I also suggest not replying to this post right away, but letting it sit for an hour to a day.

Best, Ron

[dreamborn]

As we have seen, realism means different things to different people.  The amount/level of realism that is right depends on the gaming system (rules) and the group's (GM and players) expectations and desires.  Realism and accuracy in and of itself will not destroy the feel and flow of the game.  We have discussed situations where realism can ruin and evening of play.  We have also postulated that high levels of realism are possible if a gaming system was designed and implemented properly.  As with most things involving RPGs, there is no correct answer.  Ultimately if your system/method works for you and you enjoy it then it is right for you.

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com

[Andrew Morris]

Ultimately if your system/method works for you and you enjoy it then it is right for you.

Total agreement, here.

[Joel P. Shempert]

Joel, the only quibble I have with your post is that you refer to the player's realism-expectations as "beyond the game" as a contrast to the GM's rules-expectations as, by implication, in or of the game. I suggest that both of these expectations are very much in and of the game - the player's sudden statement that the rifles have X range, not Y range, is not from beyond the game.

Hi, Ron. I see what you're getting at, and you're absolutely right. "in-game," or "out-of-game" is not the right distinction to make. Funny, this kind of talk bugs me often enough--I've been reading through the D&D Player's Handbook and DMG, and their (for instance) use of "in game" when they mean "in-story" grates like hell. Maybe I can claim that it's this rerading that caused the concept creep in my head. :)

In any case, I think the distinction I'm really driving at is "individual expectations outside the shared group procedural framework, texual or otherwise." I say "or otherwise" because the group expectation can definitely be modified from existing rulesets. . .but as far as I'm concerned it only counts if everyone knows, clearly and above-board from explicit discussion (not instinctively "just knows") what those mods are. in the absence of such consensus, my sympathy will generally lie with the party who is basing their expectations on a rules text--the players presumably all agreed, "let's play this game," And all have access to the information contained in the text. The players do NOT all have equal access to, e.g. information on real-world 19th-century firearms, so it is fundamentally unfair to base expectations on such knowledge and claim primacy for those expectations. "Hey, I happen to know that this rifle has X effective range, can we modify the rules?" (between sessions, or at least between scenes) is perfectly fine. "Whaddya mean he can hit me from that range? THAT'S not how that rifle works, I protest, etc" (in the heat of the moment) is unacceptable to me.

I didn't always feel this way. I used to think of "the rules" as more or less the enemy of "good roleplaying," i.e. portraying your character compellingly and vividly realizing the world. They were at best a "necessary evil," but were to be bent, twisted, or even discarded if they got in the way of "storytelling" or "realism" or whatever. My position has gradually changed as I've seen this practice become a means of bullying, and even when used with benign intent, still produce the unfairness I referenced above.

To make my point, I have to use my Big Model thinking, which places Color, System, Situation, Characters, and Setting at exactly the same level of importance relative to play as a whole. I chose to do that very carefully - these things must be integrated in order for play to function at all; what we're seeing in this account of play is a failure to do so.

You know, that's one fascinating aspect of the Big Model--how all of the parts integrate and work together, and how their placement is so key to understnding how. WHen I first read the essays, I just kind of gave it the once-over, like, "OK, I understand what all those elements are, cool, got it," without paying attention to where the elements were placed, or why. But lately, these things have been coming up in Forge discussion, where one or more element is discussed in terms of where in the model it is, and it opens up new understanding for me. Cool.

For those of you who know or care about my writings on these five components, you know that such disagreement literally cannot stand - it must be resolved or play ceases, shot in its tracks.

Wholeheartedly agreed. Absolutely. Based on personal experience (AP coming soon!).

I have more to say about the nature of the interpersonal conflict and why, when it occurs, it is so intractable in a traditional role-playing context, but at the moment, this post is only about my quibble, and I hope I've laid that out in a readable way.

Does this mean "I have more to say in some future discussion," or "I have more to say in another post for this discussion, when I have the time"? "Cause I'm interested in hearing it.

Peace,
-Joel

[Ron Edwards]

Hi folks,

Given Kent's summation statement and his new thread, I think it's time to call this thread closed. No more posting, please. If you disagree, please send me a private message and I'll reconsider.

Best, Ron