Realism in RPG's and the Riddle of Steel

[casinormal]

Top 6 games:
RuneQuest (though my campaign world is cooler than Glorantha)
TROS
Shadowrun
Vampire (or Hunter, for that matter-alot of White Wolf games could easily adopt the TROS combat system)
Warhammer (More for the campaign world than anything else)
Lord of the Rings (the classic never dies)

I haven't tried Harn or Pendragon, but I've heard good things about them.  DnD was my first, because of other friends when we were kids, but I've evolved now.
Games should not be silly in the childish sense, but that should be laughable and fun.  It's just a game, right?  I guess people play what suits them, realistic or no.  I like gritty realism, and roleplaying rather than rollplaying, but the top priority for a game is fun-ness; being interesting and realistic is merely nice.  Really, being realistic depends mostly on the GM.  I've known a TROS seneschal who actually did a lighthearted, almost-silly campaign.  (Heaven Forbid!!)

[Richard_Strey]

Do any of you know where one could get Pendragon these days? I had a look at it once, but that was... back in the other millenium. *g*

[Brian Leybourne]

Richard,

It's still being produced and there are a lot of splatbooks. Ask your FLGS, they could get it in for you.

Brian.

[Drifter Bob]

Gareth nails it. It's not complexity, but detail that we're talking about. Detail creates focus.  

Yeah mike, but y'all were still missing my point.  I'm not advocating complexity or detail.  The precise level of either is up to the game desginer.  This isn't presenting the whole picture but it's a good analogy: Whether you have three types of weapons in your game with two characteristics each, or 150 types of weapons with 20 characteristics each, in either case I'm just saying that the weapons and their characteristics, however many you are incorporating, should be based on reality,

(or B) be based on some thoroughly internally consistent alternate reality from your genre)

and if you extraploate that into the realms of physics, history, and combat mechanics (and beyond!), then you get where I'm coming from.

Anyway, rather than try to rehash this the same way yet again, I'm going to try to come at it from another angle.  I did read your 'standard rant' (quite cleverly put together, by the way) and I think I understand some of the misapprehension that has been going on here a bit better.

I think it may be clearer to y'all if you understand that despite knowing about TROS and writing for Pelgrane Press, I have not been involved in or even aware of the development of independent rpgs really at all since back in the day.  So I wasn't really aware of some of the new game systems or some of the theoretical trends in here.

What I get from your piece about combat systems Mike is that you have basically identified the same problem that I did (more or less in a vacuum), but are coming at it from a different direction, which is ok.  

The problem we both see is this legacy of half formed, not sure what it's supposed to be, neither here nor there mush which crept into D&D, and from there was copied into nearly every major rpg of the 80's and early 90's, a key component of this being that cumbersome, unsatisfying, and often poorly integrated combat system which as you correctly point out, is really a legacy from the miniatures war-games which D&D evolved from.

I see the same problem, and my solution is to go back to the drawing board, do some more original research instead of being so derivative of the 'homework' which was done in the 70's and before that.  

For me, the point of no return was when i saw a "real" double bladed sword that was being sold on Ebay as a "ninja" weapon.  This was obviously a copy of of the idiotic D&D double sword, itself a derivative of a weapon from one of the new Star Wars movies.  I know some people like those 'double weapons', I even read one anti-realism rant someone did specifically in praise of them, but they always rankled me, even before i found my cause as a fanatical mindless crusader for realism.  I always felt that there was something a bit unhealthy about the phoniness of those things, but then when I saw proof: a stainless steel one on ebay for $19.99.  I imagined some wannabe Ninja geek trying to actually use that incredibly dangerous thing in front of a mirror somewhere, and winced.  It spooked me.  Thats when I wrote my article.

It's the gilligans island syndrome: I feel a bit sick when I realise how many episodes of gilligans island, fantasy island, the love boat, beverly hillbillies and other utterly moronic insipid tv shows, not to mention commercials, dumb religious stories, false history, and etc. and etc. , were floating around in my head.  There is a Stanislaw Lem story which jokes about this, about the danger of ever increasing oceans of mediocre and meaningless information, but to me it's serious, I feel sick about the amount of meaningless information floating around in my head, and the heads of everyone in the world.  (I think stupidity and lies in the media and TV is much more dangerous than the sex or the violence) I think information should have meaning.  Anyway, that was the motivating cause of my crusade, and what lead me to my 'solution'

But really, there are at least two ultimate 'solutions' (why is this starting to sound like a nazi speach?)  and though I did aknowledge this in my rant, I thought it was kind of self evident to i didn't dwell on it perhaps enough.  I certainly apparently did not clearly identify what I meant by realism well enough, because again I thought it was self evident, not really knowing what people in places like this were thinking.

I understand now how many of y'all are moving in the direction of ditching realism altogether, as you understand it, to regain control over the overall structure of a game.  I applaad that clear approach to game design, within it's own context, but I think there is a pardigm shift here, we really both agree and disagree.  Ultimately what I'm really talking about is that we should have a high standard for internal logic, (even if it's a game like paranoia which had the internal logical of total illogic)  genre based games should be true to their genre, and they certainly don't all need to do combat like TROS.

But on the other hand, more game systems than I think y'all are really realising do have some basis in realism, and this goes beyond just combat realism.  To use a new term I learned here, there is a little "SIM" in even some of the most abstracted games.  To whatever extent it is there is, I say do it right.  

I'd like to see that core of combat realism redone, done right, and used as a beach-head- to expand the realism and logic, and interesting insights into the human condition, into rpgs in general.

Because I think rpgs are not only fun, but a fascinating way to model the world, a new literary genre, and much more.  I take them seriously, even the most ridiculous ones.  Even the silly ones!  Some people took me to task for using the term silly, but I embrace the silly.  I embrace it all,  except for the mushy middle of the road mediocrity.    

I hope y'all understand my perspective just a tiny bit more now

So, does D&D intend to be focused on combat? That's the crucial question. And the answer is, in early editions, it wasn't sure what it was focused on. As a new medium, Gygax and gang were just adding things as they went as seemed to make sense at the time. Not without thought, but certainly without the perspective of several decades of play to see what the result is.

Perhaps I am incorrectly informed, but I had read about this a much different way.

Which is to say that D&D is conflicted in many ways. It says that it's about creating a story about the characters, but then the rules mostly center around how to kill things and what neat stuff they have to take.

thats true, without a doubt.

Now, decades later, looking back on what they had wrought, they hand over the system to a designer on the cutting edge. He takes a look at it, and decides that, if he's going to be limited to all the "unrealisitic" requirements of D&D so that the game remains D&D, that he's going to have to rediscover it's focus. Looking at what they had, he sees that its certainly about combat, but it's also just as certainly not about realistic combat. Or, rather, given all the more realistic games created in the decades in between, it's certainly not realistic now.

So what does he do? He decideds to pick up on the fantastic elements, and emphasize them. 3rd Edition is an attempt to make a game that's not at all realisitc per se, but a reflection of itself in earlier incarnations. That is, play of D&D created an entire genre of it's own, and the current edition plays to that very unrealistic, but apparently very fun to mess with, genre.

again, I'm much more cynical about how this whole process worked.  I see the new edition as being a half assed attempt to bring D&D back to the standards of some of the other games out there (things like adding the skills and feats in, for example), combined with a largely successful attempt to pander to a certain audience with all the goth clothes and stuff.

It would do itself a disservice to it's own goals by trying to be more realistic on principle. This would require injecting detail that would distract from fun, effective play of that particular system. That would detract from what is, now, a well defined vision of play.

I don't think realism would in any way distract from or distrupt the play of D&D, I think it would only make it better.  Detail, might be disruptie, but better realism, I don't think so.  I also don't think that D&D is a well defined vision of play by any stretch of the imagination.

I think that games with the same agenda that you want to see are rare, and that there are plenty that want to be realistic that do a fair job.

Hopefully after the above you understand a bit better what my 'agenda' is.

Could these few be improved by some of your suggestions? Maybe. But a particular game's vision is so specific to that game, that unless we're dealing with a specific game, I'd be loathe to suggest specific alterations.

My 'suggestions ' are meant to be an attempt to improve the basic body of technical knowlege that many games can and do draw from, to replace the old baggage with some new research.  They are not intended as specific improvements for specific games.

You see, nobody here is against realism in any way. We're only for identifying first what realism means for the game in question and nailing it down for that particular vision.

I agree with that premise entirely

(I don't think there are any blanket measures that help many games, not even research).

Again, here, sadly, we disagree...

JR

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah mike, but y'all were still missing my point.  I'm not advocating complexity or detail.  The precise level of either is up to the game desginer.

You keep saying that, but I don't think it's true. I do think that we're closer than ever to an understanding of each other's position. But to the point, I argue against your position not for the first time. This is about the third time I've seen the exact same arguments that you make. I understand that it's not about the amount of detail. As I posted, it's not about how many weapons on the list, it's about what you list about each weapon. Not how many things you list, but the nature of the things you list.

For example, I could make a list with only one stat for each weapon, Coolness. That could work to make a very functional game. But what it would do is to inform the players that the game was not about realism in terms of how much the weapon weighs, but in how much it influences the ability of the attacker to intimidate their foe and gain the upper hand. Which some research would tell you is important. Armies often wore tall hats to be more intimidating. Now, is my method more "realistic" than yours? No, not at all. But it represents a different part of reality.

All systems are abstractions of some sort. To that extent they model some subset of elements that could be included to represent a situation "realistically". Going with the physiscs model, for instance, I could point out that the models that you specify don't consider material strengths of weapons and armor in truely realistic manners. Things like lever arm moments of intertia aren't being considered in any but the most gross means. Surface areas of impacting objects aren't being looked at closely enough. The effects of ambient electrostatic charge on molecular bonds that are broken by weapon impact....

And you say, "Ah, but that's what the die roll represents, are all these less important parts of the physics model." To which I respond, "Ah, but that's the same thing that I'd say about my Coolness model. What you condsider important is being accounted for by the roll, because it's less important in my system."

Neither of us can be, a priori, correct about this. We can only have our own opinions of what makes for a better abstraction. At some point its simply a decision what to model, and what not to model, and how to model it.

In the end what makes for a good game is a model that's entertaining to play. Now, for lot's of people, that model will approach something like what you see as optimal. It's a model that has a lot to offer, IMO, and one that I enjoy a lot. I have a system of spreadsheets that model "reality" so closely that the system underneath could never be played satisfactorily without a computer because of the large number of steps involved (including some of the stuff I mention above). So, I think I can say with some confidence that I'm a proponent of this sort of modeling.

So, again, I agree that where actual mistakes have been made in terms of attempting and failing realism, these things ought to be fixed. But we continue to disagree on the subject of what needs to be fixed. That is, I think that "alternate" views of what is "realistic" are just as valid, and common.

As for D&D, Jonathan Tweet is hardly your garden variety designer. As author of Over the Edge, for instance, we see that Tweet understands the idea of differing levels of abstraction implicitly. I daresay he's the man responsible for half of the theory here in terms of games being able to portray things in a more wholistic sense (and less in terms of system handling things like, for example, combat detail). As such, going back to do D&D, I think we can see what he was doing in terms of playing to the D&D genre. If that were not the case, there are several interviews with him in which he says just that. He was given limitations XYZ, and given those he could only produce D&D 3E as he did, an homage to some gestalt that it itself had created.

Does this mean that it's still conflicted? Sure, but less so than before. It's more dedicated to it's own weird vision than ever before. For whatever that's worth.

I see the same problem, and my solution is to go back to the drawing board, do some more original research instead of being so derivative of the 'homework' which was done in the 70's and before that.  

And I see the solution potentially as coming up with totally new visions for games as well. That is, these are all valid solutions. Some are done worse than others, yes, but until we know what a particular design is all about, again, how can you give blanket suggestions?

For example, saying "go with realistic armor" doesn't make any sense in a world that's not Earth, IMO. Because it was the circumstances on Earth that caused the armors to be created as they were in the first place. Change the circumstances, and you have an opportunity to change everything else.

I mean, if I can explain in detail how the feathers of the Grugur bird are used to make bodysuits of armor in Fallaria in sufficient detail, then haven't I made the same effort as the research of real Earth that you advocate? And if the focus of the game is not on that sort of detail, wouldn't it then be OK to not include that sort of detail in this case? So, isn't this lack of realism really just a dedication to a different vision? Sans commentary from the designer, it's hard to say. The only real measure of the success of the design is whether people had fun playing. And I garuntee you that there are lots of people that like D&D just like it is.

I imagined some wannabe Ninja geek trying to actually use that incredibly dangerous thing in front of a mirror somewhere, and winced.  It spooked me.  Thats when I wrote my article.

I'm not sure we need to be proteccted from that. I mean, either people know what they're doing, and just enjoying it despite it's unrealistic nature, or they're buying into it, and will eliminate themselves from the gene pool by trying to use such a weapon. Either way I'm satisfied.

There is a Stanislaw Lem story which jokes about this, about the danger of ever increasing oceans of mediocre and meaningless information, but to me it's serious, I feel sick about the amount of meaningless information floating around in my head, and the heads of everyone in the world.

As an existentialist, I could get into an argument about the meaning of meaning. But that's beyond the scope of what we're talking about here. Instead I'll just say that, sure, we can make these things more meaningful than they already are. But to some it's going to always just be a form of simple entertainment. In any case, I'm fine with both the more intelligent and less intelligent games (and TV) existing. As long at the more intelligent is still around. Insipid entertainment has been a societal valve for aeons (bread and circuses, said the Roman), and I doubt we're going to change that by adding the scramasax to a weapons list.

I understand now how many of y'all are moving in the direction of ditching realism altogether, as you understand it, to regain control over the overall structure of a game.  I applaad that clear approach to game design, within it's own context, but I think there is a pardigm shift here, we really both agree and disagree.  Ultimately what I'm really talking about is that we should have a high standard for internal logic, ...

But that's the manta of ths entire site. The question as we see it not whether to be logical. We agree totally that that's the most important thing in game design. The question is what to be logical about. We're not throwing out realism, we're trying other forms of realism, and some things that are not realism. We've said, do what you want, just do it well. And by well, we mean internally consistently. So that play created is fun.

To use a new term I learned here, there is a little "SIM" in even some of the most abstracted games.  To whatever extent it is there is, I say do it right.  

Again, no argument here. But even in games that support simulationism to a great extent, there's the question of what the game explores. It's amazing how many system say that they're about exploring "anything" for instance, and then go and have all their detail about combat. Well, how isn't that support of exploration of combat? Or a failure to support everything else as well as combat? It's the sort of detail, again, that a game looks at that determines what it's about, and what's likely to happen in terms of play of that game.

My 'suggestions ' are meant to be an attempt to improve the basic body of technical knowlege that many games can and do draw from, to replace the old baggage with some new research.  They are not intended as specific improvements for specific games.

That's very cool. An, "if you want this sort of realism, here's some important facts," sort of approach is always sought (espescially on this particular forum). Nobody has said that your information was wrong or useless. Just that a designer should look closely at his design before deciding that this sort of realism is what they want.

And, then, yes, if they want that sort of realism, then go with your suggestions.

Here's a hard quesiton, however. How many games do we need that focus on this sort of realism? I mean, we've got Harn trying like mad, and games like TROS... Do more need to be about this sort of realism? Or should we just focus on improving the ones we have? I think there's always room for the new innovative game, don't get me wrong. But I think the last thing we need is more games trying to jump on the realism bandwagon and not doing anything really new. I mean, doesn't innovation in setting mean getting away from Earth-normal-combat-physics? Or at least focusing on something different? I'm still waiting on a realistic Marco Polo RPG that's all about Europe on the brink of discovering the East via trade. Now that would be new.

I'm not saying don't do this game if you're making a new game. I'm saying think about it. TROS is going to be hard to beat for a while, I think. And in terms of raw "realism" detail, I wouldn't want to go up against Harn. The first step in such a design is being able to say that you're doing at least this good a job. The next is to improve on it somehow.

BTW, you'll find on this site that there's a lot of debate about these things. Don't get the idea that what I'm giving you here is some sort of authoriatiative view of what everyone thinks. I have put out some general principles that a lot of people here ascribe to, but for each one that I do, there's bound to be a sizable contingent that disagrees. As such, you may want to look for some of those opinions as well.

For example, Marco, if you're reading, is there anything about my "text as focus of design" that strikes you as impropper? Or anything else that I've missed?

What we want here is debate, and we're happy to hear a dissenting voice. We only require that you try to understand our positions in the process; which you've had remarkable patience with to date, given the less than optimal introduction we game you. I'm glad you're staying and looking around.

Thanks,
Mike

[Drifter Bob]

As I posted, it's not about how many weapons on the list, it's about what you list about each weapon. Not how many things you list, but the nature of the things you list.

I still think you are not getting it.  I'll paraphrase from part two of my essay, which is now out in a pre-release on the Forge in the RPG theory forum http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8556

Basically, better realism as I see it, dosn't mean you have 200 weapons instead of 20, or that you have 20 factors to describe each weapon you do have instead of 5.  You can have 200 weapons with 20 factors or 5 weapons with two factors each, that is up to the game designer.  My point is that you should make whatever data you are using be real data and not something you are pulling out of your ass.  Unless, that is, there is some compelling design reason to modify it, like plot or genre reasons.

For example, in most RPG's there is a weapon listed called a long sword.  Influenced by these equipment lists, gamers think that a long sword is a single handed knightly sword.  This incorrect notion has crept into video games and cinema as well.  Anyone remotely familiar with medieval history knows that a long sword is actually a two handed or hand and a half sword.  That other blade would be called simple a 'sword', or an 'arming sword' or a 'single sword'.

It would be like if people in the far future were running games based on the year 2003 and they had equipment lists where they show you a picture of an M-16 and tell you it is a type of pistol.  Or if they callled computers "Tv's" and TVs telephones.  It's just wrong and if there is no reason to mis-identify it, why do so?  

The same applies for physics as well as historical sources.  Again, if in some future RPG based on modern times, there was a rule stating that your M-16 'pistol' could only fire one round every three turns due the time it allegeldy takes for muzzle loading like it was a 19th century musket, that would be silly.  It sounds kind of funny and might be amusing to watch on TV, but unless you got a comedy game on your hands, why do it that way?  The inept level of research on most RPG's

So ultimately, it's not about "my type of realism".  The two documents I wrote were an effort, however flawwed, to provide a resource for RPG designers and players to improve the realism that they do use in their games, whether they are doing a detailed combat heavy game or an abstract game with an entirely different focus.   I do go into a lot of detail so that I can have a useful 'library', if you will, that the entire range of gamers can use, but I am not advocating detial, complexity, or demanding that everyone put a screamsax in their equipment list.  Though I do like screamsaexes!

Finally, I would like to add, combat is a place to start with because combat rules have been most tinkered with and developed, but rather than retreating from tryin to do combat well, I think examinations of many other aspects of life should be done which could enhance the playing experinece.  I don't think they rule each other out, to the contrary.  I really like for example the rules in Dying Earth covering personality archetypes and arguing / persuasion techniques, which I think are really insightful and also a lot of fun to play.  Or you could also look at the amount of effort put into Call of Cthulhu to bring not only the spirit of Lovecraft to life, but the mood of the 1920's, thats one of the things I loved about the original Call of Cthulhu book, all the great source materail on travel, and life, and jails and everything else.

DB

[Mike Holmes]

As I posted, it's not about how many weapons on the list, it's about what you list about each weapon. Not how many things you list, but the nature of the things you list.

I still think you are not getting it.  I'll paraphrase from part two of my essay, which is now out in a pre-release on the Forge in the RPG theory forum http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8556

Basically, better realism as I see it, dosn't mean you have 200 weapons instead of 20, or that you have 20 factors to describe each weapon you do have instead of 5.  You can have 200 weapons with 20 factors or 5 weapons with two factors each, that is up to the game designer.  My point is that you should make whatever data you are using be real data and not something you are pulling out of your ass.  Unless, that is, there is some compelling design reason to modify it, like plot or genre reasons.

Bob, you're belaboring a point that's been established for a while. You and I completely agree above. The only thing that we might disagree on is how often there is a "compelling design reason to modify it, like plot or genre reasons." I think that this is more frequent than you do is all.

In any case it's an aesthetic decision. So as long as you and I agree that's true, and that the designer should make it a considered decision, I'm not seeing what else there is to debate about.

So ultimately, it's not about "my type of realism".  The two documents I wrote were an effort, however flawwed, to provide a resource for RPG designers and players to improve the realism that they do use in their games, whether they are doing a detailed combat heavy game or an abstract game with an entirely different focus.  

And that's laudible, as I've said. I don't take umbrage with the idea that research like this can help a game. My only objection is with the idea that all games would benefit from this particular sort of information (as opposed to other sorts of information). But we seem to agree on that now, so...

Finally, I would like to add, combat is a place to start with because combat rules have been most tinkered with and developed, but rather than retreating from tryin to do combat well, I think examinations of many other aspects of life should be done which could enhance the playing experinece.  I don't think they rule each other out, to the contrary.

Nobody said anything to the contrary. All we do here is try to find better ways to implement systems, for whatever their goals are. So, again, we completely agree that one should try to do a better job.

I think it's interesting that you'd feel that you have to make this point in the TROS forum. In fact, I think that this has gotten way past TROS, and that we ought to think about either getting back on topic, or moving the discussion.

Mike

[Drifter Bob]

Bob, you're belaboring a point that's been established for a while. You and I completely agree above. The only thing that we might disagree on is how often there is a "compelling design reason to modify it, like plot or genre reasons." I think that this is more frequent than you do is all.

I'm sorry, I just wanted to clear the air for the second chapter of my article, and frankly, to lure you into reading it, since I'd had the link up for two days and nobody had evidently read it, I was beginning to panic ;)

Please forgive me.

JR

P.S. I had originally posted the link to the article here on TROS because TROS was mentioned in a favorable light in the original article.[/quote]

[Mike Holmes]

I'm sorry, I just wanted to clear the air for the second chapter of my article, and frankly, to lure you into reading it, since I'd had the link up for two days and nobody had evidently read it, I was beginning to panic ;)

Not a big deal, I don't think (not my forum anyhow). But I have read the article and responded a little in the Theory forum.

Anyhow, it could pertain to TROS. Anything in TROS that you think needs adjustment? It's a hobby here.

Mike