Opinions on accuracy and realism

[dreamborn]

Hello All

I am sure this is GM and group dependant but I shall ask anyway.  If you are playing in a semi historic campaign how do you feel about the required level of realism and accuracy.  For example, in a recent campaign I was playing in the GM was trying to run a Old West type game where magic existed.  His knowledge of long arms was directly related to the ruleset he was using.  During the course of play the players were being fired upon by a villain using a sharps rifle mode 1860.  One of the players (a historical gun nut) based his actions on the effective range of this gun and was irate when the rules were grossly off.  An argument ensued, and over an hour was wasted while the GM and players debated this issue.
Please state whether your opinion is from a GM or player perspective.

NOTE I was a player during this game, I was an American Indian and only had a bow, and a knife.  But, being a veteran GM I was of the opinion that it's only a game.  And I didn't care if it was perfect, as long as both sides could consistently use it the same way.

Thanks

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com

[Glendower]

I am sure this is GM and group dependant but I shall ask anyway.  If you are playing in a semi historic campaign how do you feel about the required level of realism and accuracy.  For example, in a recent campaign I was playing in the GM was trying to run a Old West type game where magic existed.  His knowledge of long arms was directly related to the ruleset he was using.  During the course of play the players were being fired upon by a villain using a sharps rifle mode 1860.  One of the players (a historical gun nut) based his actions on the effective range of this gun and was irate when the rules were grossly off.  An argument ensued, and over an hour was wasted while the GM and players debated this issue.
Please state whether your opinion is from a GM or player perspective.

Tricky question.  Realism is a really iffy word, it tends to mean different things to different people.  I don't know if that's what's happening though.  I think the bigger question has to do with the people at the table.

We got two characters that are in opposition.  The villain and the player's Cowboy/Gunslinger/whatever.  I'm assuming that this is a gunfight. 

The 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. 

As a person (the player/GM divide is nonsense, we're all people), I'd be annoyed that the argument went an hour, as my time is precious and shouldn't be wasted bickering over something like weapon ranges. That sounds like zero fun to me.

I can't see how that would be fair to the other players at the table.  What were you doing for that hour?  What were the other players not involved in the argument doing? 

[dreamborn]

What were you doing for that hour?  What were the other players not involved in the argument doing?

As I mentioned above I tried to resolve it by saying it is just a game and as long as both sides used the same rule consistently it is play balanced.  I even tried to say that the rifle was not a sharps but a cheap Mexican rifle.  But then the player wanted to design a real sharps, during game play! BUT as I normally am GM I refused to take over the other GMs game.  Also only 2 of the players we familar to me, the others, including the GM were new to me.  I listened, and read the Deadlands rulebook.

The other players were jumping from one side to another of the argument.  In a way it was interesting to see the game disolve.  I think the big problem was the one gun nut had expectations about the game and game system, and was really frustrated that his vision of the old west was so different from that of Deadlands.

So in summary it took me 1.75 hours to drive to the game.  We had dinner and talked for about an hour.  We played for about 4.5 hours of which an hour was wasted on argument.  Then I got to drive back home (another 1.75 hours) in the wee hours of the morning wondering if I wanted to game with these people anymore.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I think that you've provided a very good clarification of what you mean by "just a game," which in a lot of cases is used vaguely and even dishonestly. But that last bit in your latest post is extremely helpful and let's look at it a bit more. I'd like to present the idea that "just a game" for you should be re-stated ... and in doing so, the new statement is going to be useful.

It's a matter of worthwhile effort, isn't it? If you're going to spend that much time dedicated to socializing and playing with them, then how much fun is arguing about the rifle? The flat, obvious answer is that it's not.

Now, if this were "just" a game for you, then who cares if it's time wasted. But it's not "just" a game for you. It's important. You invested a lot of time and effort and attention into this. And these guys squandered that investment in their stupid argument. It's like someone who's trained and studied and worked to become a good baseball player (that's you) and then had to endure the participation of people who could not agree on where the left-hand foul line is.

Now, that's not a totally trivial decision, because it has constant consequences for play. Your post shows that you know that the issue does have to be solved ... but also that it's only a matter of choosing which one, not which one is right. In other words, to you, it was more than "just a game" and to them, it was less than "a game" (i.e. fun thing to do) and became a venue for an ego-driven, advantage-driven confrontation.

I've written a lot about leadership recently, in the thread You've landed on gaming group "Park Place," play $15 rent. I think that what I wrote there is relevant to what you're bringing up here, and I invite you to look over that thread and my posts (note that a number of people did not understand them, as shown by their replies).

And, with all that in mind, I'd like to know more about this group you're talking about.

1. How long have you all been playing together, and how often?

2. What game system/rules are you using, and is it the same one you always use, or have you played several together?

3. Did anything fun for you happen during that particular session? What was it?

Best, Ron

[dreamborn]

Hi Ron

And, with all that in mind, I'd like to know more about this group you're talking about.

1. How long have you all been playing together, and how often?

2. What game system/rules are you using, and is it the same one you always use, or have you played several together?

3. Did anything fun for you happen during that particular session? What was it?

Best, Ron

1.  4 of the 6 (this includes GM) I met for the first time that night.
2.  2 of the 6 played every week in my campaign during college and graduate school (10+ years of RPG experience)
3.  I have GM/DM many, including D&D 1st and 2nd edition, MERP, RMSS, Amber, Star Wars, Shadow Run, GURPS, Traveller, TOP SECRET, Boot Hill and many others.  I have been GMing since 1980.  Currently, as you know I am designing and publishing my own roleplaying system, i.e., Omnificent Role-playing System (ORS).  The 2 that where my players also played in many of the above, 1 of which DM twice.
4.  Based on one of the 2 players that I knew, who personally wanted me to join their group, I came to the game.  I think Deadlands seemed like a cool concept.  The Old west except magic works, it is similar to my campaign setting of Terra 1592, where everything happened in history just like the history books said but maybe not for the reasons it said.

So as you can see the setting and the vision of the game seemed interesting to me.  So I gave it a try.  Also I like to occasionally be a player, as I usually am the GM/DM (I like to play too).  I was the last player of the group so I got an American Indian with a bow and a knife.  :^)  Not really my first choice but I thought I could have fun.  I had fun trying to roleplay a proud American Indian fighter, and I actually defeated a gunman with my bow, shot an arrow through his hand as he tried to shoot me with his Navy 36 revolver.  This was because I entered a white saloon, and didn't leave quick enough to suit him.  It was interesting to note that the all-for-one and one-for-all motto didn't apply to most of the players.

Anyway, my friend apologized for the group later in the week and I came back the next Friday.  What happened, no hour long debates but the GM cursed my bow (as part of my prehistory??), so now I only could use a knife.  The second game seemed to change from a standard RPG to a miniatures game, and we had a co-GM (again new person to me).  The game involved boarding a moving train, defeating some undead, rescuing some Rail Baron's daughter.  Which we accomplished, and it was mildly entertaining.  During the game the GMs really played up the racism part, as I was the only red-man in the group, and on the train.  His version of history was the only good Indian was a dead Indian.  I am no history buff of the pre-civil war era (I like the Elizabethan Era) but I doubt every white man had that view, but that is how GM roleplayed it.

The second game was better but I felt the Deadlands system (as least as it was GMd) seems over-powered by the magic.  By this I mean, I couldn't believe with this level of power of magic, monsters, etc., that the 95% of the normal people could even survive in the world.  The willing suspension of disbelief was really strained.  All in all, I felt the GMs needed to gain experience, and the players needed to roleplay a bit more.  The only roleplaying seemed to be how can we insult the injun.  Personally, it wasn't worth it for me (my free time is limited) and I never returned.  I heard from one of my players that the campaign disintegrated after only 3 more games anyway.

Getting back to the realism part of my question.  In my current ORS campaign, I am attempting to make a campaign world setting that is believable, magic is integrated but contrained and controlled by the church.  Most people believe in magic and some folklore monsters but most have never seen anything first hand.  The church has historically played a big role in this, but with the reformation happening they are losing some of their control.  Anyway, as I said before the players enter the game fall of 1592, and everything in history has happened.  Potentially, as they advance in worldly experience they may change the course of history, currently they have not.  No-one seems to have a problem willing suspending their disbelief.  BUT the question is what are other players and GMs experience with realism.

Do you like high fantasy games where magic is king?  Or believable magic.  My problem is that in high fantasy campaigns the entire medieval / Renaissance setting would get distorted by that level of magic.  It is not realistic, economic systems would change, legal systems would change, social class systems would change, etc. etc.  Would the world even be stable?  So what are your opinions of accuracy and realism.

[Glendower]

The only roleplaying seemed to be how can we insult the injun. 

That sounds pretty damn terrible.  Did the four people you met play together often?  It sounds like a pretty sad case of "screw with the newbie" that I've seen in a few games.  At any rate, good choice to ditch these chumps.

No-one seems to have a problem willing suspending their disbelief.  BUT the question is what are other players and GMs experience with realism.

You actually kind of answered the question.  Realism is up to the group to decide.  The really important thing is that it has to be pretty explicit, and discussed beforehand by all the people playing.  If everyone buys into the concept of "Magic in the Middle Ages", and everyone has the same imagined world in their heads, then there won't be any problems. 

Problems occur when there are people with different imagined worlds in their heads.  Take the guy with the gun fetish.  He had a very different image of the Wild West setting than the GM, and that caused sparks to fly.  Or in the follow up session, where they seem to think it's open season on "them Injuns", while you're thinking "Everybody racist?  That's silly."  They think one way, you think another.  This leads to no fun at all.

So that's my answer.  So long as everyone's on board, with the same expectations and the same imagined world in their heads, then the level of realism will be set to whatever the group thinks is appropriate.  The key is getting everyone to agree on what the imagined world looks like. 

[dreamborn]

That sounds pretty damn terrible.

Oh it wasn't that bad, it wasn't an attack at me they thought they were roleplaying, and I roleplayed along.  They weren't trying to screw the newbie.

Realism is up to the group to decide.

Yes, the group may decide on a level of realism, but my question is what you prefer from your experience.

[Glendower]

Realism is up to the group to decide.

Yes, the group may decide on a level of realism, but my question is what you prefer from your experience.

(Trying for humor here, to illustrate a point)
Let's see... Level 5 realism.  If we're going with color coding, I'd go with Blue level realism, maybe with a touch of Mauve.
(Humor attempt complete)

Of course, this doesn't really answer your question at all.  That's kind of my point.  Accuracy and Realism are not useful terms as they are constantly negotiated within the group during play.  As I said, everyone at the table shares this idea of what the world looks like, and so long as we all agree on the same idea, then I am at my Blue/Mauve (again, tongue in cheek) happy level of realism. 

This negotiation is a result of taking the time beforehand to clearly discuss, as players, what setting we're using, what rules we're using, what character's we're playing, and what situation we're chewing our way through.

And through using the setting, the rules, the character, and the situation we add in those little details to color our imaginary world, and make it seem more tactile, more real.  That sense of realism is a happy fuzzy feeling from having the table gel into the same imaginative space, the world that's being created as play progresses.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I think I should step in with a more leader-ish role for a minute ...

Dreamborn, the reason people aren't giving you their opinions is because this forum doesn't permit opinion polling. That's a constructive choice on my part - in practice, it doesn't accomplish anything. If 80 people all gave you their opinion on what was or wasn't realistic, you'd have 80 points of fluff with no meaningful average and no meaningful bounds.

Instead, Jon (Glendower) is trying to focus on getting away from the use of "realism" as a terminological crutch, and toward identifying what aspect of "imagining together" works best for you. Maybe through our discussion here, you can find a way to articulate what you want that can help avoid sitting through so many hours of frustration and unmet effort in the future. That, to me, seems like a more worthwhile goal than compiling a bunch of reactions to what is, ultimately, a wholly undefined term.

So, it's up to you, but I suggest taking his lead and seeing where it goes.

Best, Ron

[dreamborn]

Hi Ron

this forum doesn't permit opinion polling

Thanks for the info. 

Very well, this shared illusion must start from the GM.  It is his game and he is the character's 5 senses.  His narration provides the spark, the germ of what every player imagines.  The players respond/react, forcing the GM to add detail where needed, further enhancing the illusion.  This interaction, this give and take between GM and player will naturally establish a level of realism that satisfies the group.

So have I echoed back to you what you were saying, Glendower?  If I am then I think we are in agreement.

Kent
www.dreamborn.com

[Callan S.]

Hi,

Lets call the following quotes contents a process

Very well, this shared illusion must start from the GM.  It is his game and he is the character's 5 senses.  His narration provides the spark, the germ of what every player imagines.  The players respond/react, forcing the GM to add detail where needed, further enhancing the illusion.  This interaction, this give and take between GM and player will naturally establish a level of realism that satisfies the group.

Agreement begins at deciding which process to agree to (as a participant at the gaming table), rather than a process occurring and somehow agreement is created because of that. Process doesn't produce an agreement that things are realistic. Agreement approves of process - deciding 'yes, that process will produce realism!'.

It is rather an odd agreement as it's self forfilling. For example, in reality you agree candles can be lit because they can. While the above process - well, it cannot be realistic unless you believe/agree it can. By believing in a process, you imbue it with the quality of producing realism. However, as we are used to things working as they actually are in reality (the candle can be lit), it's a habit to think that the process inherently has the power to be realistic by itself, regardless of agreement.

Yeah I know, its' a bit 'there is no spoon'. That's as I understand the design issues, so take with a grain of salt. But hey, the whole matrix movies delt primarily with the habit of agreeing with something imaginary as if it inherently had the quality of being real, and how its actually about what you decide is real. And kicking Smith in the head. You even had the architect of the matrix trying to create the perfect process to keep people asleep/immersed/feeling their world was real - yet what made that quest impossible is that it wasn't a matter of process, but a matter of agreement and consent. Just bringing up the movie as its a more fun way of looking at the issue than pure, dry theory.

If that doesn't really gel with you, I recommend ignoring this post for now - it was just a pot shot on my part in case some part of it might help.

[Glendower]

Very well, this shared illusion must start from the GM.  It is his game and he is the character's 5 senses.  His narration provides the spark, the germ of what every player imagines.  The players respond/react, forcing the GM to add detail where needed, further enhancing the illusion.  This interaction, this give and take between GM and player will naturally establish a level of realism that satisfies the group.

So have I echoed back to you what you were saying, Glendower?  If I am then I think we are in agreement.

At the very end there, you got pretty close to what I'm talking about.  The part about "satisfies the group".  That's really important, everyone MUST be happy with what's going on.  The problem I'm having in this case is that you're really putting the entire game on the GM's shoulders, and that is neither fair nor accurate for fun games.  The people who play make the game.  The GM is just a player with a few extra responsibilities, like the player that brings the pizza, and the player that hosts the game.

Also, personally I dislike the status of a GM as the owner of a game, which was discussed in a few different threads (here and here, and here).  If a person plays in a game, they own a piece of it.  Their creativity counts in that imagined space just as much as the next person sitting at the table. To say that the GM owns the game means that he can deny additions to the imaginative space. 

Again I come back to the hour long argument between the GM and the Gun loving player.  In that game, the GM owned the imaginative space, and he blocked the gun loving player from adding to the space.  It resulted a long power struggle, and a lot of wasted time.  In the second session, you didn't mention that absurd amount of racism on the "injun" because you had realized from last session you weren't allowed to edit the imagined space.  The GM had complete control, and you knew that bringing it up would likely result in another hour long argument. 

Now, imagine that you could say "I don't think everyone would be that racist" or "that kind of gun should have a different range" without causing noses to get bent out of joint.  With the emphasis on everyone participating in growing the imagined space, you have a group of people that can freely exchange ideas, and not one person with the keys to the imaginative vault.

[dreamborn]

Also, personally I dislike the status of a GM as the owner of a game, which was discussed in a few different threads (here and here, and here).  If a person plays in a game, they own a piece of it.  Their creativity counts in that imagined space just as much as the next person sitting at the table. To say that the GM owns the game means that he can deny additions to the imaginative space.

Hmmm, I will agree the GM does NOT necessarily own the game.  If I said that I was painting with too broad of a brush.  So, let me put it this way, if you are hosting the game at your house and you are the GM, yes you can deny additions to the imaginative space.  In other words you can ask them not to come back or find a different game or just not host the game at your house and not GM the game.  No you don't own the game but any player or GM can leave if they want, or decide as a group to 'kick someone out of the game'.

and you knew that bringing it up would likely result in another hour long argument.  Now, imagine that you could say "I don't think everyone would be that racist" or "that kind of gun should have a different range"

No I didn't know it, but I suspected it.  The reason I didn't press the point about the gun or the level of roleplaying was that I was deciding if there was even a close match for me to be a player with this group.  I made the decision that the GM and the players could never sustain a campaign.  I also made a decision that I didn't match (sync) with their style of play.  So I bowed out.  Like I said before my intuition was proven correct as the campaign dissolved after 3 more sessions.  I wasn't there for those sessions I heard that from a player who was in that campaign and in my normal game as well.

Kent

[Glendower]

Hmmm, I will agree the GM does NOT necessarily own the game.  If I said that I was painting with too broad of a brush.  So, let me put it this way, if you are hosting the game at your house and you are the GM, yes you can deny additions to the imaginative space.  In other words you can ask them not to come back or find a different game or just not host the game at your house and not GM the game.  No you don't own the game but any player or GM can leave if they want, or decide as a group to 'kick someone out of the game'.

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.

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.  It would have given permission to add in ideas, and the other people playing could have added in the bits that they needed to make the game that much better for them.  You could have said what you wanted instead of watching to see if they stumble onto the kinds of things you really like in a game. 

The people at the table have no way of knowing what each person needs to make the game better for them.  There needs to be an environment where a person can tell the group what he or she wants without causing a huge argument and power struggle.  That environment requires the group to trust one another, and to know that their additions to the shared imaginative space will be given some respect and consideration.  I just want to be clear here, but the GM is just another player, and this applies to him as well as the others at the table.  Everyone at the table needs to get their needs met.

Ultimately, that trust and those additions to the shared imaginative space are what allow a game to be fun.  Whether that means it's realistic or action packed or full of story or whatever, the end result is that through communicating with each other, all the players get what they want out of the game they play.  I think that is a much better solution.

[cydmab]

I've been reading this thread for awhile, but I was holding off on commenting until I could think of a way to ground my comments in my actual play.

I think of "realism" in game terms as almost always strongly in the eye of the beholder. At least for practical purposes, barring months of research/experimentation/etc. by every member of the group.

So play example - our current DnD/Freeform campaign has been divided into two parts. The first part took place in a city, where my character at least had political and underworld connections, and where all the characters had grown up in. We had many sessions where the GM would start off describing a weird event, and then I and the other players would start making up scenes and places and contacts we could go to to get information/resources to react to the event. By having substantial ability to define the world, I was able to tilt events toward what I perceived as "realistic." Sure, the other players and especially the GM contributed as well, and sometimes I regarded some of their additions as "unrealistic." But it was all good in the hood, because there was a nice mix between realistic and unexpected events, that left an overall plausible veneer to the game from my perspective.

In the second part of the campaign, the characters are in a wilderness, filled with mystery and weirdness, with no map other than the one linear road with occasional town on the road. The wilderness was described as superdangerous, supermysterious, and super hard to travel in. As we traveled the GM tossed "random" (as in, unpredictable to the PCs or players) encounter after random encounter at us.

In this environment, it was highly unnatural for us as players to guess at or suggest what would come around the next curve. The only way to do it would have been to break character and aggressively seize narrative control, which was against the perceived norms of the game. The GM was also putting weight on keeping things like "whats up the road" as a mystery, so we couldn't even assert what was the next scene without stepping on the GM's toes. (Before the mysteries were like "who set off the bomb?" so the players could set scenes like "talking to informant" without directly compromising the mystery.) So now the GM was in full control of everything that happened.

Now from my perspective, the GM's sense of reality was "Cartoonish." The magical monstrous setting didn't help either. At best I could imagine it all as intentionally Alice-in-Wonderlandish and so everything was SUPPOSED to be absurd.

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.