RPGs for Modern, Simulationist (?), "Realistic" Adventures

[johntfrazer]

If you're willing to repurpose a bit, I'd recommend Call of Cthulu d20 or Shadowrun 3rd (I haven't played 4th). They each strike a nice balance between tactical combat and "a gun to the face is serious bad news." CoC is a bit grittier, but SR is an espionage game. Both include rules for the supernatural. Of course, you may not want to put in the work involved in creating setting, they are rather specific.

[Luther]

John,

CoC (even more in it's d20 incarnation) and Shadowrun are fairly traditional games. We are looking for something radically different, we want to broaden our gaming experience. I guess the sub-title would be:

Is there a way to enjoy a gritty, realistic world and characters' hard life using "indie" mechanics?

[rekyl]

... ehm Yes? (<--- my reply to the question stated above)

All you gotta do is make it. I mean there are, I'm sure, one thousand and one games out there that are great but the biggest thrill according to me is to make something from the bottom up. Even though it turns out to be crap there is first of all a lesson taught there to help you make better games in the future and second it is something that YOU have made. (I have a chair I've made as a kid at home, you can't sit on it, you kinda need to lean it against a wall to make it stand but there it is, redundant and pointless but no matter where Ive moved in my life (Ive moved around allot) its always been there)

Second, realism in rpg's is an illusion according to me. All you need is a system with a high amount of dice crunching to reflect the objectivism (? don't know if that phrace work there in english but wtf, you know what I mean I hope) of the game, so that you the gamemaster can go "aw crap, sry jimmy, but your character caught the bullet with his forehead". The rest is just fluff.
The realism comes from the descriptions and settings. It is created by the mutuall agreement between the players (and the GM who is after all another player) that some actions lead to certain results. Not ducking when shot at, for example, is atleast not recommended and a player not doing that must be aware that it might be bad for the character. This is done by a mutual agreement. That agreement can come from a heavy set of rules that all players abide by or by an informal agreement between the player about how the world should work.
The first option lets the GM of the hook if the players start whining and is, according to me, better if the players dont know each other to well... the second is better with a group of friends who know where they all stand on things, how they will react. (its like a legal system if everyone could trust that the judge would be a fair person in all aspect and infinetly wise there would be no need for a set of rules, but since we cannot we must have that set of rules (with its own limitations and problems which is another discussion entirely) - since it is a game and hopefully you guys know and trust each other the need for a huge set of lists, tables and rules doens't exist)

Otherwise my opinion is the same Unknown Armies, if you haven't tried it you damn well should... (its the game we've played the most and when me and a friend worked at a hobby store here in Sweden it was the game we sold the most to people... its as close to perfection as Ive seen in a non-indie game)

/Jens

[Luther]

Maybe I've not made myself clear enough: I don't have time to write an RPG, even a crappy, short one.

Thanks for the UA suggestion.