Aesthetics and Reality

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Could you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific source material)?

I would qualify this with "emulating a genre or specific source or multiple sources" just to allow for such fresh idea and Dracula meets Roger Rabbit, the Vampire/Toon crossover. (Sounds like gold, doesn't it?)

I want to take a small step back. Emulating a source or two seems natural to me. I remember after seeing Condorman when I was a kid, I wanted to BE Condorman. (I was a kid. Sue me) I remember after seeing the Goonies, I wanted to be a Goonie. And so on. This sort of desire to be part of or in the admired story I think was well summed up by a quote attributed to Stephen Spielburg when talking about the Universal Studios theme park.

Ride the movies

So it makes sense that most people who make roleplaying games are trying to provide a method to ride the movies, so to speak. Or perhaps ride the genre? Something along those lines.

[Emily Care]

Could you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific  source material)? I'm hard pressed to think of a single one.

Quite a puzzle. Quick think of a subject for a text that is outside of a genre!  Umm.... Good texts that are unclassifiable often beget their own genre.  It seems like we are using a fairly loose definition of the word genre, such that as soon as you get two texts on the same subject, you'd have a genre.  Maybe I'm looking at this askew. I can't think of a game that fits the description either, though.


John Kim has a very interesting point about the role Traveller played in his life.  It's realism-oriented rules taught him about astrophysics.  That's an extremely worthy goal in a game.  Just as a thought experiment, imagine that Traveller had rules of similar complexity and rigour about physics that operate under different rules than those we have observed to work in our universe.  The game might have been just as enjoyable, but would not have lead to the same level of real world knowledge in his experience had he played this alternate Traveller as a child.  The process of playing it might have taught him other things: math, careful observation, etc., but it wouldn't have taught him about the content of real world physics.  The two versions of Traveller could have been equally well-written games and been equally enjoyed but held different value for players.

Looking at reasons why it may be valuable to use the aesthetic of realism, we may come up with a laundry list of "why work towards realism":

[*]Ease of communication: fidelity to real world gives game participants a shared frame of reference
[*]Aesthetic satisfaction: system elements that emulate real world (in whatever fashion) are satisfying to use or participate in
[*]Artistic Challenge: coming close to reality is a challenge or goal that give satisfaction to accomplish, just as in painting or sculpture, it is a high achievement of skill
[*]Education: incorporating and emulating real world elements teaches participants about what's being emulated, even if the level of simulation is rough
[/list:u]

And maybe a "why not" list:

[*]Because it contradicts genre expectations: eg Death rules for superheros in a game where the super heros will never die.
[*]In order to give a strict simulation of reality: simulations will always be rough approximations (a la John Kim and Jason's posts)
[*]What else?
[/list:u]

If we expand this out to have "realism" included as a GenEx, this list could apply to any old aesthetic.  And as Jack posted, "wanting to be Condorman" could fall under the aesthetic satisfaction category.  Good example, man. :) Or maybe that gets into psychological identification and vicarious experience, which is a matter of what roleplaying is used for in general.  Different topic.

--Emily Care

[deadpanbob]

Could you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific  source material)? I'm hard pressed to think of a single one.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly - lack of sleep and all - but isn't basic GURPS exactly this game?  I'm not sure, because a cursory glance of my GURPS basic edition doesn't show a smoking gun where the designers say "we're trying to simulate reality" - but that seems to be the effect in play (at least among the people I've played GURPS with).

Maybe I'm just not understanding the question?

Cheers,



Jason

[Jere]

John Kim has a very interesting point about the role Traveller played in his life.  It's realism-oriented rules taught him about astrophysics.  That's an extremely worthy goal in a game.

Traveller is an excellent example of a game that strives for realism in certain ways but doesn't in others. I've heard admirable things over the years about Traveller's treatment of Astrophysics from people who certainly understand Astrophysics a whole lot more than I do. Its treatment of technological and societal advancement is atrocious. And its modeling of the social and legal spheres laughable. I would say that Traveller did not even try to acuratelly model these (and if it did, it failed). Does that make Traveller a bad game? Nope, I love it for what it does succeed at, painting a beautiful Space Opera of a setting and giving lots of space to play around with.

Jere

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly - lack of sleep and all - but isn't basic GURPS exactly this game?  I'm not sure, because a cursory glance of my GURPS basic edition doesn't show a smoking gun where the designers say "we're trying to simulate reality" - but that seems to be the effect in play (at least among the people I've played GURPS with).

The problem with discussing specific games is that it's a little hard to distinguish the reality from the advertizing hype.

GURPS was based on many concepts found in Steve Jackson's previous The Fantasy Trip game, a fantasy genre game. The combat system was release before GURPS as Man-To-Man. My point is, GURPS is very much like d20. It was originally designed as a fantasy combat game that has been retooled in a couple places to be "generic" or "universal" but it never quite overcome the fantasy roots. I know at least one guy who things that GURPS is great for fantasy but sucks for modern day because the way guns works is just not "realistic." One man's opinion, but I think I had heard this opinion elsewhere so different people can reach this same conclusion separately. Also, fantasy seems to be the default genre which more telling that GURPS is a fantasy RPG being used for other genres.

[Bruce Baugh]

GURPS claims realism but by no means always delivers. There are all kinds of widgets and blivets in it, and the folks in charge routinely dismiss well-documented evidence that contradicts their stylistic preferences. (Which is fine except insofar as they claim that this or that is how it really is, rather than how they'd like it for a game with a particular sort of default style of its own.)

[Jere]

Could you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific  source material)? I'm hard pressed to think of a single one.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly - lack of sleep and all - but isn't basic GURPS exactly this game?  I'm not sure, because a cursory glance of my GURPS basic edition doesn't show a smoking gun where the designers say "we're trying to simulate reality" - but that seems to be the effect in play (at least among the people I've played GURPS with).

GURPS doesn't succeed in simulating reality. I'd say that GURPS succceeds in providing the rools to build a simulation that meets your needs.

If we take a look at Steve Jackson's introduction (I only have 3rd edition revised on my shelves) he says:

"The basic rules emphasizes realism. Therefore, it can fit any situation -- fantasy or historical, past, present or future." he then goes on to say that "There are world books and supplements that "fine-tune" the generic system for any game-world you want."

Which, and you are right, indicates that Steve Jackson wanted GURPS to be that reality-mdoeling game, but even he realized that the game didn't succeed. I think, given SJGames recent design decisions, that the company has realized that it takes a lot more than 'fine-tuning' and have reacted acordingly with their Powered by GURPS lines. But even then they are more stressing specific emulations (Hellboy, WWII movies, Transhumanism).

GURPS can't even really claim to be a true attempt at reality modeling. They've steered away from comprehensive societal systems, economics, and other areas of human existence.

I just don't think GURPS makes it. There seems to have been the idea that that is what they were trying for, but I think they gave up actually trying to do that years ago and are quite a bit wiser now.

Jere

[Le Joueur]

Hey Jason,

Gots one problem with the following:

Could you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific  source material)? I'm hard pressed to think of a single one.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly - lack of sleep and all - but isn't basic GURPS exactly this game?

Except that do you know anyone who plays only the basic edition?  (Not the 'complete' one that came later with magic and psionic rules, I think those "[emulate] a genre.")  As soon as you pick up one of the other products to play with it....

Fang Langford

[John Kim]

GURPS doesn't succeed in simulating reality. I'd say that GURPS succceeds in providing the rools to build a simulation that meets your needs.
....
Which, and you are right, indicates that Steve Jackson wanted GURPS to be that reality-mdoeling game, but even he realized that the game didn't succeed.
...
GURPS can't even really claim to be a true attempt at reality modeling. They've steered away from comprehensive societal systems, economics, and other areas of human existence.

First of all, you have just shifted the goalposts.  You initially asked for "an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre".  Jason did exactly that, and you admitted that he was right.  

Second, you have moved the goal-posts to a ridiculous point: that in order to "succeed", a game has to perfectly model every aspect of reality in the universe.  Now, I personally dislike the GURPS mechanics and I would agree that they does a very poor job as far as realism goes -- even in the fields where they try.  However, by your definition, it is patently obvious that nothing can ever succeed.  Heck, million-dollar scientific simulations fail even more thoroughly than GURPS does.  No simulation can cover all possible fields, and even within narrow fields, no simulation matches 100% with reality.  

Now, perhaps there is some Zen-like wisdom in saying "All simulations fail."  But we should recognize it as a statement of a universal truth, not an observation about particular games.

[Jason Lee]

If no one's said it yet Jere, Welcome to the Forge!

If GURPS and historical RPGs don't fit the bill for you nothing will.  GURPS is the perfect example of stretching color over simulation rules (despite its fantasy roots).  From my PoV, you're definition of realistic and genre cannot be compatible.

No game will provide an objective simulation of reality - they are all written by people and reality is subjective (I think therefore I am and all that).  I don't think anyone really believes otherwise, but you have to take that into account when trying to find an RPG that's purpose is to simulate reality.  All the game needs to fit the bill then is the goal of simulating reality - the author will do the best he can from his PoV.  An author needs to draw his definition of reality for purposes of the game from somewhere, like historical source material or other things that if you try real hard you can claim are a genre.

Could you give an example of a game that really tries to simulate reality and isn't really just emulating a genre (or specific  source material)?

From what I see here the question seems to actually be:

Could you give an example of a game that really tries to draw upon an external reference and develop a realistic model and isn't really just trying to develop a model based upon an external reference?

Pretty impossible unless you loosen your requirements to something more like:

Could you give an example of a game that really tries to draw upon an external reference and develop a realistic model and isn't using the same external reference for developing color as it is for it's realistic model?

To which I say, GURPS.

I can accept that I may not have been correct as to how the question is supposed to be taken, but I do think broad versus narrow definitions of reality and genre are obsuring the question.  Not saying we should drop the terms, just make sure we're all on the same page.


Fang Cross Post Reply:

Except that do you know anyone who plays only the basic edition?

Me, back in the day when I played GURPS.  Err...wait, memory...it was the 'complete' version.  But, you don't need to always play with those elements.  Besides, 'Yeah, but does anyone actually play this game?' is a pretty weak arguement.  It was written after all, and almost certainly played when that happened.  Given the fact the edition you are refering to was replaced, no people probably don't play it anymore.

John Cross Post Reply:
Yeah.

[John Kim]

Except that do you know anyone who plays only the basic edition?  (Not the 'complete' one that came later with magic and psionic rules, I think those "[emulate] a genre.")  As soon as you pick up one of the other products to play with it....  

Any narrative can be related to a genre, regardless of whether it has magic/psionics/etc.  Even if I play using only the basic edition in a game set in the real world, my GURPS game will have a genre (like the modern adventure genre).  

However, your assertion here is that the presence of any similarity to a genre indicates that the game is "really" trying to emulate that genre, not reality.  i.e. If I have magic in my game, that automatically means that I want my game narrative to be just  like other fantasy genre stories.  I think you need to look at what the designers actually say and do, rather than just citing token similarities.  For example, GURPS Supers has costumed superpowered folk -- but it is also subtitled "Super-Powered Roleplaying Meets the Real World".  It isn't trying to be just like four-color comics, but rather explores "What if super-powers were real?"  

While the sourcebooks vary, overall GURPS is pretty committed to exploring a reality rather than trying to emulate the narrative of source material.  I would cite also the hard science-fiction games "Blue Planet" and "Aurora", which have similar "What If?" questions.  The same applies, I think, to HarnMaster and SkyRealms of Jorune -- which treat their fantasy worlds as real environments.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Fang Cross Post Reply:

Except that do you know anyone who plays only the basic edition?

Me, back in the day when I played GURPS.  Err...wait, memory...it was the 'complete' version.  But, you don't need to always play with those elements.  Besides, 'Yeah, but does anyone actually play this game?' is a pretty weak arguement.  It was written after all.

I don't believe the arguement is that weak. The basic set is meant to be used with with one of the world books, or whatever GURPS calls them. It's like playing AD&D 1st ed with just the players handbook. You kind of need the dungeon master's guide and the monster manual.

Besides, if you buy my arguement that GURPS was built from and defaults to a fantasy genre, then even just playing using the basic rulebook would have some genre expectations. And even if a group did play with just the basic book and they didn't play fantasy, we could probably look at this hypethetical game played by a hypethetical group and notice it fits into this or that genre.

[Jason Lee]

Besides, if you buy my arguement that GURPS was built from and defaults to a fantasy genre, then even just playing using the basic rulebook would have some genre expectations. And even if a group did play with just the basic book and they didn't play fantasy, we could probably look at this hypethetical game played by a hypethetical group and notice it fits into this or that genre.

You're right, which is my problem here.  You can cram anything under the header of genre if you want to.  GURPS is now the 'Realistic Fantasy Genre', my job is now the 'Unix Genre', and my car is the 'Automotive Experience Genre'.  I don't think anything useful can be said about non-genre if non-genre doesn't exist.  In other worlds, using genre too broadly will make this conversation go thunk and then splat.

[Le Joueur]

Since we're descending into the same madness as previously, I hereby retract my challenge.

To bring the word genre into all of it's common uses renders this whole discussion moot.  It's injection was originally as a substitute for 'source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative,' which was an attempt to not use the word 'story.'  If you begin to use 'genre' to mean any roughly contiguous set of experiences ("Unix Genre" or "Automotive Experience Genre") then I vote we avoid it's use for the rest of the thread as that meaning is equivalent to 'thing.'

Cruciel creates a really interesting straw man to argue with essentially implying that it's impossible to simultaneously 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' and 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative."'  This is patently false; I doubt any game ever does one without any of the other.

And that was the basis of my original point.[/list:u]Without the presence of large measures of both, my point becomes nonsensical.  What I was trying to say and keep trying to say despite the frivolous use of 'genre,' despite the straw men stood up, is that since I can't see a game that is played without the presence of both elements in large measure, I argue that making the 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' the more important of the two, weakens (and renders 'harder to ignore the overt presence of') the 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative."'

Try saying that before breakfast.

Anyway, since no one seems to agree that putting a game's 'creative agenda' ahead of the 'completeness' of its mechanisms is the obvious choice, I retract the opinion and plan on keeping it to myself from now on.  If you want a game that is 'more complete' than it is aesthetic, more power to you; I've never seen one of these 'succeed.'  (I plan on no one understanding that line and refuse to explain it.)

Fang Langford

edited to improve color choice and add "is the obivous choice" to a nonsensical statement.

[Jason Lee]

Cruciel creates a really interesting straw man to argue with essentially implying that it's impossible to simultaneously 'work to make the game experience plausible enough to be accessible to many people by familiarity with what they know in real life' and 'work to provide an experience reminscent to some "source material including movies, television, books, and other fictional narrative."'  This is patently false; I doubt any game ever does one without any of the other.

I don't remember saying that, and I certainly didn't mean to.  I was saying that reducing the definition of reality so it approaches zero and increasing the definition of genre so it approaches infinity would make the discussion impossible.

Anyway, since no one seems to agree that putting a game's 'creative agenda' ahead of the 'completeness' of its mechanisms, I retract the opinion and plan on keeping it to myself from now on.  If you want a game that is 'more complete' than it is aesthetic, more power to you; I've never seen one of these 'succeed.'  (I plan on no one understanding that line and refuse to explain it.)

Don't think anyone disagreed with that as a worthwhile goal either.  The only contention is that that need be the only worthwhile goal which could result in a successful game.