realism in RPG's

[Drifter Bob]

I think this guy Kris Havlak, who wrote a similar article to mine, said it pretty well in his article at:

http://www.gggames.net/medievalcombat.shtml

For those loathe to click the link, here are the first three paragraphs, which are very relevent as to the argument about the value or necessity of realism.

Realism is a word that causes many role-players to writhe in disgust, horrified at the implications when a player character can be killed in a single blow. It is a term often filed away in the musty recesses of gamer’s exile, being sacrificed for widely accepted concepts such as play-balance and speed-of-play.

However, nearly all systems cling to one or another fragment of realism, for the fantasy created by alternate worlds is heightened when some aspect of real life is mimicked. Realism allows our personal experiences to be reflected in the imaginary worlds we create. Without it, players in an imaginary setting have no way of determining actions for their characters, and the world will be incongruous as perceptions will vary. Perhaps this is why games where players take the parts of health-ray wielding amoebas trying to escape from a world where water is solid and gravity is negative are uncommon. Realism doesn’t have to be synonymous with lethal, although it has become that way. Realism in gaming encompasses systems that draw their mechanics from principles of real life.

In any case, the aspect of gaming where realism levels vary the most significantly is that of combat. Obviously, there are games tailored to all tastes-- Dungeons and Dragons® bases combat on powerful heroes, Feng Shui® on cinematics, and a number of more lethal systems such as CORPS® on realistic mechanics. However, even in lethal games where realism is generally obtained, systems of melee combat fail miserably. In some cases, melee combat is dominated by firearms combat and becomes a second priority for game writers. In others, assumptions are made that don’t adhere to the way melee combat actually works. Finally, a number of systems just don’t bother to tweak little details that create the illusion of reality, making it extremely difficult for players to suspend the disbelief of gaming. In many cases this is acceptable, as rules for melee combat can be simple when a game is dominated by guns. However, in worlds without guns, primarily those set in the middle ages, a good set of melee combat rules is essential. A handful of common fallacies with medieval combat systems are easy to point out, and with them a number of ways to make even cinematic games more detailed and believable.

and he also makes good points in his conclusion

None of these changes will make combat more or less lethal, alter the basic gaming system substantially, or detract from the style of play. They will increase realism, however, making the following changes for the better:

•Make suspension of disbelief easier.
•Smooth player-player and player-gamemaster relations, as arguments over plausibility of rules will decrease.
•Allow system to mimic historical settings more effectively.
•Add excitement to combat.
•Add options and variety to combat.
•Make weapons unique, adding color to the campaign and characters.
•Force players to make choices over weapons and actions in combat.
•Add seriousness to combat, while making comical maneuvers more comical.
•Secure play balance.
•Restore common sense to melee combat systems.
•Give fantasy weapons additional uniqueness.
•Allow for realistic melee combat as well as firearms combat.

Finally, these changes will secure proper knowledge of medieval combat into the minds of role-players, building upon personalities in ways that extend beyond the gaming industry into proper physics, principles, history, and general knowledge, thus creating better-rounded gamers. Cinematic combat can remain cinematic, fantasy can remain fantasy, and ultra-realistic systems can claim realism as well as lethality. Without making a system so lethal that players lose their characters the moment they enter combat, realism can be integrated into medieval warfare in such a way as to benefit all aspects of role-playing.

[Andrew Martin]

Anyway, sounds like you are on the right track.  Is your system available for review online somewhere?

http://valley.150m.com/S/

Next version (when I get around to it) will invert the dice order and make it more Fudge compatible.

[contracycle]

And by the way another one that claims where the cliches come from and the exact role of fighters:
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/CommonPlace.htm

Oh not this cliche again.  I regard this article, and the articles on the rapier vs. Katana, as falling into exactly the trap that that the author proclaims to be avoiding.  It is frankly ridiculous to say that in all of academia the ONLY percpetion of the middle ages was "barbaric"; this is completely and utterly false.  To my eye, these writers don't actually seem very familiar with the depth and breadth of extant historical research, and are instead much more interested in polemic and self-promotion.  Like fencing masters through the ages, they assert that they alone know the great secret.

While I'm a great believer in practical experimentation, and definately agree that the precise means of understanding the use of these tools will be obtained by practice with them, I think there is a perverse and ironically very modern obsessions with the specific characteristics of the tools themselves.  And that is what makes the articles on katana v rapier or whatever essentially meaningless except in a look-what-I-know kinda self promotion.  Starting tfrom the assumption that fighters are equally competent, the answer they eventually give is self-evident: it all depends.  The sum total of understanding gained appears to be nil.

While I think the goal of these organs to rediscover lost knowledge through practical experimentation is an important and ladable one, the fact remains that nobody is going to be using these weapons in actual mortal combat any time soon.  Then knowledge we thus gain is just as qualified as that provided by the much derided academia.  I think we should be very very wary of these claims to special insight, especially in regards people who have commercial motives for such claims.  I am not convinced that there has been "an explosion" of knowledge on the topic in the last few years - increased, yes, but I see very little that is that significant or particularly new.

[simon_hibbs]

I'm not trying to push esoterica on anyone, but if you are going to base your combat system on medieval weapons, then maybe you should find out more about them.  Otherwise do like Gene Wolf and have people dueling with venomous flowers or something.

I suppose you might have a point with regard to games that apparently have a lot of detailed weapion and armour charts, but where the details of those charts and accuracy of the statistics are essentialy rubbish. Clearly a game that purports to have a realistic and detailed combat system is fair game for criticism if the details are wrong and it's not at all realistic.

For me though, all of this is Esoterica. I realy don't care about the exact weight, cost or taste of Brigandine armour. Take HeroQuest for example. So far as I know the entire game doesn't have a single description of a weapon or piece of armour, yet the game is about heroic conflict in a mythological ancient world. We know that the Lunar Army are commonly equiped with Scimitars, and that full plate armour is usualy only found in the western nations. That's about it, and for me that's all I need.

The thing is, that doesn't mean HeroQuest is necesserily unrealistic. Like Tolkien's descriptions of battles in Middle Earth, it is as realistic as it needs to be.


Simon Hibbs

[xechnao]

Finally, a number of systems just don't bother to tweak little details that create the illusion of reality, making it extremely difficult for players to suspend the disbelief of gaming.

[/quote]

What is this "illusion of reality" exactly? Can you define it and name it's inside and outside limits? Their internal and external set of values?Where the illusion of reality stands and where not ? If the concept remains even a bit general and abstract it shall make no sense: Whatever you name there can always be quoted something so the illusion will break. So, because it may break by it's definition this illusion it makes no practical or real sense. This means that your "illusion" and "abstract" don't stick together. You have to base the illusion to something specific and this is what I meant "tables*".

•Make suspension of disbelief easier.
•Smooth player-player and player-gamemaster relations, as arguments over plausibility of rules will decrease.
•Allow system to mimic historical settings more effectively.
•Add excitement to combat.
•Add options and variety to combat.
•Make weapons unique, adding color to the campaign and characters.
•Force players to make choices over weapons and actions in combat.
•Add seriousness to combat, while making comical maneuvers more comical.
•Secure play balance.
•Restore common sense to melee combat systems.
•Give fantasy weapons additional uniqueness.
•Allow for realistic melee combat as well as firearms combat.

All these are fine and very nice. But they are another matter than "realsim". They are not defined to be about realism.

Finally, these changes will secure proper knowledge of medieval combat into the minds of role-players, building upon personalities in ways that extend beyond the gaming industry into proper physics, principles, history, and general knowledge, thus creating better-rounded gamers.

I doupt all this. It's a direct fall into the trap mentioned above. These changes and being realistic is something different. So the changes would be something abstract and unfitting for the illusion of realism to base upon.
Developing the illusion of realism on exact or specific tables this makes sense.

*specific system of reference. Consider tables to be systems of reference for the realistic rapresentations you are talking about.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I have been mostly avoiding replying to this thread because, well, I've just been busy burying my father-in-law and all. Anyway, I can get where you're coming from, Bob. I had long labored under the concept of realism as a desirable trait, then I switched to "forget that shit" now I've come full circle and see it as a tool to use. Let me see if I can explain.

Let's look at the bullet points you had quoted:

•Make suspension of disbelief easier.
•Smooth player-player and player-gamemaster relations, as arguments over plausibility of rules will decrease.
•Allow system to mimic historical settings more effectively.
•Add excitement to combat.
•Add options and variety to combat.
•Make weapons unique, adding color to the campaign and characters.
•Force players to make choices over weapons and actions in combat.
•Add seriousness to combat, while making comical maneuvers more comical.
•Secure play balance.
•Restore common sense to melee combat systems.
•Give fantasy weapons additional uniqueness.
•Allow for realistic melee combat as well as firearms combat.

The first impression of all of this is that realism makes combat better.  The second is that realism is a common ground everyone can argee on.
Third is just a general sense that realism = better with points like "Add excitement to combat"

I won't go into my first stage of pro-realism because you are already there. Basically the bullet point and three impressions above.

My anti-realism stage was due to a realization that no matter how 'realistic' a game was, it was still an abstraction. The 'realism' then is always, always, always a subjective opinion. My thinking was, since it is subjective and what is realistic or just common sense to one is illogical to another, my question was "why bother?" For a long time I was like "realism? I piss on your realism."

Now I've come back to it with a slightly tempered view. You can thank Mike Holmes for this. I invite you to skip the middle step, but maybe it's necessary.

Make describes it as using the in-game agents in terms of what they are. This is basically a form of common sense. The neat thing about it is it is portable and maliable.

In WarhammerQuest, the RPG-like board game from GW, the Dwarf carries the rope. What is the rope used for? getting a character out of a pit. That's it. But in an RPG setting, you can use a rope lots of way. You can tie up bad guys rather than kill them. Things like that. This is a realism that is better than "a katana does more damage than a gladius." That sort of thing is rediculous to me. A katana, a dagger, a gladius, a warhammer all are meant to kill. A dagger does not do the least amount of damage, per se. If used right, the other guy is dead with one swing. 1d4 damage my butt.

Hopefully soon I will have time to read your own article and offer more comments.

[Mike Holmes]

That's a fair paraphrase, I guess, Jack.

Think of it this way, Bob. Freeform games, or games with no mecchanics to speak of, are, in some ways, the most realistic. That is, as a player or GM narrating, I am free to model, say, combat, in as much detail as I like. Certainly more detail than any mechanical method possible could via abstraction.

So what is this sense of realism that we get from rules? Well, first, realize that only some players get any sense of realism from rules. Some are turned off completely by modeling rules. But for those who are into the rules, what do they provide?

Well, it's a sense of an arbitrary universe. One in which a participant can't just make up results, but has to abide by some laws of some sort. The thing is that, being as the worlds in question are all fictional, what standards are we held to?

One is that there's an unwritten standard that says, "Unless otherwise noted, the game reality is like ours." All games that I'm aware of assume this in some way. So we're left to assume that your typical fantasy world has Earth Gravity, and Air Pressure and such (I've seen some that actually alter this slightly). Because if the Gravity were significantly different that would alter things like combat dramatically.

So, yes, there's a need to have some sort of "realism" insomuch as it pertains to creating an internally consistent world. And the rules should represent that reality.

The question all comes down to what the game focuses on, however. Many RPGs are interested in "realistic" combat to some extent (though this is an unneccessary historical trend), and as such don't want to mess with gravity as it would just make things less accessible to the players. But even in games where combat is a focus, you admit that there's variability in terms of how much "realism" is intended. One could mess with Gravity. Having metal armor in a world that has a lack of metal wouldn't make any sense, right (see feudal Japan)?

I'd posit to you that every game has its own unique focus. And most of those aren't really concerned with "realism" as you define it. Because realism as a whole, as I've determined above, is really nothing more than a plausible arbitrariness as defined for the world in question. Which, as has also been pointed out, is neccessarily subjective. Even two games that say that they're about "realism" are actually going to be about two different things.

Take Harn for example. Almost the prototype experiment for what you're talking about, Harn says, "what if we had a world that was in all ways precisely like Earth except for the exact geography, history, magic, and a bunch of other details." Well, either you play Earth or you don't, it turns out. Most of Harn is concerned with trying to figure out reasons why, despite a different history that world turned out just like ours, or where the actual differences are.

Which is fine if that's what you're interested in playing. Most other games are more interested in some sort of fantastic amalgam of fantasy literature, and will tell you that in quite some detail up front. Want me to point out about a zillion things that aren't internally consistent about Tolkien's world and the games that are similar (I can if you'd like)? Doesn't matter, nobody cares, they're still enertained, because the focus of play isn't on that sort of realism.

Now, why include the D&D list of armor and weapons, so ill-researched, if you're just making a fantasy that's not interested in realism? I'll admit that's laziness on most designers part. That is, instead of thinking this all through, they just assume, as with many things, that the best way is just to do what previous games have done. Why reinvent the wheel? Or so the thinking goes. If it's satisfactory to a bujillion D&D fans, why change it? That's not a good attitude, but a prevalent one.

Even D&D has this problem itself. Which is to say that the early editions were more concerned with being like the literature than Gygax was in AD&D1. The weapon list he included there he got from a single book on medieval warfare, and it's inclusion was meant to give folks a wider variety of things to choose from mostly. His realism wasn't intended to be Earthlike, it was intended to represent the breadth of weapons and armor that would likely exist in a medieval society. Who cares about the particulars, the important thing in D&D is that Banded Mail (whatever that is) gives you AC 3!

So, yeah, this hodge-podge way of assembling rules was silly. Consider however, that D&D has a special "problem" in relation to other games. It had no default setting other than to say that it was something vaguely medieval. No wonder it's not "realistic", it's not even really worked out what it's supposed to be at all. But that leaves people to make up their own reality again, or use one from a published setting. In either case, they'll get something that's as real as they need it to be (or they'll change systems).

Again, assuming the D&D method was a good standard in other games was probably a mistake. But I'll also say that for most of these games the solution isn't to make the list more accurate to Earth, but to the fantasy world itself. In fact, in many cases I'd advocate not having any listing at all (as was pointed out as how it works in Hero Quest). Because, as we've all said, realism isn't neccessarily detail. It's consistency. Saying nothing about it is just as consistent as saying a lot of consistent stuff.

Again it comes down to the game's focus. If we're playing a Sci-fi game, then I assume that it's OK to not take too much time on Melee Combat, right? But why? Because the game's not about Melee Combat (unless it is, like Dune, in which case, of course you need detail in Melee Combat), it's about, well, something else.

So, you're basically making a large circular argument. If a game is supposed to be about realism, then it should be realistic. Well, who could disagree? The thing is that almost no games are about realism as you define it. What you're saying is tantamount to "I want game realism to be my way," which is just a preference to which all anyone can say is, "That's nice." We have so many games precisely because they can cater to so many views of so many things including realism. This variability is a strength of RPGs, not a failing.

Now, all this said, are there cases where the designer made a mistake and included something in their game that collides with the very level of realism that they're trying to portray? Sure. Some designs are better than others. But a simple admonition to do better would suffice, I'd think. In any case, pushing your version of realism on everybody simply isn't going to accomplish anything.

Mike

[Drifter Bob]

Think of it this way, Bob. Freeform games, or games with no mecchanics to speak of, are, in some ways, the most realistic. That is, as a player or GM narrating, I am free to model, say, combat, in as much detail as I like. Certainly more detail than any mechanical method possible could via abstraction.

So what is this sense of realism that we get from rules? Well, first, realize that only some players get any sense of realism from rules. Some are turned off completely by modeling rules. But for those who are into the rules, what do they provide?

I'm sorry, but I think most of this argument is essentially sophistry, and I doubt we will ever agree in the long run, but for the sake of clarity for other people reading this thread, I'm going to try to clarify this.

Role playing games are essentially a game of "lets pretend".  At minimum, we use dice, charts, and rules as tie breakers, and to represent the firmament of "reality" underlying the imaginary world where the action is taking place.  

Yes, I'll grant you, if you have a master story teller who can make up a tale, come up with the instant decisions and rulings in a way that seems believable and consistent to your players, then you don't need rules.  Similarly, if you have an extremely sophisticated group with the wit and sensitivity to cleverly play off each other, then you can do just fine without really any rules.  But what you have there is really a different type of game altogether, isn't it?  I think it's great if you can pull it off, but I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to have the wit of say, Mary Shelley..

In fact, judging by the low quality of the bulk of fantasy literature which is published these days, it is hard enough to come up with a brilliant story with tons of preparation, proof reading, and editing, (let along a brilliant unique universe with it's own physics) and people with the skill to generate a brilliant story interactively, on the fly, seem to be rarer still.  If that weren't the case, nobody would ever buy pre-fabricated adventures, or games systems with various types of rules, would they?

There is a famous experiment in chaos theory, where a mathemetitian asks his class go home and either flip a coin 100 times, and record the results, or just make up 100 coin toss results out of their heads.  When the students came to class the next day, in every case the professor could tell who had made up coin toss results, and who had actually flipped the coins.

Why?  Because through careful study of chaos theory the professor knows some things about chaos theory that the studen't don't, and knows that studen'ts simply won't guess the results the same way they come out naturally.  Not every DM has this ability naturally, and players will eventually notice the difference between arbitrary decisions, even if they are intended to be balanced, and mechanics which work (through whatever filter) the way things do in the real world.

Needless to say, this is even more true when you are talking about the complex dynamics of say, a sword fight.

But because the mechanics are complex, doesn't mean a game based on them has to be (contrary to the opinion of our friend posting from Italy)

I think most people realise this.  I think most people realise that there is a certain amount of both History and physics underlying most rpg games. Making that basis a bit more accurate isn't harmful, really.  But it is a threat to some people for reasons more emotional than logical.  

This is unfortunatley a bigger issue I think in the RPG community than bad research.

I recently ran a year-long D20 campaign, using some special house rules modified to convey a moderate degree of realism.  My gaming group consisted of 4 brand new people who had never played and rpg in their life, and 4 experienced players.  Three women and five men.  It took some convincing to lure the non- gamers into the campaign, but once they tried it, they really liked it.  They also took naturally to the realistic rules.

I remember when I myself first started playing D&D back in the 1980's, how the initially overwhelming intensity of the experienced diminished a great deal, when the disapointing weaknesses of the rules came to light: there was no way for me to aim at the monsters hand, to chop off his wand, or whatever it was.  My new players didn't have to experience this let down, the house rules we had made up were able to accomodate any idea they had, and as a result, even the people who normally had no interest in weapons and such things, (like my girlfriend) took naturally to their roles as warriors and were able to grasp the nuances of combat easily.  

The new people actually enjoyed and took advantage of the realistic combat rules (and other realistic rules) even more than the experienced players, though in all but one case they really enjoyed it too.  When I broke up the game after the campaign ended and a whole year had gone by, everyone was pissed and wanted to keep going, and while the game was still goign they were always after me to play more frequently than the twice a month we usually did.  These being professional people in their thirties with families and careers!

Only one guy didn't like the realism, to my surprise, this was the guy who was by far the most experienced gamer, the only really hard core geek in the group other than myself, someone who knew all the technical details.  He hated it so much in fact that it actually seriously damaged our friendship.  He later confessed to me that he despised the idea of modifying the rules on principle, it filled him with a really disproportionate rage and fear.  He used to lash out at the other players, especially the less experienced ones, and we couldn't figure it out.

This was before I had started to muck about on internet forums, and it was really my first encounter with gamer archetype No.2.

I have noticed 2 basic gamer archetypes.  One group are the 'freethinker' type people who like to play around with RPG games, who enjoy them as thought experiments and social events.  These are usually the ones who don't mind playing any game system or character type, being people who like to experiment.

Then there is this other group, the ones who are oddly fanatical at unexpected moments.  The ones who have very definate favorite games systems, character types, classes, races, alignments etc. etc.  I knew of one guy, a grown, educated man, who wouldn't play any role playing game unless he could secretly be a white dragon polymorphed to look like a human.  

This other group, archetype No 2., wants their rpg OFFICIAL, and By THE BOOK, they don't want to do any thinking, they resent any subversive attitudes in their escape universe.  For them, the RPG world has become a kind of tattered, mediocre security blanket, an interactive Gilligans Island, and they like it that way.  They rationalize this with a smug embrace of mediocrity and of the status quo, at all costs.

These people I'm never going to reach with anything I do, and I'll never enjoy the gaming experience with them.  They may be the majority of gamers for all I know.  But to the rest of you, who like to have fun with it, who enjoy gaming but aren't dogmatic / religious about it, maybe my work will have some positive effect.

Well, it's a sense of an arbitrary universe. One in which a participant can't just make up results, but has to abide by some laws of some sort. The thing is that, being as the worlds in question are all fictional, what standards are we held to?

Generally, either you hold to the standards of some well understood genre or literature (comic books, kung fu movies, Wild West films, Lovecraft, the Dying Earth), or to a greater or lesser extent, the real physical world, either historical or present tense.  Again, few people have the skill to create a purely arbitrary universe (I defer to the comment about amoebas in negative gravity using health rays)

So, yes, there's a need to have some sort of "realism" insomuch as it pertains to creating an internally consistent world. And the rules should represent that reality.

Here, we agree

The question all comes down to what the game focuses on, however. Many RPGs are interested in "realistic" combat to some extent (though this is an unneccessary historical trend), and as such don't want to mess with gravity as it would just make things less accessible to the players. But even in games where combat is a focus, you admit that there's variability in terms of how much "realism" is intended.

But that still doesn't change the fact of whether that underlying reality, or core of realism, is based on something real or just fudged.  My argument is that the real, whether you are talking about History or Physics, is much more nuanced, internally consistent, and frankly interesting.

One could mess with Gravity. Having metal armor in a world that has a lack of metal wouldn't make any sense, right (see feudal Japan)?

Messing with gravity seems kind of silly to me, though I'd be willing to play the game if you make one and it works!  As for a society without metal (they did have metal in japan, what do you think their swords were made of?) it just a matter of the genre.  I think a neolithic game would be very interesting, saga of the ice man anyone?

I'd posit to you that every game has its own unique focus. And most of those aren't really concerned with "realism" as you define it. Because realism as a whole, as I've determined above, is really nothing more than a plausible arbitrariness as defined for the world in question. Which, as has also been pointed out, is neccessarily subjective. Even two games that say that they're about "realism" are actually going to be about two different things.

This just sounds like sophistry to me.  The underlying mechanics that you start from are the same.  You can twist them and play with them, strip some out or add more, as you like, but that doesn't change the fact that swords cut, maces bash, etc.

Which is fine if that's what you're interested in playing. Most other games are more interested in some sort of fantastic amalgam of fantasy literature, and will tell you that in quite some detail up front. Want me to point out about a zillion things that aren't internally consistent about Tolkien's world and the games that are similar (I can if you'd like)? Doesn't matter, nobody cares, they're still enertained, because the focus of play isn't on that sort of realism.

Actually, Tolkein is a good example of underlying realism.  Many of his characters were pretty two dimensional, his dialogue was a bit weak.  One of the main things which made his books great was the background, which was brilliant..  In fact as many people are aware he started with the background, specificially the languages of the different races, and worked his way toward the story.  Many of the details of the story, like faerie tales, ring true to us because they have an echo in history.  Like the Hobbits finding the swords in the barrows in the beginning of the lord of the rings.  This is a page from the reality of a the vikings, it's almost like a thought experiement of what it must have been like for a 12th century viking, say, to raid an ancient barrow, seeking weapons of a lost, superior technology (called pattern welding) which he believed hade been made by "giants" or "trolls".  In fact many of the themes in Tolkein become very familair when you read Welsh mythology, the Norse Sagas, and the Germanic Eddas.  This, and this history behind it,  is where a lot of the really nice nuances which make those stories immersive come from.  The same is true in rpgs.

Similarly, as I've pointed out already in this thread, the other fantasy authors upon which D&D was based, (Moorcock, Vance, Lieber, et al) were firmly grounded in history, and borrowed from it heavily.

And sure there are inconsistencies, I'm not demanding perfection.  Just a renewed effort.

thinking goes. If it's satisfactory to a bujillion D&D fans, why change it? That's not a good attitude, but a prevalent one.

Because a system with a better basis in realism could work more smoothly, feel more natural, and ultimately, actually teach you a bit about a distant reality which is part of our heritage, which many of us interested in rpgs' are also frankly drawn to, instead of just a mush of nonesense.

Even D&D has this problem itself. Which is to say that the early editions were more concerned with being like the literature than Gygax was in AD&D1. The weapon list he included there he got from a single book on medieval warfare, and it's inclusion was meant to give folks a wider variety of things to choose from mostly.

Thats not true.  Gygax did a lot of research on his own, (there was a good bibliography I believe in the DMG) but he also borrowed heavily from the miniatures wargame industry, from which D&D evolved, which was then and is now superbly researched, in fact to this day those Osprey Military books, written primarioly for minitiatures, are among the best sources you can get outside of a university for arms and armor of different periods.

His realism wasn't intended to be Earthlike, it was intended to represent the breadth of weapons and armor that would likely exist in a medieval society. Who cares about the particulars, the important thing in D&D is that Banded Mail (whatever that is) gives you AC 3!

Again, I totally disagree, though only he could answer that.

Because, as we've all said, realism isn't neccessarily detail. It's consistency. Saying nothing about it is just as consistent as saying a lot of consistent stuff.

Yeah, but I doubt it is as much fun.

Again it comes down to the game's focus. If we're playing a Sci-fi game, then I assume that it's OK to not take too much time on Melee Combat, right? But why? Because the game's not about Melee Combat (unless it is, like Dune, in which case, of course you need detail in Melee Combat), it's about, well, something else.

I wasn't really restricting my ideas of realism to melee combat, but actually, yeah, you would still have melee in a sci fi world.  When the Alien attacks you, it's melee, isn't it?  We have guns today but I have personally been in hundreds of bar fights, and a few more serious than that, without guns.  I even once took a gun away from a guy in a fight.

So, you're basically making a large circular argument. If a game is supposed to be about realism, then it should be realistic. Well, who could disagree? The thing is that almost no games are about realism as you define it.

It is my contention that probably 90% of the games out there (all of them except the ones which are specifically tied to some "unreality" universe like comic book games) have some basis in realism, which being distorted, could stand to be improved.

What you're saying is tantamount to "I want game realism to be my way," which is just a preference to which all anyone can say is, "That's nice." We have so many games precisely because they can cater to so many views of so many things including realism. This variability is a strength of RPGs, not a failing.

As I said at the beginning of this, I don't think you get it, I'm certainly not against variability in rpg games!

But a simple admonition to do better would suffice, I'd think. In any case, pushing your version of realism on everybody simply isn't going to accomplish anything.

Some people just instinctively hate any tinkering with their security blanket.  I personally dont' think just saying 'do better' woudl suffice, I don't want to gripe.  I didn't even want to argue about the value of realism, I just wanted to help define it.

JR

[deadpanbob]

JR/Drifter Bob:

So, are you saying that you're okay with just about any game design as long as it's informed by reality?

For example, a game like My Life With Master seems to consistently and realistically model the world of the Minions of a distirbued Evil Genius.  There's no long list of weapons - no modifiers for one combat style vs. another - none of the stuff you're talking about.

But, combat can happen in the game.  By all accounts fun, entertaining, adult, sophisticated and exciting combat.  In fact, the game paly, if reports are to be beleived, is very addictive, and in high demand.

The same could be said of Sorcerer - which again you wouldn't have a problem with, because you support the diversity of RPG design, even though it doesn't realistically model the damage done from guns or swords?

I mean, Sorcerer has one of the most realistically grounded rulesets for dealing with thematically infused Premise - so much so that when played to the hilt it's hard to not have Morality and Theme oozing out of the players...so you'd be in agreement that that type of realism is good too, right?  Even though the Sorcerer rules are pretty light on the subject of say, how to accurately reflect falling damage?  

I'd go so far as to say that absolutely no connection could be made between the actual physics of falling and how you'd deal with that under the Sorcere rules, and yet a lot of people find that game strikingly relevant, entertaining, adult, and immently replayable.

The point of all this, is that what you think would be an improvement to RPGs isn't necessarily an improvement from everyone's point of view.   And before you admonish me again, it has nothing to do with fanatical loyalty to 'unreality' or to the 'security blanket' of the games we like to play.

A lot of the people who've contributed to this thread probably have a lot of real life and research based experience in exactly the type of stuff you're discussing here (i.e. weapons, armor, fighting styles and their historical uses and real-world applications) - and while they aren't disagreeing with you, they are saying that tastes may vary, that your way isn't the only way.

I don't see why there has to be any disagreement about this at all.  That is to say, if you like this level of realism, and this type of application of realism, great!  If some of us don't, great!  Neither group is inherently better nor by nessesity, implication or objective measure more appealing to a wider audience.  And citing anecdotal eveidence to the contrary isn't really that compelling - 'cause for every example you can cite where realism interjected into a game made it more fun for everyone, and left them begging for more, I could cite an example where REJECTING realism in a game had exactly the same effects.

Cheers,


Jason

[Drifter Bob]

JR/Drifter Bob:

So, are you saying that you're okay with just about any game design as long as it's informed by reality?

I'm okay with any game design that works, is internally consistent (even if that consistency means, being inconsistent, like this game i once played called 'paranoi') and is a fun game.

For example, a game like My Life With Master seems to consistently and realistically model the world of the Minions of a distirbued Evil Genius.  There's no long list of weapons - no modifiers for one combat style vs. another - none of the stuff you're talking about.

Sounds like a cool game to me, and a hilarious premise

The same could be said of Sorcerer - which again you wouldn't have a problem with, because you support the diversity of RPG design, even though it doesn't realistically model the damage done from guns or swords?

I've heard of Sorcerer, I would imagine it's a lot of fun, in this case partially because it's well developed and internally consistent.

right?  Even though the Sorcerer rules are pretty light on the subject of say, how to accurately reflect falling damage?  

It wouldn't matter so much if they were light, or very detailed, so long as
they made sense within the context of the game.

I'd go so far as to say that absolutely no connection could be made between the actual physics of falling and how you'd deal with that under the Sorcere rules, and yet a lot of people find that game strikingly relevant, entertaining, adult, and immently replayable.

Assuming the falling rules are unrealistically done, and assuming there isn't some compelling game design reason for them to be the way they are, would it hurt the game particularly if they were updated in the next release on a slightly more rational basis?

The point of all this, is that what you think would be an improvement to RPGs isn't necessarily an improvement from everyone's point of view.   And before you admonish me again, it has nothing to do with fanatical loyalty to 'unreality' or to the 'security blanket' of the games we like to play.

A couple of people in this thread have evinced a conscious preference for less reality, just as I pointed out (to everyones indignation) in my article.  I find it interesting that people seem to think it's ok for somebody to prefer less realism but bad to prefer more realism?

A lot of the people who've contributed to this thread probably have a lot of real life and research based experience in exactly the type of stuff you're discussing here (i.e. weapons, armor, fighting styles and their historical uses and real-world applications) - and while they aren't disagreeing with you, they are saying that tastes may vary, that your way isn't the only way.

You just don't get it bro, you are confusing an interest in a basis in realism for a fetish for complexity, which is basically what you and a couple of other people in this forum are accusing me of.  I've said it several times already but I'll say it again:  I don't prefer complexity to simplicty.  I think a simple, abstract game can be as much based on a realistic model of the physics, say than a complex game.  I prefer games which are internally consistent, nuanced, immersive and fun to mediocre muddles which are neither here nor there.  In other words, give me a skateboard, or a mazzerati, but I don't want no pinto.

I don't see why there has to be any disagreement about this at all.  That is to say, if you like this level of realism, and this type of application of realism, great!  If some of us don't, great!  Neither group is inherently better nor by nessesity, implication or objective measure more appealing to a wider audience.  

Again, it's not about a 'level' of realsim.  What you are talking about is a level of complexity, which is not the same thing.  I guess the problem is coming from the fact that I mentioned some equipment in my article.  I guess an example of what I mean is, if you want 50 types of armor, fine, if you want only 3 types of armor, or no armor, fine.  If you want fantasy armor made of feathers, fine.  But if you are putting say your 3 types of armor in under the assumption that they are based on real types, and two of them are just more or less nonsensical baggage left over from the first edition of D&D, then maybe you could consider fixing that.  Ditto for outdated mechanics which don't make any sense.  If you have a reason for it, compelling for the plot of the game, fine, if not, why keep it that way?

And citing anecdotal eveidence to the contrary isn't really that compelling - 'cause for every example you can cite where realism interjected into a game made it more fun for everyone

I just cited that anecdote to made the point that at least in some cases, it's the less technical people who like realism better, and also to point out an example of the "archetype #2" I was talking about.  I wasn't saying it was the case for 'everyone'.

, and left them begging for more, I could cite an example where REJECTING realism in a game had exactly the same effects.

I bet you could, and how!

Cheers,
Jason

Right back at you

JR

[M. J. Young]

I took the time to print the article and take it with me to the reading room.

As an explication of how realism might be achieved, it falls short, really--it seems only to be saying that we should do more research to achieve realism.

As a defense of the value of realism, it makes no effort; it presumes this as a value toward which role playing games should strive.

Further, despite claims by the author here that he has no problem with games that are intentionally unrealistic, the tone of the article (and of some of his posts) is entirely condescending.

I should add that I am not opposed to games which are silly because they are meant to be silly. There are always going to be RPG's where orthodox realism is neither appropriate nor necessary.

(emphasis mine)
He cites in this regard Call of Cthulu, Feng Shui, and all superhero games. He thus divides all game combat systems into two categories: "realistic" and "silly". That's condescending. It's insulting.

He rails against unrealistic combat.

What we are left with by default is more influenced by popular films and TV than history or the old fantasy literature tradition; a kind of Hollywood version of the medieval world, a "Disney dark ages".

He oozes with the superiority of his methodology, maintaining that realism is the only direction games should take.

Yet this particular quote should be viewed in stark contrast to the opening words of his article,

With the immense popularity of the Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Matrix films, and the subsequent upsurge in interest in the Fantasy and Science Fiction genres, there has been a major resurgence in the popularity of role playing games in the last three years.

So we have an influx of people interested in playing games, because they are seeking a particular kind of experience. What is that experience? Is it that they've all become fascinated with recreating realistic fifth century Viking culture? Has everyone suddenly taken an interest in what combat was really like at Agincourt? Emphatically No! These people specifically are attracted to the possibility that they could have game experiences which are exactly like

popular films and TV...a kind of a Hollywood version of the medieval world....

and perhaps even

...a "Disney dark ages".

If these are the things that are attracting people to role playing games, shouldn't we be designing games that give them that? I know that my initial interest in Dungeons & Dragons came from my desire to find a game that would make it possible to have adventures like those told in Lord of the Rings; to some degree, AD&D did that--it certainly did it to a greater degree than SPI's Middle Earth Bookcase Game.

I'm not one to decry realism; I think that Multiverser provides ample tools to build just about any sort of "realistic" modifiers into play that you want. I also think that the more of such modifiers you add, the less these games resemble the fantasies people want to discover. It's not because realistic combat is too deadly (although some more realistic games do have that aspect). It's not because realism slows play drastically (although some more realistic games are very cumbersome in that regard, and even in Multiverser play slows the more detailed you make it). It's because people don't care and don't want to care about the reality of fourth to fifteenth century combat--or for that matter about real WWI or WWII warfare, or real 20's gangster fights, or real western shootouts. They care about the dream, the illusion, the feeling of being in the movies or the books.

Sure, some of us would enjoy a game that had more realism, and some of us would find that information very enjoyable from an educational perspective. It's the minority view, even among hardcore gamers. (It's questionable whether such realism is the majority preference even among modern wargamers, many of whom are prefering games with a higher level of abstraction now.) If you want to appeal to new gamers, or to the majority of old gamers, that's the wrong direction.

Before I close, one thing I wanted to say was this: a good solid explanation for why realism is valuable to roleplaying game design is completely absent from this article. It would make a fine article itself, and seems to me to have been an essential prequel to the one to which we were referred. Maybe the author has that article in him somewhere, and can find someplace to publish it. I think this article would have been a lot less egregious had it been the second part, where the first part explained some basis for realism as a goal or value in game design.

I hope this is helpful.

--M. J. Young

[Trevis Martin]

JR,

I think MJ has brought the focus back to this for me.  Several of your posts suggest that you are indeed willing to give wide lattitude for other play styles and priorities.  That's great.  Its what everyone here is about.  I agree that there is a definate advantage to internal consistancy, and also a certain enjoyable quality to intensly detailed, gritty,  emulated combat.

The problem that I see is that there is a wide divergence between what you say your thought is in this thread and the perspective presented in your article.  I suggest that your ideas are fine ones to write about but that the article itself could stand some substantial editing so as not to distract people from your central discussion by offending them accidentally with what seems to be dismissivness of other play styles and priorities.

regards

Trevis.

[Drifter Bob]

He cites in this regard Call of Cthulu, Feng Shui, and all superhero games. He thus divides all game combat systems into two categories: "realistic" and "silly". That's condescending. It's insulting.

I'm sorry, but I addressed all of your arguments in previous responses in this thread.  Maybe you should print them out too.  Then again, something tells me you wouldn't get it.  You are one of those people, I'm afraid, and you are never going to get it.  

Silly is an insult?  Thas insulting?  I love call of cthulhu, I even like D&D for all it's faults, but elves and dwarves and etc., are silly.  If you take yourself so seriously that you cant embrace being called silly, you are really hopeless.

And with regard to wanting to live in the Tolkein universe, yeah, I think that is the motivation of a lot of gamers, and as I pointed out 6 or 7 times already, Tolkein himself was heavily based in reality.

I'm aware that abstracted Wargames are popular, but so are the complex ones.  The point is, as I pointed out in the article you claim to have read, abstraction does not preculde realism.  You are confusing realism for complexity.

In summary, I would say it is the mentality you voice which led the RPG community to 2E D&D and the creation of the D&D movie.  Embrace the mediocrity, you will have plenty of company in your dreary paradaise.

"Act like a dumbshit, and They will treat you as an equal."

"I don't practice what I preach, because I'm not the kind of man I'm preaching to."

J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Well folks, I'm not a moderator but it seems to be to be time to put this thread to bed. JR has said his piece and at this point it has become a pointless exercise in trying to change one guy's mind. This has JR on the defensive. He's getting a little bit inappropriate for discussion here, but I'm willing to forgive it if everyone else is, and this includes JR for feeling put on the spot. No harm, no foul?

In any case, maybe we should all count to 10 and see if there's a point to continuing here before the moderators do step in?

[xechnao]

[quote="Drifter Bob]

I'm sorry, but I think most of this argument is essentially sophistry, and I doubt we will ever agree in the long run, but for the sake of clarity for other people reading this thread, I'm going to try to clarify this.

Role playing games are essentially a game of "lets pretend".  At minimum, we use dice, charts, and rules as tie breakers, and to represent the firmament of "reality" underlying the imaginary world where the action is taking place.  

JR

To understand Mike's point you must understand that posing the question: "what do we pretend?" is the first realistic question. The answer to this will be your base or table for further rapresentations on this basis.

You say: to represent the firmament of "reality" underlying the imaginary world where the action is taking place.
Ok but this is too abstract*. The only way to raprsesent something of this on paper, it would be on tables as I've told or follow the way Mike has said:
"Freeform games, or games with no mecchanics to speak of, are, in some ways, the most realistic. That is, as a player or GM narrating, I am free to model, say, combat, in as much detail as I like. Certainly more detail than any mechanical method possible could via abstraction."
If you choose Mike's way the discussion can stop over here. Alternativelly you can make tables and ask people if they like them and offer them to people that would enjoy their taste.
For instance change the charts of AD&D as you have mentioned and make them available for anyone that could enjoy them. But abstractivelly trying to impose a general rule or concept of a methodology of realsim in rpgs makes no sense.
What I am suggesting is that this thread of realism shouldn't go on in Rpg Theory any more but something in Game Design if this matter of melee need be continioued.

*further ahead on this post you say:"But that still doesn't change the fact of whether that underlying reality, or core of realism, is based on something real or just fudged" and furthermore "abstraction does not preculde realism".
The frases: "realism based on something real or whatever" and "abstraction does not preculde realism" don't make sense. Realism is realism, period. What you can do is only work on paper(writting down your tables or points-systems of reference) and this only can make some sense as something with a rule/rules to guide.