Realism in RPG's and the Riddle of Steel

[Drifter Bob]

I mentioned TROS in an article I recently did (actually, part 1 of a 2 part article) for Swordse Edge magazine.  You can see the article here:
http://www.swordsedge.net/Issue15/ArticleMechanicsOfMelee.html
I'd be interested to hear any reactions anyone has to it, and any comments on the issue in general.

JR

[MonkeyWrench]

I found the artilce to be quite interesting. I eagerly await part 2.

I've always felt that most RPGs fail to capture the true essense of arms and armor. Even though I know scant little about historical accuracy common sense dictates that bludgeoning weapons would be better against flexible mail and piercing attacks would be effective against almost anything, and yet (at least in the current incarnation of DND) the varying types of damage affect armor very little. Along similar lines I would like to see the impact of such an article introduced to the DnD message boards.

Do you play Riddle of Steel regularly or do you just have a passing knowledge of it? If you do play regularly how do you feel that RoS represents the principles you lay down?

[J B Bell]

Drifter,

I didn't finish the article. I didn't find it captured my interest. When I read this:

Some fans of RPG's consciously welcome this as a positive development. Frustration with the previous bungled attempts by designers to improve realism has fostered a general hostility toward historical grounding, and a deliberate intellectual defense of what has become the recognizable trend toward "anti-realism".

My bias detectors began jangling. Then just a bit further down we have:

There always will be a fan base for professional wrestling, and there will always be gamers who prefer low-brow rule systems and reject concepts like "internal consistency" outright.

I felt offended at this point, as I have a need for respect, and didn't feel motivated to continue. I would have enjoyed the article more, which goes on to fairly characterize gamers who like game mechanics that closely simulate in-game-world events, if it hadn't started off on this tack of bemoaning the state of the industry as if there is some ideal game out there, with the others being pale imitations or failures.

There are many crappy game systems out there, and many that advertise themselves as "realistic" and either don't deliver on that promise or that seem to have a pretty weird or nonexistent idea of what "realistic" means. However, there are also a good number of games that operate on a whole different tack from the Riddle of Steel and succeed in satisfying what brings their players to the table. Look on the rest of the Forge for plentiful examples. You may not enjoy these kinds of games but I hope future articles will dwell on what satisfies and delights what you want in gaming, without dumping on what other people enjoy.

--JB

[Drifter Bob]

I find that people are incredibly sensitive about this issue, as if (fairly mild)criticism of a particular style of gaming was a condemnation of their entire existence.  I can't help but notice it's quite reminiscent of the way people react to having their religion crtiticised.

My point however, wasn't so much to make a case for realism in role playing games or argue against unrealistic ones (I specifically pointed out that i had no problem with games which are intentionally unrealistic!) but rather to start discussion of and create a resource for the idea of making 'hard' rpg's more realisitc.

At any rate. JB wrote:

Drifter,

I didn't finish the article. I didn't find it captured my interest. When I read this:


Quote:
Some fans of RPG’s consciously welcome this as a positive development. Frustration with the previous bungled attempts by designers to improve realism has fostered a general hostility toward historical grounding, and a deliberate intellectual defense of what has become the recognizable trend toward "anti-realism".

Well, perhaps you should have read a bit further before reaching a conclusion, since your assumption about the article was incorrect.

In this case I was referring to a specific article which was written in defense of "anti-realism".

[/quote]

My bias detectors began jangling. Then just a bit further down we have:

Quote:
There always will be a fan base for professional wrestling, and there will always be gamers who prefer low-brow rule systems and reject concepts like “internal consistency” outright.

I felt offended at this point, as I have a need for respect, and didn't feel
motivated to continue. I would have enjoyed the article more, which goes on to fairly characterize gamers who like game mechanics that closely simulate in-game-world events, if it hadn't started off on this tack of bemoaning the state of the industry as if there is some ideal game out there, with the others being pale imitations or failures.

I wasn't bemoaning the state of the entire industry, but rather of the majority of games out there which are ostensibly meant to be somewhat realistic but aren't in the least.  I was 'bemoaning' the lack of realism in the mix of both realistic games (with the exception of TROS) and those which fall somewhere in the middle, meant to be a balnce of realism and fantasy abstraction.

There are many crappy game systems out there, and many that advertise themselves as "realistic" and either don't deliver on that promise or that seem to have a pretty weird or nonexistent idea of what "realistic" means. However, there are also a good number of games that operate on a whole different tack from the Riddle of Steel and succeed in satisfying what brings their players to the table. Look on the rest of the Forge for plentiful examples. You may not enjoy these kinds of games but I hope future articles will dwell on what satisfies and delights what you want in gaming, without dumping on what other people enjoy.

I quote from the article, perhaps you skipped this part:

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. Sub-genre games such as Call of Cthulhu and The Dying Earth, and cinematic oriented games such as Feng Shui for example all have combat systems modeled after the their own unique settings. Comedic and super hero games can do away with realism altogether.

My point was merely that games which were assumed by most people to have realistic combat systems had nothing of the sort.  But I even went on to make it clear that people were entitled to do pseudo realism in "hard" fantasy games as well if they want to:


And ultimately, if you are happy running your hard fantasy campaigns in a world of chainmail bikinis or double bladed spinning boomerang axes, then you will be quite well accommodated by the current industry trends. The road to combat realism is a hard slog against the current and it’s definitely not for everybody.



--JB
_________________

JR

[contracycle]

Dude - its not for everybody not only becuase they are to wuss to make the slog, butbthey don;t necessarily WANT to make the slog.  I think the problemn with the article people are identifying is that it presupposes a One True Way, and that of course gets up peoples noses.  It's perfectly legitmiate to say that the present state of the iundustry does not suit YOUR preference, but frankly, why should I care?

[MonkeyWrench]

I thought the point of the acrticle was about consistency. If it an RPG is going to claim realism, but then fails to reinforce those claims then thats inconsistent. To me unless a game explicitly says that it does not concern itself with realism then I assume that they are trying to do things realistically. If said game then fails to provide realism this puts a bug up my ass. I never really got the impression that the article supported one way of playing.

[tauman]

I enjoyed part one and look forward to part two. I especially agree about the lack of differentiation of weapons. Why, in AD&D for instance, would anyone who can use a longsword use any other one-handed weapon (unless the 'to hit vs. armor' adjustments are used)?

I think that eventually, FRPGs might have a renaissance of accuracy (or at least I can hope).

Be sure to let us know when part 2 is out...

tauman

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hi Bob,

Just to help you (perhaps) understand why people are bent out of shape by parts of the article:

I should add that I am not opposed to games which are silly because they are meant to be silly.

You point to this as an example of why people shouldn't be upset with the article?  Can you not see how incredibly condescending that sentence is?  "Well, if you WANT a silly game, that's OK - nothing wrong with that."

There are alternatives to your approach that are in no way "silly."  

Reading your comments above, I guess this article is in some ways a response to another that belittled your preferred approach.  That may help explain your, ah, agressive tone, but as a reader of the article without that context, it makes it all-too easy to dismiss the article as reactionary and not well-considered.

I think you *do* have some well-considered points in there, and I look forward to part two - but I also think you'd be well served to lose the attitude.  Frankly, even your  . . . clarifications? (appologies doesn't seem to fit) about your tone in-thread are pretty back-handed (reminiscent of religion?  What, someone who's offended by being called "silly" is now some kind of fundamentalist?)

There's enough good stuff in what you're saying that I hate to see it get lost because of some really unnecessary aggresion.

Gordon

[Salamander]

I enjoyed part one and look forward to part two. I especially agree about the lack of differentiation of weapons. Why, in AD&D for instance, would anyone who can use a longsword use any other one-handed weapon (unless the 'to hit vs. armor' adjustments are used)?

I think that eventually, FRPGs might have a renaissance of accuracy (or at least I can hope).

Be sure to let us know when part 2 is out...

tauman

I believe that the renaissance of improved accuraccy may be an unrealistic ideal. As has been mentioned previously, the grail of accuracy is only sought by a very few. The majority of players out there want to go out kick some hiney and get the girl.

I have no problem with this. I've recently had two players leave my group because I would not do this... but I won't hold it against them. We just weren't in the same place is all...

Few players want to have to stop and think, "gee, this guy could kill my character". My current group loves this stuff and play accordingly, great fo me and them, but not so cool for others.

[Brian Leybourne]

The majority of players out there want to go out kick some hiney and get the girl.

It's certainly preferable to kicking the girl and getting some hiney :-)

Brian.

[Drifter Bob]

Drifter Bob wrote:
I should add that I am not opposed to games which are silly because they are meant to be silly.

You point to this as an example of why people shouldn't be upset with the article? Can you not see how incredibly condescending that sentence is? "Well, if you WANT a silly game, that's OK - nothing wrong with that."

Aain, I guess it depends how offended you get by the label silly.  Silly is something I engage in all the time.  I don't think of the term as perjorative.

I was pretty clear about the point that "comedic and super hero games can do with out realism altogether" and pointed out that games like feng shui, call of cthulhu, and the Dying Earth role playing game were good examples of systems which didn't need realism.  I don't think i was being condescending about that.

As for aggressions, well I am aggressive,  and frankly, the low quality of a lot of RPG's merits a bit of aggression.  Regarding the religious fervor of some RPG players, isn't it accepted terminology to describe "canonical" adherance to rules systems?  I didn't invent this, it's a reality.  Many people fear change in what has become larger than life for them.  They want the great and powerful oz and don't want the curtain pulled aside no matter what.

Finally, to the guy from San Jose, I couldn't suss out from your post if you play unrealistic or realistic?

Anyway, to reiterate yet again, my point is not that all games should be realistic, but that to whatever extent games derive some of their internal logic from real history, real phsyics etc., they they should base that on REAL reality, not some faux reality.  

My only criticism is when a game is not internally consistent.  Either be internally consistent and have people fight each other with venomous flowers say, like in a Gene Wolf novel, or if you ARE going to be basing your combat system on medeival combat, and if you ARE going to do it up fairly complicated, some players AND designers might want to consider going back to the real sources for a 'reality check'.  The laymans state of the art on all this stuff has advanced quite a bit since the 70's, a lot of interesting new things have been learned in historic literature (the fehctbuch translations!) in archelogy, and in many other related areas.  T

For the umpteenth time, I'm not demanding that every RPG, even every ostensibly reality - based RPG be meticlously realistic and complicated, I'm just saying that the underlying basis of the physics and history, if you are using that, is a bit off these days.  whatever degree you want to apply that core realism, is up to you as a designer and a player.

JR

[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.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Finally, to the guy from San Jose, I couldn't suss out from your post if you play unrealistic or realistic?

Easy answer - I've done both.

To tell you the truth, I consider the question kinda pointless without one heck of a lot of context.  Nowadays, I'm more likely to be bothered by the "unrealistic" lack of personal relationships in the lives of PCs than I am by the fact that the game fails to properly account for the speed of a knife.  I'm more interested in a game that feels real than one in which the resolution system properly models medieval melee combat.  Now, there's no reason that the latter has to get in the way of the former - RoS is a good example of this, IMO.  But I'd focus on that feels-real goal and only worry about the other stuff if/when it impacts that.

And it does impact it, some times, and in some ways.  That's what I see as the valuable part of your article (and would hope to see more of in part 2) - pointing at the places where "the way things are done" in RPG melee combat just doen't make sense, and suggesting that there are ways designers could fix that.  But you shouldn't imply that unless someone does go down the road you point to , all they can get is silliness.  

Hope that's understandable,

Gordon

[contracycle]

It's certainly preferable to kicking the girl and getting some hiney :-)

Depends who you talk to.

[Brian Leybourne]

It's certainly preferable to kicking the girl and getting some hiney :-)

Depends who you talk to.

Uh, yeah. Fair call. Wasn't thinking. Sorry.

Brian.