Realism in RPG's and the Riddle of Steel

[Jason Kottler]

I am continually amazed at the number of people (around the Forge, even) who seem to never have heard of http://www.sjgames.com/gurps">GURPS. GURPS differentiates between cutting, impaling, and crushing damage. It differentiates between armor's ability to absorb and deflect blows. This is important because it makes sure that while the guy in the plate feels sufficiently strong blows, it also makes sure that you can't just sit there an punch your way through a brick wall via bloody-minded persistance. Unless you're Superman. It offers dodging, blocking, and parrying as separate defensive acts. And damage is damaging. If two relatively healthy people start swinging big pieces of steel around at each other, either or both of them are going to be very unhealthy in short order.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate your article. Also, I'm a big TRoS fan, and so are my players. But GURPS has been around since the late 80s. If you never saw it or dismissed it because it could handle a lot of genres, take another look now.

I see so many things that are different from D&D hailed as "new and revolutionary!" just because they aren't D&D like.  Lemme tell you...there are lots of games out there with good combat, lots with classless characters, lots with other features you might consider remedies for bad pieces of D&D.

[Drifter Bob]

I am continually amazed at the number of people (around the Forge, even) who seem to never have heard of http://www.sjgames.com/gurps">GURPS. GURPS differentiates between cutting, impaling, and crushing damage. It differentiates between armor's ability to absorb and deflect blows.

I'm pretty familiar with GURPS, some of my friends are rather fantatic adherents to it.  I agree it's a lot better than D&D, but I think it does make a lot of the technical mistakes I mentioned, and most of the fixes, being later add -ons, fit rather clumsily IMHO.  Some people wouldn't feel that way, of course.  

I think Steve Jackson makes very elegant ultra simple games but he doesn't do as well when the layers of complexity start piling on.

I see so many things that are different from D&D hailed as "new and revolutionary!" just because they aren't D&D like.  Lemme tell you...there are lots of games out there with good combat, lots with classless characters, lots with other features you might consider remedies for bad pieces of D&D.

I know there are a lot of great games out there.  I havent' seen many with very good combat systems.  Could you mention a few other than GURPS and TROS?

JR

[Brian Leybourne]

I know there are a lot of great games out there.  I havent' seen many with very good combat systems.  Could you mention a few other than GURPS and TROS?

"Good" is a pretty loaded word, Bob. Are you defining "good" in this context as "realistic" (that seems to be what you're saying) or something else?

Because, frankly, one mans "good" is another mans "crap".

Brian.

[Drifter Bob]

Well, I guess I meant in terms of having satisfying combat systems, if not necessarily realistic.  But I have to be honest, I don't know the current generation of rpgs that well, having quit for a long time in the early 90's.  I can tell, whether they agree with me or like my article or not, there are some smart people here.  Lets hear some people sound off, what are your favorite top 6 rpg games, for whatever reason?

I'll list my top 6 (you can see how dated I am)

Original D&D
Call of Cthulhu
GURPS
Paranoia
Dying Earth RPG
TROS (even though I've never actually played it with another person!)

[Spartan]

Well, I guess I meant in terms of having satisfying combat systems, if not necessarily realistic.

Well, other combat systems which I find very satisfying are those of HârnMaster (has some maneuvers, detailed injuries and armour... it's kind of BRP-like, though more elegant IMO) and Arrowflight (d6 roll-under dice pool, has bonus maneuvers for increasing proficiency... vaguely TROS-like).  Like TROS, HârnMaster combats are very descriptive, intense, and deadly.  I'm still just noodling about with Arrowflight, so I can't give an in-depth analysis of it.

FWIW, TROS and HârnMaster have the most realistic combat systems I've used.  I'd have a hard time picking between them if I had to pick only one to play.

-Mark

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Bob,

My top pick for a combat system which does its job best is Swashbuckler (Jolly Roger Games). It is aimed more at classic movie sword-athletics, but the logic and flow of play are impeccable. Its flaw is that the game text can be extremely misleading; I had to have a conversation with the author in order to grasp how to use the system.

Best,
Ron

[Brian Leybourne]

Well, I guess I meant in terms of having satisfying combat systems

Hmm, different strokes for different folks I guess. I have gotten to the point (ironically, since I write for TROS) where I am turned off by many RPG's because of their heavy focus on a combat system. That's a holdover from the really really old days when RPG's were an extension (or, better to say a descendant) of wargames. I don't really see why there needs to be a more detailed system for combat than anything else in the system.

Curse you, The Forge. You made me think!

Having said that, TROS is an exception. Because the combat is so realistic, it works really well and is not only a lot of fun but also perfectly OK to be more defined than the rest of the system. When I do want a good gritty game, there's none better (and I'm not just saying that because the boss will probably read this *grin*).

I'll list my top 6 (you can see how dated I am)

Original D&D
Call of Cthulhu
GURPS
Paranoia
Dying Earth RPG
TROS (even though I've never actually played it with another person!)

Interestingly, even though you define a good game as one with a realistic/interesting combat system, at least two of your top 6 games de-emphasise combat.

My top 6? Hmm... Well, games jostle for position up there all the time of course, but overall, I would have to say (in order):

TROS
Sorcerer
Dying Earth
Amber DRPG
7th Sea (the concept and setting, not so much the rules)
Deadlands (ditto)

For coolness concept alone, Universalis would like to have a place in that list, but I havn't actually got a copy yet (slack, I know) so I'm only going on all the cool things I have read. Sorry Ralph/Mike :-)

Brian.

[Mike Holmes]

Bob,

I think it might help to read my standard rant on combat systems. Hopefully it might give you some perspective on some of the ideas some of us have around here. Part of our communication problem is that I don't think you understand the theoretical angle from which we approach game design.

Have you seen the game InSpectres by Jared Sorensen? In that game, there are Stress Rolls that cause players to lose points from their stats that are caused by anything from too many phone calls to being in buildings when they explode. But they can't die. Players who've played this have found it to be highly realistic (not to mention pertinent to their everyday lives). Does that seem odd?

I'm tempted to ask you to read my #1 Rant, but I'm afraid that you might be offended. We seem to have gotten off to a fairly rocky start here.

But, it should suffice to say that there are an amazing number of games out there with what many would consider very realistic, very good combat systems. Despite very different designs.

Mike

[toli]

Hey.

If you like Harn, you might like RuneQuest as well.  They are basically the same system. RQ is a little less detailed.  I often think of Middle Earth Role Playing being a bit like TROS because you have to make some decisions concerning how much offense vs. defense.

I'm fond of:

TROS
HARN
RuneQuest
Dying Earth
Pendragon
Talislanta

TROS is the only one that is much more than a statistical outcome system, however.  Most other games of which I am aware just resolve to hit probabilities...

NT

[Drifter Bob]

Well, I guess I meant in terms of having satisfying combat systems

Hmm, different strokes for different folks I guess. I have gotten to the point (ironically, since I write for TROS) where I am turned off by many RPG's because of their heavy focus on a combat system. That's a holdover from the really really old days when RPG's were an extension (or, better to say a descendant) of wargames. I don't really see why there needs to be a more detailed system for combat than anything else in the system.

To me, it really all depends on the specific game.  Some rely on realistic mechanics in any given area more than others.  My commentary was more directed toward games which seem to rely on a combat system by default, but don't execute it all that well.  In the case of true genre type games, it may not be necessary to have a combat system, or any basis in realism.  Ultimately if it's satisfying and 'feels' like it works, then it's good, regardless.  I just don't think that is true of a lot of rpg's, especially the more popular ones.

Having said that, TROS is an exception. Because the combat is so realistic, it works really well and is not only a lot of fun but also perfectly OK to be more defined than the rest of the system. When I do want a good gritty game, there's none better (and I'm not just saying that because the boss will probably read this *grin*).

TROS is, I think, an excellent example of what more genuine realism can bring to a game.  By realism, I DON'T necessarily mean more detail or more complexity.  I think people made this assumption because I did include weapon and armor lists in my essay.  I think frankly TROS is so good primarily because it's designers had a firm grasp of the true dynamics of combat in mind when they designed it.  I think realism and historical grounding in general will measure up very well indeed to "pure abstraction" in most cases in exactly this way.  I hope TROS influences other games in fact, at least if they aren't going to do their own resaerch.

Interestingly, even though you define a good game as one with a realistic/interesting combat system, at least two of your top 6 games de-emphasise combat.

Again, I don't define a good game this way.  Not all games need a basis in realism or much of a combat system at all.  Others have their own way of abstracting the combat which works.  Still others (say the original Call of Cthulhu) do suffer somewhat from poor realism in certain aspects of the game (combat and the insanity rules) but the focus of the game isn't on combat much and the setting and overall quality is so good that it's still a heck of a lot of fun anyway.  (Having said that, I think an elegant, realistic combat system might have made Call of Cthulhu more immersive and better)


JR

[contracycle]

I think your projection of the link between realism and complexity onto us is not accurate.  I don't think anyone has ever responded to any of your posts with an objection based around complexity.  I would suggest you stop trying to invent reasons for our disagreement, and rather tackle the disagreement (if any) directly.

Now, on to systems.  My prize for combat realism goes to Milleniums End and related systems.  Hit location is detemrined by placing a "bullet fall" deviation diagram over a target diagram (humans in various poses, dogs, what have you) and dicing to determine where the bullet actually goes.  Penetration of flesh, and whether bones are broken or organs penetrated, are determined on a large grid of injury-by-location effects with multiple lines to handle things like blood loss and permanent wounds.

It is marvellously detailed and well reserched, as far as ballistic injuries go.  A cut down version of this targetting system was used for the Babylon 5 RPG, and recieved mixed reviews.  I find the ME system admirable, but too inelegant to be my preference at the table.

By contrast, I suggest that HW/HQ can be an extraordinarily realistic system IF the participants know this stuff themselves.  Because the fluidity and elegance of the resolution mechanism allow this detail to be incorporated as part of the negotiation between GM and player.  There is absolutely no reason why you could not give a description like "your blow does not penetrate his mail but does crack his fourth rib".  Most systems would need unbearable complexity to produce so fine a result; the price HW/HQ pays is that this is unlikely to be applied consistently and universally, even by the same GM.

I don't believe the problem involves a necessary objection to complexity.  But, it has to be said, there are so many variables in injury and combat that a system aimed at being encyclopaedic inevitably becomes complex, especally considering the limited information processing bandwidth at the table.

[Mike Holmes]

Gareth nails it. It's not complexity, but detail that we're talking about. Detail creates focus. If you have a list of weapons, that tells the player that it's something that he ought to consider. Does the list have damage ratings? Then that's something he should consider. Weights? Costs? Also, it has nothing to do with the amount of detail, just the nature of it. Does the equipment list have Earth specific armors listed with an explanation of just how realistic they are? Then that informs the player that the game is about that sort of realism. Even if it's not intended.

These things all are part of the creation of focus of a game.

So, does D&D intend to be focused on combat? That's the crucial question. And the answer is, in early editions, it wasn't sure what it was focused on. As a new medium, Gygax and gang were just adding things as they went as seemed to make sense at the time. Not without thought, but certainly without the perspective of several decades of play to see what the result is.

Which is to say that D&D is conflicted in many ways. It says that it's about creating a story about the characters, but then the rules mostly center around how to kill things and what neat stuff they have to take.

Now, decades later, looking back on what they had wrought, they hand over the system to a designer on the cutting edge. He takes a look at it, and decides that, if he's going to be limited to all the "unrealisitic" requirements of D&D so that the game remains D&D, that he's going to have to rediscover it's focus. Looking at what they had, he sees that its certainly about combat, but it's also just as certainly not about realistic combat. Or, rather, given all the more realistic games created in the decades in between, it's certainly not realistic now.

So what does he do? He decideds to pick up on the fantastic elements, and emphasize them. 3rd Edition is an attempt to make a game that's not at all realisitc per se, but a reflection of itself in earlier incarnations. That is, play of D&D created an entire genre of it's own, and the current edition plays to that very unrealistic, but apparently very fun to mess with, genre.

It would do itself a disservice to it's own goals by trying to be more realistic on principle. This would require injecting detail that would distract from fun, effective play of that particular system. That would detract from what is, now, a well defined vision of play.


Know what? I don't like D&D. I don't like that particular vision. Given a choice between two games, one with a more "realistic" model, and one more like D&D, I'll go with the other model. I'm a huge fan of TROS for this reason.

But I don't believe that my predilictions are held by most others, nor that they should be. This is my personal preference, and I'll support others with other visions.

Now, as I've said, yes, if the goal is actually realism for a game, and it's realism like you define it, and they don't achieve that because of lack of research, that's a real problem, yes. No doubt. And I do think that happens. But only occasionally. I think that games with the same agenda that you want to see are rare, and that there are plenty that want to be realistic that do a fair job.

Could these few be improved by some of your suggestions? Maybe. But a particular game's vision is so specific to that game, that unless we're dealing with a specific game, I'd be loathe to suggest specific alterations.

But give me a specific game, and I'm all over it. TROS for example. It can be argued, in fact, that realism isn't one of TROS's primary focuses. But let's assume that it is for purposes here; I work under that assumtion most of the time. Reading this forum alone, you can see the work that I have done or supported that speaks to increasing the realism of a game that you claim is already amongst the most realistic. See the posts on Toughness, and the "Naked Dwarf" syndrome, for example.

You see, nobody here is against realism in any way. We're only for identifying first what realism means for the game in question and nailing it down for that particular vision. So, before you go talking about straw dogs, make sure you're not building any yourself.

The only place that we disagree, IMO, is in the number of games that have the problem that you claim, and that I see the fixes for a game as being specific to that game (I don't think there are any blanket measures that help many games, not even research).

BTW, we talk subjects like this to death here all the time. Here's a link to one that I remember participating in: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5402

Mike

[Drifter Bob]

Hey.



I'm fond of:

TROS
HARN
RuneQuest
Dying Earth
Pendragon
Talislanta

NT

I think it's interesting that a couple of y'all mentioned the Dying Earth as one of their favorite games, I had no idea it was that popular or well known.  I am a big Jack Vance fan, and have worked as free lance writer for Pelgrane Press for a couple of years.   I did a few monsters for a monster book they haven't released yet, a couple of 'cozerners expedients' for thier suppliment / publication "The Excellent Prismatic Spray" and recently finished a book of Dying Earth spells as a D20 suppliment, which will be released some time before the end of the year, or so I have been told.

JR

[Brian Leybourne]

I was actually one of the original playtesters for Dying Earth (still have the original word docs of the book on my HDD) but had to bow out due to time pressures and so didn't get my name in the book, damnit :-)

Brian.

[Mike Holmes]

Small hobby, isn't it?

Anyhow, I think that you'll find that there are a lot of avid Laws fans around here. Hero Quest is currently my favorite game.

Mike