What is "realism"?

[Mike Holmes]

A lot of this got covered in the "What's the most Realistic Game?" post that Ron referenced above. Don't let the title fool you, it was all about "what makes an RPG realistic" and what that can be boken down into. A lot of which is getting recreated here. All of those threads are good references. Until we start coming to some sort of agreement on these issues, we're going to have this thread every four months or so til doomsday.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Mike's right. Am I correct in inferring that very few, if any of you, are actually reading those threads I listed previously?

If that's correct, then bluntly, you're functionally spamming this thread, no matter how carefully and articulately, or how heartfelt, or with how much good will.

I'd really like to see more evidence of considering the points made at great length and effort by others in the past.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Well, since Ron had posted no less than thirteen links to previous threads, we can only ask Andrew, did they answer your questions. If not, what are your questions?

[Callan S.]

More an effort in practicallity. A scatter shot of half a dozen multipage(?) links is going to loose me focus on the question more than it'll provide any insight (just getting around the derailing parts of multiple multip page posts is more than my reading/absorbing-fu can manage).

Still, if thems the rules, that's it. I'll know in future that when too many links are given and in my particular case I think I can't chew on that much fat, so to speak, I wont post in that thread as I'm not considered qualified. Not a sooky post, just outlining how there are rules, and then there are personal practical considerations. And of course I know I'm a guest here so that's why I come to the no post conclusion, which favours the rules.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I need to clarify a bit, it seems.

Clearly, no one can stop anyone from posting without reading the threads I've recommended. Nor is doing so really a "rule" in Forge terms, not at all.

My preferred response to my post from folks - now that I think more about it - would be this: slow down. Read some of the threads, skim about, see when they're from and what they addressed. If you find a gem or two (I indicated the most important one), cool.

Then post to this one with a specific eye toward Andrew's question. There's no hurry. These threads don't disappear onto page four in a day.

If everyone or most people do this, a great discussion can occur, nice and leisurely, no pressure to pound out response-response-response.

I posted in the first place because "realism," like other terms like balance and story, is nothing but a tar baby unless we all agree to work with the insights of the past and build upon them.

Callan, a quick note to you: what's this about being a "guest" here? You're signed on; you're all good, just like anyone else.

Best,
Ron

[Andrew Martin]

Well, since Ron had posted no less than thirteen links to previous threads, we can only ask Andrew, did they answer your questions. If not, what are your questions?

Ron's links (Thanks, Ron!), in particular: What is the most realistic RPG? was most interesting. I liked Emily Care's comment:

So what is my definition of realistic? An impossible dream. We have to make do with coming to concensus about what results are most consistent with real world outcomes. A completely different application of the term that I would find useful too is "realism". This would be analogous to Hollywood realism in films--actions not necessarily having outcomes likely in a real-world situation, but having the feeling of truth.

My question, in brief, is: Is a game realistic?

I think it's answered by: Yes & No.

:)

That's because it's imagination at work; a model. A model can make predictions which can be realistic and unrealistic; so producing a sense of unreality or realism in it's observers as appropriate depending upon the views, knowledge and experience of the observers. These observers can then change their internal state, or compare the model predictions to observable behaviour.

It's only by measuring the model behaviour or predtictions to observable behaviour can one tell if a game/model is realistic or not. And saying that a game is "realistic" or has "realism" is really a shortcut for saying that the game produces simulated behaviour that is similar to observed behaviour -- whether that behaviour is real world behaviour (now), historical behaviour (past), predicted behaviour (future), or imaginary behaviour (like a fantasy movie or novel). (There might be other categories of behaviour?)

BTW, I'm still reading the links that Ron posted. Thanks, Ron!

[Mike Holmes]

Well said. I think by defining the sort of behavior that you're modeling, that you cover half the distance.

What about the whole "front end" vs. "Back end" modeling issue, however? Does the metagame appearance of system pertain to realism at all? That is, some people would say that if you roll a die to hit and then calculate damage, that this is more realistic than rolling the die and then deciding from the result that the character shot the other. In it's most recognizable form, FatE vs. FitM. Also "effect first" mechanics vs. "in-game first" mechanics.

A similar but potentiually different axis is the one that goes from Task Resolution to Conflict Resolution. The level of detail that's resolved by each roll. Does that relate to realism (because people will say it does)?

There are other issues as well.

What I propose, given some of the feedback on the previous page is that we think of Realism as a topic umbrella, and then define some unique terms underneath that umbrella (using some of the terms from this thread and others). For example, I think that Abstraction, as in Level of Abstraction, is a great term to discuss how much detail is looked at in each resolution - it's RW meaning and the meaning here are close enough to use the term without alteration, I think (much better than my Detailism). There is the behavior mimicing that Andrew notes, which could be called something like Past Emulation, Present Emulation, Fantasy Emulation as the need arises. Ralph, what are the terms for the modeling modes, front end and back end?

Does this make sense? Can we proceed if we agree to some definitions?

Mike

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Here's some more food for thought.  Author Robert McKee uses the term "actuality" in conection with "reality." As in a film must be realistic even if he bears no resemblence to actuality.
Reality is the laws of nature set up by the author/filmmaker/etc.
Actuality is the real world as we know it. Me sitting in my living room typing this, you reading this on your screen, etc.

McKee cites Who Framed Roger Rabbit? as an example of reality being different from actuality. I get a little more specific here:

Eddie and Roger are handcuffed together, which is inconvenient to say the least. Eddie finds a hacksaw and attempts to saw through the cuff, but the crate he's bracing against is rickity. "Try to hold the crate steady," says Eddie. Roger slips his hand out of the cuffs and grips the crate. "Like this?" Eddie shoots him a dirty look. "You mean you could have slipped out of those cuffs anytime?" "No," replies Roger, "only when it was funny."

This is the reality of the movie. A toon can do pretty much anything so long as it's funny. Now imagine that isn't a rule anymore. A toon can do anything. But he still doesn't slip out of the cuffs until that moment. People in the audience wonder "If he can slip out of those cuffs at any time, then why didn't he instead of waiting until much later?"

Plenty of people had commented on Phantom Menace "Why don't the Jedi always raise their hands like that? They wave their hands and the robots fall down. Do that all the time. Fighting is dangerous."

So a movie, story, game, etc has a reality which may or may not bear any resemblence to actuality. Realistic is maintaining this reality.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

ADD: Way I seem it, a lot of the discussion about "realism" in RPGs is because of confusing reality with actuality and vise-versa

[Andrew Martin]

Here's some more food for thought.  Author Robert McKee uses the term "actuality" in conection with "reality." As in a film must be realistic even if he bears no resemblence to actuality.
Reality is the laws of nature set up by the author/filmmaker/etc.
Actuality is the real world as we know it. Me sitting in my living room typing this, you reading this on your screen, etc.

McKee cites Who Framed Roger Rabbit? as an example of reality being different from actuality. I get a little more specific here:

Eddie and Roger are handcuffed together, which is inconvenient to say the least. Eddie finds a hacksaw and attempts to saw through the cuff, but the crate he's bracing against is rickity. "Try to hold the crate steady," says Eddie. Roger slips his hand out of the cuffs and grips the crate. "Like this?" Eddie shoots him a dirty look. "You mean you could have slipped out of those cuffs anytime?" "No," replies Roger, "only when it was funny."

This is the reality of the movie. A toon can do pretty much anything so long as it's funny. Now imagine that isn't a rule anymore. A toon can do anything. But he still doesn't slip out of the cuffs until that moment. People in the audience wonder "If he can slip out of those cuffs at any time, then why didn't he instead of waiting until much later?"

Plenty of people had commented on Phantom Menace "Why don't the Jedi always raise their hands like that? They wave their hands and the robots fall down. Do that all the time. Fighting is dangerous."

So a movie, story, game, etc has a reality which may or may not bear any resemblence to actuality. Realistic is maintaining this reality.

Wouldn't a better word for this be: "Consistency"?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

You can play Dick Braggan: Thesaurus Hunter if you want.

Personally, I see it like this, reality refers to the reality of the movie world (or game world). This reality may be many things but whatever it is, it should be consistent.

What I had hoped you came away from my previous post with was a vocabular for differentiating the reality of the game world or the actuality of real life. Thus avoiding the Zelda II Life Life problem by calling both reality. And, like I said in the addition, I believe that most problems with discussions about reality in RPG circles is due to this.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, in Zelda II Adventures of Link for the Nintendo Entertainment System, you had the RPG-like stat Life, which basically determined how much damage you took when hit. Damage was tracked on a red bar, called Life. You could replenish this with a magic spell, called Life. You also had a reserve of Lives. This last portion was less confusing since it would often be refered to in the plural or as Extra Life. However, you could say with accuracy, if not clairity "You should raise Life so you won't lose as much Life when hit. If your Life gets low, use Life to raise your Life because if you run out of Life you'll lose a Life"

[Ian Charvill]

This is the reality of the movie. A toon can do pretty much anything so long as it's funny. Now imagine that isn't a rule anymore. A toon can do anything. But he still doesn't slip out of the cuffs until that moment. People in the audience wonder "If he can slip out of those cuffs at any time, then why didn't he instead of waiting until much later?"

I think that's one of the 'expects audience to willingly ignore realism stuff' moments.  The answer is that fighting is fun.  The movie about jedi waving their hands for robots to fall down wouldn't be much fun.  Which of course makes the midichlorian bit even stranger, because it might set up certain expectations.

Gamewise, I'd guess this would mean having high levels of realism in one part of the system and then ignoring it in others could produce problems.

[ADGBoss]

I took Ron's advice and I looked through the old threads and the new thread.  Quite a bit of what is written is well thought out and evocative.  From all of this I personally have drawn 3 conclusions:

1) Everyone is Right.

2) We have yet to define realism in the context of the question(s) we are really asking.

3) So what?

Before anyone is offended, let me tackle number 3, first.

Is Chess a game? Is chess fun? Is chess realistic?  Number one is indisputable I think. Number two is a matter of preference. Number three can be answered in many ways. You can make an argument, I am sure, that Chess is a very realistic model of tacitcs and strategy.  The point would be why? The purpose of Chess is not be realistic but to be a competetive game.

The same can be said of an RPG.  What is the point of defining "realism"? Its like trying to define "Dark" or "Crunchy" or any other adjective that you choose to try and redefine for the basis of gaming.  IS realistic a goal of the game "To make a realistic game based on the lives of Navy Seals." or is it a marketing ploy, "Play my game with realistic combat!"?

So I am not sure why we are bothering to even try and define "realism" or "realistic".  What do they mean and what relevance do they have to our game designs?  Is it something that will degrade our abilities to make games if we never find out how to corral it?

On Point 2, if we are going to go full speed ahead ad infinitum with the discourse on realism, what is our objective? To define Realism itself in the context of the RPG or define realism as a TOOL for use in designing RPGs? Is "realism" supposed to be "True to life" or "Internally Consistent" as Jack Spencer was I think getting at.

What does it mean if I say "This game is realistic" or "This combat is realistic."? Is it based on real world physics or real world perceptions of phsyics? I shoot Bob. Bob dies.  Does it really need to be more True to Life than that?

Lets take a vector / phsyics based space war game. "Realistic movement and combat!" Stuff that would make Niven / Pournelle proud.  Hard core Sci Fi.  Is that realistic? True to life? We know physics true, but can you tell me that in 100 years we will NOT have a warp drive or something else? No. You cannot.  We know how naval wars are fougth and we extrapolate what we "know" of combat into space.  Yet not one person on this planet has EVER fought a space battle nor likely will any time soon.

I have been in a fight for my life before, but I have never been under mortar fire.  So should I avoid military rpgs because I cannot give you a realistic feel for what its like to be under mortar fire? Of course not, thats silly.  

For point #1, I think it is safe to say that many if not most or all of the points have a good degree of correctness.  Many of the points are well made and relevant.  Yet "realism" remains one of the unanswered Grails in RPG design.  Its as difficult to define it incorrectly as it is to define the concpet correctly.

Finally I wll come back to "So What?".  As a mental excersise it is certianly thought provoking but its all very ethereal.  When people are not 100% sure what we sense IS indeed real; when knowledge of many of our concepts is still spotty and theoretical; when we are not even sure why we want a game to be realistic in the first place, then there seems to be little point in banging our heads.

In my own opinion the quest for realism is far too broad.  Its the subsets we are searching for.  Combat that gives us True to Life or True to Hollywood results. Space travel that conforms to theortetical or theatrical norms.  A pursuit of 100% internal consitency regardless of the physics model used.

The danger of pursuing Realism is a tendancy to define it with itself.

"Whats realistic? Well you know, its realistic when its like, real."

We could be discussing it for a very long time to come.

Sean

[Mike Holmes]

It's a tough topic, so why bother? "So what?"

So that when people say that something isn't realistic that we can narrow down what they really mean and be able to fix the problem (or to say that we're not interested in supporting that sort of realism, and why). It seems to be an important analytical tool to me.

You'll have to forgive me if I drive on anyhow.

More importantly, I think we're close to figuring it out. I think that what we have here are four or five separate considerations. If we can define these, then we can stop talking uselessly about Realism, and talk about what we really mean.

Mike

[ADGBoss]

Ok Mike, so what your saying is that defining Realism/ Realistic IS an important tool for game design and that its relevant to what is going here at the Forge?  It is certianly very important to many people here and I hope no one thinks I was belittling that. (Apologies if it came off that way.)

Let me give an example:

I am Hungry. I tell you IA m Hungry.  What does that mean? DO I want something to eat? Is my body craving a certian mineral? In fact its likely that I am really thirsty, or so I read on the internet.  In any case you ask me:

"What do you want to eat?"

"I dunno I am hungry."

"Want some fries?"

"No."

"Want some pizza?'

"Pizza is ok."

"How about a steak?"

"Yeah yeah! I want a steak"

The process, as I see it, is similar to with regard to Realism.  We all know we want it, but none of us are sure exactly what we want.  OR we ARE sure of what we want but we are expressing in the terms of Realism.  

In the above, if I had said "I want steak." You could say sure, lets haev steak.  Its implied that I am in hungry in that case.  

"I want bullets that do damage on a model similar to the real world." That you can work with. Its implied that you want something "realistic" with regard to the real world physics of bullets.  

Just a thought


Sean