What is "realism"?

[Christopher Kubasik]

I'll agree with Mike here.

I've found value in chasing down definitions if only to completely prove that the term in question is, if not useless, not at all what people thought.  It removed the term from its previous usage, and forced everyone to reconsider what they thought they were talking about.

Illustration: My "When People Say Railroading..." thread over on RPG.net.  By the time we were done it was finally clear that "railroading" was impossible to define outside of "When it happens I don't like it."  Different people have different expectations of what is and is not permissible in GM / Player relationships and shared authority.

This, oddly, but without explicit defition, led to a what could only be called a discussion about Social Contract and Creative Agendas.  Now, no one used the terms usually used here, but that's what the conversation ended up being about.  So, we remmoved the idea that there's this thing called "railroading" that everyone understands as this one thing in an RPG session, and re-defined the issue as one of: "Well, how do all the players at the table want to play?  Clearly different people gain pleasure some kinds of play, and displeasure from others.  That's the problem."

The same thing might happen here.  I believe Realism and Realisitc are bugaboo words - null sets that hide the bigger, we aren't aware, don't talk about that issues behind them.

Christopher

[Jack Spencer Jr]

We know physics [is] true...

Do we?

People also used to believe in the four humors and other things, including whole pantheons of gods.

(Scientists are sloppy about saying "accepting the alternate" sometimes. Don't let that fool you. There is no acceptance, just rejecting or not rejecting the null.)

see Falsifying GNS


My point being here, not to be a dick or anything, is that we don't know Physics to be true. We just haven't rejected yet. We may doso tomorrow. We may never reject it.

This is part of the problem with discussion realism in terms of actuality. We do not have a commonly accepted view of actuality. There are still people who think the world is flat.

Again, not to be a dick, but this is one of the problems with realism, when actuality cannot always be agreed on.[/quote]

[ADGBoss]

We know physics [is] true...

Do we?

People also used to believe in the four humors and other things, including whole pantheons of gods.

(Scientists are sloppy about saying "accepting the alternate" sometimes. Don't let that fool you. There is no acceptance, just rejecting or not rejecting the null.)

see Falsifying GNS


My point being here, not to be a dick or anything, is that we don't know Physics to be true. We just haven't rejected yet. We may doso tomorrow. We may never reject it.

This is part of the problem with discussion realism in terms of actuality. We do not have a commonly accepted view of actuality. There are still people who think the world is flat.

Again, not to be a dick, but this is one of the problems with realism, when actuality cannot always be agreed on.

[/quote]

In short, and correct me if I am wrong in this interpretation JAck, you are saying Realistic cannot be defined when no one can truly agree on what is real or as you say, actual.

Makes some sense but I think this is useful in regard to the fact that perhaps what we need is a baseline for reality.  Define the baseline and you have a place to work from.

I would suggest / propose that we put together a list of 4 to 6 "Tenets of Realism" as it pertains to the Forge and RPG Design.

From that point we could refine the list down and make the Tenets more robust and useful.

For Example

1. Physical Realism: An adherence to basic physics as we currently know it or as is currently theorized.  Results are similar to what may occur in the real world

2. Theatrical Realism: An adherence to the Physics of Hollywood, literature, and Superheroic literature when relating to similar themes.  

3. Genre Realism: Related to #2, but keeping the rules in line with and similar to the reactions and effects found in related games of the same or similar genre.  

4. Psychological Realism: Symptoms of psychological trial, trauma, and experience being similar to those that have been documented in the real world by both professional and amateur psychology.

5. Spiritual Realism: Spiritual experiences beung related to those that have been reported and or documented in the real world.

6. Mechanical Realism: A much more vague catagory relating to the consistency of game mechanics and terminology within a certain philosophical group.  This is not the same as genre.  Fantasy is genre, GNS is a design philosophy.  Mechanical realism would be the proper use (if such exists) of a philosophy or design principle.


These are just basic stabs at breaking down one possible avenue of pursuit...

Sean

[Jack Spencer Jr]

In short, and correct me if I am wrong in this interpretation Jack, you are saying Realistic cannot be defined when no one can truly agree on what is real or as you say, actual.

Makes some sense but I think this is useful in regard to the fact that perhaps what we need is a baseline for reality.  Define the baseline and you have a place to work from.

That's more or less what I meant, so I am puzzled by the direction you've taken it with these "Tenants."

I would propose, otherwise, that such things are going to be a case-by-case basis. The tenants might give you a means to classify individual cases, but I think that they will remain that, individual cases. Any help given by classifying them is, well, debatable.

Upon reflection, I believe that the discussion of realism, as it typically happens in roleplaying circles, belies deeper issues than can ever be answered by defining realism by any means. Some may be playing Calvinball to leverage some sort of advantage. Others may be keen to some aspect of actuality that they feel should be reflected by the rules.

For me, personally, a good deal of the discussion of reality had been a waste of time. It was part of my continuous quest for that perfect game that will give me a good time. This, with other actions like purchasing games that sit on my shelf largely unread and entirely unplayed, is paralysis of analysis, as they say.

[Callan S.]

*snip*
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

I just mean I know I'm on private property when posting here, a guest (not as in someone who hasn't signed up, but as in someone visiting someone elses property). It's just that I've seen other people being silly on other posting boards and saying they had a right to free speach there. I just wanted to be clear that I understood what I call guest status (or loged in status or whatever) entails, in terms of following the property owners rules.

Anyway, I read the sixth link fairly far in ad thought Vallamir wrapped it up. I've pondered it for awhile to crush it down to somthing short.

1. All games have abstraction in them. Zero abstraction is reality, after all.

2. Some elements of reality must be abstracted more than others. Some to the degree that they become quite different from reality.

3. There is no concensus on what should be abstracted and how much it should be abstracted. It varies from person to person.

Without concensus it is REALLY irresponsible to say 'This game isn't realistic'. Can one really speak for everyone else, saying they all agree to what should and shouldn't be abstracted in exactly the same way and that this game doesn't fit that concensus? 'This game isn't realistic...for me' is a responsible statement.

[M. J. Young]

I don't usually do posts like this, but--

Callan, that was an excellent summary.

Thanks.

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Not only was that an excellent summary, Callan, but it's also a fine place to call this thread closed now, especially in combination with Christopher's point above.

Dictatorial on my part? Perhaps. But today is a good day for everyone to back off and let their fingers cool.

Best,
Ron