Realistic Systems

[Nawara]

I almost hate to write this post, knowing that I'll probably get tons of "But what IS realism? Could we ever REALLY know?" replies, but I figured it's worth a shot.

I'm looking for some inspiration. I want to make a high-realism game (no powers, no aliens, no cinematic derring-do, no combat outside of a bar fight every year or two), and I'm looking for mechanics that create realistic (there's that word again) task resolution.

Realistic is defined as like reality. The one we live in. Not "realistic for my setting" or anything like that. Just realistic. As in, if you wanted to make an RPG where you played yourself, doing all the things you do in a day.

The game will be a non-commercial, Narrativist/Simulationist-hybrid game. No fantastic elements exist, whatsoever. Think of a West Wing RPG or a Frasier RPG, and that's what I'm going for.

I already have a system of my own, but I'm looking for other ones (both in terms of die/non-die mechanics, and attribute/skill lists) to give me ideas on what can be done better.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Nawara

[Shreyas Sampat]

An easy way to accomplish this would be with a strong Social Contract and a 'disbelief' mechanic pinned onto practically any game: simply allow players to say, "I don't believe that," at anything they feel isn't appropriate and make it go away.  (You could attach this to a Resource or something.)

Unfortunately this will result in a game where nobody can ever be surprised, except by what's on TV.

[greyorm]

Well, then, here's the question: HOW realistic do you want it?
Reality is all about observed probabilities and occurences, about the effect of events upon events.

For example, many consider a "realistic" combat system to be one in which many factors affect your ability: weapon (weight, reach, skill, quality, damage), health, environment (physical and mental), martial skill, experience (real vs. training), "luck", reflexes, martial posture (offensive/defensive/both), differences in style between you and your opponent, and so forth.

So, how much depth do you want the mechanics to have? Can you give an example of how much you'd like abstracted (while retaining probabilities) and how much you would like concretely measured by the game?

But what it sounds to me like you're talking about is a system with "realistic probabilities." Is that accurate?

Keep in mind, too, in a game about real people doing real stuff, players will want to know how effective tarot readings are, how accurate John Edwards' readings are, how much benefit prayer provides, etc. They need to know that sort of thing, because those are the sorts of things real people do and the sorts of situations real people involve themselves in on a regular basis.

Keep in mind that since I'm talking about probabilities, you don't have to define any of those things as really working in any sense (or not working, for that matter) so you are safe from that angle, but you will likely hear arguments about those probabilities -- heck, on the RPGCreate list there was an argument recently about the actual probability of being killed by a gunshot, so even the probability of non-contraversial items will be argued.

[Alan]

For a narrativist game with simulationist underpinnings, take a look at The Riddle of Steel.  Of course, instead of building lots of sim-supporting rules around combat (which is TROS's center) you could build them around social conflict.

Alternately, you could just use a vanilla narrativist system like The Pool or Trollbabe, with a strong understanding that events must be narrated with "ordinary" people in mind.  Or Prime Time Adventures!  It worked really well for a "realistic" hardboiled mystery in ancient rome.  Not a whit of magic or superhuman ability showed up in play.

Heck, yeah!  PTA West Wing would be a blast.  Have a look at http://dog-eared-designs.com/pta.html

[Andrew Martin]

An easy way to accomplish this would be with a strong Social Contract and a 'disbelief' mechanic pinned onto practically any game: simply allow players to say, "I don't believe that," at anything they feel isn't appropriate and make it go away.  (You could attach this to a Resource or something.)

Unfortunately this will result in a game where nobody can ever be surprised, except by what's on TV.

I suggest that it be more "realistic" to name this mechanic a 'unrealistic' mechanic, and allow players to say, "that's not realistic!" :)

[John Kim]

An easy way to accomplish this would be with a strong Social Contract and a 'disbelief' mechanic pinned onto practically any game: simply allow players to say, "I don't believe that," at anything they feel isn't appropriate and make it go away.  (You could attach this to a Resource or something.)

Unfortunately this will result in a game where nobody can ever be surprised, except by what's on TV.

There are several more problems with this.  

The overwhelming one is that this only addresses events which are immediately and blatantly unacceptable.  However, in practice problems with realism are usually about patterns over time.  i.e. A PC is missed by a gunshot.  This isn't unrealistic.  However, over time the players may notice that the PC is never hit by the enemy at important times, and at other times she receives at most only minor wounds.  There are tons of these patterns which can build up in a game.  You can't point at any single event which you can identify at the time as unacceptable in itself, but the game as a whole shows it quite clearly.  

The second problem is that this only addresses believability.  In other words, it only feeds whatever the player's preconceptions.  At least for certain fields, it is possible for a system to do more.  The system can incorporate research so that it actually has content about reality, and thus through learning and playing the game the players actually know more than they did originally.  

The third problem is that it doesn't address assumption clash.  That is, two players can have differing beliefs about reality.  Especially if the believability calls cost a Resource, this means that the game may flip back and forth between their two views.  I think it is better for consistency if a single objective stance is chosen and then held as the rule independent of the players.

[Shreyas Sampat]

John, I agree that what I suggested is a flawed and incomplete solution to a complex problem.  It wasn't meant to be a complete one.

I find it difficult to answer the question, "How does one design a realistic game?" because it is so dependent on what the game gives attention to.  Honestly, Nawara, I think the best answer to this is something along the lines of, "Choose what elements you want to simulate in the greatest detail.  Research these carefully, and devise a simulator for them.  Then adapt this simulator for RPG play."

I see two problems with what you're asking for.  The first is the fairly obvious simulation problem - there are always things that you do not know about, and thus cannot simulate in-game.  There are always things that you can simulate, but the benefit would be so marginal as to be nonexistent.  A global weather-pattern simulator in a game about Rapunzel's adventures in her tower would be an example of this.  There are real things you can simulate that could damage your feeling of verisimilitude.

The second is that you asked for ideas about how to combine realism and Narrativism.  I don't believe this is possible, in the purest sense.  You can certainly Simulate Narrativist play, though that could be a tall order in itself.  But the pattern of thematically relevant occurrences that characterizes Narrativist play simply isn't realistic - I certainly don't have to choose between letting my little sister die and the eventual destruction of the world every couple of weeks (to take an example from the Narrativism for the Soul thread).  Emotionally charged moments are the backbone of N, and they aren't that common in Real Life.

[John Kim]

The second is that you asked for ideas about how to combine realism and Narrativism.  I don't believe this is possible, in the purest sense.  You can certainly Simulate Narrativist play, though that could be a tall order in itself.  But the pattern of thematically relevant occurrences that characterizes Narrativist play simply isn't realistic - I certainly don't have to choose between letting my little sister die and the eventual destruction of the world every couple of weeks (to take an example from the Narrativism for the Soul thread).  Emotionally charged moments are the backbone of N, and they aren't that common in Real Life.

What you are talking about (saving the world every couple of weeks) is melodrama, and I don't think it is the backbone of Narrativism.  There exist dramatic stories which are realistic.  Indeed, there are dramatic stories which are true.  There are three important points to keep in mind:

1) Realistic action resolution in the game does not mean that the campaign has to be about playing average people at an average point in their lives.  Far from it.  You might set your campaign in the middle of an outbreaking war, the center of a disaster, or with a group who have just been stranded in a strange land.  

2) Realistic action resolution does also not mean playing out a fixed time ratio.  i.e. It does not necessarily hurt realism to say "OK, let's summarize what happens over the next 3 months".  

3) Narrativism is about moral choice, which is not necessarily melodrama.  For example, in one game, a PC must choose between his sister's life and the eventual end of the world.  In another game, a PC must decide whether to take action against a neighboring homestead, or whether to keep the peace.  The first isn't inherently more Narrativist than the second, I think.  

That said, though, I agree it is difficult to stick to realism and still have a strong story.  But there are problems either way.  By reducing realism, you can reduce the connection that the players have with the story.  In other words, it is entirely possible that you can have a hugely significant melodramatic choice -- but the players just won't care because they don't identify with it.  It seems just like a meaningless made-up problem.

[Doctor Xero]

To add to decisions about your definition of realism before you can truly
devise mechanics et al. to reflect it:

Psychological realism is a good case in point.  For example, to an
essentialist, a realistic game must base much of a person's character
and emotional possibilities on his/her sex, but to a social constructivist,
a realistic game must base much of a person's character and emotional
possibilities on his/her society rather than his/her sex.  For still others,
a realistic game must take into account both, and any game system
which fails to do so is not truly realistic.

For another example: to a theistic Christian, any game which does not
include the possibility of tiny miracles is unrealistic.  To an atheist, any
game which includes the possibility is unrealistic.  To a devout agnostic,
any game which declares definitively whether or not there are miracles
is unrealistic.

For this reason, I think it's important for any game designer to own and
define his/her specific interpretation of reality when designing a game.

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

I'd love to see your West Wing game!

Doctor Xero

[clehrich]

Seems to me that the designer of such a game has a number of difficult tasks, all interrelated:

1. You need to spell out, in words, and almost certainly at length, what you mean by realistic.  More to the point, you need to spell out what's supposed to happen in this game, and what it's supposed to "feel" like.  While references to well-known films, TV shows, and novels are useful here, don't use this as a way not to have to explain: you need to say, "This game parallels the TV drama The West Wing in the following ways...."  This is very difficult to write, as another currently-running thread is discussing, but it's going to be absolutely essential.

2. You need to avoid defining realism negatively.  The easy thing to do is to say, "The following things can't happen," which only prompts the response, "But it did happen, just last Thursday, in Detroit."  You need to describe, in positive terms, what usually happens, and what sorts of things the PC's can expect, as a rule, to happen.

3. You need to resist the temptation to construct detailed rules for things that don't normally happen.  For example, you might want a combat system that goes like this:  "If someone starts shooting at you, there's a certain probability that you will be hurt, dependent on the skill of the shooter and the general craziness of the situation.  The GM should define this probability according to the following table and roll dice [or whatever sort of system this is].  If you get shot, stabbed, or beaten with a baseball bat, you get hurt and should probably go to the hospital."  Period.  And you could probably polish that to be shorter and simpler.  The point being that if your rules-set includes only a tiny mention of what happens in combat, and there's nothing fun or interesting in that description, then there's no scripted incentive to get into combat at all.  You're just covering your bases a bit.  See Mike's Standard Rants, I forget which number.

4. For realism in a relatively strong sense, i.e. no jiggering with reality or probability to make the story more story-like, read the current debate on the Three-Fold Simulationism model in the GNS forum.

Chris Lehrich