Hello All

I am sure this is GM and group dependant but I shall ask anyway.  If you are playing in a semi historic campaign how do you feel about the required level of realism and accuracy.  For example, in a recent campaign I was playing in the GM was trying to run a Old West type game where magic existed.  His knowledge of long arms was directly related to the ruleset he was using.  During the course of play the players were being fired upon by a villain using a sharps rifle mode 1860.  One of the players (a historical gun nut) based his actions on the effective range of this gun and was irate when the rules were grossly off.  An argument ensued, and over an hour was wasted while the GM and players debated this issue.
Please state whether your opinion is from a GM or player perspective.

NOTE I was a player during this game, I was an American Indian and only had a bow, and a knife.  But, being a veteran GM I was of the opinion that it's only a game.  And I didn't care if it was perfect, as long as both sides could consistently use it the same way.

Thanks

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com

dreamborn wrote:
I am sure this is GM and group dependant but I shall ask anyway.  If you are playing in a semi historic campaign how do you feel about the required level of realism and accuracy.  For example, in a recent campaign I was playing in the GM was trying to run a Old West type game where magic existed.  His knowledge of long arms was directly related to the ruleset he was using.  During the course of play the players were being fired upon by a villain using a sharps rifle mode 1860.  One of the players (a historical gun nut) based his actions on the effective range of this gun and was irate when the rules were grossly off.  An argument ensued, and over an hour was wasted while the GM and players debated this issue.
Please state whether your opinion is from a GM or player perspective.

What were you doing for that hour?  What were the other players not involved in the argument doing?

Hiya,

I think that you've provided a very good clarification of what you mean by "just a game," which in a lot of cases is used vaguely and even dishonestly. But that last bit in your latest post is extremely helpful and let's look at it a bit more. I'd like to present the idea that "just a game" for you should be re-stated ... and in doing so, the new statement is going to be useful.

It's a matter of worthwhile effort, isn't it? If you're going to spend that much time dedicated to socializing and playing with them, then how much fun is arguing about the rifle? The flat, obvious answer is that it's not.

Now, if this were "just" a game for you, then who cares if it's time wasted. But it's not "just" a game for you. It's important. You invested a lot of time and effort and attention into this. And these guys squandered that investment in their stupid argument. It's like someone who's trained and studied and worked to become a good baseball player (that's you) and then had to endure the participation of people who could not agree on where the left-hand foul line is.

Now, that's not a totally trivial decision, because it has constant consequences for play. Your post shows that you know that the issue does have to be solved ... but also that it's only a matter of choosing which one, not which one is right. In other words, to you, it was more than "just a game" and to them, it was less than "a game" (i.e. fun thing to do) and became a venue for an ego-driven, advantage-driven confrontation.

I've written a lot about leadership recently, in the thread You've landed on gaming group "Park Place," play $15 rent. I think that what I wrote there is relevant to what you're bringing up here, and I invite you to look over that thread and my posts (note that a number of people did not understand them, as shown by their replies).

And, with all that in mind, I'd like to know more about this group you're talking about.

1. How long have you all been playing together, and how often?

2. What game system/rules are you using, and is it the same one you always use, or have you played several together?

3. Did anything fun for you happen during that particular session? What was it?

Best, Ron

Hi Ron

And, with all that in mind, I'd like to know more about this group you're talking about.

1. How long have you all been playing together, and how often?

2. What game system/rules are you using, and is it the same one you always use, or have you played several together?

3. Did anything fun for you happen during that particular session? What was it?

Best, Ron

dreamborn wrote:
The only roleplaying seemed to be how can we insult the injun. 

dreamborn wrote:
No-one seems to have a problem willing suspending their disbelief.  BUT the question is what are other players and GMs experience with realism.

That sounds pretty damn terrible.

Realism is up to the group to decide.

dreamborn wrote:

Realism is up to the group to decide.

Yes, the group may decide on a level of realism, but my question is what you prefer from your experience.

Hiya,

I think I should step in with a more leader-ish role for a minute ...

Dreamborn, the reason people aren't giving you their opinions is because this forum doesn't permit opinion polling. That's a constructive choice on my part - in practice, it doesn't accomplish anything. If 80 people all gave you their opinion on what was or wasn't realistic, you'd have 80 points of fluff with no meaningful average and no meaningful bounds.

Instead, Jon (Glendower) is trying to focus on getting away from the use of "realism" as a terminological crutch, and toward identifying what aspect of "imagining together" works best for you. Maybe through our discussion here, you can find a way to articulate what you want that can help avoid sitting through so many hours of frustration and unmet effort in the future. That, to me, seems like a more worthwhile goal than compiling a bunch of reactions to what is, ultimately, a wholly undefined term.

So, it's up to you, but I suggest taking his lead and seeing where it goes.

Best, Ron

Hi Ron

this forum doesn't permit opinion polling

Hi,

Lets call the following quotes contents a process

dreamborn wrote: Very well, this shared illusion must start from the GM.  It is his game and he is the character's 5 senses.  His narration provides the spark, the germ of what every player imagines.  The players respond/react, forcing the GM to add detail where needed, further enhancing the illusion.  This interaction, this give and take between GM and player will naturally establish a level of realism that satisfies the group.

dreamborn wrote:
Very well, this shared illusion must start from the GM.  It is his game and he is the character's 5 senses.  His narration provides the spark, the germ of what every player imagines.  The players respond/react, forcing the GM to add detail where needed, further enhancing the illusion.  This interaction, this give and take between GM and player will naturally establish a level of realism that satisfies the group.

So have I echoed back to you what you were saying, Glendower?  If I am then I think we are in agreement.

Also, personally I dislike the status of a GM as the owner of a game, which was discussed in a few different threads (here and here, and here).  If a person plays in a game, they own a piece of it.  Their creativity counts in that imagined space just as much as the next person sitting at the table. To say that the GM owns the game means that he can deny additions to the imaginative space.

and you knew that bringing it up would likely result in another hour long argument.  Now, imagine that you could say "I don't think everyone would be that racist" or "that kind of gun should have a different range"

dreamborn wrote:
Hmmm, I will agree the GM does NOT necessarily own the game.  If I said that I was painting with too broad of a brush.  So, let me put it this way, if you are hosting the game at your house and you are the GM, yes you can deny additions to the imaginative space.  In other words you can ask them not to come back or find a different game or just not host the game at your house and not GM the game.  No you don't own the game but any player or GM can leave if they want, or decide as a group to 'kick someone out of the game'.

I've been reading this thread for awhile, but I was holding off on commenting until I could think of a way to ground my comments in my actual play.

I think of "realism" in game terms as almost always strongly in the eye of the beholder. At least for practical purposes, barring months of research/experimentation/etc. by every member of the group.

So play example - our current DnD/Freeform campaign has been divided into two parts. The first part took place in a city, where my character at least had political and underworld connections, and where all the characters had grown up in. We had many sessions where the GM would start off describing a weird event, and then I and the other players would start making up scenes and places and contacts we could go to to get information/resources to react to the event. By having substantial ability to define the world, I was able to tilt events toward what I perceived as "realistic." Sure, the other players and especially the GM contributed as well, and sometimes I regarded some of their additions as "unrealistic." But it was all good in the hood, because there was a nice mix between realistic and unexpected events, that left an overall plausible veneer to the game from my perspective.

In the second part of the campaign, the characters are in a wilderness, filled with mystery and weirdness, with no map other than the one linear road with occasional town on the road. The wilderness was described as superdangerous, supermysterious, and super hard to travel in. As we traveled the GM tossed "random" (as in, unpredictable to the PCs or players) encounter after random encounter at us.

In this environment, it was highly unnatural for us as players to guess at or suggest what would come around the next curve. The only way to do it would have been to break character and aggressively seize narrative control, which was against the perceived norms of the game. The GM was also putting weight on keeping things like "whats up the road" as a mystery, so we couldn't even assert what was the next scene without stepping on the GM's toes. (Before the mysteries were like "who set off the bomb?" so the players could set scenes like "talking to informant" without directly compromising the mystery.) So now the GM was in full control of everything that happened.

Now from my perspective, the GM's sense of reality was "Cartoonish." The magical monstrous setting didn't help either. At best I could imagine it all as intentionally Alice-in-Wonderlandish and so everything was SUPPOSED to be absurd.

What was different is the world was no longer defined by a mix of my sense of realism/causation and the GM's sense, but rather just the GM's sense. Before with the shared input into the setting, we were able to compromise in a way that made everyone satisfied. (Perhaps even better than any one of us could have provided) Now the game setting strikes me as quite a bit silly, although my guess is that the GM thinks its still fine.

cydmab wrote:
What was different is the world was no longer defined by a mix of my sense of realism/causation and the GM's sense, but rather just the GM's sense. Before with the shared input into the setting, we were able to compromise in a way that made everyone satisfied. (Perhaps even better than any one of us could have provided) Now the game setting strikes me as quite a bit silly, although my guess is that the GM thinks its still fine.

Glendower wrote:
Of course, the GM or another player can deny additions to the imaginative space.  But denying these additions means blocking a player from adding his creative touch to the world.  And that results directly in the player being less interested, less attached to the game in progress. They don't get what they want, and yeah, they leave.  I do not think that is the best solution.

Think about the game you played in.  The GM denied additions to the imaginative space.  One player found that to be unfair, and there was an argument.  This was a power struggle for the player to add in his creative touch, and it sucked because had the GM said "You know the guns of this period?  All right!  Tell us more!" and it would have been a rich addition to the game.  It would have added realism for the player who liked the guns, and enrich the experience for everyone involved.

I think what you're really asking is, "Realism has trade offs, one of them being fun-factor. What is a good level of realism to strive for and remain being fun?"

Realism is a continuity, on one end is fun and the other is accuracy. Lets define fun as intuitive, simple, and creation of an exciting event. Accuracy is "well this is how it really works."

For example, you could have accurate rules stating that a gun shoots 3,000 feet. However, it's a minis game, and 3,000 feet is 50' on most battle mats. Accuracy would dictate the gun has a 3,000 foot range, Fun would dictate the gun has a 90' range (18" on the battle mat - it's a sniper.) First of all, you need to ask yourself, what's suitable for my game? If your game is a WWII simulator, the guns better be accurate. If your game is WWII with mutants, magic, and mad science, the guns can be anything you like. However, you have to establish the level of suspension of disbelief and stay consistent. Made up guns would work better for this, since it keeps the consistency of the suspension of disbelief. Nobody can argue that a Potbelly Shotgun has a range of 50 yards, because I just made that up (I think.)

Secondly, you have to ask yourself "Is this fun?" When Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion came out (CRPG) a lot of people made realism mods for it. I was reading some reviews, and the one things I kept seeing was "I thought it'd be really cool if I needed to eat, sleep, etc. in the game, but it's actually just a hassle and is boring." Too often, people desire realism without realizing that they don't actually want it. There is a sci-fi RPG I played, it has a neat concept, but the rules are not fun. It has hit locations, rules for grenade fragments, armor thresholds for different parts of your body, how much money you make depending on your skills, how long a skill takes to learn, how your skills are effected if you get gimped by a bullet, etc.

Your game is about the church, magic, and medieval Europe. It sounds fun, (although, it's been done to death.) Honestly, you could do more or less realism depending on what you want. You could do the "Oh, you were stabbed with a sword, well if you don't die, then it'll take about a year to heal." or you could do the "I summon an Angel to heal my multiple wounds." Or something in between.

Hi, Jon,

Glendower wrote:
Think about the game you played in.  The GM denied additions to the imaginative space.  One player found that to be unfair, and there was an argument.  This was a power struggle for the player to add in his creative touch [snip]

Glendower wrote:
TThe GM is trying to follow the rules, and the player is challenging these rules. A power struggle results, the player is using his knowledge of firearms and the GM is trying to maintain authority with the game rules.  Neither backs down.  The game grinds to a halt.

Hi there,

Jumping in for one minor point ...

Joel, the only quibble I have with your post is that you refer to the player's realism-expectations as "beyond the game" as a contrast to the GM's rules-expectations as, by implication, in or of the game. I suggest that both of these expectations are very much in and of the game - the player's sudden statement that the rifles have X range, not Y range, is not from beyond the game.

To make my point, I have to use my Big Model thinking, which places Color, System, Situation, Characters, and Setting at exactly the same level of importance relative to play as a whole. I chose to do that very carefully - these things must be integrated in order for play to function at all; what we're seeing in this account of play is a failure to do so.

If System proceeds as written (the rules), then Setting goes crashing down in the eyes of at least one participant, which means the Situation cannot function (there's no Setting for it to be in). If Setting proceeds as proposed by the player, then System must be rewritten, and the problem with that is that the GM has based the current Situation's conflict on the System features of the rifles that he knows the characters have. Both of these people are fighting over the integrity of the imagined Situation. For those of you who know or care about my writings on these five components, you know that such disagreement literally cannot stand - it must be resolved or play ceases, shot in its tracks.

I have more to say about the nature of the interpersonal conflict and why, when it occurs, it is so intractable in a traditional role-playing context, but at the moment, this post is only about my quibble, and I hope I've laid that out in a readable way.

Best, Ron

I think what you're really asking is, "Realism has trade offs, one of them being fun-factor. What is a good level of realism to strive for and remain being fun?"

Realism is a continuity, on one end is fun and the other is accuracy. Lets define fun as intuitive, simple, and creation of an exciting event. Accuracy is "well this is how it really works."

Your game is about the church, magic, and medieval Europe. It sounds fun, (although, it's been done to death.) Honestly, you could do more or less realism depending on what you want. You could do the "Oh, you were stabbed with a sword, well if you don't die, then it'll take about a year to heal." or you could do the "I summon an Angel to heal my multiple wounds." Or something in between.

If Setting proceeds as proposed by the player, then System must be rewritten

Hi Kent,

The topic in this thread is fragmenting and it's resulting in a false, past-one-another conversation. All of my post concerns only the western game and the account of play that concerned the range of the rifles. I am not posting about, and not considering, your game under development.

Now let's talk about your response to David C's post. Here at the Forge, when someone tries to paraphrase your words and fails, don't slap them down as if they were attacking you. They are trying to understand you, and your job is to help them.

Finally, let's talk about a reversal of position that you've undergone in this thread, which is making the discussion impossible to follow, and impossible to proceed with. It looks to me as if you have now cast yourself as the defender of realism as a constructive element of play, especially in reference to the game you're developing. However, you began with an anecdote of play in which the player disrupted play by invoking realism and then the ensuing discussion destroyed play. You even posted, yourself, that the question is not what realism is, but rather what standard everyone prefers to play by. That's your post. You said that.

So it's confusing to everyone. Here they're agreeing with your original point that invoking realism causes trouble, and trying to help with that, and you've turned about and started defending realism against its attackers. This confusion must not continue.

Something disrupted the fun-factor of your play experience. If "realism" wasn't the problem, what was it? You said it was a failure to agree about the realism and rules. I think that's correct and I think that's what this thread might do best to focus on.

Moderator ruling: All discussion of your game in development must cease in this thread. You are encouraged to begin new threads about it in either First Thoughts or, if you've tried it out at all, in Playtesting. I look forward to seeing it there. This thread must stick to its topic of the western game and the range of rifles, and the points about play that arise from there. My post above is a good example and I'd like to see it addressed.

Best, Ron

Hi Ron

you began with an anecdote of play in which the player disrupted play by invoking realism and then the ensuing discussion destroyed play. You even posted, yourself, that the question is not what realism is, but rather what standard everyone prefers to play by. That's your post. You said that.

Finally, let's talk about a reversal of position that you've undergone in this thread.  ...  looks to me as if you have now cast yourself as the defender of realism as a constructive element of play, especially in reference to the game you're developing.

that it's only a game.  I didn't care if it was perfect, as long as both sides could consistently use it the same way.

Something disrupted the fun-factor of your play experience. If "realism" wasn't the problem, what was it? You said it was a failure to agree about the realism and rules. I think that's correct and I think that's what this thread might do best to focus on.

All discussion of your game in development must cease in this thread

Sigh ... so many problems illustrated all at once.

1. Please don't respond line-by-line like that. By the time you'd figured out we were agreeing about where the problem lies, you'd already defended your position against a criticism that didn't exist. Instead, reply in paragraphs to points, not in single-line responses to single lines or sentences.

2. The moderator point is for everyone, not just you. I said all discussion of the game in development must cease for this thread. That's David, you, anyone, the elves, and the fence-post.

3. You will not get very far in discussions here by opening with "you don't understand." That's flame-bait in practice, even if not intended as such, and discourteous at the very least. Particularly as you acknowledge later in the same post that I do, in fact, understand what you're saying. Again, read entire posts before replying; do not reply line-by-line.

I consider that you have made a very good point about "realism isn't automatically destructive, even if in this case it was." I've agreed with you about that, and as enough other people have done so, it's probably settled. If you'd like to sum it up as a general point in any way, for the new reader or for someone who reads this thread later, that would be fine. But all I'm seeing now from further discussion is wrangling and confusion, given your shift in topic to your game in development.

It's your thread. If you'd like to sum it up, or if you'd like to isolate a particular topic for its continuance, either one is fine. But it's now (a) gone off-topic (easily solved by starting new threads about your own game in development) and (b) degenerated into people saying X, Y, or Z, trying to help or understand, and you batting them down as not-X, not-Y, and not-Z in a gladatorial context that isn't permissible here. That has to stop.

I also suggest not replying to this post right away, but letting it sit for an hour to a day.

Best, Ron

As we have seen, realism means different things to different people.  The amount/level of realism that is right depends on the gaming system (rules) and the group’s (GM and players) expectations and desires.  Realism and accuracy in and of itself will not destroy the feel and flow of the game.  We have discussed situations where realism can ruin and evening of play.  We have also postulated that high levels of realism are possible if a gaming system was designed and implemented properly.  As with most things involving RPGs, there is no correct answer.  Ultimately if your system/method works for you and you enjoy it then it is right for you.

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com

dreamborn wrote: Ultimately if your system/method works for you and you enjoy it then it is right for you.

Ron wrote:
Joel, the only quibble I have with your post is that you refer to the player's realism-expectations as "beyond the game" as a contrast to the GM's rules-expectations as, by implication, in or of the game. I suggest that both of these expectations are very much in and of the game - the player's sudden statement that the rifles have X range, not Y range, is not from beyond the game.

Ron wrote:
To make my point, I have to use my Big Model thinking, which places Color, System, Situation, Characters, and Setting at exactly the same level of importance relative to play as a whole. I chose to do that very carefully - these things must be integrated in order for play to function at all; what we're seeing in this account of play is a failure to do so.

Ron wrote:
For those of you who know or care about my writings on these five components, you know that such disagreement literally cannot stand - it must be resolved or play ceases, shot in its tracks.

Ron wrote:
I have more to say about the nature of the interpersonal conflict and why, when it occurs, it is so intractable in a traditional role-playing context, but at the moment, this post is only about my quibble, and I hope I've laid that out in a readable way.

Hi folks,

Given Kent's summation statement and his new thread, I think it's time to call this thread closed. No more posting, please. If you disagree, please send me a private message and I'll reconsider.

Best, Ron