I recently wrote the first half of a two part article about realism in Role Playing Games for Swords Edge Magazine. I'd be interested in any reactions or response people might have to my article and to this issue in general, which I think is key to RPG design.

The article is at:
http://www.swordsedge.net/Issue15/ArticleMechanicsOfMelee.html

Jeanry Chandler

Drifter Bob wrote: I recently wrote the first half of a two part article about realism in Role Playing Games for Swords Edge Magazine. I'd be interested in any reactions or response people might have to my article and to this issue in general, which I think is key to RPG design.

I didn't spot any errors in info or logic. Works for me.

Actually, the point of the piece was primarily to do partially what you suggested. The purpose of the article was to list the ways in which Role Playing Games are specifically unrealistic, and if not so much specifcially how to fix then, to at least point out what the differences are between combat in role playing games and combat in history or in realistic historical simulations, such as what is practiced by modern Medieval fencing schools. Theoretically, RPG designers could use this as a basis to form their own ideas. I think the problem needs to be clearly defined before the solution is explored, specifically, what real pre-firearms combat was like, which surprisngly few of the thousands of people with a seemingly fanatical interest in the subject have a the vaguest clue about.

I tried to point out, for example, how kit (i.e. weapons and armor) is innacurately portrayed, something very easy for a game designer to fix with a little effort, such as by perusing real historical and archeological sources rather than the last generation of RPG equipment lists. I also pointed out the differences in attack types versus different types of armor, and perhaps most importantly, the absolutely effects of reach in melee combat, something almost always ignored by RPG games.

If I failed in this attempt, I'll try to be more clear in the second half of the article. Dont forget, what you read (or skimmed) was just part one of two.

As for grousing, I tried to get through the description of the status quo or rpg design and the reasons why they are so unrealistic really as quickly as I could, because my purpose was not to argue about the need for realism. I did point out that I think that more realistic games can be more fun if properly executed, but I don't have a problem with intentionally unrealistic games. I simply expressed the opinion that games which are assumed by many people to be ostensibly realistic, are actually pure fantasy. Arguing for realism against "pure" fantasy is another subject, I could discuss it but other people have already 'gone there' I think quite effectively. There is little point in that debate in the long run, since many people who don't like realism for their own reasons won't be swayed no matter what they read, it's a lot like a religion for many gamers, particularly those who are canonical about "official" rules.

Personally I just feel that the rpg industry could use a new innoculation of realism for that wing of it which appreciates some grounding in reality if only for certain aspects of physics, as it recieved near it's inception from the work of Gary Gygax and others with the 1E DMG and some of the stuff in Unearthed Arcana and etc. Whatever aspects of that realism which make for better game play will no doubt eventually filter into the rest of the RPG community to whatever extent is merited.

In other words, my main purpose is to provide a service to those already interested in more relaism. I think there are a lot of people in my generation particularly, who have played rpgs when they were teenagers and would like to see something more adult. Similarly, I think there are some younger people who have some experience of the real world, of what fighting is really like, who would also like to see that aspects of rpg's they play be a bit more immersive and believable.

To the extent that I'm actually advocating anything, I'm not so much advocating the domination of realism over pure vaguery or comic book science, I'm just advocating a re-injection of some back into the genre, to maybe push the pendulum back a little, because it's really pretty bereft right now.

JR

Drifter Bob:

Just wanted to say that in the context of your last post (i.e. you're speaking to the choir of those who favor more realism), your article looks pretty good. I don't see any glaring logic holes.

I will take issue, however with your contention that more realism = adult. There are some pretty intense games that deal with adult themes built 'round these parts that aren't anything at all like realistic - but are, in my opinion, a heckuva lot more adult than a game about elves and dwarves that happens to use a more historically accurate basis for melee combat...

All I'm saying is: sometimes it helps to check your personal bias at the door and be really clear in your language usage. I'm sure, for instance, you were saying that to you more realistic = more adult, and didn't mean to suggest for all of us in the hobby that more realistic = more adult.

Cheers,


Jason

This is not the aspect of the article I was interested in discussing, but I feel like I need to explain myself here.

I will take issue, however with your contention that more realism = adult. There are some pretty intense games that deal with adult themes built 'round these parts that aren't anything at all like realistic - but are, in my opinion, a heckuva lot more adult than a game about elves and dwarves that happens to use a more historically accurate basis for melee combat...

All I'm saying is: sometimes it helps to check your personal bias at the door and be really clear in your language usage. I'm sure, for instance, you were saying that to you more realistic = more adult, and didn't mean to suggest for all of us in the hobby that more realistic = more adult.

Realism has a few drawbacks, the massive character turnover being one of them. Lets say that we have our heavily armoured knight in full, traditional plate mail with his mace (swords were usually reserved for cutting through peasants, maces being much more effective against those in armour). He swings at a peasant waving a pitchfork. Squelch.

Another peasant comes up behind him, since he'll probably be pretty much surrounded if he's off his horse. Takes a knife. Slips knife into the gap in the armour behind the neck, at the base of the spine, behind a knee, under the groin of the armour. Your knight is now effectively dead, there's very little he can do to save himself.

The big problem is that in real life, combat is and was absolutely lethal. You would generally either escape with little more than surfact cuts, or you would be dead or maimed. On top of that, a good archer suddenly becomes close to indestructible. An archer with a longbow can punch an arrow through plate mail quite happily, even at a fair range. An arrow punching into or through your body is going to make you stop, if not just kill you on the spot. So everyone becomes an archer.

Simply, real life does not suit heroic situations. Yes, realism would be nice, in a way, but unless you want to spend half the night rolling up characters it has to be limited.

Hey there drifter.

The points of your aritcle are well taken as they apply to a particular set of pirorities in a game. You have essentially stated in the article (as I understand it) that you are interested in haveing combat and other systems emulate real life by taking into account a myriad of complex factors including weapon type, tactics, kit, etc. And that those things be consistantly accounted for throughout the game.

All I can say to that is "how intersting, old chap," and "do you have The Riddle of Steel?"

What is unfortunate about your article is that, conciously or unconciously, it presents a system that emulates gritty combat and the particulars of that as somehow superior to systems that prioritize other issues. In many games that I, and others, play, we might prefer to make one roll for overall success of the entire fight, based soley on a 'fight' stat (such as in Trollbabe for example) and then describe it as we will. Such systems, I contend, are not less worthy by any measure than those that your article advocates. They may simply prioritize another aspect of play.

Reading your other post, I see that you acknowledge other games whose prioriteis are different and you instead put forth that what bothers you is games that mean to emulate combat in a complex and gritty fashion, but then do a poor job of doing so. Is there a particular game you a criticizing here? I'm not sure that a blanket accusation of this type is understandable. Your article gives the definite impression that I detail in my last paragraph.

For your consideration.

regards,

Trevis.

This post is a pretty typical example of the kind of cliche's which have been disseminated throughout society about medieval combat. It also misses my point about realism in rpgs. I'm going to answer it twice though, first to address the issues regarding RPG's and balance.

Realism has a few drawbacks, the massive character turnover being one of them. Lets say that we have our heavily armoured knight in full, traditional plate mail with his mace (swords were usually reserved for cutting through peasants, maces being much more effective against those in armour). He swings at a peasant waving a pitchfork. Squelch.

This post is a pretty typical example of the kind of cliche's which have been disseminated throughout society about medieval combat. It also misses my point about realism in rpgs. I'm going to answer it twice though, first to address the issues regarding RPG's and balance.

First of all, I was not demanding that all RPG's be 100% 'photorealistic', if you will, simply that some people would prefer that to whatever extent a game is meant to have some basis in reality, that it be done with some accuracy.

Similarly, making some allowance for reach hardly causes players to die every 5 seconds. Again, in the staff-armed wizard example, it helps him fend off the cut-purses who menace him with knives, just as it would in real life.

I say if the current game balance is very important to you, and you feel that in your game players must never or very rarely get killed, then improve realism (if you want to) where it does not effect balance first, and then if you still want to make things more realistic, deal with the second carefully. If you try you might find that it is not impossible

I also want to address some of the cliche's and common mistakes cited in this post. Here are a few fact / reality checks:

Another peasant comes up behind him, since he'll probably be pretty much surrounded if he's off his horse. Takes a knife. Slips knife into the gap in the armour behind the neck, at the base of the spine, behind a knee, under the groin of the armour. Your knight is now effectively dead, there's very little he can do to save himself.

The big problem is that in real life, combat is and was absolutely lethal. You would generally either escape with little more than surfact cuts, or you would be dead or maimed.

On top of that, a good archer suddenly becomes close to indestructible. An archer with a longbow can punch an arrow through plate mail quite happily, even at a fair range. An arrow punching into or through your body is going to make you stop, if not just kill you on the spot. So everyone becomes an archer.

Simply, real life does not suit heroic situations. Yes, realism would be nice, in a way, but unless you want to spend half the night rolling up characters it has to be limited.

Well, we don't agree, but at least this is much more in the vein of what I wanted to discuss

Quote:

This post is a pretty typical example of the kind of cliche's which have been disseminated throughout society about medieval combat. It also misses my point about realism in rpgs. I'm going to answer it twice though, first to address the issues regarding RPG's and balance.

I should probably clarify. I've spent three years on and off training with various European fighting styles. Whether or not the cliche's are circulated, I know how easy it is to overcome a quarterstaff with a knife, or a sword with a staff. In the end you get a scissors-paper-stone scenario going.

I've been doing no-holds barred stick fighting for 20 years, and I have a great deal of experience with street fighting. I guarantee more than 95% of Americans. I understand what you are getting at about a knife versus a staff, but if you really think it's "easy" to overcome a quarterstaff with a knife, then I don't think you have been doing realistic training. Yes, you can rush, close to grapple etc., but against an equally experienced opponent with a staff, it is very likely that you will be struck first, probably more than once. I personally have no trouble fending off a knife-armed opponent with any weapon from say six to three feet.

Something to consider for RPG rules, I think it's much easier to close in on someone with a larger wepon if you are in a confined space, than say an open field. That kind of thing is a big issue in RPG's.

Another thing, I'm not sure if you are talking about Asian style half-staffing, or Quarter staffing. A quarter staff is normally used to jab or tap with, form a defensive stance, thrusting hard or striking when the opportunity presents itself (like when the guy with the knife is trying to rush)

In D&D for example, a man standing there with a 12" dagger has just as good of a chance of being hit as an equally trained man with a six foot staff. That is incorrect, and easy to change without disturbing play balance.

JimmyB Wrote

I've had several live fights against people with quarterstaffs, myself armed with a foam knife. Admittedly I was helped by padding and a pair of good-quality bracers, but its much easier to ward off the quarterstaff than most people think, and very few people are willing to back away and fight defensively when they believe they've got the advantage. A staff can also be trapped, and doesn't need to be trapped for very long for the knifeman to get in close, at which point its pretty much all over.

Maybe some sort of mechanic where the person with the shorter weapon doesn't actually get to attack until they close, at which point their attacks become much more effective?

Definitely, which is one of the things I've never really liked about D&D. "I'm going to swing my six foot staff at you in a narrow, short corridor with my allies standing either side and simultaneously fend you off without clouting any of my mates."

Either, although quarterstaffing is harder to close on. And the gu with the knife shouldn't rush unless the opportunity presents itself, usually he should just move forwards as possible, but not moving his bodyweight too far forwards at any point, since he may need to leap back.

Agreed, although it is highly dependent on the weapon that each is using. If you're going to throw in defensive adjustments for weapons, it might be worth adding in trapping/breaking with weapons

Drifter Bob wrote:

Maybe some sort of mechanic where the person with the shorter weapon doesn't actually get to attack until they close, at which point their attacks become much more effective?

NOW you are talking! I think you are right on here. I even mention this in the article, though briefly. Yeah, a dagger should be at a great initial disadvantage when the opponents are at range, but at a vast advantage in grapple, say.

You're probably already aware of it but GURPS - especially the supplement Low Tech - has a lot of stats for different historical weapon and armour types, including some of the obscure ones you mention. Also, old 3rd Ed Runequest (and quite possibly the earlier eds going back to the 70s) both has mechanics dealing with weapons reach and historical armour types including brigantine, etc. If I'm remembering rightly, the RQ combat system was written (ar at least revised) by a number of SCA types.

Generally, I'd suspect there are a fair number of older systems that do what you're wanting newer systems to do.

It's probably worth observing that you slip very quickly from 'in my experience' to 'this is the way it is'. I have several years of silat-based weapons training and a couple of years of medieval weapons training (bill mainly, some sword). I would definitely cite points of departure from some of your assertions. It may be worth sticking a few more YMMV tags in there.

As a result, the line between cinematic or cartoon like rules systems versus those ostensibly meant to be realistic has become increasingly blurred, and sadly, there has been a general dumbing-down of the technical aspects of RPG’s in general. What we are left with by default is more influenced by popular films and TV than history or the old fantasy literary tradition; a kind of a Hollywood version of the medieval world, a “Disney dark ages.”

I've had this in my S combat rules for some time (about 2 years I think). I don't think you'd like them though, as they're based on movie and Eastern style combat. Weapon length determines who gets to go first in a melee duel and who can't attack (because their weapon isn't long enough.) When played, it seems to generate similar behaviour to movies and realistic (I think) Eastern style combat. I'm always open to more suggestions on improvements for weapons, as this is an area I feel is lacking in my set of rules. I'm interested in reading your next article's list of suggestions

I'm sorry to say Drifter that I found little to impress me in the article. I found your attempt to equate unrealistic RPGs with being dumbed down (professional wrestling!) inaccurate and insulting. And comments such as:

It's use within RPGs is based on all kinds of weird assumptions such as the idea that a suit of armor made of stiff, cured leather would be less bulky and cumbersome than say, a mail shirt or a fitted suit of gothic plate armor.

Hi Bob,

One factor you might be overlooking is the difference between rule systems as they are published, and rules systems as they are actually played at the table. I mention this because many of the realism-enhancing additions you suggest have been present in many popular published rule systems going way back.

Space requirements for effective use of weapons: see AD&D Players Handbook, 1978, pg 38, "Space Required" column of the Weapon Types table.

Adjustments for individual weapon effectiveness against different types of armor: ibid, "Armor Class Adjustment" columns.

Adjustments for differences in weapon speed: ibid, "Speed Factor" column; for rules see AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, 1979, pg. 66, "Weapon Speed Factor."

There are no adjustments for the defensive value of attacking weapon vs. defending weapon in this edition of AD&D. But in my 1985 edition of Fantasy Hero (pp. 71-72) there are adjustments for the relative weapon length between attacking and defending weapon, and an optional rule that the adjustment reverses once the wielder of the shorter weapon has rolled a hit, representing that the shorter weapon wielder has now gotten inside the opponent's effective weapon length. (Reversing again when the longer weapon's wielder scores a hit, and so forth.)

GURPS and Runequest have also already been mentioned by other posters; Rolemaster might also be worth a look.

The point is, most game systems gave up on these kind of rules because almost nobody was using them. This was not because the effects of those rules were insufficiently accurate representations of realistic combat variables -- though I have no doubt that accuracy was often poor or worse. It was because few players cared enough about realism to even try them.

The bottom line is, don't assume that game designers make the decisions they do for their combat systems because they're unaware of such arcane facts as "weapons need space to wield effectively," "weapons can be used to defend against attacks," or "armor is normally well-designed for its purpose." Take a look at what's actually in the text of fantasy melee systems (as opposed to how everyone remembers their being played at the table), especially in the early to mid 80s when the "unrealism" of AD&D appeared to offer the opportunity to promote competing systems for their superior accuracy. (See also the Fantasy Heartbreakers articles in the Articles section of the Forge.)

Your article will be stronger if it acknowledges that the improvements you suggest have already been tried, frequently. (And perhaps, explains why they either failed to make combat more realistic or failed to become generally popular, and what they should have done differently to avoid those problems). Currently the article makes it seem like you believe that no one else has thought of these issues before, when the truth is they've been intensively discussed and debated for the past quarter century.

- Walt

The tone struck me as snobbish, but as it is pitched as a condemnation, I suppose that's inevitable. The emphasis on exotica seems to have more with showcasing the author's knowledge than genuinely informing the reader - 'It would be great if more games used X, Y and Z' is a reasonable assertion, but since they don't, I would say it behooves the author to present a reason for their use (of which I am sure there are many) besides their simple rarity.

So here's the question: who's the target audience for this, and what is being communicated?
If it's to provide information to people who only have D&D or the like as a refence, it does not seem particularily informative, except of course insofar as to tell them that they are terribly, terribly wrong, and possibly stupid.

If it's to illustrate the strengths of a realistic approach to combat for people who have preferred a different style of approach, it falls short. It says very little about the strengths of that approach, instead simply asserting value, and proceeding as if it's a given.

If it's to create material for debates over esoterica of weaponry and combat styles, it's succeeded admirably, and to illustrate this, I point to what has made up the bulk of exchange on this so far. And honestly, that's fine - people geek about what interests them most, and such debate is often useful. But it's not going to be of value to everyone.

I'm sounding somewhat harsh, and I apologise for that, but this was a somewhat disappointing read if only because it clear that there's a lot of knowledge here. This is a meaty subject, and one deserving of attention. Because of that, it suffers all the more when it turns away from that potential towards dwelling on unexplained esoterica or the kind of anecdotes that made Raven s McKracken a not-quite-household name.

I'm genuinely looking forward to the second half, for two reasons. First, I'm especially intertested in what you have to say about special training, as that potentially covers a very wide range of important material. It's an arena that receives far, far less attention than the specifics of a Claymore versus a Rapier and the like. Second, I'm curious where you will take this when you actually move to the subject of gaming and mechanics, since that's really what I'm here for. You cite wargames which are both realistic and abstract, and that's a terrible tease - if you're building up to a workable suggestion that you consider both streamlined and realistic, I'm very excited to hear it!

Also note, the fact that I do not find this useful does not mean I find it bad by any stretch. It's clear from the article and the discussion so far that what I consider exotica and minutae are of great imprtance to others, and if that's who you're trying to reach, that's great, but it's also kind of preaching to the choir. :)

Drifter Bob wrote:
As for grousing, I tried to get through the description of the status quo or rpg design and the reasons why they are so unrealistic really as quickly as I could, because my purpose was not to argue about the need for realism. I did point out that I think that more realistic games can be more fun if properly executed, but I don't have a problem with intentionally unrealistic games. I simply expressed the opinion that games which are assumed by many people to be ostensibly realistic, are actually pure fantasy. Arguing for realism against "pure" fantasy is another subject, I could discuss it but other people have already 'gone there' I think quite effectively. There is little point in that debate in the long run, since many people who don't like realism for their own reasons won't be swayed no matter what they read, it's a lot like a religion for many gamers, particularly those who are canonical about "official" rules.

Personally I just feel that the rpg industry could use a new innoculation of realism for that wing of it which appreciates some grounding in reality if only for certain aspects of physics, as it recieved near it's inception from the work of Gary Gygax and others with the 1E DMG and some of the stuff in Unearthed Arcana and etc. Whatever aspects of that realism which make for better game play will no doubt eventually filter into the rest of the RPG community to whatever extent is merited.

In other words, my main purpose is to provide a service to those already interested in more relaism. I think there are a lot of people in my generation particularly, who have played rpgs when they were teenagers and would like to see something more adult. Similarly, I think there are some younger people who have some experience of the real world, of what fighting is really like, who would also like to see that aspects of rpg's they play be a bit more immersive and believable.

To the extent that I'm actually advocating anything, I'm not so much advocating the domination of realism over pure vaguery or comic book science, I'm just advocating a re-injection of some back into the genre, to maybe push the pendulum back a little, because it's really pretty bereft right now.

JR

I'll try to get to each response individually if I have time, but for now, I'll try to make a few things clear which everyone seems to be misunderstanding.

0) for the record, I recognize that my tone was probably too abrasive, I forgot how dogmatic and sensitive people really are about RPG rules. It is truly amazing! Well i just proved it, I am abrasive. That comes with the territory.

1) I have said this now like 5 times, but I'll reiterate again: the point of my article was not to condemn intentionally unrealistic games. As long as they are internally consistent, they are fine with me.

2) the point of my article was also not to convince people of the need for realism in games, though I do feel it has value in many games, and I do think that certain games like D&D should either abandon realism altogether (as some people would love!) or try a little harder to get real.

Yes, I know RPG's are based on fantasy. I also know, that the fantasy authors who D&D got based on, Jack Vance (primarily) Robert E Howard, Fritz Lieber, Michael Moorcock, and Tolkein, had done their historical research well. They knew the reality of the history and therefore, they could play with it effectively. My point is that this basis in reality was useful. Certainly what has been created in most rpgs is neither pure fantasy nor pure realism, but an uncomfortable mish-mash of the two.

3) I AM NOT TRYING TO DELVE INTO ESOTERICA. This is just a way of dismissing my actual point, which may make people uncomfortbale. Most of the equipment I mentioned, was NOT obscure. That is my point. They are only obscure in RPG's. RPG's have made up a fairly complex system of weapons and armor and their relative merits, which is basically nonesense. Brigantine and Lamellar armor were COMMON forms of armor Historically. "Studded leather" was actually in 90% of cases misidentified Brigantine. Similarly, "splint mail" and "banded mail" dont' exist. Double headed axes and double heead flails couldn't exist.
The other weapons I mentioned, again, were not all that rare, they just got left out of rpg rule books. Schiavonas were very popular swords for a couple of hundred years, for example, as were smallswords.

I'm not trying to push esoterica on anyone, but if you are going to base your combat system on medieval weapons, then maybe you should find out more about them. Otherwise do like Gene Wolf and have people dueling with venomous flowers or something.

My main point was that there is now a much richer store of source material available to the general public than there was when the last serious research in this area was done. How do I know this? Because most of the mistakes which are continually repeated from game to game are NOT left in for balance or for the pure Romantic elan of it, but just laziness and ignorance. You can tell! There is nothing bad about Brigantine and nothing especially wonderful about "studded leather"! Assigning a defensive value of 1 to a dagger and 3 to a sword when you already have defensive values for shields does not tear the game down into a depressing miasma of grinding detail!

4) Yes, I am aware of gurps low tech, rollmaster and runequest and the other early attempts to make a more realistic game. I think those attempts, while they were interesting in their day, suferred from two major problems. First they were generally overly complex, and usually seemed to be kind of a "band-aid" of pieces of realism applied over a core of flawwed dynamics. Second they were based on a pool of research generally all done back in the 1970's (mostly by Gygax et all, and to a lesser extent by the SCA) of which general understanding was limited. I think the clumsiness of a lot of these early attempts, combined with the quasi religious ferver which many cling to official rules, and a lack of knowlege of combat, created a backlash which is what turned people off from realism in the past, and is still strong today. I did mention this in my article by the way, albiet briefly.

Yes, I know Runequest was influenced by the SCA. But today, there are much more serious Western martial arts schools who have gained a much more nuanced and genuine understanding of pre-firearms combat than than the SCA, which really engages in a type of pseudo martial sport with all their rules, ever did, alas. Perhaps more significantly, there has been a great deal of advances in the fields of history, historical literature, and archeology as well. In the last ten years alone: major new battlefields and grave sites have been excavated, including proof for example of the actual real life existance of real women warriors (scythian); dozens of the ancient fencing manuals of the middle ages and renaissance period have now been translated for the first time (none were translated back in the 1970's); and almost every type of common period weapons and armor have been reproduced, tested, and refined. Weapons have been tested against armor, against meat and bones.

TROS is the only game I've seen which really seemed to be designed around a genuine understanding of combat from the ground up. As a result it's not only realistic, but it's fairly elegant and simple.

4) On a technical note, I don't think you have to have mutlitple tables for how each weapon releates to each other weapon. It doesn't need to be that complicated. I think you need to understand the defensive capability, reach and speed of each weapon, and I think even a simple game like D&D could accomodate that.

You could assign a value, 1-4 say, to each weapon for defense, just like different shields have defensive values. You could assign a reach value as well. At it's most simple, the reach value would be a bonus at normal range, a penalty in grapple. Simple.

How fare you want to take realism in a particular game is your choice.

The point, again, is that there is a lot of arbitrary stuff in there in D&D for example, the dynamics of a melee round with all the full actions and partial actions, is pretty tricky. You could ditch a lot of uneccesary complexity and base it around something more real. If you want to!

5) AS far as the D&D fixes which were added to introduce these rules in earlier editions, they were never effectively integrated into the rules, they were just patches. For example, if I remember correctly the speed thing came in to play only as a tie breaker for initiative. I gather this half-measure approach was due to fighting between Gygax, who wanted to try to do a more realistic system, and the TSR corporate people, who wanted to keep their moneymaker as it was, and the religious dogmatic fan base pretty much agreed with them.

6) An example of an abstracted but realistic war game. off the top of my head, though the game itself was fairly complex, there was a certain aspect of Panzer Gruppe Guderian which meets this criteria. This was a game simulating the early invasion of Russia by the Germans. A small number of elite German units (10 or 12 divisions divided into 3 regiments each) had to smash through like 50 or 60 Russian divisions of very mixed quality. A handful of the Russian divisions had good T-34 tanks, good leadership, and high morale. Most had obsolete equipment, bad leadership, and poor morale (mainly due to Stalins pre-war purges of the officer corps).

What the deisgner had to simulate was not only the German player being unable to predict this unknown quantity (since the quality of each Russian unit and the value of the T-34 for example was unknown) and for practical purpsoes, the Russian commander did not know which of his own units were going to turn out any good in combat either.

So insead of making up millions of complex charts and tables to simulate this confusing situation, the designer(s) just put question marks on the backs of all the russian divisions. You mix them up randomly and put them on the map. You only turn them over when they get into combat.

Vioila! Realistic, elegant, abstracted, simple!

Another interesting example in an RPG (other than Riddle of Steel which I often cite) is the Dying Earth Role Playing Game. This is an intentionally unrealistic game, designed to fit into the genre of Jack Vance. But they do an interesting thing with thier ultra simple (1 d6, no charts) combat system: each character or monster has a certain fighting style, and some can trump the other. For example you might be someone who fights with a cautious technique, while your opponent relies on pure strength, and his ally upon Finesse, or Cunning. Associate a speicific weapon type with each style, and you have a system with a realistic feel. This is abstracted but to me, oddly realistic system. It certainly is internally consistent with it's own logic. And even though it is very simple, it seems to have some ring of reality to it, to me, where D&D or Shadowrun just don't. Maybe I'm just crazy.

JR

Drifter Bob wrote: 3) I AM NOT TRYING TO DELVE INTO ESOTERICA.

For example you might be someone who fights with a cautious technique, while your opponent relies on pure strength, and his ally upon Finesse, or Cunning. Associate a speicific weapon type with each style, and you have a system with a realistic feel. This is abstracted but to me, oddly realistic system. It certainly is internally consistent with it's own logic. And even though it is very simple, it seems to have some ring of reality to it, to me, where D&D or Shadowrun just don't. Maybe I'm just crazy.

Here is another way of looking at it.

You have two types of RPG games out there. One type, is the sub-genre game, like say The Dying Earth RPG, which is pretty much based in it's own internal logic, and self contained.

The second type, like D&D, has it's own genre but is partially based on some kernel of realism. You can be detailed in that realism like runequest, or you can be very simplified, like the old "basic" D&D. In either of these cases, you are basing a certain portion of your combat system (and many other aspects of the rules, which could also stand a look, but thats another issue!) on history, on historical reality.

I'm not saying that runequest is better than D&D because it's more complex. In fact, to me, both of those systems are based on a flawed idea of real combat which in the cases of newer games is derivative of older games, rather than on actual primary-source research.

The point of my article, was to explore what realistic combat was, so that rpg designers and players could better understand what that basis should really be. I think that it is now more possible than it was in the past to really quantify this more accurately. The precise level of detail you take from it is up to you as a player or game designer, I'm just saying to whatever extent you do rely on this core of realism, you can now adjust that core somewhat to better reflect todays "laymans state of the art" on the subject, which has advanced quite a bit.

JR

This is not quite entirely off topic, but let me recommend the Charles Franklin article Hitting Them Where It Hurts in, I believe, the first issue of The Way, the Truth, and the Dice. Franklin uses military casuality and injury reports from the past century to suggest a wounds approach to combat injury that he maintains is more realistic than most currently in use, at least in terms of matching the known data about battlefield casualties.

--M. J. Young

Drifter Bob wrote:
The point of my article, was to explore what realistic combat was, so that rpg designers and players could better understand what that basis should really be. I think that it is now more possible than it was in the past to really quantify this more accurately. The precise level of detail you take from it is up to you as a player or game designer, I'm just saying to whatever extent you do rely on this core of realism, you can now adjust that core somewhat to better reflect todays "laymans state of the art" on the subject, which has advanced quite a bit.

Drifter Bob wrote: 4) On a technical note, I don't think you have to have mutlitple tables for how each weapon releates to each other weapon. It doesn't need to be that complicated. I think you need to understand the defensive capability, reach and speed of each weapon, and I think even a simple game like D&D could accomodate that.

You could assign a value, 1-4 say, to each weapon for defense, just like different shields have defensive values. You could assign a reach value as well. At it's most simple, the reach value would be a bonus at normal range, a penalty in grapple. Simple.

How fare you want to take realism in a particular game is your choice.

JR

I examined the article--I still have to go back and read it very carefully but I had a couple of thoughts.

1. Realism with magical weapons is oxymoronic--and those weapons are a staple of many games--and the mechanistic effect of the magic outside the combat modifiers is sometimes pretty hard to guess at.

2. Morrow Project did, IMO, a really fine job of simulating gun fire (with leathality for hit locations taken from copious military wound damage, with severe blood loss, with real-world weapons whose damage was derrivied from ballistic chararacteristics). It did miss the "cool under fire" mechanic (and I don't recall supression rules)--but still--the article is focusing on *fantasy* hth combat but not, as far as I could tell stating that (yeah, it's in Sword Edge, I know ... context--but there were some early attempts to make realistic ranged-weapons games--and they were, IMO, pretty successful).

-Marco

1. Realism with magical weapons is oxymoronic--and those weapons are a staple of many games--and the mechanistic effect of the magic outside the combat modifiers is sometimes pretty hard to guess at.

2. Morrow Project did, IMO, a really fine job of simulating gun fire (with leathality for hit locations taken from copious military wound damage, with severe blood loss, with real-world weapons whose damage was derrivied from ballistic chararacteristics). It did miss the "cool under fire" mechanic (and I don't recall supression rules)--but still--the article is focusing on *fantasy* hth combat but not, as far as I could tell stating that (yeah, it's in Sword Edge, I know ... context--but there were some early attempts to make realistic ranged-weapons games--and they were, IMO, pretty successful).

-Marco

I think this guy Kris Havlak, who wrote a similar article to mine, said it pretty well in his article at:

http://www.gggames.net/medievalcombat.shtml

For those loathe to click the link, here are the first three paragraphs, which are very relevent as to the argument about the value or necessity of realism.

Realism is a word that causes many role-players to writhe in disgust, horrified at the implications when a player character can be killed in a single blow. It is a term often filed away in the musty recesses of gamer’s exile, being sacrificed for widely accepted concepts such as play-balance and speed-of-play.

However, nearly all systems cling to one or another fragment of realism, for the fantasy created by alternate worlds is heightened when some aspect of real life is mimicked. Realism allows our personal experiences to be reflected in the imaginary worlds we create. Without it, players in an imaginary setting have no way of determining actions for their characters, and the world will be incongruous as perceptions will vary. Perhaps this is why games where players take the parts of health-ray wielding amoebas trying to escape from a world where water is solid and gravity is negative are uncommon. Realism doesn’t have to be synonymous with lethal, although it has become that way. Realism in gaming encompasses systems that draw their mechanics from principles of real life.

In any case, the aspect of gaming where realism levels vary the most significantly is that of combat. Obviously, there are games tailored to all tastes-- Dungeons and Dragons® bases combat on powerful heroes, Feng Shui® on cinematics, and a number of more lethal systems such as CORPS® on realistic mechanics. However, even in lethal games where realism is generally obtained, systems of melee combat fail miserably. In some cases, melee combat is dominated by firearms combat and becomes a second priority for game writers. In others, assumptions are made that don’t adhere to the way melee combat actually works. Finally, a number of systems just don’t bother to tweak little details that create the illusion of reality, making it extremely difficult for players to suspend the disbelief of gaming. In many cases this is acceptable, as rules for melee combat can be simple when a game is dominated by guns. However, in worlds without guns, primarily those set in the middle ages, a good set of melee combat rules is essential. A handful of common fallacies with medieval combat systems are easy to point out, and with them a number of ways to make even cinematic games more detailed and believable.

None of these changes will make combat more or less lethal, alter the basic gaming system substantially, or detract from the style of play. They will increase realism, however, making the following changes for the better:

•Make suspension of disbelief easier.
•Smooth player-player and player-gamemaster relations, as arguments over plausibility of rules will decrease.
•Allow system to mimic historical settings more effectively.
•Add excitement to combat.
•Add options and variety to combat.
•Make weapons unique, adding color to the campaign and characters.
•Force players to make choices over weapons and actions in combat.
•Add seriousness to combat, while making comical maneuvers more comical.
•Secure play balance.
•Restore common sense to melee combat systems.
•Give fantasy weapons additional uniqueness.
•Allow for realistic melee combat as well as firearms combat.

Finally, these changes will secure proper knowledge of medieval combat into the minds of role-players, building upon personalities in ways that extend beyond the gaming industry into proper physics, principles, history, and general knowledge, thus creating better-rounded gamers. Cinematic combat can remain cinematic, fantasy can remain fantasy, and ultra-realistic systems can claim realism as well as lethality. Without making a system so lethal that players lose their characters the moment they enter combat, realism can be integrated into medieval warfare in such a way as to benefit all aspects of role-playing.

Drifter Bob wrote: Anyway, sounds like you are on the right track. Is your system available for review online somewhere?

xechnao wrote:
And by the way another one that claims where the cliches come from and the exact role of fighters:
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/CommonPlace.htm

Drifter Bob wrote: I'm not trying to push esoterica on anyone, but if you are going to base your combat system on medieval weapons, then maybe you should find out more about them. Otherwise do like Gene Wolf and have people dueling with venomous flowers or something.

Drifter Bob wrote:

Finally, a number of systems just don’t bother to tweak little details that create the illusion of reality, making it extremely difficult for players to suspend the disbelief of gaming.

Drifter Bob wrote:

•Make suspension of disbelief easier.
•Smooth player-player and player-gamemaster relations, as arguments over plausibility of rules will decrease.
•Allow system to mimic historical settings more effectively.
•Add excitement to combat.
•Add options and variety to combat.
•Make weapons unique, adding color to the campaign and characters.
•Force players to make choices over weapons and actions in combat.
•Add seriousness to combat, while making comical maneuvers more comical.
•Secure play balance.
•Restore common sense to melee combat systems.
•Give fantasy weapons additional uniqueness.
•Allow for realistic melee combat as well as firearms combat.

Drifter Bob wrote:

Finally, these changes will secure proper knowledge of medieval combat into the minds of role-players, building upon personalities in ways that extend beyond the gaming industry into proper physics, principles, history, and general knowledge, thus creating better-rounded gamers.

I have been mostly avoiding replying to this thread because, well, I've just been busy burying my father-in-law and all. Anyway, I can get where you're coming from, Bob. I had long labored under the concept of realism as a desirable trait, then I switched to "forget that shit" now I've come full circle and see it as a tool to use. Let me see if I can explain.

Let's look at the bullet points you had quoted:

Kris Havlak wrote: •Make suspension of disbelief easier.
•Smooth player-player and player-gamemaster relations, as arguments over plausibility of rules will decrease.
•Allow system to mimic historical settings more effectively.
•Add excitement to combat.
•Add options and variety to combat.
•Make weapons unique, adding color to the campaign and characters.
•Force players to make choices over weapons and actions in combat.
•Add seriousness to combat, while making comical maneuvers more comical.
•Secure play balance.
•Restore common sense to melee combat systems.
•Give fantasy weapons additional uniqueness.
•Allow for realistic melee combat as well as firearms combat.

That's a fair paraphrase, I guess, Jack.

Think of it this way, Bob. Freeform games, or games with no mecchanics to speak of, are, in some ways, the most realistic. That is, as a player or GM narrating, I am free to model, say, combat, in as much detail as I like. Certainly more detail than any mechanical method possible could via abstraction.

So what is this sense of realism that we get from rules? Well, first, realize that only some players get any sense of realism from rules. Some are turned off completely by modeling rules. But for those who are into the rules, what do they provide?

Well, it's a sense of an arbitrary universe. One in which a participant can't just make up results, but has to abide by some laws of some sort. The thing is that, being as the worlds in question are all fictional, what standards are we held to?

One is that there's an unwritten standard that says, "Unless otherwise noted, the game reality is like ours." All games that I'm aware of assume this in some way. So we're left to assume that your typical fantasy world has Earth Gravity, and Air Pressure and such (I've seen some that actually alter this slightly). Because if the Gravity were significantly different that would alter things like combat dramatically.

So, yes, there's a need to have some sort of "realism" insomuch as it pertains to creating an internally consistent world. And the rules should represent that reality.

The question all comes down to what the game focuses on, however. Many RPGs are interested in "realistic" combat to some extent (though this is an unneccessary historical trend), and as such don't want to mess with gravity as it would just make things less accessible to the players. But even in games where combat is a focus, you admit that there's variability in terms of how much "realism" is intended. One could mess with Gravity. Having metal armor in a world that has a lack of metal wouldn't make any sense, right (see feudal Japan)?

I'd posit to you that every game has its own unique focus. And most of those aren't really concerned with "realism" as you define it. Because realism as a whole, as I've determined above, is really nothing more than a plausible arbitrariness as defined for the world in question. Which, as has also been pointed out, is neccessarily subjective. Even two games that say that they're about "realism" are actually going to be about two different things.

Take Harn for example. Almost the prototype experiment for what you're talking about, Harn says, "what if we had a world that was in all ways precisely like Earth except for the exact geography, history, magic, and a bunch of other details." Well, either you play Earth or you don't, it turns out. Most of Harn is concerned with trying to figure out reasons why, despite a different history that world turned out just like ours, or where the actual differences are.

Which is fine if that's what you're interested in playing. Most other games are more interested in some sort of fantastic amalgam of fantasy literature, and will tell you that in quite some detail up front. Want me to point out about a zillion things that aren't internally consistent about Tolkien's world and the games that are similar (I can if you'd like)? Doesn't matter, nobody cares, they're still enertained, because the focus of play isn't on that sort of realism.

Now, why include the D&D list of armor and weapons, so ill-researched, if you're just making a fantasy that's not interested in realism? I'll admit that's laziness on most designers part. That is, instead of thinking this all through, they just assume, as with many things, that the best way is just to do what previous games have done. Why reinvent the wheel? Or so the thinking goes. If it's satisfactory to a bujillion D&D fans, why change it? That's not a good attitude, but a prevalent one.

Even D&D has this problem itself. Which is to say that the early editions were more concerned with being like the literature than Gygax was in AD&D1. The weapon list he included there he got from a single book on medieval warfare, and it's inclusion was meant to give folks a wider variety of things to choose from mostly. His realism wasn't intended to be Earthlike, it was intended to represent the breadth of weapons and armor that would likely exist in a medieval society. Who cares about the particulars, the important thing in D&D is that Banded Mail (whatever that is) gives you AC 3!

So, yeah, this hodge-podge way of assembling rules was silly. Consider however, that D&D has a special "problem" in relation to other games. It had no default setting other than to say that it was something vaguely medieval. No wonder it's not "realistic", it's not even really worked out what it's supposed to be at all. But that leaves people to make up their own reality again, or use one from a published setting. In either case, they'll get something that's as real as they need it to be (or they'll change systems).

Again, assuming the D&D method was a good standard in other games was probably a mistake. But I'll also say that for most of these games the solution isn't to make the list more accurate to Earth, but to the fantasy world itself. In fact, in many cases I'd advocate not having any listing at all (as was pointed out as how it works in Hero Quest). Because, as we've all said, realism isn't neccessarily detail. It's consistency. Saying nothing about it is just as consistent as saying a lot of consistent stuff.

Again it comes down to the game's focus. If we're playing a Sci-fi game, then I assume that it's OK to not take too much time on Melee Combat, right? But why? Because the game's not about Melee Combat (unless it is, like Dune, in which case, of course you need detail in Melee Combat), it's about, well, something else.

So, you're basically making a large circular argument. If a game is supposed to be about realism, then it should be realistic. Well, who could disagree? The thing is that almost no games are about realism as you define it. What you're saying is tantamount to "I want game realism to be my way," which is just a preference to which all anyone can say is, "That's nice." We have so many games precisely because they can cater to so many views of so many things including realism. This variability is a strength of RPGs, not a failing.

Now, all this said, are there cases where the designer made a mistake and included something in their game that collides with the very level of realism that they're trying to portray? Sure. Some designs are better than others. But a simple admonition to do better would suffice, I'd think. In any case, pushing your version of realism on everybody simply isn't going to accomplish anything.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:

Think of it this way, Bob. Freeform games, or games with no mecchanics to speak of, are, in some ways, the most realistic. That is, as a player or GM narrating, I am free to model, say, combat, in as much detail as I like. Certainly more detail than any mechanical method possible could via abstraction.

So what is this sense of realism that we get from rules? Well, first, realize that only some players get any sense of realism from rules. Some are turned off completely by modeling rules. But for those who are into the rules, what do they provide?

Well, it's a sense of an arbitrary universe. One in which a participant can't just make up results, but has to abide by some laws of some sort. The thing is that, being as the worlds in question are all fictional, what standards are we held to?

So, yes, there's a need to have some sort of "realism" insomuch as it pertains to creating an internally consistent world. And the rules should represent that reality.

The question all comes down to what the game focuses on, however. Many RPGs are interested in "realistic" combat to some extent (though this is an unneccessary historical trend), and as such don't want to mess with gravity as it would just make things less accessible to the players. But even in games where combat is a focus, you admit that there's variability in terms of how much "realism" is intended.

One could mess with Gravity. Having metal armor in a world that has a lack of metal wouldn't make any sense, right (see feudal Japan)?

I'd posit to you that every game has its own unique focus. And most of those aren't really concerned with "realism" as you define it. Because realism as a whole, as I've determined above, is really nothing more than a plausible arbitrariness as defined for the world in question. Which, as has also been pointed out, is neccessarily subjective. Even two games that say that they're about "realism" are actually going to be about two different things.

Which is fine if that's what you're interested in playing. Most other games are more interested in some sort of fantastic amalgam of fantasy literature, and will tell you that in quite some detail up front. Want me to point out about a zillion things that aren't internally consistent about Tolkien's world and the games that are similar (I can if you'd like)? Doesn't matter, nobody cares, they're still enertained, because the focus of play isn't on that sort of realism.

thinking goes. If it's satisfactory to a bujillion D&D fans, why change it? That's not a good attitude, but a prevalent one.

Even D&D has this problem itself. Which is to say that the early editions were more concerned with being like the literature than Gygax was in AD&D1. The weapon list he included there he got from a single book on medieval warfare, and it's inclusion was meant to give folks a wider variety of things to choose from mostly.

His realism wasn't intended to be Earthlike, it was intended to represent the breadth of weapons and armor that would likely exist in a medieval society. Who cares about the particulars, the important thing in D&D is that Banded Mail (whatever that is) gives you AC 3!

Because, as we've all said, realism isn't neccessarily detail. It's consistency. Saying nothing about it is just as consistent as saying a lot of consistent stuff.

Again it comes down to the game's focus. If we're playing a Sci-fi game, then I assume that it's OK to not take too much time on Melee Combat, right? But why? Because the game's not about Melee Combat (unless it is, like Dune, in which case, of course you need detail in Melee Combat), it's about, well, something else.

So, you're basically making a large circular argument. If a game is supposed to be about realism, then it should be realistic. Well, who could disagree? The thing is that almost no games are about realism as you define it.

What you're saying is tantamount to "I want game realism to be my way," which is just a preference to which all anyone can say is, "That's nice." We have so many games precisely because they can cater to so many views of so many things including realism. This variability is a strength of RPGs, not a failing.

But a simple admonition to do better would suffice, I'd think. In any case, pushing your version of realism on everybody simply isn't going to accomplish anything.

JR/Drifter Bob:

So, are you saying that you're okay with just about any game design as long as it's informed by reality?

For example, a game like My Life With Master seems to consistently and realistically model the world of the Minions of a distirbued Evil Genius. There's no long list of weapons - no modifiers for one combat style vs. another - none of the stuff you're talking about.

But, combat can happen in the game. By all accounts fun, entertaining, adult, sophisticated and exciting combat. In fact, the game paly, if reports are to be beleived, is very addictive, and in high demand.

The same could be said of Sorcerer - which again you wouldn't have a problem with, because you support the diversity of RPG design, even though it doesn't realistically model the damage done from guns or swords?

I mean, Sorcerer has one of the most realistically grounded rulesets for dealing with thematically infused Premise - so much so that when played to the hilt it's hard to not have Morality and Theme oozing out of the players...so you'd be in agreement that that type of realism is good too, right? Even though the Sorcerer rules are pretty light on the subject of say, how to accurately reflect falling damage?

I'd go so far as to say that absolutely no connection could be made between the actual physics of falling and how you'd deal with that under the Sorcere rules, and yet a lot of people find that game strikingly relevant, entertaining, adult, and immently replayable.

The point of all this, is that what you think would be an improvement to RPGs isn't necessarily an improvement from everyone's point of view. And before you admonish me again, it has nothing to do with fanatical loyalty to 'unreality' or to the 'security blanket' of the games we like to play.

A lot of the people who've contributed to this thread probably have a lot of real life and research based experience in exactly the type of stuff you're discussing here (i.e. weapons, armor, fighting styles and their historical uses and real-world applications) - and while they aren't disagreeing with you, they are saying that tastes may vary, that your way isn't the only way.

I don't see why there has to be any disagreement about this at all. That is to say, if you like this level of realism, and this type of application of realism, great! If some of us don't, great! Neither group is inherently better nor by nessesity, implication or objective measure more appealing to a wider audience. And citing anecdotal eveidence to the contrary isn't really that compelling - 'cause for every example you can cite where realism interjected into a game made it more fun for everyone, and left them begging for more, I could cite an example where REJECTING realism in a game had exactly the same effects.

Cheers,


Jason

deadpanbob wrote: JR/Drifter Bob:

So, are you saying that you're okay with just about any game design as long as it's informed by reality?

For example, a game like My Life With Master seems to consistently and realistically model the world of the Minions of a distirbued Evil Genius. There's no long list of weapons - no modifiers for one combat style vs. another - none of the stuff you're talking about.

The same could be said of Sorcerer - which again you wouldn't have a problem with, because you support the diversity of RPG design, even though it doesn't realistically model the damage done from guns or swords?

right? Even though the Sorcerer rules are pretty light on the subject of say, how to accurately reflect falling damage?

I'd go so far as to say that absolutely no connection could be made between the actual physics of falling and how you'd deal with that under the Sorcere rules, and yet a lot of people find that game strikingly relevant, entertaining, adult, and immently replayable.

The point of all this, is that what you think would be an improvement to RPGs isn't necessarily an improvement from everyone's point of view. And before you admonish me again, it has nothing to do with fanatical loyalty to 'unreality' or to the 'security blanket' of the games we like to play.

A lot of the people who've contributed to this thread probably have a lot of real life and research based experience in exactly the type of stuff you're discussing here (i.e. weapons, armor, fighting styles and their historical uses and real-world applications) - and while they aren't disagreeing with you, they are saying that tastes may vary, that your way isn't the only way.

I don't see why there has to be any disagreement about this at all. That is to say, if you like this level of realism, and this type of application of realism, great! If some of us don't, great! Neither group is inherently better nor by nessesity, implication or objective measure more appealing to a wider audience.

And citing anecdotal eveidence to the contrary isn't really that compelling - 'cause for every example you can cite where realism interjected into a game made it more fun for everyone

, and left them begging for more, I could cite an example where REJECTING realism in a game had exactly the same effects.

Cheers,
Jason

I took the time to print the article and take it with me to the reading room.

As an explication of how realism might be achieved, it falls short, really--it seems only to be saying that we should do more research to achieve realism.

As a defense of the value of realism, it makes no effort; it presumes this as a value toward which role playing games should strive.

Further, despite claims by the author here that he has no problem with games that are intentionally unrealistic, the tone of the article (and of some of his posts) is entirely condescending.

For example, in the article he wrote: I should add that I am not opposed to games which are silly because they are meant to be silly. There are always going to be RPG's where orthodox realism is neither appropriate nor necessary.

Earlier in the article, he wrote: What we are left with by default is more influenced by popular films and TV than history or the old fantasy literature tradition; a kind of Hollywood version of the medieval world, a "Disney dark ages".

where he wrote: With the immense popularity of the Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Matrix films, and the subsequent upsurge in interest in the Fantasy and Science Fiction genres, there has been a major resurgence in the popularity of role playing games in the last three years.

popular films and TV...a kind of a Hollywood version of the medieval world....

...a "Disney dark ages".

JR,

I think MJ has brought the focus back to this for me. Several of your posts suggest that you are indeed willing to give wide lattitude for other play styles and priorities. That's great. Its what everyone here is about. I agree that there is a definate advantage to internal consistancy, and also a certain enjoyable quality to intensly detailed, gritty, emulated combat.

The problem that I see is that there is a wide divergence between what you say your thought is in this thread and the perspective presented in your article. I suggest that your ideas are fine ones to write about but that the article itself could stand some substantial editing so as not to distract people from your central discussion by offending them accidentally with what seems to be dismissivness of other play styles and priorities.

regards

Trevis.

M. J. Young wrote: He cites in this regard Call of Cthulu, Feng Shui, and all superhero games. He thus divides all game combat systems into two categories: "realistic" and "silly". That's condescending. It's insulting.

Well folks, I'm not a moderator but it seems to be to be time to put this thread to bed. JR has said his piece and at this point it has become a pointless exercise in trying to change one guy's mind. This has JR on the defensive. He's getting a little bit inappropriate for discussion here, but I'm willing to forgive it if everyone else is, and this includes JR for feeling put on the spot. No harm, no foul?

In any case, maybe we should all count to 10 and see if there's a point to continuing here before the moderators do step in?

quot;Drifter Bob]

I'm sorry, but I think most of this argument is essentially sophistry, and I doubt we will ever agree in the long run, but for the sake of clarity for other people reading this thread, I'm going to try to clarify this.

Role playing games are essentially a game of "lets pretend". At minimum, we use dice, charts, and rules as tie breakers, and to represent the firmament of "reality" underlying the imaginary world where the action is taking place.

JR

To understand Mike's point you must understand that posing the question: "what do we pretend?" is the first realistic question. The answer to this will be your base or table for further rapresentations on this basis.

You say: to represent the firmament of "reality" underlying the imaginary world where the action is taking place.
Ok but this is too abstract*. The only way to raprsesent something of this on paper, it would be on tables as I've told or follow the way Mike has said:
"Freeform games, or games with no mecchanics to speak of, are, in some ways, the most realistic. That is, as a player or GM narrating, I am free to model, say, combat, in as much detail as I like. Certainly more detail than any mechanical method possible could via abstraction."
If you choose Mike's way the discussion can stop over here. Alternativelly you can make tables and ask people if they like them and offer them to people that would enjoy their taste.
For instance change the charts of AD&D as you have mentioned and make them available for anyone that could enjoy them. But abstractivelly trying to impose a general rule or concept of a methodology of realsim in rpgs makes no sense.
What I am suggesting is that this thread of realism shouldn't go on in Rpg Theory any more but something in Game Design if this matter of melee need be continioued.

*further ahead on this post you say:"But that still doesn't change the fact of whether that underlying reality, or core of realism, is based on something real or just fudged" and furthermore "abstraction does not preculde realism".
The frases: "realism based on something real or whatever" and "abstraction does not preculde realism" don't make sense. Realism is realism, period. What you can do is only work on paper(writting down your tables or points-systems of reference) and this only can make some sense as something with a rule/rules to guide.

deadpanbob wrote: A lot of the people who've contributed to this thread probably have a lot of real life and research based experience in exactly the type of stuff you're discussing here

Drifter Bob wrote: I'm sorry, but I addressed all of your arguments in previous responses in this thread. Maybe you should print them out too. Then again, something tells me you wouldn't get it. You are one of those people, I'm afraid, and you are never going to get it.

Hello,

Jack's point on the previous page is fully valid. This thread has been undermined by a general problem that I'll post about soon in Site Discussion.

Bob's article has been read; it will still be available to be read by people readin the thread later; and it is time to end this particular thread. It is now closed. Further discussions about the article can have threads of their own.

Best,
Ron

Christopher Weeks wrote:
Nice. I think this brief paragraph cleanly summarizes the arrogance which prevents your article from rising above the 'been there done that.' I see no evidence from this entire thread that you've taken any criticism to heart. What were you looking for here?

Chris

Closed is closed, guys. No more posting, please.

Best,
Ron