The Forge Archives

The purpose of this thread is NOT to immerse ourselves into endless arguments about personal preference. What I want from this thread is that people would reflect on what meaning the words realism and realistic have to them. Hopefully this will lead into a fruitous analytical plurality and we will later be able to somehow classify the realisms into groups or whatever.

So I want you to just answer the topic question from your personal PoV and then tell us how it is realistic. Do not leave your conception of realistic/realism implicit. Try to define it analytically and communicate your idea to others. For the sake of conreteness use your "realistic game" as an example. Please keep the number of example games small and your summaries of them compact. Also keep in mind that realistic is not the same as good. You don't have to like your realistic game or realism in general.

Do not question the choices of other forum members. That will lead to the undesirable "My game is better than yours and you are not a real gamer!"-debate.

Do not question or critizise the analytical definitions of other people. Do not open arguments where you try to covince others of the superiority of your definition. Those arguments should start a thread of their own or be conducted privately. You can however tell us if you think that your realism is the same as the realism of some other forum member.

I would also appreciate if you begun your post by telling me how horrified/angry/frustrated you were when you first noticed the topic on the forum, before you read what it is about. Rate it on a scale from 0 to 100. ;-)

Here comes my realistic game:

Harnmaster and Harn-setting

For me realism means that the in-game reality is close to the actual reality. It also tends to mean that the realistic reality is represented in detail by the system and the setting-material.  

Harnmaster (1st ed.) rules have lots of things that are realistic in this way: pre-game character creation (character skills determined by his backround, 75% of PCs are born unfree), skills reflecting medieval European society instead of fantastic classes, infections, deadly combat, rules for activites other than adventuring (commerce and crafts), and low probability of having a fantasy race character (vast majority are humans).

Harn-setting is very close to the medieval Europe: Cultures and society are detailed and similar, the map of the world is very similar, low and rare magic, only few fantastic creatures, the abundance of mundane political plot hooks instead of "adventures", weather tables which create lots of rain, the interest which is given to everyday life of the inhabitants (like detailed descriptions of manorial villages and stuff) and - most of all  - the toilets in castle floor plans.

Hmm. I'd be tempted to go with Harn as well, except that it's hard to agree that a game with magic in it is the most realistic. In fact, the world of Harn is obviously fictitous, so doesn't that detract from how realistic it is. Especially assuming the definition you give, Johannes?

My point is that I think that role-playing games, due to their fantasy origins, have an interesting definition of realistic. From day one, these games have been set in alternate worlds. As such, what realism has come to mean is something more like:

Given a certain set of assumptions that may themselves be realistic or not, a realistic game will produce results that seem to answer the question, "What would happen in our world were the assumptions true?"

Which is interesting. I mean you can play a GURPS game about, say, being a detective or something, and stay completely on Earth, completely within accepted descriptions of our reality, and include nothing that could not happen today. That would be more realistic to me given the definition you give. But nobody really cares about that part of the definition. It's not important that there not be unrealistic assumptions. We just buy into those. What has to be realistic (when this is desired) is the way that things are interpereted given that baseline. Results produced by the system have to flow consistently and logically from cause to effect. The setting has to seem to have evolved from basic principles.

From the thread on the two types of realism we have the concept of the type one and type two realism. What we're talking about here is Realism 1. But as I've noted, few people would be what I'd call Radically Type 1, wanting to play only on our Earth with as few differences as possible.

In addition to the fantasy roots of RPGs, I think this is also attributable to the fact that RPGs share something with literature. That is, we know they are a ficiton to start. Given that, there's no reason why certain assumptions can be made and accepted. Leaving realism only to cover consitency, and logical progression to define realism.

As such, GURPS is only so-so at realism. But in some ways Harn is worse. While it's setting is certainly consistent and built from principles up to the point that it's impeccable in this regard, the system itself still has all sorts of baggage from it's wargamig heritage. As such, I wouldn't rate it too highly. Yes, there are some things that their combat system does well, but even that is flawed.

But this is problematic. All systems as simulations of in-game reality are going to fail the Type 2 Realism test at some point. Especially when forced to resolve certain things that they are not designed to resolve. Thus most combat systems only do so well when outside of combat. And have stilted versions of what combat is like. Further, it can be argued (and is by some) that more unrealistic detail provided by a system is less realistic than less unrealistic detail. Thus the "less is more" camp in terms of system. One could reasonably argue that a resolution system that involved the players just narrating what they thought was most realistic was bound to be more realistic in the end than any amount of mechanics.

The opposing camp will state, however, that they feel that arbitrary mechanics deliver a feeling of being Immersed in the setting. This is yet another sort of realism. One that these folks are unwilling to do without. Others never get a sense of realism no matter what you do in an RPG (knowing after all that it is a fiction), and are therefore not concerned with realism at all. Anything is realistic to them as long as it provides their other needs.

When it comes down to it, it must therefore be preference. The preferences being what level of mechanics are good to deliver the feeling of realism, and the level to which realism can be felt to be delivered at all. Between these and other personal criteria, what is considered realistic is going to vary widely.

Mike

The term "realism" is used by gamers to mean several different things, which is why it isn't generally found as a useful term on the Forge.

Most common by far, IME, is the use of "realism" to indicate rigorous detail in representing the physics of the game world. In-game results should be arrived at in the same way that nature arrives at real-world results. To determine the outcome of the sword swing, one takes into account the size and shape, weight and length, of the sword, the arm strength and control of the wielder, the local physical conditions, and so on.

The problem with such complex systems is that they are often broken. Real life has a practically infinite number of variables for any given occurance, meaning that rigorously detailed physics systems will produce many errors that are propagated from round-off errors. Usually these problems are most noticeable at the extreme ends of the game's provided scale. (I.e., there are inconsistencies when high skill-levels are reached, or between large and small entities, for example.)

This is the source of the continuing internet flame-wars about system. To a Simulationist, consistency with something is of primary importance. The obvious approach to maintaining consistency is to monitor the environment with as much detailed control as possible. But when the system inevitably breaks as previously described, you get advocates for different systems arguing about how this or that system has this or that problem.

Another way (a more reasonable way, IMO) the word "realism" is used is to refer exclusively to the results of the system, regardless of how this results are produced. So long as the results are consistent with reality, it makes no difference what sort of abstractions were used.

A third use of the word is to represent "genre emulation," meaning that the setting presents results not necessarily in keeping with the real world, but that the results are consistent with the imagined world.

One often finds D&D vs. the World flamewars on the internet, one side complaining that D&D is not realistic for high level characters, the other side maintaining that it meets its genre requirements. (This is actually a bit circular if you ask me. D&D is it's own genre defined by itself. Of course it meets its genre requirements . . . :)

From a more narrativist perspective, I think of "realism" meaning "produces stories that are true to the source material." In this way, The Questing Beast is a realistic game . . . it produces stories that are very like the Arthurian Romances.

In a nut-shell, realism in gaming most simply means consistency with something. (Hence it's a favorite term of simulationists.) There's just a great deal of confusion about what that something is.

Interesting question. Personally, I don't have any solid criteria for for "realism" or anything similar. If it's sold to me properly, I will buy it.

You see, way I see it, realism in an RPG  is kind of like a magic trick, it's misdirection. You get people looking at the right things while not looking at the stuff you don't want them to see.

So I don't have a preference, really. I'm easy like that. Show it to me in the right light and I'll buy it.

Johannes said: So I want you to just answer the topic question from your personal PoV and then tell us how it is realistic.
---------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm... personally, probably from my own experiences in the "real world" is that realism comes greatly from impotence. Seriosly. I think for instance for combat to be realistic, it must feel very dangerous and undesirable. Usually the people who enjoy hurting other people do so at an unfair advantage... there's no cop that say's "whoo hooo! 10 back robbers! Hold my gun while I fight them!". Realism (again, you asked for people to voice their own opinion) comes greatly from the fear of death and injury.  

Here's a question though... should something realistic be "reproducible under the same conditions" or "totally insanely random"?


Dont mean to be too sarcastic but it reminds me of something some one said: "Do you want a realistic gun fighting game? Ok, every one flips a coin, if they get heads they die"

"ups, heads... but I was covering behind a couch!"

"Ok, they shot the couch, flip again"

"heads"

"your dead".

What would the game look like? Feathers flying every where, lots of blood and noise... your friend is dead next to you and you might have been the one who shot him... much more realistic.

Hey all,

Life imitates art imitates life.

Rather than write a thesis on realism and its application to the narrative/dramatic, I will take the opposite approach and ask, "Who cares?" I find realism as a goal to be terribly pointless.

People spend their whole lives driving, but are terrible at it. People are much worse judges of character than simple algorithms. People are terrified of flying but happily drive like maniacs down the block to the grocery store. People are terrified of being dead, but once they reach the state of being dead are certainly in no position to care. People buy firearms to protect themselves from being shot, thereby placing themselves into the statistically significant category of people likely to die by gunshot.

In short, people are terrible judges of character, terrible judges of probability, terribly afraid of being afraid, and so on. The universe is a giant mystery and could easily be replaced by a skinner box with two levers which randomly dispense pleasure and pain. What would be the point of modelling that?

Roleplaying games write out in black and white exactly how life, the universe, and everything operate. Even when events are written as a probability, a mathematically valid model of behaviour arises which predicts the correct actions to reach a given goal. The only truly unpredictable input lies in our fellow gamers. And we consider the behaviour of our fellows to be the most easily understood part of the hobby.

Later,
Grant

Thing is, Grant, people ask for it. Realism is a top priority.

OTOH, since they all want something different, I'm not sure how to cater to that. My best advice is internal consistency. It seems to me that as long as a game is internally consistent that it manages to get past most people's basic level of reality requirements. Past that, specific dessign goals are going to overshadow any effort to cater to all sorts of realism demands.

So I agree that it's not something too worth worrying about when designing.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesThing is, Grant, people ask for it. Realism is a top priority.

This comment is a bit off-topic, but IME people ask for a lot of things, even when they have no idea what they're asking for or if they'll really want it.

First let me explain myself more clearly. I didn't start this discussion to propagate realism (or againts realism) and I am very aware of the fact that it means a lot of different things which makes it a problematic concept. The intended purpose of this thread was to map out the different things people mean by realism. At the moment the thread seems to be doing this very well. However I would like if you also offered your realistic games as examples.

By analytical reflection of realism I did not mean that you should define realism rigorously. You can do it if you can but thats not the point. Rather I suggest you take your personal meaning of realism and then analyze what you have ment by the word. This will result in less than rigorous or logical "definitions" but thats nothing to be shamed of because our everyday conception of world is quite unanalytical. (Most people think that computers eat electricity etc.) Look at it as an exercise in discourse analysis.

Quote from: Jack Spencer Jr

Quote from: Mike HolmesThing is, Grant, people ask for it. Realism is a top priority.

This comment is a bit off-topic, but IME people ask for a lot of things, even when they have no idea what they're asking for or if they'll really want it.

I agreed with Mike on this. Then Jack. Now both (OUCH!). I think that realism *should* be considerered when designing a game--first the game's  (or author's) internal definition and second the way the game will address it--and these should be stated for the reader.

Aragorn couldn't (I wouldn't think) have simply jumped off of a cliff of Mt. Doom to escape from an army of orks, trusting to his superior stamina to let him survive the terminal velocity plunge to the bottom. If that happens in a game someone is running they may well (and validly, IMO) complain about "realism."

In short, I think it's a definitional concern.

-Marco
[ JAGS has a working definition of realism that we adhere to when trying to make new rules. ]

Marco said: If that happens in a game someone is running they may well (and validly, IMO) complain about "realism."

Yeah, I would complain. But that's because for me "running" is always the most realistic thing to do... that's why I loved silent hill.


Examples? Mmm... well for what I was saying (characters having a realistic fear of death and injury, no matter what kind of game) can be seen a lott in my "fantasy heartbreaker" and well in some other games. Typical examples:

Chip is playing a vampire. Vampires are tough, strong and fast, imune to pain! Vampires can easily raid a caravan protected by archers in order to drink blood and gain ritches. At least thats what chip though... one arrow in the neck latter (its hard to approach archers without getting shot before getting there... at least he wasent human)  and he was runing away blindly and dizzy, several other arrows hit him in the back unill he sliped off the side of the hill and rolled into safety. Not too glamorous, but certanlyl more "realistic" from my point of view than "I can do 4 attacks per turn, I kill the 4 mounted archers". Now time to remove the arrows (ouch... half an hour at least) and find a bridge to crawl under before dawn.

For me realistic means that characters have arms and legs, hearts and brains, lungs and kidneys. And that the rules of course simulate this without looking like an anatomy book picture but instead a functional organ.

Also In my game only NASTY (good hit, lotsa damage) rolls check for location... just to avoid getting a splinter and yelling "oww! My liver!". Again that wouldent be too realistic. Also there arent too many locations, its not done organ by organ but instead by general body areas producing a nasty effect. Get impailed... your coughing up blood. No way an oponent could guess that "Haha! I hit is right lung" so a series of painful to deadly effects exist for the "chest area".

Some other "realistic" effects can be accomplished with very little effort. Want armor that decreases in value during combat? How's bout every critical reduces that armor by one... for instance if your pierce an oponants heart and then try to sell an armor with a big friggin hole in the chest... dont expect to get much out of it. And this sure beats giving armors "hitpoints" or other crap like that...  

Also again realistic is that NPC's have as much emotion or more than the players (some players suck at emotion). I like to make hostages freak out and cry while their kidnappers are killed. "Villains" should have a family whenever possible. If a game includes Orcs, then the Orcs attack humans because for as long as they can remember humas would attack Orcs. Of course that's always up to me "the story teller" but I think the story teller is as important as the source material or moreso.

Quote from: Mike HolmesThing is, Grant, people ask for it. Realism is a top priority.

Mike

Let me relate an anecdote supporting this.  I was at Game Storm last weekend playing a boardgame called Age of Renaissance for the first time.  There is a card in that game called War.  If you play War on another player, both players roll and the high roller takes the number of cities of the other player equal to the difference of the two rolls.  Now, both times that this card was played, the person playing the card lost (by a lot).  I remarked that it would be more fun if the player of the card automatically won and took the difference of the two rolls.  

The only comments I heard (which were said by everyone else at the table but one) was that the card rules were realistic now and wouldn't be if they were changed to my proposed version.

From this experience and many others, I assume that to most gamers realism is more important than fun.

I think you're probably oversimplifying Jonathan.  AoR is one of my favorite games, I find the War card to be MORE fun as an unknown...do I win or do I get screwed card than an automatic win.  I would in fact find it very irritating to know that some one could easily and randomly overthrow many turns of careful expansion by simply playing a card and be guarenteed that it will work.

So I don't know that its a matter of fun vs realism so much as what counts as fun.

That said the fact that warfare in the period WAS a dangerous game (in the sense that even the most powerful military states couldn't reliably roll over their opposition freely) and that the aggressor often lost more than they gained as a result, part of the fun of the card is indeed to make the player weigh the risk.

Quote from: ValamirI think you're probably oversimplifying Jonathan.  

I am.  I don't deny it.  My point was that all the objections to the change were based on realism, not that it would be less fun because there wouldn't be the risk of losing.

I find it interesting that you cited the realism factor as part of the reason you find it fun.  Perhaps that is worth looking into.  Perhaps realistic is just funner than not realistic to many people.

Quote from: quozlPerhaps realistic is just funner than not realistic to many people.

I think that's absolutely true.  So true in fact that it is usually taken as a given by those to whom it applies, which is where a large part of the disconnect between groups of players come from.

Literally people for whom "realism" is part of the entire point of playing (and presumeably they're playing because its fun) often cannot even fathom how any game activity where realism is not a factor (where it could be) can be enjoyable.

You can probably also tie this into Immersion.  For people who truly want to become a character having rules that don't realistically reflect the capabilities of the character is typically a negative.

Of course this does not get any closer to to the age old debate of what realism is.  There are so many factors that there can never be 1 true definition.

First you can argue about Realism as defined by real world science and physics vs. Verisimilitude as a substitute for real world science and physics.

Then once you've decided which standard the mechanics should try to adhere to you can argue about the model used to approach that standard.  Do you design for cause because it is most realistic to nail down every single possible input and set up the mechanics such that a given combination of input produces a realistic output?  Or do you design for effect so that decisions made by a player result in realistic output even though the middle steps might be abstracted out in a very non causal or non specific manner.  Even two die hard "Real World Realists" will often not agree on which method better reproduces RW Reality.

Then you have scale issues.  Given that it is physically impossible to model every aspect of reality with perfect 1:1 precision (that would actually BE reality) at some point a level of abstraction has to be involved.  Hard core gamers will argue for days over which level (drilling down through the mechanics) that level of abstraction should be applied to.  This is often whats at stake in the neverending debate about Realism vs Playability.  

Then you have decision level design choices.  This is particularly true in wargames but also applies to RPGs to some extent.  Is it more realistic to have every possible decision built into the game and made by the player, or is it more realistic to have only those decisions relevant to a certain decision making level made by the player and the rest abstracted out.  In a wargame you get into this arguement for games which have complicated supply line and logistics rules.  Since logistics is such a major portion of warfare one arguement goes, logistic decisions should be part of the game.  But if the player is supposed to represent the general of the army, the other side goes, he should only be concerned with making decisions that a general of the army would make.  This includes logistics on some level.  But the nitty gritty bean counting would be left to the logistic corp (Quartermasters and the like).  I as a player shouldn't be making decisions about things that the general of the army wouldn't be making decisions about.  In RPGs this issue is largely solved by the tradition of 1 Player to 1 Character, where the scope of decisions a player makes centers around the character he is playing.  But it can still be a design choice issue.  In Pendragon, should I worry about and make decisions about the state of my armor?  The second camp would say no, because careing for the armor is the job of the squire and I'm not playing my squire.  The game should handle that issue without player input.

Then you have player expertise vs avatar expertise issues.  This is a HUGE issue in "realistic" roleplaying game designs.  The players are members of a Navy Seal team planning an operation.  Is it more realistic to make the players make every decision that a real Navy Seal team would make?  Maybe.  On the other hand one could argue that the Navy Seals are supposed to be experts and if real Seals were making the decisions they'd be making expert decisions.  The players are (usually) novices, so one can expect their decisions to be much worse.  Is the result of the game play then not likely to be LESS realistic because the teams performance will be less like (and likely inferior to) what a real team would have done?  So should the rules have built into them a certain "ingame" expertise.  You will see this logic in games that have "Tactics" skills where the player rolls a Tactics skill and gets some sort of modifier for the team.  This modifier is supposed to come from superior tactics that the character would have put together that the player doesn't himself know how.  After all, this logic goes, I as a player don't know how to forge a sword, but my dwarven blacksmith character sure would.  Other players can't stand that sort of "black box" abstraction in their games and would respond "if you don't know you shouldn't be playing the character".  Which approach is more "realistic"?  


As you can see there are so many factors that feed into what a player is going to see as being more or less realistic that there can never be any real definition of the term.  Two dedicates to the concepts of realism can actually HATE each others method of play because of these issues.

So the original question is completely unanswerable except on an individual basis.  It all depends on your personal combination of preferences of the above dichotomies (each of which is equally "realistic") and how those preference match the game design in question.