This is the thread I promised Engine that I'd start on Realism and RPGs.


First a side note:

To be honest, I'm not really "into it", the public calls for murder expressed in off topic has frankly cooled my interest in rpgs and the site as a whole. In addition the two recent polls I've done indicated that I'm seriously out of step with the site (something I already knew, but now I have numbers behind it indicating just "how much"), so I must ask myself why I'm wasting time here for little reason.

This this thread and the two poll comment threads will be my last posts for a while. I need a break. I often take these anyway depending upon my time requirements, and I'm entering another phase of little extra time in any event.

On to realism:

Engine made a comment in another thread that rules can and should be included based upon the concept of "realism". A assertion that I consider to be flawed at it's very core.

The first and most pressing problem is that it's nearly impossible to define "realism" in respect to common rpgs to any extent possible. To illustrate this, let's make the attempt.

Realism can be determined in one of two areas. Realism of Outcome (ROO), or Realism of Process (ROP). Ideally a perfectly Realistic game would produce 100% realistic outcomes, and do so in a way that 100% matched the real life processes that produced those outcomes.

Of the two, one would think that ROO would be the easy one, and indeed would have to be the primary one as there is little use for ROP without ROO to test against.

For example, one may reasonably claim that defining a match between perfectly equal opponents as a 50/50 outcome and determining a mechanic to reflect that (Roll d100, 1-50 opponent A wins, 51-100 opponent B wins) produces 100%).

But a bit of thought reveals this to be false, for is it not possible for both sides to lose even if the 'winner' merely dies of his wounds later?

Indeed, how much injury does the 'winner' take in gaining his victory? What percentages of losers are killed, captured, or die of their wounds later?

Upon reflection, it seems that simple 50/50 outcome contains a huge range of results which in rpgs terms are often meaningful. They can of course be ignored and one takes a hit to ROO as a result.

Any attempt to fill them in however fails to improve things at all because we lack the data to determine any of the percentages of these outcomes. I at least don't know them, do you?

Does assuming percentages (likely to be incorrect) for the various outcomes actually improve ROO, or does it merely hide the fact that realism was lost? Does including numbers for more possible outcomes improve ROO or distort it?

It seems clear to me at this point that such questions are no longer addressing realism, but is instead addressing the psychological reaction of the players. The answers are little more than illusion- the reverse of realism.

As one moves away from this simple baseline, the questions multiple vastly. How much does giving one side a different weapon (longsword vs. broadsword) alter the outcomes? What happens if one opponent is stronger but slower? However about if he has a inch advantage in reach?

Where's your data for this? Not mock or non-lethal contests please- we need real life and death combat data here for that is what is being modeled. That data just plain doesn't exist.

What claim to realism can one thus have?

Moving on to ROP, things get even worse. To have true realism of process we need to include all the influcence on the outcome, down to the least element.

I would hope that everyone here can agree that such an attempt is impossible. Thus we abstract the mechanic, including only those influences we wish to directly appear in the game.

Abstractions should be measured against outcome to defermine effectiveness- but we have no data to determine what those outcomes should be. Catch 22, and the very concept we were chasing appears further out.


And this is my starting point, but not really the end point.


Engine, since this was a response to you- do you agree or disagree with the above. Where we go from here depends in large measure upon your answer.

Quote from: gleichman;252667First a side note:

In addition the two recent polls I've done indicated that I'm seriously out of step with the site (something I already knew, but now I have numbers behind it indicating just "how much"), so I must ask myself why I'm wasting time here for little reason.

I guess my answer to this is to stop judging people. Stop constantly stating who/why someone 'makes the grade' (whatever wierd ass grade you judge people by) and who doesn't. We all make these value judgements. What sets you apart, is that you seem to start threads with the sole purpose of validating your assumptions and then stating that they have been validated.

Great, you are the chosen one, with views that are above reproach - or even challenge. Get over yourself.

Edit: Apologies to Engine, or anyone else, interested in the main thrust of the thread. If the OP is going to put barbs and stupid little rants as an aside though, then i feel justified in answering those.

Well, I agree with the above, but then I've long ago given up the search for realism and settled for verisimilitude, which, as you point out, is illusion, the opposite of realism. Still, well done verisimilitude is good enough for me. Perhaps I have low expectations...

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;252681Well, I agree with the above, but then I've long ago given up the search for realism and settled for verisimilitude, which, as you point out, is illusion, the opposite of realism. Still, well done verisimilitude is good enough for me. Perhaps I have low expectations...

Actually I consider there to be a very serious place for realism in rpgs, but not approached from the direction attempted in my OP.

Determing realism is nearly impossible, but it's much easier to determine when something is unrealistic (especially in ROP)- and thus reject it from a design and there by improve its actual realism compared to other options.

Realism in games is the domain of computers because achieving realism has too many variables and too many considerations and too much minutae compared to the time necessary to play a tabletop RPG.  

Whenever a game has to get involved in lengthy mechanics, the gameplay stalls and players lose interest.   Abstraction grants speed and speed is necessary to maintain player focus on the game.  

However computers can increasingly handle greater and greater physics emulation at a high rate of speed so the quest for realism belongs in that realm.

Quote from: Spinachcat;252686Realism in games is the domain of computers because achieving realism has too many variables and too many considerations and too much minutae compared to the time necessary to play a tabletop RPG.  

While I agree with this with respect to approaching 100% ROP, it has little to no bearing on ROO unless the resolution is such that the 'tables' themselves become a burdern.

Abstraction of and by itself does no harm to realism.

Realistic is just a bad word.  What each group defines as realistic will vary, and what works for one may not work for another.  Put two marksman in a room to create truly realistic firearms rules and they're probably more likely to butt heads rather than cooperate or see eye to eye.

I prefer to focus on the systems that give what I feel is the best possible system for promoting suspension of disbelief and immersion.  It's highly idealistic to expect to truly present a realistic game system.  The very idea is like a gaming utopia.  Our very natures and emotions destroy perfection.  We all love at least a little chaos.

You know how HP Lovecraft wrote about terrible things that should not be known for they destroy the very fabric of the human mind?  I think he could easily have replaced cosmic horrors with utopia and the outcome would remain the same.  Not being perfect is what makes us human, and our world's imperfections is what makes it our world.

The first and largest step to utopia is the elimination of human emotions.  Likewise, the first and largest step to truly realistic gaming is also the elimination of human emotions.  Remove human emotion, everything must be reduced to die rolls and stats.  It would take a computer to GM and play a truly realistic game.

I tend to agree with the sentiment that a truely 'realistic' game will be found in a CRPG because of the complex calculations that must be done on the fly without bogging a tabletop game down.  However, IMHO when discussing tabletop RPGs, the closet thing to 'realistic' would be simulationist game systems, such as BRP/RQ and GURPS.

Quote from: gleichman;252667Abstractions should be measured against outcome to defermine effectiveness- but we have no data to determine what those outcomes should be.

This is the essence, I think, of your argument, and it is with this that I have the greatest disagreement. I think most conditions in roleplaying games can be modeled and tested with reasonable accuracy and from these models and tests realistic mechanics can be devised. Will they be flawless simulation models of all situations? Certainly not, but we would not want them to be! "That way lies Rolemaster," I believe I said once before. The sheer amount of information required to produce a flawless simulation of fantasy combat would be unlikely and certainly unwieldy. Your character sheet would need to be a thousand pages of muscle response times and whether you'd eaten breakfast and the material properties of your weapon's forge. No, thank you. If this is the realism we cannot have, I dance with glee.

Hence, statistical approximation. The ideal - for myself, that is! - is that the game be as realistic as possible without being overwhelming. This can certainly be accomplished. Doing so to the very best of our ability would be time-consuming and intensive - you're talking basically about a statistical observation of common events and some marginal level of their mitigating factors across a spectrum of skill and ability levels - but it's not impossible. Something somewhat less than that, however, is certainly achievable with much less effort.

Nearly all game systems attempt to model reality; some do so more accurately than others. Those which are more accurate, we would call "more realistic." Those which are acceptably accurate - for whatever our needs might be - we might call "realistic." Will such a game be a flawless statistical model of reality? No. It might be realistic, to some degree or another, but it is not real.

Quote from: Drohem;252695However, IMHO when discussing tabletop RPGs, the closet thing to 'realistic' would be simulationist game systems, such as BRP/RQ and GURPS.

I completely disagree, you're mistaking a complex or detailed process for realism- and that link does not have to in fact exist. IMO those games are in the end hardly more realistic than any other.

Quote from: gleichman;252701I completely disagree, you're mistaking a complex or detailed process for realism- and that link does not have to in fact exist. IMO those games are in the end hardly more realistic than any other.

That's cool, your definition of 'realistic' is different than mine.

Quote from: Engine;252700The ideal - for myself, that is! - is that the game be as realistic as possible without being overwhelming. This can certainly be accomplished.

And here I think we break down over a core disagreement, for I feel this impossible, certainly in our current level of knowledge.

But if you wish to try, please give me the range of realistic outomes for you and an exact clone each armed with a 9mm handgun of your choice (but identical for each) at a starting distance of 20m.

We can make it easier, the only interaction we're interested in is firing at each other starting on a time clue. Both must remain in a 3' circle around their starting location.

And of course, your outcomes percentages must be completely actual to real life under those assumptions.

Go for it. Let us see just how close to reality you can get.

Quote from: Drohem;252702That's cool, your definition of 'realistic' is different than mine.

So in your opinion, the use of complex game process is realistic, even when it produces outcomes that would not happen in reality?

Interesting version of realism you have there. Shouldn't you call that something else?

Quote from: gleichman;252709So in your opinion, the use of complex game process is realistic, even when it produces outcomes that would not happen in reality?

Interesting version of realism you have there. Shouldn't you call that something else?

Not at all, because I don't equate complex with simulationist.

Quote from: Drohem;252710Not at all, because I don't equate complex with simulationist.

Interesting then that you listed perhaps two of the most detailed and complex systems out there as your examples.

Do you have simple ones?