Quote from: taustin;694455Edit: Let me expand a little bit. What people who say "We want realism" really want is verisimilitude, not realism. As has been noted, realism precludes all fantasy. Verisimilitude means something that feels real, even when it obviously isn't. It aids in suspension of disbelief.

That's true, of course, and often cited in such arguments (along with the requisite stuffy "It's Not Realism!!" crack).

My retort is that "realism" is understood perfectly well, people know what it means in this context, and it's the term in general circulation for such discussions.  I err on the side of huffy pedantry often enough without doing it here.

Quote from: Ravenswing;694516That's true, of course, and often cited in such arguments (along with the requisite stuffy "It's Not Realism!!" crack).

My retort is that "realism" is understood perfectly well, people know what it means in this context, and it's the term in general circulation for such discussions.  I err on the side of huffy pedantry often enough without doing it here.

It's not really pedantry when the entirely of the argument hinges on the two sides using the word differnetly, and one of them incorrectly.

It's like we're arguing over whether or not apples are tasty, but one of us is calling oranges apples.

Quote from: taustin;694542It's not really pedantry when the entirely of the argument hinges on the two sides using the word differnetly, and one of them incorrectly.

It's like we're arguing over whether or not apples are tasty, but one of us is calling oranges apples.

Verisimilitude is a description applied when a rule or set of rules, or even a setting "feels" realistic in the opinion of the decision maker. It may or may not have anything to do with actual reality, but it can have its place.

Realism is where a rule or set of rules attempt to produce results based on real factual research, and the designer can produce said research upon request. I suppose it could even be applied to settings if you wanted to do a historical game.

It's valuable to make this difference for various reasons, but most importantly that opinions differ while facts don't.

Applicability of facts differs, though, depending on genre and mood.

Quote from: vytzka;694575Applicability of facts differs, though, depending on genre and mood.

True, but having a baseline of facts to adjust and work from makes things much easier. There are a lot of other considerations as well, as I've mentioned before playablity being an important one. I happily discard realistic rules if they're getting in the way of the game being playable, but my preference is for those rules which are kept to be realistic. Phoenix Command is a very realistic game, and he's got the homework to back that up, but for most people it's not very playable.

The issue in this situation however is one of debating the existence of realism at all in the context of RPGs - it does indeed exist and is applicable as has been outlined above.

I guess for me it partly comes down to genre. For the most part, "realish" is what I look for in systems. I don't expect them to model falling damage on actual statistics of falling deaths, but I do expect characters to have a good chance of surviving a minor fall and a bad one of surviving a major one. This is true for subjects I am well acquainted with as well. It doesn't bother me if the game breaks down a bit in a subject at a level requirinf specialized knowledge. My main issue is when games glaringly break from reality in ways that common sense can detect.

Quote from: vytzka;694575Applicability of facts differs, though, depending on genre and mood.

Which facts apply is an opinion.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;694583I don't expect them to model falling damage on actual statistics of falling deaths

It's actually pretty easy to do, and maps to a d10 almost shockingly well. Not every situation is as easy to simulate of course, but yeah let a thousand flowers bloom and all that. What baffles is those who clutch their pearls at the mere mention of the word "realism" and seem to believe that because a game includes dragons it can't also use realistic mechanics, because... er...

Quote from: The Traveller;694662It's actually pretty easy to do, and maps to a d10 almost shockingly well. Not every situation is as easy to simulate of course, but yeah let a thousand flowers bloom and all that. What baffles is those who clutch their pearls at the mere mention of the word "realism" and seem to believe that because a game includes dragons it can't also use realistic mechanics, because... er...

I am not concerned with the difficulty, so much as whether it matters to me in play. Falling deaths are probably relatively easy to transfer to a mechanic like you suggest. I think what i am saying is, for me at least, i an unlikely to care all that much if the mechanic matches up with real world statistics. So going to the trouble to map it to the statistics, won't result in me liking the game any better. Failing to do so wont make me like it any less.

If it is jarringly obvious the mechanic is just wrong, then i have a problem. So for me "realish" is the measure: if the game allows me to have a sucking chest wound one minute and be right as rain two minutes later without some kind of miracle, then that to me is jarring. If it just handwaves the details and my sucking chest wound is healed in three weeks, i have less of a problem. I probably expect about the same level of realism that i do from movies, and genre makes a difference in my expectations on this front.

That said, if someone likes realisms, more power to them. There are some good systems out there for it, and lots of stuff online. I have no issue with someone wanting realism.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;694664I think what i am saying is, for me at least, i an unlikely to care all that much if the mechanic matches up with real world statistics. So going to the trouble to map it to the statistics, won't result in me liking the game any better. Failing to do so wont make me like it any less.

I totally get that, it's just to me and for my tastes not putting in the effort, well there's a lack of rigour which might be reflected elsewhere. It might not put me off the experience entirely but it won't help. Obviously this is seperate from genre conceits, but there's a reason that successful writers do a lot of research before publishing even fictional works.

Again the baffling part is this fit of the vapours that seems to afflict some at the mere mention of the word.

Quote from: The Traveller;694669Again the baffling part is this fit of the vapours that seems to afflict some at the mere mention of the word.

It's mostly because in the past efforts to include more "RAELISARM" into games have been kind of terrible, and/or that "my system is more realistic" has been used as a rhetorical cudgel way to much.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;694664I am not concerned with the difficulty, so much as whether it matters to me in play. Falling deaths are probably relatively easy to transfer to a mechanic like you suggest. I think what i am saying is, for me at least, i an unlikely to care all that much if the mechanic matches up with real world statistics. So going to the trouble to map it to the statistics, won't result in me liking the game any better. Failing to do so wont make me like it any less.

If it is jarringly obvious the mechanic is just wrong, then i have a problem.

I also am unlikely to care about the details of falling deaths in a game. However, there are a number of things where I will care about the difference between just sounding reasonable as opposed to being based on research.

For example, suppose I play in a WWII game, and nothing in the game was a jarringly obvious mistake. However, I look up some stuff later and find that the game author just made up whatever sounded good without doing any research into WWII. I would be disappointed in it.

No matter how 'good' ones research is, anyone looking for innacuracies will find them. Game systems always have limitations as well.

Not saying that research is not advisable, but you can't win.

Quote from: Bill;694692No matter how 'good' ones research is, anyone looking for innacuracies will find them. Game systems always have limitations as well.

Not saying that research is not advisable, but you can't win.

I agree that you can't be perfect and have zero complaints, but I don't think that these are necessary to win. If you make a product that you're proud of and some people have fun with it, I think that's winning.

Quote from: jhkim;694686I also am unlikely to care about the details of falling deaths in a game. However, there are a number of things where I will care about the difference between just sounding reasonable as opposed to being based on research.

For example, suppose I play in a WWII game, and nothing in the game was a jarringly obvious mistake. However, I look up some stuff later and find that the game author just made up whatever sounded good without doing any research into WWII. I would be disappointed in it.

For me this sort of thing depends on the game. I really can't say I get bent out of shape by it even though I am a history buff. I am all for historical research, but at the same time, when it comes to movies, novels or rpgs, that isn't where I go to get my information. I read history books to learn about the past and I play rpgs or watch movies to relax and unwind. If they want to take liberties, I am totally fine with it. If a movie or game wants to do some heavy research and make that their strong point, that is fine too, but I am totally fine with an Arabian campaign setting that is barely based on the reality (and that was my area of study, so I tend to notice inaccuracies). For me it is more important that I get a cool and fun book/setting or movie than an accurate one.