Quote from: Ravenswing;694979I agree with your first and third sentences, in any event.

Yes, indeed, verisimilitude would be a more correct word.  Your assertion notwithstanding, people generally use "realism" in this context,

This very thread is an example of that not being universally true. Specifically, two people arguing past each other, because they were using different definitions to the word. As I said, it's like arguing over whether apples are tasty when one person is calling oranges apples.

Quote from: Ravenswing;694979which is why I used it in the title of the thread.  I'm pedantic often enough without pushing the issue.  This is not the first, nor the fifth, nor the fiftieth bit of generally acknowledged gaming jargon which contradicts Merriam-Webster and the OED.

And yet, we have here, in this very thread, an example of people using two different definition, and neither of them realizing it.

Quote from: Ravenswing;694979And, come to that, you understand perfectly well yourself.  You didn't start out saying "Huh?  What?  What are you guys talking about?"[/COLOR]

I didn't ask what y'all meant because I understood it. I explained the issue because at least two people arguing clearly didn't understand each other. Did I really have to explain that to you? Seriously? You couldn't figure that out for yourself?

Quote from: taustin;694970A realistic game will not have:
Dragons
Elves
Orcs
Interstellar space ships
Laser pistols
Magic of any kind
Lizard-like aliens
Intelligent computers

You can keep saying it as much as you like and it still won't be true. RPGs aren't a media production, they are games. Games can use realistic elements in their systems while having fantastical elements in their settings. In fact they can use realistic elements in their settings too.

Spoons for example, highly realistic. Leaf-bearing trees, shockingly real. The existence of a dragon in a forest of leaf bearing trees doesn't make those trees any less realistic or the dragon any less fantastical. And since they have roots (ho ho) in realism, we expect them to behave in a realistic manner.

Which is of course the point.

Quote from: taustin;694995I didn't ask what y'all meant because I understood it. I explained the issue because at least two people arguing clearly didn't understand each other. Did I really have to explain that to you? Seriously? You couldn't figure that out for yourself?

Whatever about game systems, I seriously weep for the education system that produced you.

Quote from: taustin;694995This very thread is an example of that not being universally true. Specifically, two people arguing past each other, because they were using different definitions to the word. As I said, it's like arguing over whether apples are tasty when one person is calling oranges apples.

Hrm.  Did you miss the part where I used the word "generally," or are you channeling Humpty Dumpty?  I'm quite capable of picking the modifiers I want for my sentences, without them being "helpfully" revised, thank you ever so.

That being said, it may just be me, but if someone doesn't understand the generally recognized definition of a word or phrase, there's a ready solution: for him or her to learn the generally recognized definition.  It isn't brain surgery.

Quote from: The Traveller;694917Something that looks like this (PDF warning) you mean?

None of which has any bearing on the way you're avoiding the actual point. The HP segue didn't go anywhere and the "even computers can't simulate it" route is following in its footsteps. Not that it matters, we aren't using computers.

Do you think that realism as described has any place or can even exist in RPGs or not?

It's cute that you think this is some kind of grand 'either/or' argument.

Let me restate the issue:
The degree of realism, (that is, the mechanical properties of the system follow the statistical properties of what they're simulating) is inversely proportional to the degree of detail (the tracking of individual factors that make up the result).  

A realistic game is better built around a very abstract core that tracks a relatively minimal amount of data than one like, say, Millenium's End or GURPS, that tracks tons of data.  This does not hold true with computer simulations. How that got brought up is beyond me.

Quote from: JonWake;695101It's cute that you think this is some kind of grand 'either/or' argument.

That appears to be the sticking point for people like taustin, who deny the possibility that realism can exist within an RPG at all in any way.

Quote from: JonWake;695101Let me restate the issue:
The degree of realism, (that is, the mechanical properties of the system follow the statistical properties of what they're simulating) is inversely proportional to the degree of detail (the tracking of individual factors that make up the result).  

This is a very garbled sentence, can you expand on it a bit?

Quote from: JonWake;695101A realistic game is better built around a very abstract core that tracks a relatively minimal amount of data than one like, say, Millenium's End or GURPS, that tracks tons of data. This does not hold true with computer simulations. How that got brought up is beyond me.

Edit: oh wait I think I see what you're saying now and I kind of agree. Sort of.

Quote from: The Traveller;695018You can keep saying it as much as you like and it still won't be true. RPGs aren't a media production, they are games. Games can use realistic elements in their systems while having fantastical elements in their settings. In fact they can use realistic elements in their settings too.

So, your argument is that if a game realistically models falling damage, and has photographs of real swords next to the equipment tables, but humans can fly and have eight foot long penises, it's a realist system because it uses realistic elements in its systems?

Dude, it's fine that you've redefined the word "realism." It really is. People using technical jargon do it all the time. But when someone else is clearly using the word differently, and you either don't realize it, or do but don't point that out, you just look stupid.

Quote from: Ravenswing;695029Hrm.  Did you miss the part where I used the word "generally," or are you channeling Humpty Dumpty?  I'm quite capable of picking the modifiers I want for my sentences, without them being "helpfully" revised, thank you ever so.

That being said, it may just be me, but if someone doesn't understand the generally recognized definition of a word or phrase, there's a ready solution: for him or her to learn the generally recognized definition.  It isn't brain surgery.

And if you're using specialized jargon, and someone else doesn't understand that, there's a ready solution: someone can point out that the word is being used in different ways. As I did. And then a couple of people started humping my pantleg like over-excited chihuahuas over doing something they should have done themselves.

Get over yourself, dude. You've derailed the entire discussion of the usefulness of realism/verisimilitude in to a pissing context over who has the bigger dick. And lost.

Quote from: The Traveller;695110That appears to be the sticking point for people like taustin, who deny the possibility that realism can exist within an RPG at all in any way.

Actually, I did not. I postulated what a game with actual realism (instead of verismilitude) would be like.

My only point is that you were using the word "realism" to mean "verisimilitude." This has apprently pissed you off for some reason, possibly because it somehow challenges your manhood and makes you feel like you have a tiny little penis or something, and now you'd much rather call me names than just admit that, yeah, you were using the word differently than the people you were arguing with, and proposing a specialized jargon definition (I assume you're emotionally incapable of switching to the correct word - technical jargon is usually used when no real word exists for whatever it describes, and that's not the case here - so presumably you'll want to use "realism," but you really should just say, out loud, that you're using your own definition, and that definition is identical to the dictionary definition of "verisimilitude." Or is it that you fear you won't be able to spell verisimilitude?)

Quote from: taustin;695114So, your argument is that if a game realistically models falling damage, and has photographs of real swords next to the equipment tables, but humans can fly and have eight foot long penises, it's a realist system because it uses realistic elements in its systems?

To be honest I don't know what you're warbling about at this stage. The only one shrieking about "any unreal elements means everything is unreal so VERISIMILITUDE" is you. It's a nonsense point.

What I've been saying and which has apparently caused much hyperventilation and more flashing handbags than a Louis Vuitton expo is that game systems can be modelled on real data and this can bring numerous advantages. This is realism as applied to elements of RPGs.

Quote from: taustin;695114Dude, it's fine that you've redefined the word "realism." It really is. People using technical jargon do it all the time. But when someone else is clearly using the word differently, and you either don't realize it, or do but don't point that out, you just look stupid.

What looks stupid to me is someone who takes an all or nothing approach to what is obviously a multifaceted and multipart system. It's like onetruewayism gone wronger.

Quote from: taustin;695116but you really should just say, out loud, that you're using your own definition, and that definition is identical to the dictionary definition of "verisimilitude." Or is it that you fear you won't be able to spell verisimilitude?)

All this means is that you understand neither the language you're trying to use to prove your point nor what I'm saying. I mean I encourage anyone with aspirations to literacy, but you should at least get through basic before trying for the regionals.

Quote from: The Traveller;695119To be honest I don't know what you're warbling about at this stage.

Maybe that's because you keep making up your own definitions for words, intead of using the same language as everyone else.

Another good example of what I'm talking about.

Quote from: The Traveller;695121All this means is that you understand neither the language you're trying to use to prove your point nor what I'm saying. I mean I encourage anyone with aspirations to literacy, but you should at least get through basic before trying for the regionals.

If you won't use words to mean the same things and everyone else, and won't admit you're not, it is impossible to communicate.

And you get results like . . . this thread. Where you are now more interested in calling me names than the subject of realism/verisimilitude in games. Which is fine, if that's what you're interested in, but it does say something about you that isn't very complimentary.

All I did was point out that two people were arguing because they were using the same word two different ways. In all seriousness, dude, why does that piss you off so much? Really. I'd like to know why that pisses you off so much.

Quote from: taustin;695123Maybe that's because you keep making up your own definitions for words, intead of using the same language as everyone else.

Another good example of what I'm talking about.

Quote from: The Traveller;694570Verisimilitude 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.

Although to be honest even the dictionary definition you supplied calls them synonyms, and so can be used interchangeably. English, learn some. Although I'm finding this repeated foot shooting entertaining so if you don't want to you don't have to.

Quote from: taustin;695124And you get results like . . . this thread. Where you are now more interested in calling me names than the subject of realism/verisimilitude in games.

No no, that's just the mustard on the hot dog.

oh joy.  Another thread of taustin being taustin.  The word 'realism' is perfectly fine to use.  He quoted verisimilitude, so he knows how to use a dictionary.  Look up 'realism' and he'll see it's just fine for how it's been used.  Also neglected to see that in his own definition, they are synonyms.

and then doubles up by complaining about people calling names after just getting done making dick references.