When people discuss realism in gaming, there's always a lot of friction over what relaism in gaming means.

To me it means that a game system does a fair job of recreating things that happen in reality in as far as we can tell. For example, a .22 pistol hitting someone in the thigh in the real world is very unlikely to kill him, at least not quickly. Unless it severes a major artery like the femoral a person hit by a .22 in the thigh will likely not be killed, at least not quickly, and may even be able to function for a time afterwards unless the bullet breaks the bone.

Now a person headshot with a .22 is in worse shape, as we know from reality.

So, to me a game would have at least some realism in it if a .22 pistol shot to the thigh has a very, very little chance of killing someone, barring perhaps heart failure or shock, but all in all in a realistic game a person should mostly survive a .22 pistol hit to the leg, whereas the same bullet in the head could kill him more often, or do permanent damage, a'la james brady.

That's my 'realism' test mostly. Does the combat rules reflect what happens in real life combat? I believe some games do a good job of this, especially if they throw in the wild card of the critical hit to reflect flukes that happen in reality.

For example: A man in a town near me years ago was killed by a single punch to the jaw from a drunken rowdy beligerant thug. The blow stunned him, he fell and smashed the back of his head on the concrete sidewalk and died, effectively from one punch.  

A neurologist will tell you the brain is fragile and simply falling straight down ont a hard surface can kill or badly injure it. So a game that allowed for a 'critical hit' to result in a punch to the jaw causing death would be realistic.

Now when it comes to 'realism' when fighting dragons, orks, daleks or klingons, well that's obviously another issue, but what I ask, or actually demand from a game system is that it's mechanics reflect reality as we know it in a way that makes an acceptable balance between complexity and playability.

Just my 2 cents on the realism issue.

I think realsim is over-rated.  The game should emulate its genre, that's more important.

I agree. Realism has no place in a Pulp game where you fight Albino Gorillas in the Amazon.

Quote from: JongWKI agree. Realism has no place in a Pulp game where you fight Albino Gorillas in the Amazon.

The fight against albino gorillas in general never benefits from realism.  Especially if you actually are fighting albino gorillas in the Amazon.  The first thing you'd say to yourself is "This can't be happening".

Ho ho ho... "if only" indeed.

For my comments on "realism" (and why I basically think "realism" is a crock of shit) see the Pundit forum.

RPGPundit

My feelings on realism crystalized many years ago while i was playing with a GM who was desperate to add a high level of realism to his game. He was successful in his goal. The game was very realistic. Sadly as the realism came in, the fun went out. I found it not to my taste. I have repeated the experiance several times, with different GMs always to the same effect. I am with the genre emulation crowd. If I want realism- I'll get a (shudder) job.

Quote from: joewolzI think realsim is over-rated.  The game should emulate its genre, that's more important.

Well, conversely, I think that genre emulation is over-rated.  There's no particular reason to make RPGs be just like television, or novels, or movies.  It's like saying "A movie should emulate the novel or genre of novels it's based on."  That's true for some movies -- the ones based on novels -- but there are other movies which are written for the screen which are great.  Likewise, some RPGs are their own thing.  

That said, I think that either fictional or non-fictional sources are fine bases for inspiration.  

Personally, my inspirations for a game are non-fictional readings roughly half the time.  Histories, biographies, personal narratives, etc.  I generally find that inserting more realism makes my games via research makes my games more interesting.

When I got into CoC in my teens, I recall a player refusing to play it because it didnt correctly simulate gun-play. Well, he did play Traveller a lot, and enjoyed TPK, but hey isnt that what CoC accomplishes anyway without the need for bullets?

Quote from: jhkimWell, conversely, I think that genre emulation is over-rated.

Hear, hear!

Quote from: jhkimWell, conversely, I think that genre emulation is over-rated.  There's no particular reason to make RPGs be just like television, or novels, or movies...

I agree.  RPGs are their own medium.  This is especially clear with D&D (and it is not surprising that 'D&D novels' suck, and the 'D&D film' sucks even more painfully).

Nonetheless, just as films borrow from novels, so too RPGs borrow from other genres.  There is nothing wrong with some borrowing.  (E.g., one of my favourite RPGs, Angel, is structured to be run in a similar format to a TV series, with a 'Big Bad', different episodes, etc.; I like that, and think it is effective for the game.)

Quote from: jhkimWell, conversely, I think that genre emulation is over-rated.  There's no particular reason to make RPGs be just like television, or novels, or movies.  It's like saying "A movie should emulate the novel or genre of novels it's based on."  That's true for some movies -- the ones based on novels -- but there are other movies which are written for the screen which are great.  Likewise, some RPGs are their own thing.  

That said, I think that either fictional or non-fictional sources are fine bases for inspiration.  

Personally, my inspirations for a game are non-fictional readings roughly half the time.  Histories, biographies, personal narratives, etc.  I generally find that inserting more realism makes my games via research makes my games more interesting.

Nonfiction is a genre.  Genre-emulation has nothing to do with an other media, genre is a concept.  Some genres aren't compatible with RPGs, being more compatible to movies, books, etc.  

I don't understand how a game emulating a genre has anything to do with its being "just like television, or novels, or movies."

Quote from: jhkimWell, conversely, I think that genre emulation is over-rated.  There's no particular reason to make RPGs be just like television, or novels, or movies.  It's like saying "A movie should emulate the novel or genre of novels it's based on."  That's true for some movies -- the ones based on novels -- but there are other movies which are written for the screen which are great.  Likewise, some RPGs are their own thing.

I think that genre emulation can be had without "media emulation". There are certain things that work well for books and movies, but don't work well for games. I can take things from a genre that are there purely as an outgrowth of the medium.

An example of this that comes up often is character power. Many TV shows and movies feature a "star" character that can do it all. The rest of the cast is happy playing second string because, well, they are receiving a paycheck. But in a game with multiple players, there is going to be a desire by most players to have some spotlight time; spotlight hogs are not conducive to sharing enjoyment around the table. Thus we see efforts to balance the sporlight and level of participation, something that is desirable to the game medium.

Quote from: joewolzI think realsim is over-rated.  The game should emulate its genre, that's more important.

Genre emulation is definitely where it's at, as far as I'm concerned.

That being said, there are limits, particularly when the genre is supposed to be a bit gritty.

At one time, I was attempting to run a covert operations game influenced by Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six" novel, and had a really immature player who threw a fit when I told him that it's likely he couldn't:

(A) Go all gun-fu with a Desert Eagle .50 cal in each hand
(B) Use a Barret Light 50 anti-materiel sniper rifle as an effective room-sweeping, point-blank combat weapon
(C) Arm himself with a katana (always with the katanas!) as an effective terrorist-take down weapon.

Quote from: jhkimIt's like saying "A movie should emulate the novel or genre of novels it's based on."

No, this is comparing two pieces of well...for the lack of a better word...art. Whether each in the above scenario effectively simulates either a fictional genre or real event is, in fact, a seperate question.

Quote from: joewolzNonfiction is a genre.  Genre-emulation has nothing to do with an other media, genre is a concept.  Some genres aren't compatible with RPGs, being more compatible to movies, books, etc.  

I don't understand how a game emulating a genre has anything to do with its being "just like television, or novels, or movies."

Well, I'm not sure what you mean, then.  When I hear of genre emulation, I generally understand this to mean imitating an established body of fiction in other media like pulp action, superheroes, etc.

Let me suggest an example to ask about.  Suppose I'm preparing for a modern military game.  I read Blackhawk Down and other real accounts of combat.  I also read other non-fiction like Albert Love's War Caualties which document wounding in modern wars, and work with people in the army.  I put together my game based on these to produce results which match what I read.  Am I seeking genre emulation, realism, or both?  Offhand, this sounds to me like what the anti-realism people are complaining about.  

On the other hand, could you suggest an example of genre emulation which isn't about imitating other media?