Quote from: jhkimWell, 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.  

That's a problem of emulation you'd have there, in the scenario: it sounds like you don't know whether your interest in emulation is in emulating "war movies" or "historical warfare":  And that's exactly what we mean by the importance of genre Emulation.

For example, if you are playing "Star Trek" the RPG, you don't want the game to be filled with stuff about real-world physics, and trying to create real-world scientific explanations for everything, because basically there you are confusing the genre of hard sci-fi with the genre of "Star Trek" (yes, Star Trek is its own Genre at this point).  If you try to incorporate all kinds of physical laws from our world into your game, it won't end up "feeling" like Star Trek.

Likewise, if you try to incorporate a lot of Patriotic American Jingoism and gun-fetishistic claptrap into your "real war" campaign in any part of the campaign other than Congress and Fox News, it won't feel like a "real war" campaign. It'll feel like Blackhawk Down or any other propagandistic film.

To me, emulation is just about the most important thing both a game designer and a GM has to take great care to ensure. Know WHAT sort of "genre" you are trying to imitate, and do things that help imitate it (and strongly avoid stuff that would kill the "feel" of the genre).

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkimAm 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?

You are seeking emulation of a realistic genre.  Genre has nothing to do with any kind of media.  Genre is "a class of messages sharing important structural and content features and which, as a class, creates special expectations in an audience."*

The last bit is the most important.  Genre is about the expectations of the audience.  If your audience (you and your players) is expecting one thing (stupid wuch wire fu crap) and you are going for another thing (Conan), you're breaking genre.

*Daughton, Suzanne; and Hart, Roderick.  Modern Rhetorical Criticism, 3rd. Edition.  Boston: Pearson, 2005.

EDIT- I forgot to add the citation, sorry.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's a problem of emulation you'd have there, in the scenario: it sounds like you don't know whether your interest in emulation is in emulating "war movies" or "historical warfare":  And that's exactly what we mean by the importance of genre Emulation.

I didn't mention war movies anywhere in my post, so I thought I was fairly clear.  I guess you're confused by my reference to reading Blackhawk Down, maybe thinking that I was referring to "reading" the movie (?).  I chose that because it is probably the most recognizable book of combat reporting at the present, not because there was a film adaptation.  The book is a fairly good example of reporting, I thought.  The author could have done more with the interviews of the Somalians involved, but I understand that it was difficult to get people to from that side to talk to.  

Quote from: RPGPunditLikewise, if you try to incorporate a lot of Patriotic American Jingoism and gun-fetishistic claptrap into your "real war" campaign in any part of the campaign other than Congress and Fox News, it won't feel like a "real war" campaign. It'll feel like Blackhawk Down or any other propagandistic film.

To me, emulation is just about the most important thing both a game designer and a GM has to take great care to ensure.

Well, in the example I was talking about, I would have zero interest in emulating the feel of any propagandistic war movie.  So I don't see why it's important.  

Quote from: joewolzYou are seeking emulation of a realistic genre.  Genre has nothing to do with any kind of media.  Genre is "a class of messages sharing important structural and content features and which, as a class, creates special expectations in an audience."*

The last bit is the most important.  Genre is about the expectations of the audience.  If your audience (you and your players) is expecting one thing (stupid wuch wire fu crap) and you are going for another thing (Conan), you're breaking genre.

Thanks for the definition.  (Incidentally, I have a related but distinct definition of genre in an essay, Understanding Genre in RPGs.)  Phrased your way, it seems to me that breaking genre is often a good thing. Essentially, breaking genre means differing from players preconceptions.  That's not inherently a bad thing.  Some players might hate anything which doesn't match their preconceptions -- but some players enjoy surprises and/or learning.  

It may mean having a game where no one is sure what it's going to turn out like, and they find out by playing.

Quote from: jhkimPhrased your way, it seems to me that breaking genre is often a good thing. Essentially, breaking genre means differing from players preconceptions.  That's not inherently a bad thing.  Some players might hate anything which doesn't match their preconceptions -- but some players enjoy surprises and/or learning.  

It may mean having a game where no one is sure what it's going to turn out like, and they find out by playing.

I can see that way.  Your essay is pretty cool, btw.  I don't think breaking genre is a good or bad thing, I think maintaining genre is what a good game does.  I like the idea of occasionally breaking genre.  Who doesn't want zombies in their...well anything really?

When I'm playing games, I don't want realism. Realistic violence == pain, and I'm VERY familiar with both. Bullet wounds HURT LIKE FUCK! Stab wounds are "hit & miss" if you pardon the pun. Blunt objects hurt too, just differently.

If you added a lot of realism to gaming, half of the game would be your PC in the hospital. Wow, what exciting adventure, eating your food through a fucking straw. Or hearing from the doctor that they had to replace part of your bone with metal, and NO, it DOESN'T give you any kind of advantage. All bone prosthetics do is get cold and ache. Oooooh, what a fucking advantage. Because I got SHOT, I can tell if it will rain tomorrow!

I love it when we get the camoflauge wearing "Gun/Combat Experts" who come into my d20 Modern game. They want to dual weild Desert Eagles, claim you can shoot someone at point blank range with a 40mm grenade launcher and have it explode in the body, claim a katana will cut through an engine block, tell me that it is easy to kill people with a knife, and hordes of other bullshit crap.

Then, I tell them "Nope, sorry, rules are as they stand, if you dual weild those Desert Eagles, you will take a -8/-10 penalty. In addition, each magazine for the weapon has a very noticable weight, so you will take weight penalties."

Then they start talking about this, that, or the other thing.

Lately, we've got a lot of people who supposedly went over to Iraq or Afghanistan, and try to tell me that they have combat experience in those theaters.

A simple question lets me know if they actually had experience in the Army (Most of these hopped up wannabees either claim to be Marines or Army) at all. "Did you do sports over there?"

The assholes you tell me: "Yeah, we played football and shit." are goddamn liars.

Slap
Pull
Observe
Release
Tap
Shoot

It's been awhile, and even I remember that kind of shit.

Anyway, a lot of these superheroes who claim they know you can fire 2 M-249 SAW light machineguns, one in each hand, from a standing position, have watched too many goddamn movies, and have ZERO experience.

The people who scream for combat realism are the people who don't realize just how shitty combat is. Yeah, Blackhawk Down was a cool movie, but it seems that a lot of people forget a primary fact of that operation.

Most of the people involved... Died.

No Gun-Kata bullshit is allowed in my games. If they want realism, then they can go play America's Army, or better yet, sign their ass up. There's their fucking realism.

The "reality" of combat is: Fear, pain, blood, dying, screaming.
The reality of after-combat is: Pain, euphoria, hospitalization, nightmares, physical crippling, and all that fun stuff.

When they come into my d20 Modern, and start complaining it isn't real enough, I usually hand them the local Marine Corps recruiters card and tell them: "There's your reality."

Well, people are free to have and express their opinions, this isn't fucking rpg.net after all.

To me, a game has to have at least some realism or I can't get into it. Rifts is an example of a game where the mechanics are so utterly  unbelievable I can't stand it.

*double post*

Quote from: T-WillardIf you added a lot of realism to gaming, half of the game would be your PC in the hospital. Wow, what exciting adventure, eating your food through a fucking straw. Or hearing from the doctor that they had to replace part of your bone with metal, and NO, it DOESN'T give you any kind of advantage. All bone prosthetics do is get cold and ache. Oooooh, what a fucking advantage. Because I got SHOT, I can tell if it will rain tomorrow!

This is exactly why a lot of gamers want realism. Players have to think outside the "fight with everyone and everything" box to achieve goals in the game. Fighting is still an option, but it's a scary last resort, not a simple, reliable way around most obstacles.

Quote from: YamoThis is exactly why a lot of gamers what realism. Players have to think outside the "fight with everyone and everything" box to achieve goals in the game. Fighting is still an option, but it's a scary last resort.

But Rusty has a point. Lots of folks don't appreciate the reality that it's not a lot of fun to be injured. Otherwise, more of us would take it up as a hobby or vocation.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad

But Rusty has a point. Lots of folks don't appreciate the reality that it's not a lot of fun to be injured. Otherwise, more of us would take it up as a hobby or vocation.

Well, in a D&D type game healing spells can remove a lot of healing time, and in SF games high tech healing can get a player back up fast.

I dont mind healing spells and nanotech medkits as long as they're part of the game and work in a fashion consistent with the setting, that kind of realism is part of gaming.

What I object to is when someone with no skill with a weapon at all has the exact same chance of a critical hit or fumble as someone with a very high skill level. That is what I mean by 'unrealism".

My list of things that have been suggested in the name of realism (My response in bold:

• 40mm grenades that explode inside a human at point blank range. 40mm grenades have a rotation depending arming trigger that only allows the round to go off after a certian distance. This was added during Vietnam after multiple heat of the moment friendly fire incedents. (If you want an example, Kerry himself got hit by shrapnel when he fired the M-79 40mm grenade launcher at too close a target) If it doesn't rotate enough times, it just sits there, waiting.
  
• Being able to fire accurately 2 pistols at once while doing the rip-a-clip tricks. Recoil. Yes, some people can fire 2 pistols on the run, but that is months or years of practice
  
• Running and firing an M82 anti-material rifle with one hand. ("I saw someone do it, seriously!"-Common Quote) Yes yes, we all saw the movie Sniper, but the M82 is a HEAVY fucking weapon, you ain't firing it one handed, and close up, the guy with the correct weapon can shift targets faster and more accurately than someone with an M82. Right tool, right job.
  
• Being able to fire an anti-tank munition in an enclosed area and modern anti-tank rockets have no backblast. My biggest clue someone is a liar about being in the military is what they refer to the weapons as. The AT-4 != LAW rocket. Both have blackblast. The Javelin is an anti-armor weapon, but it is NOT just a shoulder fired tube, there's a whole targeting assembly to use. Unlike what we saw on Rambo, AT-4's and LAW rockets have a backblast area that will kill or severely injure people at close range
  
• That katana's are apparently mono-molecular edge weapons that can slice through time itself. Here's a little historical tidbit. They used to stack up prisoners and cut through them to determine how good the katana was. Some dickhead prisoners would swallow rocks, in the hopes of breaking the blade. Katana != Monomolecular sword, and the Matrix was full of shit.
  
• If the enemy gets hit in the chest by a 9mm round, they are dead, but if the PC does, it's "just a flesh wound" This pisses me off. Most of these hyper-realism assholes want the realism applied to the enemy, not to them. Let me put it straight. Unless you're wearing body armor, a torso shot with a 9mm has an 80% chance of hitting a fucking lung. Trust me on this, breathing with a punctured lung == Teh Suck.
  
• Being able to fight hand to hand with a pistol without any penalties. BUZZ! The enemy will hold onto your pistol wrist with everything he has. Close fights like those end up kneeing, biting, clawing, punching, pistol whipping frenzies. Real Life != Equilibrium.
  
• That a GE minigun will miss the PC because of recoil, when it's door mounted in a goddamn UH-64! That minigun is used to hose down fucking crowds, and is mounted directly to the helicopter airframe, in a HUGE fucking mount system. What little recoil is there won't matter, you'll be a dead motherfucker.
  
• That "anti-tank rockets" will cause people to explode if it hits them, and damage everything in a huge explosion. THAT'S NOT HOW THEY FUCKING WORK, YOU ASSJACKS! Modern anti-tank rockets depend on an explosively forged penetrator round. Take a good look at the tanks killed during both Gulf Wars. See that palm sized hole? Yeah, that was the kill shot.
  
• Body armor protects you from vehicle accidents. Having been hit by a 5-ton driven by a drunken reservist while attending NTC at Ft. Erwin, I can safely say that my armored vest did not keep my limbs or jaw from getting broken.
  
• Body armor doesn't protect you from knives. Again, this may have been true several decades ago, but modern vests depend on plates, and even the kevlar weave plates from Desert Storm protect you from puncture weapons, otherwise they would have been worthless against shrapnel.
  
• Characters can throw a grenade as far as they can a football. Buzz! It may only be the size of a baseball, but depending on what type of grenade (which can affect its shape) it can weigh as much as six pounds.
  
• It shouldn't cost any time to reload. Having reloaded before, let me tell you, it takes FOREVER when you are being shot at.
  
• NVG Goggles let you see through walls. No they don't. Tents, yes, if there is enough light/heat. Walls? No.
  
• Small arms can destroy tanks. NO THEY CAN'T!!!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL PEOPLE THIS? A modern battle tank is immune to goddamn small arms. The most they'll do is deadline the fucking tank due to shit like missing antenna. A 7.62mm round will NOT penetrate the fucking armor of an Abrams, Leopord, or Challenger! STOP LISTENING TO DUMBASSES WHO CLAIM THAT TANKS CAN BE DESTROYED BY SMALL ARMS!
  
• Drum clips don't jam. Yes, they do.
  
• You can't sleep in modern body armor. Yes, you can.
  
• Raybans can stop shrapnel. Guess what, you're right! Unfortunately, they only cover your eye sockets, the rest of your face is over there, smartass.
  
• [Fill in the blank] type of munition doesn't exist because they've never heard of it. Hey, douchebag, who did the fucking research. PDM's exist, blow me.
  
• [Insert Martial Arts Move] can not only take someone's weapon away, but you can shoot them with it. Maybe, I dont' know, I'm not Steven Seagull or whatever the fuck his name was. But he's 50 feet away and will shoot you five times in the 12 seconds it takes you to cross that space. (now see next claim)
  
• [Insert Martial Arts Type] will let you dodge bullets. No, they won't.
  
• A chainsaw that hits someone will automatically kill them! No, they won't. Less than 10% of all chainsaw accidents that resulted in a hospital emergency room visit were fatal.

That's just a short list, off the top of my fucking head, of the dumb as fucking shit rule modifiers all these "realism experts" wanted changed.

Notice how the majority of them only benifit PC's, or seem to come from the same place of realism where you can slice apart the side of a moving SUV with a fucking katana.

I've noticed these hyper-realism motherfuckers start screaming when I start talking Fortitude/Willpower saves against wound shock, wounding properties of small arms, recoil affecting full auto, barrel heat/expansion, dented magazines, fouled chambers, and fun stuff like that.

I guess they only want realism when it benifits them and/or makes their character cooler than everyone else.

Quote from: T-WillardI guess they only want realism when it benifits them and/or makes their character cooler than everyone else.

Yeah, and when they eventually get a healthy dose of realism thrown into the mix, cries of deprotagonisation (or however it's spelt) can be heard miles away.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Dominus NoxWhen people discuss realism in gaming, there's always a lot of friction over what relaism in gaming means.

Usually it means, "shitty things happen."

So, for example, two true stories.

A Belgian farmer every day drove down his driveway into the main road, and went over a "rock." One day after several years he got sick of the thing, and decided to dig it up. Unfortunately, it was a land mine left over from WWI, and he blew himself to smithereens.

An Aussie farmer every day drove down his driveway into the main road, and went over a "rock." One day after several years he got sick of the thing, and decided to dig it up. It turned out to be a large nugget of gold about 22kg.

"Realism" in rpgs is usually taken to mean "the landmine you thought was a rock" rather than "the piece of gold you thought was a rock." It usually means shitty things like wounds in combat and disease, rather than nice things like finding gold, getting promotions for no real reason, meeting the spouse of your dreams, and so on.

"Realism" is thus usually just an excuse for the GM to be a prick to the players. Its proper name is "sadism." Actual realism would be something else, something not yet tried by any rpg system.

Quote from:  Everything above by T-WillardTRUTH

Your posts are the reason I don't play realistic games very often.  I haven't been in any where near the shit you have, but I don't want to hear other people's crappy explainations either.

Quote from: JimBobOzUsually it means, "shitty things happen."

So, for example, two true stories.

A Belgian farmer every day drove down his driveway into the main road, and went over a "rock." One day after several years he got sick of the thing, and decided to dig it up. Unfortunately, it was a land mine left over from WWI, and he blew himself to smithereens.

An Aussie farmer every day drove down his driveway into the main road, and went over a "rock." One day after several years he got sick of the thing, and decided to dig it up. It turned out to be a large nugget of gold about 22kg.

"Realism" in rpgs is usually taken to mean "the landmine you thought was a rock" rather than "the piece of gold you thought was a rock." It usually means shitty things like wounds in combat and disease, rather than nice things like finding gold, getting promotions for no real reason, meeting the spouse of your dreams, and so on.

"Realism" is thus usually just an excuse for the GM to be a prick to the players. Its proper name is "sadism." Actual realism would be something else, something not yet tried by any rpg system.

Oh horseshit.

That guy had more of a chance of finding a fucking land mine in Belgium than the guy did of finding a 22kg gold nugget.

So I take it that your idea of realism would be the players running into the bad guys lair, and everyone is gathered around a cake waiting for the stripper to pop up, with their weapons neatly stacked in the armory?

Realism would be bad guys who use the same damn tactics, ones that are tried and true, the same builds that the players use over and over and over, and use the same weapon+skill/feat twink that every player usees.

What do you want, in response to "realism?" Your examples are both examples of DM Fiat, not realism.

GM: "You're walking down the road and hear a rusting in the bushes!"
Player: "I open the bushes and we all look in."
GM: "It's a medusa, you're all dead."
OR
GM: "It's a naked woman who invites you all to ass fuck her, oh, and you all gain 10,000 XP for finding her!"

Neither are fucking roleplaying, their both fiats.