Also, let us all send prayers and kind thoughts to T-Willard who has obviously been traumatised by his experiences... no, not his combat experiences you morons! His experiences with fuckwit gamers! :eek:

Funny, we don't have "SPORTS" Down Under. We had other acronyms, though, like "the seven Ps": Proper Preparation and Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. "Doctor ABC": Danger, Response, Airway, Breathing, Circulation. Or BYTM. "Better You Than Me."

Here the test to see if they were a bullshitter would be to ask them "the role of the infantry"? It got drilled into us: To seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him, to seize and hold ground, and repell attack, by day or night, regardless of season, weather or terrain. Short version: to kill cunts!

I've met few bullshitters, though. I think it's because Down Under the military stuff is given less Rambo-esque mystique, and because it usually comes up early on that someone in the group was a grunt, so any bullshit will be quickly detected.

Instead we tell lies about how at school we used to be great sportsmen and shagged lots of h4wt chixxorz, or if talking online, how we met Gary Gygax and bitchslapped him, and have got a 235 IQ or some shit like that.

Anyway, let's send our kind thoughts and prayers to poor traumatised T-Willard. May he never game with fuckwits again!

Quote from: JimBobOzAlso, let us all send prayers and kind thoughts to T-Willard who has obviously been traumatised by his experiences... no, not his combat experiences you morons! His experiences with fuckwit gamers! :eek:

Funny, we don't have "SPORTS" Down Under. We had other acronyms, though, like "the seven Ps": Proper Preparation and Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. "Doctor ABC": Danger, Response, Airway, Breathing, Circulation. Or BYTM. "Better You Than Me."

Here the test to see if they were a bullshitter would be to ask them "the role of the infantry"? It got drilled into us: To seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him, to seize and hold ground, and repell attack, by day or night, regardless of season, weather or terrain. Short version: to kill cunts!

I've met few bullshitters, though. I think it's because Down Under the military stuff is given less Rambo-esque mystique, and because it usually comes up early on that someone in the group was a grunt, so any bullshit will be quickly detected.

Instead we tell lies about how at school we used to be great sportsmen and shagged lots of h4wt chixxorz, or if talking online, how we met Gary Gygax and bitchslapped him, and have got a 235 IQ or some shit like that.

Anyway, let's send our kind thoughts and prayers to poor traumatised T-Willard. May he never game with fuckwits again!

If you take the stupid shit aimed at me out of it, it's a pretty good peice on how not everyone's experience is the same, and there's fuckwits all over the place.

I'd give it a 6 out 10 for the information, that's for sure.

Now, I'm still waiting for you to answer the fucking question. I mean, I obvious hurt your poor widdle feelings since you just blasted at me instead of answering the question (The "Make fun of/attack poster rather than answer question method of weaselling out of a question)

QuoteWhat 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.

So what would be added for realism as far as you are concerned?

If you can't answer, feel free to attack the fact I like to drink.

PS- (Had to close a tag)

It should have been obvious then, that I wasn't referring to Australians, or people not from the US ARMY, when I made the reference I did. Or was it just easier to start nailing at me rather than answering the fucking question?

Quote from: T-WillardSo 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?

Actually, that would be pretty awesome, and plenty realistic for my taste, though it might be difficult to manage it without resorting to "fiat". If the game has any form of "surprise" mechanic, though, I could easily see it interpreted into this scene.

Quote from: Elliot WilenActually, that would be pretty awesome, and plenty realistic for my taste, though it might be difficult to manage it without resorting to "fiat". If the game has any form of "surprise" mechanic, though, I could easily see it interpreted into this scene.

Yeah, the more I stare at that, the funner it seems like it would be to add into a campaign, just to see what the player's would do. If nothing else, the look on their faces would be absolutely fucking priceless.

--Edit--

Hmmm, make up the BBEG's base. If the PC's don't trip any alarms and are sneaky, they can run into that scene, as they sneak in. Maybe they don't discover any guards at their posts, and a truck reading "Julio's Erotic Pasteries" on the side parked just inside the gate.

The more I think about it, the more fucking sure I am that I'm gonna include this shit.

That way, when it's all over, they can have their cake and eat the filling too!

Quote from: T-WillardIf you take the stupid shit aimed at me out of it, it's a pretty good peice on how not everyone's experience is the same, and there's fuckwits all over the place.

I'd give it a 6 out 10 for the information, that's for sure.

Now, I'm still waiting for you to answer the fucking question. I mean, I obvious hurt your poor widdle feelings since you just blasted at me instead of answering the question (The "Make fun of/attack poster rather than answer question method of weaselling out of a question)


So what would be added for realism as far as you are concerned?

If you can't answer, feel free to attack the fact I like to drink.

PS- (Had to close a tag)

It should have been obvious then, that I wasn't referring to Australians, or people not from the US ARMY, when I made the reference I did. Or was it just easier to start nailing at me rather than answering the fucking question?

Side note: we're debating GAMES over the INTERNET...

...What is at stake, that you are getting so upset? Realism aside, this is about as unreal as it gets.

Games are unrealistic in their very premise. They focus almost exclusively on a world's response to the players, as opposed to visa versa (your examples, where the world "acts" and the players are forced to respond... if they are even able). This empowers the players allowing them to *gasp* relax and have fun. War is hell. This isn't war. It's a game.

Quote from: T-WillardOh 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.

Definitely! However, it happened. Yet in rpgs, characters sometimes suffers random unavoidable death in the name of "realism", but they almost never get random good fortune in the name of "realism."

Why do we think only shitty things are realistic?

Quote from: T-WillardSo 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?

Not really. But that is no less unrealistic than a lair with orcs in one room, skeletons in the next, and an umberhulk scratching his balls in the doorway.

And in fact, don't bad guys have parties every now and then? Army units have piss-ups, and pointless parades, why not Evil Overlords?

Quote from: T-WillardRealism 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.

That's not realism, that's reasonableness. If the PC 18th level wizard has a Wish spell, that's not "realistic", since magic doesn't exist. But if the PC can have it, so can the NPC, that's "reasonable." Realism and reasonableness are different things, as you described earlier, talking about how being injured and psychologically traumatised would be realistic, but not fun - not reasonable, in the context of playing a game.

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

Quote from: T-WillardNeither are fucking roleplaying, their both fiats.

GM fiat reduces player fun? Often, yes. But "fun" may or may not be "realistic", as you described so well earlier.

Quote from: beejazzSide note: we're debating GAMES over the INTERNET...

...What is at stake, that you are getting so upset? Realism aside, this is about as unreal as it gets.

Games are unrealistic in their very premise. They focus almost exclusively on a world's response to the players, as opposed to visa versa (your examples, where the world "acts" and the players are forced to respond... if they are even able). This empowers the players allowing them to *gasp* relax and have fun. War is hell. This isn't war. It's a game.

Ummm, whose upset?

JimBobOz was poking fun at me, and I was poking back, and I'm pretty sure we're both thick skinned enough not to get our feelings hurt by photons from a monitor. Hell, I even asked him a question in PM's. He ain't bein' nasty, he's bein' friendly.

Hell, he didn't even harsh my Wild Turkey buzz.

Quote from: T-WillardThe 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.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadBut 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.

OK, I'm completely at a loss on this one.  There are an awful lot of things which I do in games which I do not do in real life.  Sure, actually tromping through the wilderness sleeping in armor, with no modern conveniences sucks.  Sure, it sucks to be slaughtered by cultists.  So what?  

Playing a game, even a realistic one, doesn't actually injure me.  I know that you understand this, yet your statements simply don't make any sense once you add in this fact.  None of this means that it can't be fun in a game.  

P.S. Out of 160 men initially sent with Operation Gothic Serpent, 18 were killed.  I don't know where you got the idea that most of them died -- maybe the movie?

Quote from: T-WillardIf you take the stupid shit aimed at me out of it, it's a pretty good peice on how not everyone's experience is the same, and there's fuckwits all over the place.

There was no stupid shit aimed at you. In saying that bad gaming was more traumatic than war, I was making a joke about how horrible bad gaming can be, and how annoying fuckwit gamers can be. It was a joke at the expense of fuckwit gamers, not at your expense, T-Willard.

Quote from: T-WillardI'd give it a 6 out 10 for the information, that's for sure.

Well, I was only a grunt.

Quote from: T-WillardNow, I'm still waiting for you to answer the fucking question. I mean, I obvious hurt your poor widdle feelings since you just blasted at me instead of answering the question (The "Make fun of/attack poster rather than answer question method of weaselling out of a question)

Again, I didn't blast at you, you misunderstood, and/or I expressed myself badly. Please have another look at what I posted, and try to see if it could look as I've described my intent - to mock crap gamers, not to mock T-Willard.

As for a response, one's posted now. Be patient. Not everyone can compose and send a response in thirty seconds.

Quote from: T-WillardIt should have been obvious then, that I wasn't referring to Australians, or people not from the US ARMY, when I made the reference I did. Or was it just easier to start nailing at me rather than answering the fucking question?

I find it easier to only defend myself when I'm actually being attacked. Life is less tiring that way. I was responding to what you said, I was not refuting what you said, or bashing you.

I think that usually when gamers talk about "realism" they mean "realistically shitty things happen", they don't mean "realistically good" or "realistically neutral" things happen. And as you said, gamers opften expect the "realism" to apply only to NPCs.

Now chill the fuck out, mate

Quote from: T-WillardUmmm, whose upset?

JimBobOz was poking fun at me, and I was poking back, and I'm pretty sure we're both thick skinned enough not to get our feelings hurt by photons from a monitor. Hell, I even asked him a question in PM's. He ain't bein' nasty, he's bein' friendly.

Hell, he didn't even harsh my Wild Turkey buzz.

Oh, sorry then, I hear "answer the fucking question" and I see some b-rate movie interrogation... lots of pistol whipping... maybe Samuel L Jackson.

But as long as things are cool.

Quote from: JimBobOzThere was no stupid shit aimed at you. In saying that bad gaming was more traumatic than war, I was making a joke about how horrible bad gaming can be, and how annoying fuckwit gamers can be. It was a joke at the expense of fuckwit gamers, not at your expense, T-Willard.

Either way, it still made me laugh.

QuoteWell, I was only a grunt.

Oof, too dangerous for me.

QuoteAgain, I didn't blast at you, you misunderstood, and/or I expressed myself badly. Please have another look at what I posted, and try to see if it could look as I've described my intent - to mock crap gamers, not to mock T-Willard.

Hell, mock away, I can take it. Shit, I post half-blasted out of my mind most of the time anyway.

QuoteAs for a response, one's posted now. Be patient. Not everyone can compose and send a response in thirty seconds.

Cyborg talent, I assure you.

QuoteI find it easier to only defend myself when I'm actually being attacked. Life is less tiring that way. I was responding to what you said, I was not refuting what you said, or bashing you.

I think that usually when gamers talk about "realism" they mean "realistically shitty things happen", they don't mean "realistically good" or "realistically neutral" things happen. And as you said, gamers opften expect the "realism" to apply only to NPCs.

Now chill the fuck out, mate

How's adding 2 ice cubes?

Anyway....

I agree, if you posted about the PC's having a chance to find our stripper drooling bad guys all jerking it while waiting for the fucking cake to pop, you can bet your left tesitcle on an anvil that someone on a fucking board will start claiming it's unrealistic, how bad-guys always are lurking around, fingering their weapons and gazing about menacingly through thier mirror finish visors, just waiting for the heroes arrive.

Or, GOD FORBID, an encounter be used for comedy/warning! THAT THERE'S BLASPHEMY, PARDNER! Let us say that you rolled "Lich, 1, undead, magic user-type" on your handy fucking dandy random encounter generator. You look at all your happily anxious player's faces, their d20's held in hot little hands so their 4th level PC's can whup some poor random asshole's skull in.

Well, shit. This lich will eat them up. Hmmm. So, for comedy, the Lich paralyzes them, roots through their gear and takes all their meal spicing, mumbling about the unreliability of local dry goods stores to stock the proper ingrediants for a halfling omelette.

You can fucking bet your sweet ass that you'll have people screaming how that campaign is too stupid, and the GM/Players aren't really roleplaying.

THAT'S UNREALISTIC! would lead the fucking way. The same as some overdressed nymph hucking a magic sword at the party and telling them "Go forth, cleanse the land of thy birth of darkness!" is unrealistic.

I'm half convinced that the assholes who scream for realism would be happier playing Halfwits & Hovels than a heroic game, because, for some weird reason, their own character emasculates them.

Huh, wonder if that's right, that their own pogohopping fucking character makes them feel like they've got a little dick, and by applying all of these "realistic" things make them feel like they just got head from Little Oral Annie when they actually succeed?

Wait, what the fuck were we talking about again?

Quote from: jhkimOK, I'm completely at a loss on this one.  There are an awful lot of things which I do in games which I do not do in real life.  Sure, actually tromping through the wilderness sleeping in armor, with no modern conveniences sucks.

PCs are great! So tough.

"So, we can spend five pounds each on horses to take us across 400 miles of wilderness to our destination. Or, for free we can walk."
"400 miles, that's what, at least 20 days? Yeah, okay, no worries, we'll walk for three weeks."
"Do we have enough iron rations?"
"What, that jerky and dried fruit and nuts and cheese? Sure, I'm happy for us to eat that for three weeks."
"What about blankets and stuff?"
"Let's just get a tarp and a few blankets. We'll improvise stuff for fires along the way."
"Let's go."
"Hey, at least we saved five pounds each!"

You know, I can sort of understand some complaints in RPGs.  The complaint about storytelling I can understand and sympathize with.  There are an awful lot of role-playing texts which give bad GM advice and specifically about preparing and sticking to a linear story.  

But realism?   OK, let me make a quick glance through new RPG releases and people's typical posts about their campaigns.  The dominant games are D&D and Exalted, with various D20 games, Rifts, and a few other White Wolf titles mixing it out.  The attitude seems to be that it's edgy and gritty if our games don't have characters dusting themselves off after dropping over cliffs.  It seems like emulating James Bond movies (a la Spycraft) is on the more gritty and realistic side of things.

So what the fuck?  Is trying out a little more realism than the typical diet of fantasy action diet somehow threatening?  

To draw a parallel to movies: I'm fine with watching Iron Monkey or James Bond, but I also enjoyed watching Das Boot and a Band of Brothers.

Maybe we should talk about unrealism in a negative sense instead of realism in a positive sense. In other words: identify specific qualities that can be fixed through good design or good practice.

Anyway, when this topic came up on rpg.net, I had a post that I can't really improve on,
http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=5793530&postcount=33

I don't like the term "realism" since it is, really, so subjective (does magic exist in reality? Some people say "yes!").

However, I don't like it when the game-system generates results that are clearly falsifiable. Falling damage in early Hero was a problem since, capping out at 30d6, a tough police officer (6 PD, 15 BOD) could reliably jump from a building and live. When the PCs did this *intentionally* (to escape death at the hands of a monster) it was somewhat problematic for me.

I think any game that gives discrete measures for strength, endurance, or ability to withstand damage is going to have problems: that's okay because often having a lot of decent answers or even "reasonable" or "reliably referenced" answers may outweigh always having "the right answer."

But I do consider games like GURPS to be improved if the answers for things they usually give match up to my expectations.

-Marco