TheRPGSite

This came up in another thread and I'm curious how widespread my view on this issue is.  It usually comes up when somebody says something like "We have dragons in the game, so why not giant, carnivorous, acid (chemical or pharmaceutical, take your pick) marshmallow peeps?  Is your imagination so limited that you can't handle that?"

My view is that  making the game as close to realistic as possible while still incorporating the desired fantastic elements allows players to use their real-world intuition to make in-game decisions and increases both verisimilitude and immersion.  I'm fine with having a 30 pound halfling just as strong as the 500 pound half-ogre, if having such things is one of the premises of the game.  If it isn't I would like the half ogre to be vastly stronger, because that's what I would expect in real life.

The other issue of course is playability.  Some things are too much trouble to actually model realistically, and others (hello hit points!) make the game more fun even though they're very unrealistic.

Anyway, opinions?

EDIT:  Since it seems it may not be entirely clear, when I said "As realistic as possible" on the poll I meant "As realistic as possible while still incorporating the desired fantastic elements."  It looks like I can't edit the question.  I suppose it's just as well:  if it came out an overwhelming "yes" then I'd be tempted to change the question to "Is Mishihari the most awesome forum member ever?"

Do I want a game system that attempts to emulate reality? No.
Do I want a game setting where the setting introduces certain fantastical elements as part of an agreed upon set of shared narrative expectations? Yes.
Do I want a game setting where anything goes because A exists, so why not B? No.

It depends upon the goals of the system.  State the system's goals plainly.

After a certain point, realism needs to be set aside.

Why do we play RPGs? At the core, they are games. Why do we play games?

Entertainment.

I don't get a lot of entertainment out of 'realism' after a certain point. If I want realism, I can walk outside.

Yes, there are certain games that benefit from it. But who really wants to play three sessions and then have to reroll because your PC died of dysentery?

Quote from: Mishihari on May 28, 2021, 05:28:09 PM
This came up in another thread and I'm curious how widespread my view on this issue is.  It usually comes up when somebody says something like "We have dragons in the game, so why not giant, carnivorous, acid (chemical or pharmaceutical, take your pick) marshmallow peeps?  Is your imagination so limited that you can't handle that?"

My view is that  making the game as close to realistic as possible while still incorporating the desired fantastic elements allows players to use their real-world intuition to make in-game decisions and increases both verisimilitude and immersion.  I'm fine with having a 30 pound halfling just as strong as the 500 pound half-ogre, if having such things is one of the premises of the game.  If it isn't I would like the half ogre to be vastly stronger, because that's what I would expect in real life.

The other issue of course is playability.  Some things are too much trouble to actually model realistically, and others (hello hit points!) make the game more fun even though they're very unrealistic.

Anyway, opinions?

Greetings!

I agree, Mishihari! In the fantasy game world, I want everything to be more or less realistic as possible, except for A, B, and C, or whatever as you described as the premises of the world. Dragons, witches, demons, whatever, are all good, but there are a zillion aspects of the game world that routinely operate along realistic expectations, strength, gravity, thirst, and on and on.

I have a humanoid race, influenced by strong demonic heritage and regularly embracing dark magic, where this race of evil humanoids are typically monstrous in appearance, having oversized heads, large mouths full of teeth, strong claws, and generally having a stretched, gaunt look to them. Most of them are 5-feet tall, or shorter. Despite being generally short in stature, and having a thin, grotesque appearance, the creatures are very swift moving, agile, and possess formidable, unnatural strength. Their skin is a pale gray or charcoal black in colour, with bright, luminous amber coloured eyes. They are savage, bloodthirsty, and monstrous, typically preying upon humans and other humanoids, as well as creatures of Light. These horrible creatures typically make their lairs from dugout tunnels and chambers, subterranean dungeons and complexes near graveyards, cemeteries, or abandoned areas on the fringes of a civilized community. The creatures venture out to make daylight raids on occasion, favouring dark, cloudy and somber weather, though the monsters are very active and aggressive at night. Such terrifying creatures serve the Dark Gods, and love to devour humans. The creatures eagerly capture and enslave victims, especially the young, the innocent, and beautiful, using them as breeding slaves. Other captured enemies deemed unsuitable for breeding are tortured and ripped apart and eaten in terrifying feasts by flickering bonfires, or stretched upon a stone altar and sacrificed to their Dark Gods.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

For me at least depends on the setting and what is and is not possible within the system.

So someone bitching about halflings being strong in a fantasy setting where magic and training can boost anyone up is not realistic to me.
Whereas in say BX no such thing exists and your stats are pretty much set at chargen other than a rare few items that temp boost. So there too everyone is on the same playing field and bitching about strong halflings is idiotic. As is bitching about there not being any race bonus/malus at all. This also applies to games like AD&D where again you can exceed the limits.

On the other hand in AD&D halflings do indeed average weaker than humans and for them getting past that limit is quite a hurdle. But can be done.
Whereas in 5e no race has a malus to stats so its more a factor what races can get to the cap of 20 easier. Several races will take a bit longer to get there than say a half orc. So one could say that halflings average a little weaker than other hardier races. But through effort can get up there.

All this fits rather well with heroes in folklore who often had freakish stats or are benefiting from supernatural gifts or bloodlines.

None of which though fits in a more grounded setting and in fact halflings and elves and the like might not be realistic to that setting at all. Excellent example is AD&D Conan where there are no non-human PC races, and monsters if the typical sorts are alot less common. As well as a much more restricted class selection because none of these things were deemed "realistic" to the setting.

Similarly a setting might be such that dungeons are not "realistic" and the bulk of adventuring is overland and cityside. Pretty much how Dragon Storm worked for example.

Same applies to tech. It fits say Blackmoor. But does not fit Dragonlance.

One personal "unrealistic" irk is when morons keep trying to justify artificial gravity and linear ships in Star Frontiers using bad art as "proof". Sorry, no. Doesnt work that way.

Since it seems it may not be entirely clear, when I said "As realistic as possible" I meant "As realistic as possible while still incorporating the desired fantastic elements."  It looks like I can't edit the question.  I suppose it's just as well:  if it came out an overwhelming "yes" then I'd be tempted to change the question to "Is Mishihari the most awesome forum member ever?"

Yeah, it depends on genre and intent.

Systems I like that I think are deliberately unrealistic:

Paranoia
James Bond 007
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Amber Diceless

Systems I like that are more realistic:

Call of Cthulhu
Harnmaster
Runequest
GURPS

No. Even realistic RPGs aren't realistic. The word you should have used is verisimilitude.

Quote from: Pat on May 28, 2021, 06:30:35 PM
No. Even realistic RPGs aren't realistic. The word you should have used is verisimilitude.

Actually, I considered that point, and I meant realism, not verisimilitude.  They're similar things: realism is fidelity to reality and verisimilitude is fidelity to a known set of fiction.  We base pretty much all of our decisions on our knowledge of reality, even in games.  Things fall down, water is wet, fire burns, and so on.  We don't and can't have rules to cover all of these things.  Verisimilitude is covered in the "desired fantasy elements" part of my statement and can include not only things like magic, but also genre tropes like "action heroes don't die when they charge into a hail of machine gun bullets."  My position is that fantasy elements should be those and only those placed in the game to support the desired play experience, and everything else should be realistic.

I want rpgs realistic in the sense they follow some kind of internal logic and consistency. I'm happy to have unrealistic and certain fantastical elements as long as it's does'nt ever veer too much into high-fantasy. I just prefer low fantasy stuff in general.

Super duper floating Combat wheelchair... Uh, okay I guess in a D&D high-fantasy 5e setting (and as long as I don't ever have to GM it). But not on your life in a low-fantasy setting.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 28, 2021, 05:28:09 PM
My view is that  making the game as close to realistic as possible while still incorporating the desired fantastic elements.

Sounds about right to me.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 28, 2021, 06:49:32 PM

Quote from: Pat on May 28, 2021, 06:30:35 PM
No. Even realistic RPGs aren't realistic. The word you should have used is verisimilitude.

Actually, I considered that point, and I meant realism, not verisimilitude.  They're similar things: realism is fidelity to reality and verisimilitude is fidelity to a known set of fiction.  We base pretty much all of our decisions on our knowledge of reality, even in games.  Things fall down, water is wet, fire burns, and so on.  We don't and can't have rules to cover all of these things.  Verisimilitude is covered in the "desired fantasy elements" part of my statement and can include not only things like magic, but also genre tropes like "action heroes don't die when they charge into a hail of machine gun bullets."  My position is that fantasy elements should be those and only those placed in the game to support the desired play experience, and everything else should be realistic.

No, that's not what verisimilitude means. Verisimilitude the appearance of reality. Emulating genre conventions is a completely unrelated concept. And if you're talking about highly unrealistic genres like wuxia or high fantasy, it's almost the opposite.

You should have used verisimilitude. Consider even simple things like conversations in film. If you compare a recording of a real conversation to a film conversation, even one that's celebrated for being true to life, you'll quickly realize they're stylized and bear only a superficial resemblance to real conversations. You can't emulate reality, and trying tends to cause the game to snowball in meaningless complexity that ultimately feels forced and artificial, because what players want isn't reality, it's the appearance of reality. That's the art of a presenting a fictional property in a way that tricks the listener of a story or the participant of a game into turning off part of the their critical faculties and accepting it, at least to some degree, as real.

Greetings!

Many people can't spell verisimilitude, or remember how to spell it. In general, *realism* in games is used as a synonym for verisimilitude. Pretty much interchangeable concepts when people are talking about fantasy game campaigns.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Too many variables. Even between different campaign settings. So I voted "other".

To attempt a more useful answer, I expect a set of game rules of have a heavy layer of abstraction. I really don't want to track every atom and molecule in the game world. Abstraction necessarily means that the game is going to have some unrealistic-ness.

I do expect a game system to be fun. And then we have to define what fun is. Things can be fun in different ways to different people. That's where the huge amount of variability comes in.

I do agree that just because a game has dragons and magic doesn't mean the game can just go bonkers with rationalizations. As Jay Bauman once said "Something has to matter." Re-reading that, I think that's a big factor. When nothing matters, then the whole experience falls apart. In the case of the halfling with 18 strength, that signifies to the players that the game has decoupled physical strength from any attempt to emulate what we know about bodies and strength. The more stuff like that in the game, the more the game is detached from what we expect, and it starts floating around like a surreal cartoon.

So there you go. A nice wishy washy waffly answer. :)

Quote from: SHARK on May 28, 2021, 07:38:28 PM
Greetings!

Many people can't spell verisimilitude, or remember how to spell it. In general, *realism* in games is used as a synonym for verisimilitude. Pretty much interchangeable concepts when people are talking about fantasy game campaigns.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thank goodness for spell-check.  It fixes it for me every single time

I would only accept "as realistic as possible" if it were limited not only by the setting/game requirements to support the fantastical but also the modeling requirements that affect game handling time and the inherent limitations of a model.

As an example, consider a hypothetical combat system that was very realistic in its approach to the physics of weapon and armor use, however the time required to use it not only adversely affected the enjoyment of the game (handling time) but also turned combat into a very chess-like, slow, "find the right answer" approach.  That is, at some point, if you layer too much fidelity to realism in the physics you lose the realism of the pace.  Note that this effect overlaps with but is distinct from verisimilitude.  That is, reaching verisimilitude is often a balancing act in the model of competing interests but even if you don't care about verisimilitude the effect is still a limiting factor.

Which is all another way of saying that realism introduces complexity, and a good game design should target its limited budget of complexity in the areas that are most central to what the game is about.

Along those same lines, I subscribe to "good enough" realism.  An example would be rules that make some simple, meaningful distinction between, say, a battle axe and an arming sword, which while not exactly realistic did encourage players to use the weapons in ways that parallel realism.  Or a more common one such as the "load time" on a crossbow in the system may not be realistic--either in isolation or comparing rate of fire between bows and crossbows.  It's good enough realism if it establishes that a crossbow has a delay sufficient that characters will be encouraged to fire, drop, and draw another weapon, at least some of the time.

Quote from: Pat on May 28, 2021, 06:30:35 PM
The word you should have used is verisimilitude.

I don't find that word very evocative for most, since most people will have to look it up.

I prefer to say "realistic themes." You're certainly correct that no game is ever entirely realistic, but it can have realistic themes.

For example, Call of Cthulhu having as it does mad monsters from beyond is not realistic, but with people being traumatised by their exposure to violence and strange things, it has realistic themes. Neither the wounding nor the sanity mechanics accurately represent physical or psychological trauma, but they do show man as fragile - which is a realistic theme, even if the details aren't realistic.

My own game Conflict has combat based on real-world stats and results - but you can't lose a limb or be otherwise disabled; if you receive a mortal wound which you recover from, you lose a point of Health - when Health reaches 0 you are still alive but sickly, and are normally discharged from uniformed service, if it drops below 0 you are deceased. So a person could step on a mine and not lose a leg - but they'd suffer permanent loss of Health, and may stop uniformed service or end up dying.

The details are never all realistic, but the game can have realistic themes. And I think that's about as much as most players want.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 28, 2021, 10:14:35 PM

Quote from: Pat on May 28, 2021, 06:30:35 PM
The word you should have used is verisimilitude.

I don't find that word very evocative for most, since most people will have to look it up.

I prefer to say "realistic themes." You're certainly correct that no game is ever entirely realistic, but it can have realistic themes.

"Air of realism" is a common way to define the word, and it works fine as well. But whatever we call it, I think it's an important distinction, and that's what I was trying to emphasize, not start some debate over a 2 satoshi word. Because creating an air of realism is not about being realistic in everything, or even anything in particular. That way lies madness, and overwritten games that obsess about detail and rigorous and tiresome reality checks, and often end up feeling less realistic than games that gloss over many of the same parts.

Because the air of realism is not about being realistic, but about the perception of being realistic. It's a subjective experience (if you've ever had an engineer as a player, you know their standards are different), that's often quite arbitrary because everyone has different interests and trigger points. It's ultimately a form of consensual delusion. To accept a game world as realistic isn't about being the most realistic against some objective measure, but about hitting the parts the players need in order to accept the world as pseudo-real. Tropes are important, because tropes are previously-established mental shortcuts, that have already primed to them to suspend their disbelief. If it's done well, the players will (often unconsciously) gloss over the inconsistencies and unrealistic elements, and become active participants in seeing the world as real, and even realistic.

And yes, creating an air of realism is just a special case of genre emulation.

Quote from: jhkim on May 28, 2021, 06:24:53 PM
Yeah, it depends on genre and intent.

Systems I like that I think are deliberately unrealistic:
James Bond 007

Which one? The original was fairly realistic as it was based I believe on the pre-Roger-Moore Bond. All its tech was cutting edge but if recall right, still possible.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on May 28, 2021, 07:06:00 PM
I want rpgs realistic in the sense they follow some kind of internal logic and consistency. I'm happy to have unrealistic and certain fantastical elements as long as it's does'nt ever veer too much into high-fantasy. I just prefer low fantasy stuff in general.

Super duper floating Combat wheelchair... Uh, okay I guess in a D&D high-fantasy 5e setting (and as long as I don't ever have to GM it). But not on your life in a low-fantasy setting.

This very much so.
In say O,BX, A,and 2e its unrealistic. But there are workarounds in some cases. See my thread on that here.
In 5e its still un-realistic in standard 5e. But fits in FR where weird is the norm.

On the other hand it is un-realistic to assume that handicapped people can not become adventurers for whatever reasons. Workarounds exist for some of these. Its going to be exponentially harder though so have a backup character handy.

Everyone has their own threshold of what amount of weird they will accept and what type before the cracks start to show.

For some Fogfotten Realms is just too high fantasy, often bordering on super-fantasy.
For others Greyhawk or Known World is too bland and not fantastical enough.
Dark Sun is too bleak and having to deal with starvation and dehydration constantly is no fun. While most players for Dragon Storm were perfectly fine with having to camp and forage as needed. Others dont like even having to track food, ammo, or adhere to carrying capacity.

And carrying Capacity, encumbrance and tracking supplies seems a special bugaboo of realism players have been relentlessly trying to get rid of for a long long time.

Quote from: Omega on May 29, 2021, 01:57:43 AM

And carrying Capacity, encumbrance and tracking supplies seems a special bugaboo of realism players have been relentlessly trying to get rid of for a long long time.

Is it those things inherently that players want to ditch, or is it the the overly complicated nature of the systems used to do them? 

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 29, 2021, 08:29:15 AM

Quote from: Omega on May 29, 2021, 01:57:43 AM

And carrying Capacity, encumbrance and tracking supplies seems a special bugaboo of realism players have been relentlessly trying to get rid of for a long long time.

Is it those things inherently that players want to ditch, or is it the the overly complicated nature of the systems used to do them?

Ive never seen a complex system. Its usually you have X amount of weight you can carry and each item weights Y. The more you carry the slower you move. Or, you have 10 days of food. Each day check off one.

Apparently that is too much for some to wrap their little walnut brains around?

Players are interested in the cool stuff their characters can do (stats, spells, etc) and in choices.

Encumbrance isn't a cool thing we can do, and it doesn't give us very interesting choices.

If you're actually out in the field carrying the shit on your back, you are deeply interested in minimising what you carry overall, and maximising its utility. "Chuck out the mozzie net, carry another mag." But you are not your character, you don't have to carry all that shit, so you don't care.

It's the same as how players won't pay for their character to take a carriage across the continent and for good food. "No! We will walk, and eat iron rations the whole way."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 29, 2021, 09:31:21 PM
Players are interested in the cool stuff their characters can do (stats, spells, etc) and in choices.

Encumbrance isn't a cool thing we can do, and it doesn't give us very interesting choices.

If you're actually out in the field carrying the shit on your back, you are deeply interested in minimising what you carry overall, and maximising its utility. "Chuck out the mozzie net, carry another mag." But you are not your character, you don't have to carry all that shit, so you don't care.

It's the same as how players won't pay for their character to take a carriage across the continent and for good food. "No! We will walk, and eat iron rations the whole way."

Greetings!

*LAUGHING* Fucking hilarious, Kyle Aaron!

So true, too! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 29, 2021, 09:31:21 PM
Players are interested in the cool stuff their characters can do (stats, spells, etc) and in choices.

Encumbrance isn't a cool thing we can do, and it doesn't give us very interesting choices.

If you're actually out in the field carrying the shit on your back, you are deeply interested in minimising what you carry overall, and maximising its utility. "Chuck out the mozzie net, carry another mag." But you are not your character, you don't have to carry all that shit, so you don't care.

It's the same as how players won't pay for their character to take a carriage across the continent and for good food. "No! We will walk, and eat iron rations the whole way."

Well... maybe at lower levels. When I played sorcerer in PF1, I had Teleport and Mage's Magnificent Mansion as part of my repertoire. We didn't walk any further than we had to :)

Well, there's that for an idea. Make the players experience it.

"Game time will move at the same rate as real time. Take the carriage and be there by the next session in a week, walk and it'll take a month, and our next three sessions in between will be roleplaying your camping, eating iron rations, digging latrines and so on."

Quote from: Mishihari on May 28, 2021, 05:28:09 PM
This came up in another thread and I'm curious how widespread my view on this issue is.  It usually comes up when somebody says something like "We have dragons in the game, so why not giant, carnivorous, acid (chemical or pharmaceutical, take your pick) marshmallow peeps?  Is your imagination so limited that you can't handle that?"

Well, I would say that the real world is a rich and nuanced place where a lot of things are possible. In the fantasy world, even more things should be possible, not less. One such possibility would be having a planet where they lack the technology to make even ordinary marshmallow peeps, let alone evolve living ones. Is your imagination so limited that you can't handle that?

I know Gary has been known for using this type of argument against players who demanded more realism. But context is everything. Is it really a good use of time, effort, and page count to include a realistic hit location table when the majority of combat is against creatures with completely alien anatomies? That's the sort of context in which it makes sense to ignore realism "because fantasy." It's more of a practical matter than a philosophical one. The argument doesn't validate others dictating whether or not the StayPuft Marshmallow Man should be allowed in your campaign.

QuoteMy view is that  making the game as close to realistic as possible while still incorporating the desired fantastic elements allows players to use their real-world intuition to make in-game decisions and increases both verisimilitude and immersion.  I'm fine with having a 30 pound halfling just as strong as the 500 pound half-ogre, if having such things is one of the premises of the game.  If it isn't I would like the half ogre to be vastly stronger, because that's what I would expect in real life.

The other issue of course is playability.  Some things are too much trouble to actually model realistically, and others (hello hit points!) make the game more fun even though they're very unrealistic.

To that I would say, let's start by setting some expectations. We don't even have the real world boiled down to a finite set of rules that explain everything. Let alone a succinct and simple set of rules you could play a game by. If the best scientific minds over centuries have not given us that, what hope does a designer for a genre of game that's only been around decades have? And if the fantasy world is going to be one of even greater possibilities than the real world, then it's doubly futile.

Then there's phenomenology. Like we know if you eat less food you'll lose weight. Or if you lift heavy weights, you'll become stronger. We've always known that. But then we try to drill down to what goes on at the cellular level to cause the body to change. From this, we figure out what the chemical interactions are. And from there, we can create a pill. Take this. It will produce the same chemical interactions as dieting and exercising, and you'll shed fat and get stronger. And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Because it turns out health and fitness are their own fields of study and are not just applied biochemistry. It turns out that's the level of abstraction at which it is most practical to look at things.

So what the hell is wrong with hit points? Given what I mentioned earlier, about hit locations being a waste of time if the fantasy game involves fighting things with inhuman anatomies, it would seem to make sense that hit points are at the very least a likely candidate for being the best level of abstraction at which to handle things. What's unrealistic about hit points? What's unrealistic about the phenomenon that a "higher level" warrior is more resilient? than a "lower level" one? Or that recovering from a battle with a dragon takes longer than recovering from a battle with a goblin? Sorry. That's just the diet pills talking.

Rather than "realistic" I would say it should "make internal sense".

Quote from: Trond on May 30, 2021, 11:17:24 AM
Rather than "realistic" I would say it should "make internal sense".

The word you're looking for is 'consistency'. There should be consistency in theme.

Like many spices, realism is one of those things that you don't want to overuse in a game, and you expect more of it in some games than others. Twilight 2000, yeah, you're gonna track every bullet and bandage. High level D&D? Probably not so much.

There's a reason Phoenix Command didn't exactly take off, after all.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 30, 2021, 11:20:13 AM

Quote from: Trond on May 30, 2021, 11:17:24 AM
Rather than "realistic" I would say it should "make internal sense".

The word you're looking for is 'consistency'. There should be consistency in theme.

Like many spices, realism is one of those things that you don't want to overuse in a game, and you expect more of it in some games than others. Twilight 2000, yeah, you're gonna track every bullet and bandage. High level D&D? Probably not so much.

There's a reason Phoenix Command didn't exactly take off, after all.

That's roughly what I meant. by "internal sense". Internal to the setting and mood.

But what's the issue here with Phoenix Command? Combat taking too long?

It depends on the game.  Someone up thread mentioned Twilight:2000.  I'm less likely to be hand-wavy about that game than I am, say, Conflict, when it comes to games that represent firefights.  As Kyle Schuant has noted, there's accurate, and there's realistic.  They are not always (or often) the same thing.

I'm with Gary Gygax in that people who complain about the lack of realism in AD&D are free to go create a realistic RPG (and many did, they're gone and forgotten or entirely niche, taking the back seat to the fourth power or more to D&D so make of it what you will that having a "realistic" system will get you).  There are games I want realism in, because as it says on the tin, can model realism in the case of say, Heavy Gear (gears are big shot traps that can't carry tons of armor or heavy weapons, they're essentially walking gun trucks, so good at suppressing infantry, fast forward recon, etc., but slugging it out with tanks, not so much).  There are games I expect zero realism from and indeed when they try to be "realistic" it makes them worse games (Battletech). 

It just comes down to individual systems, and what I want out of them.

Quote from: Trond on May 30, 2021, 11:29:43 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 30, 2021, 11:20:13 AM

Quote from: Trond on May 30, 2021, 11:17:24 AM
Rather than "realistic" I would say it should "make internal sense".

The word you're looking for is 'consistency'. There should be consistency in theme.

Like many spices, realism is one of those things that you don't want to overuse in a game, and you expect more of it in some games than others. Twilight 2000, yeah, you're gonna track every bullet and bandage. High level D&D? Probably not so much.

There's a reason Phoenix Command didn't exactly take off, after all.

That's roughly what I meant. by "internal sense". Internal to the setting and mood.

But what's the issue here with Phoenix Command? Combat taking too long?

It's overcomplicated. It's a hyper-realistic simulation of gun combat in an RPG, designed by a no-shit rocket scientist.

Mr. Welch reviewed it here: https://youtu.be/onDYxtDzFuI

It's fascinating to look at, and it's not like the material is stupid or offensive, but... hoo boy, the complexity is off the damn charts.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 30, 2021, 04:16:08 PM

Quote from: Trond on May 30, 2021, 11:29:43 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 30, 2021, 11:20:13 AM

Quote from: Trond on May 30, 2021, 11:17:24 AM
Rather than "realistic" I would say it should "make internal sense".

The word you're looking for is 'consistency'. There should be consistency in theme.

Like many spices, realism is one of those things that you don't want to overuse in a game, and you expect more of it in some games than others. Twilight 2000, yeah, you're gonna track every bullet and bandage. High level D&D? Probably not so much.

There's a reason Phoenix Command didn't exactly take off, after all.

That's roughly what I meant. by "internal sense". Internal to the setting and mood.

But what's the issue here with Phoenix Command? Combat taking too long?

It's overcomplicated. It's a hyper-realistic simulation of gun combat in an RPG, designed by a no-shit rocket scientist.

Mr. Welch reviewed it here: https://youtu.be/onDYxtDzFuI

It's fascinating to look at, and it's not like the material is stupid or offensive, but... hoo boy, the complexity is off the damn charts.

As long as they didn't sell it as "fast and smooth-running" 😀

I seem to remember that there was a fantasy version of this game or made by the same people. Anyone tried that?

Quote from: Pat on May 28, 2021, 06:30:35 PM
Even realistic RPGs aren't realistic. The word you should have used is verisimilitude.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 30, 2021, 11:20:13 AM
The word you're looking for is 'consistency'. There should be consistency in theme.

Quote from: Pat on May 28, 2021, 10:39:32 PM
Because the air of realism is not about being realistic, but about the perception of being realistic. It's a subjective experience (if you've ever had an engineer as a player, you know their standards are different), that's often quite arbitrary because everyone has different interests and trigger points. It's ultimately a form of consensual delusion. To accept a game world as realistic isn't about being the most realistic against some objective measure, but about hitting the parts the players need in order to accept the world as pseudo-real. Tropes are important, because tropes are previously-established mental shortcuts, that have already primed to them to suspend their disbelief. If it's done well, the players will (often unconsciously) gloss over the inconsistencies and unrealistic elements, and become active participants in seeing the world as real, and even realistic.

And yes, creating an air of realism is just a special case of genre emulation.

'Suspension of Disbelief' is another term used in these parts.

Anyway, there is no such thing as a 'realistic' RPG, only one where certain expectations are conveyed and maintained.

Now most #OSR style RPGs favor having an established setting and hidden information under the control of the GM. In such games players solve problems through exploring the setting and verifying the solution. However most indie RPGs favor establishing the setting through player facing rules. In such games players solve problems by deciding which solution makes sense, not by exploring the setting because it technically doesn't exist until the players decide it does. And which method more effectively supports/undermines verisimilitude varies from player to player.

One fascinating corollary is how this seems to also indicate one's ideological outlook, as those who prefer the former tend to be #Republican while those the latter #Democrat. So much so that I don't think we can avoid dividing gamers across these ideological lines any longer.

'Consistency' is good. The more assumptions that are valid, the less work trying to explain them.
When making life or death decisions, it is good to have a solid feel for the world you are in.

Quote from: Greentongue on June 24, 2021, 01:30:59 PM
'Consistency' is good. The more assumptions that are valid, the less work trying to explain them.
When making life or death decisions, it is good to have a solid feel for the world you are in.

It's also one of the fundamental aspects of the old school mindset. Critics call it "mother may I", under the false assumption that each decision by the DM is arbitrary, and made in a vacuum, and that the players are asking permission. But that's not the case. If the game world and the rules it operates under are consistent, it doesn't matter if they're written down in a book. What matters is the rules, whether overt or implicit, have been expressed in previous encounters, and provide a baseline by which players can make rational decisions within the world, without reference to the DM except as a rubber stamp for a knowable outcome.

This also works well with the idea of exploring a new world full of unknowns. The players start knowing little about the world, and about the rules by which the world operates, which makes it seem a very dark and dangerous place, because any misjudgment can be fatal. But over time, as they explore the world, it becomes known. They develop a range in which they can operate with relative knowledge, and thus safety. This is "player knowledge", and is a reward for investment in the game. It's only when they push back the boundaries of unknown that they're taking real risks again, and that can be moderated.

Realism is the right word in my opinion. That is the word used in aesthetic fields for film, art, sculpture, why not RPGs? No one talks about photoverisimilitude or hyperverisimilitude or romanticism vs verisimilitudisim.

My definition of realism is this: An RPG is realistic if, were an action narrated in game to take place in the real world that the game implies, the same range of outcomes would occur for the action taken.

By this standard, a game can objectively be more or less realistic. This standard is among those used to assess the value of wargames in the professional wargame community, at RAND, DoD, etc.

As I have written about in Arbiter of Worlds, I believe the unique quality of the tabletop role-playing game, unmatched by any other type of entertainment, is that it offers maximum agency to the player. Their only competitors in this regard are wargames and videogames, neither of which matches the the tabletop RPG for agency. (To the extent a wargame offers RPG-like agency, it tends to evolve into an RPG.)

In order for a player to have maximum agency, he must be able to freely make meaningful choices that have not been pre-scripted.

a) In order for a choice to be meaningful, there must be a system of causality that links choices to effects in an intelligible and non-arbitrary manner.
b) In order for a choice to be free and not pre-scripted, there must be a system of adjudication for unexpected choices - a judge.

By having a judge, however, we risk introducing the capriciousness of human opinion into our system, which defeats requirement (a)'s demand for non-arbitrary decision-making. This risk is greatly lessened, however, if the game system is designed such that it is realistic. When encountering new situations, the judge can use his knowledge of the game's real world as the basis for a non-arbitrary decision.

Pre-Written Response to Typical Responses:
1) I disagree with your definition of realism for [various reasons].
OK. A shared definition is presuppositional to a debate. You are welcome to your own definition. I won't agree and we'll reach different conclusions.

2) I disagree with your belief that the unique quality of tabletop RPGs is their offering of maximum agency to the player. Actually, RPGs are [whatever].
OK. In taking my stance, I'm adopting a theory of aesthetics called essentialism. An assessment of "essence" (unique quality) is always arguable. Many anti-essentialist aesthetic philosophers don't think forms of art have essences at all, and that everything is arbitrary, socially embedded, and meaningless outside of particular contexts. If you don't agree with me, then... we'll reach different conclusions. We probably also won't like the same RPGs played in the same way, though we might for random reasons.

3) I disagree with your argument that games have to have judges to offer free, non-scripted, choice in order to offer agency. Actually, [whatever] offers agency.
OK. I agree that many games can offer some agency. But any game that offers agency of "x" can offer agency of "x+1" by opening up the menu of choices and having a means to resolve them. As "x" approaches infinite choice, the only available means for us becomes (for now) the human mind. [Caveat: A game can reduce agency for the player if the judge is introduced in a way that allows him to override objective game mechanics capriciously. "Ha, hah, you can't move your pawn to B3 because I said so." This is why I believe the judge has to be constrained.]

4) By your standard, no game can be realistic because Harry Potter isn't real [or whatever]
As noted above, the realism in question is based on the real world implied by the game's setting. It would be unrealistic if Harry Potter couldn't cast magic in the Harry Potter RPG.

4a) Many - if not most - fictional settings aren't self-consistent enough for a game to be realistic by your definition!
That is actually true. You can typically tell when a setting is completely inconsistent, because each designer who gets the license to that setting makes a totally new RPG out of it, and the RPG has little lasting popularity because the fans find it unpalatable, because it's not realistic. Star Fleet Battles - which is based on the self-consistent Starfleet Universe - remains played today, but every Star Trek RPG has a short shelf-life, because none of them can make sense of the insensible world of Star Trek.

5) From the above, it sounds like you believe that there is a Platonic ideal tabletop RPG which involves a set of rules that is realistic, applied to a sandbox campaign with open-ended goals, run by a GM who strives towards objectivity and consistency in all his rulings!
Yes. And that's my goal as an RPG designer.

6) Doesn't your definition of realism and agency lead to unworkably complex and slow-moving games?
No. See note (a) above - "intelligible" choice. Any sufficiently complex system becomes unintelligible. The ART of game design lies in simplifying the complexity of life in a way that the mechanism resolution is intelligible while the outcomes are realistic. If the map is so detailed that it's the same size as the territory, the map is useless; but if the map is so vague that it doesn't guide you through the territory, the map is useless.

Pursuit of realism can lead to strange things like the tippyverse.

I like mechanical intuitiveness in a system; a sameness to resolution for different things, a universal scaling quantification of things that allows for extrapolation and easy statting of creatures spells or items. I often mean this aspect when i say i prefer d6 system or talk about realism; rules as a physics or metaphysics simulator sort of realism.

I dislike realism as some use the word; like when they want a gritty grimdark setting where the local lord rapes all the peasants and adventures are killed on sight for being brigands, I hate that shit,  And often the guy complaining about realism is the same guy that talked endlessly about how realistic the fight between thor and surtur was in thor ragnarok.

For a good long time I was researching grim dark and medieval reality thinking i was going to do a historical game or an arthurian version of d6 fantasy; I discovered I would not like such very much and it would be wasted on most players that are not history fans.

I think what I wish to capture is the feel of old school becmi on mystara, which was tough survival challenge for about the first 5 levels, then began to resemble marvel superheroes once magic became a staple of character ability or gear. Still working on that.

Saw much in pendragon I thought I'd like to steal for such, but then decided to shut it, and save that for actually playing pendragon. Legacy/troupe play and planned campaign years by season is the only components i think i would at this time lift from pendragon for my purposes.

Back on course; for me realism is first and foremost misused by myself as a description of the repeatable ratios, scaling, internal consistency of resolution method of a rules system; for example using d6 fantasys normal wound system as a basis for design of an easy sanity mechanic. As opposed to the classical gygaxian approach of sewing together 18 different minigames to resolve different things, roll high here, roll low there, your level matters, for this it doesn't, use the fighter save chart, and so on.

This is not what most mean when they come at me about realism; they mean the npc reactions to player fuckery and the expectation of a tightly nailed down grimdark world trying to beat you down with mud and porridge at every turn.

I swear I feel too old to argue with teens and young adults about how guards SHOULD react to armed men covered in ichor hauling sacks of loot into town...or that they have a half devil with them...then you always get the player who wants to cite realism to browbeat other players over trivial things that really never come up in game; yeah the real world medieval folk would not abide a known sodomite thats true, but arguing that i should have the guards harrass your cousins character because he wanted to make being  gay a part of the characters persona is petty, trifling, adds nothing, undermines my authority as gm, and is all predicated upon a flimsy non-consistent series of arguments about realism.

Dude can we just fucking kill dragons and save wenches? like please?

From a discussion on Bill's livestream, gamer and lawyer (not rules lawyer!) Ty says,

Quote"You can have a perfectly predictable legal system, or you can have a just and fair legal system, but you can't have both. Because a perfectly predictable system would be a one-size-fits all system that does not take into account particular circumstances. A perfectly fair legal system would take every single case completely and totally on its own merits without reference to anything else and so you'd never be able to predict. [...] The law is always in tension between predictability and fairness - or reasonableness in the case of business law, or whatever."

And this is why we have the framework of the rules (laws) and then the game master makes rulings (common and case law).

Awesome find, Kyle! Great thoughts.

Quote from: Pat on June 24, 2021, 01:40:27 PM
It's also one of the fundamental aspects of the old school mindset. Critics call it "mother may I", under the false assumption that each decision by the DM is arbitrary, and made in a vacuum, and that the players are asking permission. But that's not the case. If the game world and the rules it operates under are consistent, it doesn't matter if they're written down in a book. What matters is the rules, whether overt or implicit, have been expressed in previous encounters, and provide a baseline by which players can make rational decisions within the world, without reference to the DM except as a rubber stamp for a knowable outcome.

This also works well with the idea of exploring a new world full of unknowns. The players start knowing little about the world, and about the rules by which the world operates, which makes it seem a very dark and dangerous place, because any misjudgment can be fatal. But over time, as they explore the world, it becomes known. They develop a range in which they can operate with relative knowledge, and thus safety. This is "player knowledge", and is a reward for investment in the game. It's only when they push back the boundaries of unknown that they're taking real risks again, and that can be moderated.

I have long argued that the when it comes to a conflict between the rules and how the setting is described, the setting should prevail and the rules altered to reflect how things work in the setting.

In short if it makes sense that a character can successfully weave a basket out of reeds, the character should be able to weave a basket out of reed regardless what in the system or not.

The problem with "Mother may I" is not a result of players not "getting" the old school way of doing thing. It is because it a result of poor communication skills on the part of the referee, and because starting out not knowing not anything is a niche of niche taste in gaming.

This issue came when I talked about Sandbox Campaigns. There only a few hobbyists that enjoy starting out a campaign in the midst of a blank hex grids. Fewer still that like to do this repeatable. This was true back in the day as well as the present.

Mostly because it rarely made sense once the campaign unfolded. A character is born and in raised in a setting so they would have a certain amount of knowledge starting out. The same with the rules being used. A character has an understanding of how the world works. Players want to be able weigh their choices and then commit to a course of action especially if it is risky. Most I found hate feeling like they might as well tack the map on a wall and throw a dart at it. In short choosing between six blank hexes is not really a choice. The same with choosing what to do as a character that will be resolved by the system.

You don't have to give the player chapter and verse of the entire book. But they need something to provide enough of an initial context to start the campaign going.

I talk about this in my Majestic Fantasy Rules.

When to make a ruling?
When running a campaign, you will discover that not everything a player wants to attempt as their character will be covered by the system. As a result, you will have to make a ruling.

There are three basic rulings. The attempt is not allowed because it is impossible. The attempt is allowed because it is automatically successful. Or, the result is uncertain, in which case a roll or series of rolls is needed.

The key thing to remember is that you can't assume your players know what you know. It works out best if you are prepared to explain your reasoning and willing to listen to your players' opinions on what factors are important for what the player wants to do.

Be prepared to coach the players from time to time, particularly if your campaign has a lot of setting details that are important. Otherwise, the players may become uncomfortable as they don't understand how you are going to rule when they try something as their characters.

I then go into what I assume about Character Competence,  How to weigh the consequences of failure in deciding which one of the three types of rulings apply.  And finally specific to the classic edition and my rules, the mechanical elements I use when crafting a ruling when rolls are needed.

Realism: 1 blow from a dagger can kill any humanoid creature, either rapidly or slowly.

Realism: Each wound must be tracked and treated individually. Get it wrong and infection and possibly death or gangrene follows.

Basically, reality can be rough, I don't need that too much in a game.

Quote from: Altheus on June 25, 2021, 02:54:22 PM
Basically, reality can be rough, I don't need that too much in a game.

Or play Harnmaster which does this well.  ;)

Quote from: estar on June 25, 2021, 02:21:36 PM
I have long argued that the when it comes to a conflict between the rules and how the setting is described, the setting should prevail and the rules altered to reflect how things work in the setting.

In short if it makes sense that a character can successfully weave a basket out of reeds, the character should be able to weave a basket out of reed regardless what in the system or not.

The problem with "Mother may I" is not a result of players not "getting" the old school way of doing thing. It is because it a result of poor communication skills on the part of the referee, and because starting out not knowing not anything is a niche of niche taste in gaming.

This issue came when I talked about Sandbox Campaigns. There only a few hobbyists that enjoy starting out a campaign in the midst of a blank hex grids. Fewer still that like to do this repeatable. This was true back in the day as well as the present.

Mostly because it rarely made sense once the campaign unfolded. A character is born and in raised in a setting so they would have a certain amount of knowledge starting out. The same with the rules being used. A character has an understanding of how the world works. Players want to be able weigh their choices and then commit to a course of action especially if it is risky. Most I found hate feeling like they might as well tack the map on a wall and throw a dart at it. In short choosing between six blank hexes is not really a choice. The same with choosing what to do as a character that will be resolved by the system.

You don't have to give the player chapter and verse of the entire book. But they need something to provide enough of an initial context to start the campaign going.

The unknown is not based on complete ignorance about things like the name of the nearby town or city, or what type of people the locals are supposed to hate. It's certainly not randomly being placed in an empty hex and being asked which direction you want to go. A good campaign start should lay out a few basics, though a few basics differs massively from what a modern person knows about the modern world.

A campaign world that focuses on exploration still assumes the players mostly have regional knowledge, based on their upbringing. They probably haven't traveled much, and going to a city would be big deal. There is no internet, and probably no atlases (or at least ones they could afford), so their information about places more than a day's travel away is primarily rumors and stories, from travelers, merchants, bards, and occasional visits by important (but probably still regional visitors). It's slanted, exaggerated, and misinterpreted. The information the players are initially given may be sketchy, but which is primarily because players don't want to read long backstories, but it also reduces the amount of work needed from the DM. There should be a continual flow of information and questions along the lines of "would my character know anything about this?" or "your character remembers....". That includes your basket of reeds.

And it's pre-adventuring knowledge. The party doesn't start as experienced adventurers, but as farmhands or apprentices. They know what they know in the realm of their personal experience, and they've heard what they've heard, but by belting on a sword or mace and heading out to seek their fortunes, they are venturing into the unknown of a new experience. They have an immense amount to learn, because growing up in a little village doesn't provide a lot of experience with manticores, big cities, the value of tapestries, or how tactics should change as the party levels up. They have to learn the rules, and the "they" includes both the characters and the players at the same time. It's an organic, iterative process.

You claim it's a failure of communication to provide this upfront, and that's just false, because that's neither the intent, nor is it possible. There are serious bandwidth limits in running an RPG. The DM has to convey the world in words and a few props. And usually a very few words, because lengthy infodumps are rightly derided. For players to acquire that knowledge requires one of two things. The first is pre-existing knowledge, which can come from things like playing in the same setting repeatedly. Or using the same rules, and here I'm referring to both the explicit RAW and implicit rules like table conventions, which typically make up a greater portion of the experience than formal rules. Or even broader tools, like relying on tropes and stereotypes, i.e. making sure the campaign's dwarves don't diverge much from the stereotype. The other option is to acquire knowledge of all of this by the continual procession of assimilation over the campaign. A game focused on exploration leverages this last option by creating a world where the player's lack of knowledge roughly corresponds to their character's lack of knowledge, thus allowing a gradual and synchronous increase in mastery.

I've found players often enjoy this style of play, if they can overcome the tendency to stay with the safe and familiar. It also works well with new players, whether brand new to the hobby, or new to a particular table, because it allows them gradually get up to speed instead of trying (futilely) to front-load everything.