Quote from: gleichman;252706But if you wish to try, please give me the range of realistic outomes for you and an exact clone each armed with a 9mm handgun of your choice (but identical for each) at a starting distance of 20m.

I think I must be misunderstanding something. What about that situation cannot be modeled? There are volumes of work out there regarding wound effects - seriously, like, whole volumes about nothing more than what happens to a given body when it's struck with a bullet of a given size from a given distance - and things like "how often can you strike a shape of X size from Y distance" are even directly testable.

Quote from: gleichman;252706And of course, your outcomes percentages must be completely actual to real life under those assumptions.

That will never happen. If your position is that, unless something is a completely flawless model of reality it is not "realistic," then you are correct that no model - not just in roleplaying, either - can ever be "realistic." [With today's technology, in any case; I wouldn't want to make this a general rule about the universe.] But if we accept levels of modeled-closeness-to-reality which are less than 100 percent, some degree of closeness is possible; this would be a varying degree of realism.

As I say, if 100 percent accuracy is the only means of achieving what you mean by "realism," then you are correct that no current roleplaying game can achieve that.

Quote from: Engine;252715I think I must be misunderstanding something. What about that situation cannot be modeled? There are volumes of work out there regarding wound effects -

Yes, I know of them.

Now go to them and get me some numbers bucko. What's your outcomes and percentages?

Quote from: Engine;252715That will never happen. If your position is that, unless something is a completely flawless model of reality it is not "realistic,"

I'll let you round to 1% values and drop anything that doesn't reach that floor.

Go for it bucko. And I'll want to see your data of course.

Quote from: gleichman;252711Interesting then that you listed perhaps two of the most detailed and complex systems out there as your examples.

Do you have simple ones?

Well, both RQ/BRP and GURPS at their core do serve as simple examples.  The core rules of RQ (BRP) and the basic rules of GURPS are simple, yet are simulationist in design.  Sure, when you add on the optional rules for both systems, then you definitely tread into the complex arena.

I think that, at their vary nature, class-and-level systems miss the mark of simulationist systems.  Although, Engine has touched upon the agrument for Rolemaster being a simulationist system.  I would definitely place Rolemaster firmly in the complex camp of game systems.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others.  I'll have to give some thought and research later tonight.

Quote from: Drohem;252717Well, both BRP and GURPS at their core do serve as simple examples.  The core rules of BRP and the basic rules of GURPS are simple, yet are simulationist in design.

I'm well familar with both games, but even at their core they're rather detailed and complex. Very short time scales (GURPS with its 1 sec round), the whole attack/parry round of BRP adds another entire level of system resolution campared to most games.

And as they do this, where is any indication that they've approached a higher degree of realism as a result? Or is only that they are adding detail of unknown value?

Quote from: Drohem;252717Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others.  I'll have to give some thought and research later tonight.

Please feel free.

And as you do so, be certain to answer the above highlighted question.

Quote from: gleichman;252719Please feel free.

And as you do so, be certain to answer the above highlighted question.

No, I think I'll pass engaging with you in this discussion or any other.  Frankly, your attitude is more than I wish to deal with when trying to have a civil conversation.

Quote from: Drohem;252722No, I think I'll pass engaging with you in this discussion or any other.  Frankly, your attitude is more than I wish to deal with when trying to have a civil conversation.

Ah, you have a different view of what civil conversation is as well I gather. Perhaps it's that people agree with you.

Good luck with that.

Quote from: gleichman;252716Go for it bucko. And I'll want to see your data of course.

I do not have such data, nor do I have immediate access to it. If I did, I would still not have the time to assemble that data into a working model. If this is what you require, I apologize, but I cannot give it to you.

Quote from: gleichman;252723Ah, you have a different view of what civil conversation is as well I gather. Perhaps it's that people agree with you.

Good luck with that.

I have never used the Ignore function on any forum.  You have earned the position as the first person with which I have used this fuction.  :hatsoff:

Quote from: Engine;252724I do not have such data, nor do I have immediate access to it. If I did, I would still not have the time to assemble that data into a working model. If this is what you require, I apologize, but I cannot give it to you.

Such completed and universally accepted data does not exist, so there is no shame in being unable to produce it. But sadly for you to prove your assertion, it must exist and you would have to produce it. It's the very end result of what you stated. By your own measure, nothing else is acceptable.

Without it you must concede the point that the outcome realism of even the simplest rpg events (a handgun duel in this case) is impossible to measure as you have nothing to measure it against. And what happens when we move on to more complex and common rpg events?

Once this fact is accepted, we can explore what comes next in rpg design. Are you willing yet to concede this point?

Quote from: gleichman;252731Are you willing yet to concede this point?

I concede all points.

Now, please, Brian, please, go on vacation. Please go on vacation, and please enjoy your time away from us. Please do whatever it is will best distract you from internet forums. Please recover your poise. Then, please, please come back, because I believe you are valuable - if not always universally valued - to this community and we would be lesser if you were to depart.

Is the argument “realism in a game must account for every single outcome possible”?

Quote from: CavScout;252737Is the argument "realism in a game must account for every single outcome possible"?

I don't think even Engine went that far, but he did go far enough to say that it must take everything into account that would be visible at it's level of detail.

Quote from: gleichman;252739I don't think even Engine went that far, but he did go far enough to say that it must take everything into account that would be visible at it's level of detail.

But is that a yes or no to my question?

Quote from: gleichman;252739I don't think even Engine went that far, but he did go far enough to say that it must take everything into account that would be visible at it's level of detail.

At the level of detail of the GM's and players' descriptions, or at the level of detail inherently presupposed by the mechanics?

Quote from: CavScout;252740But is that a yes or no to my question?

It's a yes within the bounds of the selected resolution system.