Quote from: Vaecrius;252741At the level of detail of the GM's and players' descriptions, or at the level of detail inherently presupposed by the mechanics?

I would have to imagine that it would be those of the mechanics, as those are the only ones that are likely to be measured against.

If however one does measure the GM and player descriptions, and further go on to match them against known data from real life- in theory I suppose you could get there. Sort of an extension of the resolution detail.

Still need that real world data in any cause in order to judge outcome realism.

Quote from: Engine;252736I concede all points.

Now, please, Brian, please, go on vacation.

Sounds like an end to our exchange.

Very well. I hope someone else takes it up from here, because it gets more interesting to my mind.

Quote from: gleichman;252743It's a yes within the bounds of the selected resolution system.

Then, it would seem, you ask for the impossible.

Quote from: flyingmice;252681Well, I agree with the above, but then I've long ago given up the search for realism and settled for verisimilitude, which, as you point out, is illusion, the opposite of realism. Still, well done verisimilitude is good enough for me. Perhaps I have low expectations...

-clash

This. To expand, more to the point I believe you can only engage people in the elements of your game. That is to say, the aspects of verisimilitude you wish to provide. Complex and tactical movement may be what a group desires and a system that provides it will be "more realistic" than one that does not. Alternatively, a skill system with detailed extenuating circumstances and detailed process for learning, losing and completing those skills may be what a different group is looking for. They would claim it is the superior system based on its realism since it speaks to their core desires in a system, their "realism".

Bill

Quote from: gleichman;252731Such 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.

Dude, seriously.  Data?  Let's slap on lab coats and disect a DnD book while we're at it.  The thing about dissection is, you might learn a lot but you've gotta kill the subject before you can learn anything.

QuoteWithout 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?

The fun is quickly getting sucked out of this discussion.

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

"You're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole!"  -Jeffrey Lebowski  

Note: I'm not saying you're an asshole.  I'm saying you're acting like Walter.  A trait I myself have been accused of in the past.

Quote from: CavScout;252748Then, it would seem, you ask for the impossible.

Yes, and that is the whole point of my OP.

Given that it's impossible to determine the true outcomes in order to measure a game system against, we're left determing were to go to next and what we can effectively do.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;252753The fun is quickly getting sucked out of this discussion.

It gets more fun if and after we're over that rather despressing hill.

Quote from: gleichman;252757Yes, and that is the whole point of my OP.

Given that it's impossible to determine the true outcomes in order to measure a game system against, we're left determing were to go to next and what we can effectively do.

It's only true if one defines a "realistic" game as one that covers every possible outcome.

Quote from: CavScout;252761It's only true if one defines a "realistic" game as one that covers every possible outcome.

Let's say that in real life, 20% of all gunshot victims die instantly (just assume it, not asserting it as true- it's part the logic that has to be followed).

How could anyone knowing that support a gun combat resolution system when one rolls a d10 for the wound effect- and none of those results come up as death?

Same if that d10 roll only came up with a 10% death rate.

BUT

One of those two are options are more realistic than the other...

Quote from: gleichman;252766Let's say that in real life, 20% of all gunshot victims die instantly (just assume it, not asserting it as true- it's part the logic that has to be followed).

How could anyone knowing that support a gun combat resolution system when one rolls a d10 for the wound effect- and none of those results come up as death?

Same if that d10 roll only came up with a 10% death rate.

BUT

One of those two are options are more realistic than the other...

Again, comes down to how one defines a "realistic" game.

I think you can have a realistic game and still assume the PCs fall into the 80% who don't die instantly from gun shot wounds.

Whether the system itself is fairly realistic or not, doesn't mean that the group will apply it in a realistic fashion.  You need to draw a distinction between how the system feels when you read it, and how it feels when a group actually applies those rules to gameplay.

Let's say a game system acknowledges that 20% of all people die instantly from gun shot wounds.  It includes an extra percentile roll to represent just such a possibility.  The GM of said game decides to do away with that roll in the interest of his group's particular idea of fun.  Does that make the system any less realistic?

I think the point is that when people say they want a realistic game, in truth they just want percieved reality.  Everyone's perception being different explains (in part) why we have so many different RPGs.

Quote from: CavScout;252771Again, comes down to how one defines a "realistic" game.

I'm really not interest in playing word games with you CavScout, so that ends our exchange here.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;252782Let's say a game system acknowledges that 20% of all people die instantly from gun shot wounds.  It includes an extra percentile roll to represent just such a possibility.  The GM of said game decides to do away with that roll in the interest of his group's particular idea of fun.  Does that make the system any less realistic?

Unless he can point to a class of people immune from death by gunshot, of course it makes it less realistic.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;252782I think the point is that when people say they want a realistic game, in truth they just want percieved reality.  Everyone's perception being different explains (in part) why we have so many different RPGs.

While I'd agree that some want a "perceived reality", I think it's a rather small amount of the total, at least for any meaning of "perceived reality" I'd use.

IMO what they want is an certain 'game experience', and I think that's a different thing completely.

Quote from: gleichman;252787I'm really not interest in playing word games with you CavScout, so that ends our exchange here.

The entire OP is a word game. You are demanding something you know can't be delivered. You've simply been called out on it.

Rule systems that are a good game is the most important criteria for me. What is a good game? The term is hard to define but basically it plays well and it is well designed. All of us have encountered games that were great and games that sucked.

The actual rules lend themselves to certain styles of play. GURPS has a style, 4th edition D&D has a style, OD&D has its own style. That will influence what I use those rules for.

I like to run and play low gritty fantasy with a touch of an epic background. So the rules I use the most often reflect that interest. In my case it is GURPS. However for superhero campaigns I like the Hero System the best. For Scifi, Traveller gets the nod. But there are system that take on they genre in their own way and people have boatloads of fun with them.

As far as realism goes, I consider a game realistic when I am faced with a situation and I can use the same judgments as in real life to achieve the same results. A good realistic game will resolve this quickly and easily. A bad one will bog you down in endless procedures.

A good genre game works the same way. Given the premises of the genre you can face similar situations, make similar decision and have similar results to the conventions of the genre. Again good genre games resolve this quickly and easily, poor ones bog down.