TheRPGSite

This is the thread I promised Engine that I'd start on Realism and RPGs.


First a side note:

To be honest, I'm not really "into it", the public calls for murder expressed in off topic has frankly cooled my interest in rpgs and the site as a whole. In addition the two recent polls I've done indicated that I'm seriously out of step with the site (something I already knew, but now I have numbers behind it indicating just "how much"), so I must ask myself why I'm wasting time here for little reason.

This this thread and the two poll comment threads will be my last posts for a while. I need a break. I often take these anyway depending upon my time requirements, and I'm entering another phase of little extra time in any event.

On to realism:

Engine made a comment in another thread that rules can and should be included based upon the concept of "realism". A assertion that I consider to be flawed at it's very core.

The first and most pressing problem is that it's nearly impossible to define "realism" in respect to common rpgs to any extent possible. To illustrate this, let's make the attempt.

Realism can be determined in one of two areas. Realism of Outcome (ROO), or Realism of Process (ROP). Ideally a perfectly Realistic game would produce 100% realistic outcomes, and do so in a way that 100% matched the real life processes that produced those outcomes.

Of the two, one would think that ROO would be the easy one, and indeed would have to be the primary one as there is little use for ROP without ROO to test against.

For example, one may reasonably claim that defining a match between perfectly equal opponents as a 50/50 outcome and determining a mechanic to reflect that (Roll d100, 1-50 opponent A wins, 51-100 opponent B wins) produces 100%).

But a bit of thought reveals this to be false, for is it not possible for both sides to lose even if the 'winner' merely dies of his wounds later?

Indeed, how much injury does the 'winner' take in gaining his victory? What percentages of losers are killed, captured, or die of their wounds later?

Upon reflection, it seems that simple 50/50 outcome contains a huge range of results which in rpgs terms are often meaningful. They can of course be ignored and one takes a hit to ROO as a result.

Any attempt to fill them in however fails to improve things at all because we lack the data to determine any of the percentages of these outcomes. I at least don't know them, do you?

Does assuming percentages (likely to be incorrect) for the various outcomes actually improve ROO, or does it merely hide the fact that realism was lost? Does including numbers for more possible outcomes improve ROO or distort it?

It seems clear to me at this point that such questions are no longer addressing realism, but is instead addressing the psychological reaction of the players. The answers are little more than illusion- the reverse of realism.

As one moves away from this simple baseline, the questions multiple vastly. How much does giving one side a different weapon (longsword vs. broadsword) alter the outcomes? What happens if one opponent is stronger but slower? However about if he has a inch advantage in reach?

Where's your data for this? Not mock or non-lethal contests please- we need real life and death combat data here for that is what is being modeled. That data just plain doesn't exist.

What claim to realism can one thus have?

Moving on to ROP, things get even worse. To have true realism of process we need to include all the influcence on the outcome, down to the least element.

I would hope that everyone here can agree that such an attempt is impossible. Thus we abstract the mechanic, including only those influences we wish to directly appear in the game.

Abstractions should be measured against outcome to defermine effectiveness- but we have no data to determine what those outcomes should be. Catch 22, and the very concept we were chasing appears further out.


And this is my starting point, but not really the end point.


Engine, since this was a response to you- do you agree or disagree with the above. Where we go from here depends in large measure upon your answer.

Quote from: gleichman;252667First a side note:

In addition the two recent polls I've done indicated that I'm seriously out of step with the site (something I already knew, but now I have numbers behind it indicating just "how much"), so I must ask myself why I'm wasting time here for little reason.

I guess my answer to this is to stop judging people. Stop constantly stating who/why someone 'makes the grade' (whatever wierd ass grade you judge people by) and who doesn't. We all make these value judgements. What sets you apart, is that you seem to start threads with the sole purpose of validating your assumptions and then stating that they have been validated.

Great, you are the chosen one, with views that are above reproach - or even challenge. Get over yourself.

Edit: Apologies to Engine, or anyone else, interested in the main thrust of the thread. If the OP is going to put barbs and stupid little rants as an aside though, then i feel justified in answering those.

Well, 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

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...

Actually I consider there to be a very serious place for realism in rpgs, but not approached from the direction attempted in my OP.

Determing realism is nearly impossible, but it's much easier to determine when something is unrealistic (especially in ROP)- and thus reject it from a design and there by improve its actual realism compared to other options.

Realism in games is the domain of computers because achieving realism has too many variables and too many considerations and too much minutae compared to the time necessary to play a tabletop RPG.  

Whenever a game has to get involved in lengthy mechanics, the gameplay stalls and players lose interest.   Abstraction grants speed and speed is necessary to maintain player focus on the game.  

However computers can increasingly handle greater and greater physics emulation at a high rate of speed so the quest for realism belongs in that realm.

Quote from: Spinachcat;252686Realism in games is the domain of computers because achieving realism has too many variables and too many considerations and too much minutae compared to the time necessary to play a tabletop RPG.  

While I agree with this with respect to approaching 100% ROP, it has little to no bearing on ROO unless the resolution is such that the 'tables' themselves become a burdern.

Abstraction of and by itself does no harm to realism.

Realistic is just a bad word.  What each group defines as realistic will vary, and what works for one may not work for another.  Put two marksman in a room to create truly realistic firearms rules and they're probably more likely to butt heads rather than cooperate or see eye to eye.

I prefer to focus on the systems that give what I feel is the best possible system for promoting suspension of disbelief and immersion.  It's highly idealistic to expect to truly present a realistic game system.  The very idea is like a gaming utopia.  Our very natures and emotions destroy perfection.  We all love at least a little chaos.

You know how HP Lovecraft wrote about terrible things that should not be known for they destroy the very fabric of the human mind?  I think he could easily have replaced cosmic horrors with utopia and the outcome would remain the same.  Not being perfect is what makes us human, and our world's imperfections is what makes it our world.

The first and largest step to utopia is the elimination of human emotions.  Likewise, the first and largest step to truly realistic gaming is also the elimination of human emotions.  Remove human emotion, everything must be reduced to die rolls and stats.  It would take a computer to GM and play a truly realistic game.

I tend to agree with the sentiment that a truely 'realistic' game will be found in a CRPG because of the complex calculations that must be done on the fly without bogging a tabletop game down.  However, IMHO when discussing tabletop RPGs, the closet thing to 'realistic' would be simulationist game systems, such as BRP/RQ and GURPS.

Quote from: gleichman;252667Abstractions should be measured against outcome to defermine effectiveness- but we have no data to determine what those outcomes should be.

This is the essence, I think, of your argument, and it is with this that I have the greatest disagreement. I think most conditions in roleplaying games can be modeled and tested with reasonable accuracy and from these models and tests realistic mechanics can be devised. Will they be flawless simulation models of all situations? Certainly not, but we would not want them to be! "That way lies Rolemaster," I believe I said once before. The sheer amount of information required to produce a flawless simulation of fantasy combat would be unlikely and certainly unwieldy. Your character sheet would need to be a thousand pages of muscle response times and whether you'd eaten breakfast and the material properties of your weapon's forge. No, thank you. If this is the realism we cannot have, I dance with glee.

Hence, statistical approximation. The ideal - for myself, that is! - is that the game be as realistic as possible without being overwhelming. This can certainly be accomplished. Doing so to the very best of our ability would be time-consuming and intensive - you're talking basically about a statistical observation of common events and some marginal level of their mitigating factors across a spectrum of skill and ability levels - but it's not impossible. Something somewhat less than that, however, is certainly achievable with much less effort.

Nearly all game systems attempt to model reality; some do so more accurately than others. Those which are more accurate, we would call "more realistic." Those which are acceptably accurate - for whatever our needs might be - we might call "realistic." Will such a game be a flawless statistical model of reality? No. It might be realistic, to some degree or another, but it is not real.

Quote from: Drohem;252695However, IMHO when discussing tabletop RPGs, the closet thing to 'realistic' would be simulationist game systems, such as BRP/RQ and GURPS.

I completely disagree, you're mistaking a complex or detailed process for realism- and that link does not have to in fact exist. IMO those games are in the end hardly more realistic than any other.

Quote from: gleichman;252701I completely disagree, you're mistaking a complex or detailed process for realism- and that link does not have to in fact exist. IMO those games are in the end hardly more realistic than any other.

That's cool, your definition of 'realistic' is different than mine. :)

Quote from: Engine;252700The ideal - for myself, that is! - is that the game be as realistic as possible without being overwhelming. This can certainly be accomplished.

And here I think we break down over a core disagreement, for I feel this impossible, certainly in our current level of knowledge.

But 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.

We can make it easier, the only interaction we're interested in is firing at each other starting on a time clue. Both must remain in a 3' circle around their starting location.

And of course, your outcomes percentages must be completely actual to real life under those assumptions.

Go for it. Let us see just how close to reality you can get.

Quote from: Drohem;252702That's cool, your definition of 'realistic' is different than mine. :)

So in your opinion, the use of complex game process is realistic, even when it produces outcomes that would not happen in reality?

Interesting version of realism you have there. Shouldn't you call that something else?

Quote from: gleichman;252709So in your opinion, the use of complex game process is realistic, even when it produces outcomes that would not happen in reality?

Interesting version of realism you have there. Shouldn't you call that something else?

Not at all, because I don't equate complex with simulationist.

Quote from: Drohem;252710Not at all, because I don't equate complex with simulationist.

Interesting then that you listed perhaps two of the most detailed and complex systems out there as your examples.

Do you have simple ones?

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.

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.

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.

For the most part, I think people don't want realistic RPGs.  If you look at the popular RPGs, they are usually far removed from realistic action.  Casting spells at dragons, superheroes, etc.  

However, among those who are interested in realism, I suspect there are a fair number who don't just want perceived reality.  Personally, I'm interested in realism apart from perceived reality.  That is, I value it if a game is different from my preconceptions and yet turns out to be realistic, because I like learning new stuff.  I'll often read non-fiction books about a subject at the same time as I'm playing or running in a related game.  (Usually this doesn't have to do with the hard mechanics of the game, but sometimes it does.)  Simply playing to preconceptions precludes learning anything from a game.

Quote from: gleichman;252789Unless he can point to a class of people immune from death by gunshot, of course it makes it less realistic.

That makes the gameplay less realistic, but not the system.  

QuoteWhile 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.

I think we just said the same thing...

All I meant was that although people claim they want realism.  What they really are after is gameplay where their brain percieves realism.  Percieved realism promotes immersion and suspension of disbelief.

Ironically discussing realistic roleplaying is unrealistic.

Quote from: CavScout;252795The entire OP is a word game. You are demanding something you know can't be delivered. You've simply been called out on it.

This is most basic truth in this thread.

Quote from: CavScout;252795The entire OP is a word game. You are demanding something you know can't be delivered. You've simply been called out on it.

This is most basic truth in this thread.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;252817That makes the gameplay less realistic, but not the system.

The system has been altered by house rule, and that altered system is less realistic.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;252817I think we just said the same thing...

All I meant was that although people claim they want realism.  What they really are after is gameplay where their brain percieves realism.  Percieved realism promotes immersion and suspension of disbelief.

No, we didn't say the same thing. I seriously hope people don't perceive D&D or Vampire for example as realism for that would be rather depressing. I suppose I can't discount it, but those certainly wouldn't be the people I'd be interested in addressing.

I would think most rpg gamers understand that the games they play aren't reality or close to reality. They likely selected them for that reason.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;252817This is most basic truth in this thread.

Sigh.

I was calling Engine out as he claimed that it was in fact completely possible. See the posts starting here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=251288&postcount=218).

The OP was picking up where that and a later exchange between us in the same thread left off. Without I wouldn't have open this one with the challenge I did.

Interesting thread. What I'm getting out of all of this is or the question is I think, "can we talk about realism in gaming in any meaningful way ?"Certainly we can use terms like verisimilitude which approximates the desired effect of realism but in an activity where most times genre trumps realism or anything remotely resembling it, what we are left with is individual preferences.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;252848Interesting thread. What I'm getting out of all of this is or the question is I think, "can we talk about realism in gaming in any meaningful way ?"Certainly we can use terms like verisimilitude which approximates the desired effect of realism but in an activity where most times genre trumps realism or anything remotely resembling it, what we are left with is individual preferences.

This ties into where I was hoping the thread would go, for I feel we can indeed talk about realism in gaming in a useful way, even with realism being a design goal.

But we have to approach it from the opposing direction from the OP and Engine's claim. Rather than asking what's realistic, it's more useful to ask what's not realistic and remove it from the game.

For example, given the following combat outcomes for the handgun duel example I used:

-Character A is hit and killed.
-Character B is hit and killed.
-Character A & B are hit and killed.
..
..
..
-A pink bunny appears and deflects the bullet.

It's very clear that the appearing pink bunny is likely very unrealistic. Even more so if it happens one in ten times during such duels.

While an extreme example, it shows that one can improve the realism of a game design by removing known unrealistic events from it. Same with those events who's chance of happening is well below the resolution of the die mechanic used to call it.

Here's where all the research Engine attempted to reach for to prove realism comes into play- not in proving realism directly, but in identifying unrealistic things that should be removed or altered in the game.

This doesn't have to be a competition.  There will be no winner.  Trophies are for people who need to be reminded they are winners.

Quote from: gleichman;252849While an extreme example, it shows that one can improve the realism of a game design by removing known unrealistic events from it. Same with those events who's chance of happening is well below the resolution of the die mechanic used to call it.

Okay for me this translates to internal consistency. Which I admit is my prefered method of determining what is "realsitic" in any given setting whatever the genre. Mechanics are an integral part of the "internal consistency" equation.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;252864Okay for me this translates to internal consistency. Which I admit is my prefered method of determining what is "realsitic" in any given setting whatever the genre. Mechanics are an integral part of the "internal consistency" equation.

Regards,
David R

I concur. Internal consistency is important to me when I lay down a design. If you violate it, you must have a good reason. That said, even this is subjective. What is consistent to one or more people may be unacceptable drivel to another.

Bill

Quote from: Drohem;252695......................would be simulationist game systems, such as BRP/RQ and GURPS.

Hello?

 Got my attention now.

How about instead of "realism" how about going with PLAUSIBLE.

 There's actually been a few game sessions....where players and I said something like "Thats maybe not realistic, but it is plausible."


- Ed C.

I love games that shoot for realism. I agree that consistent "grain", internal logic, and playably generalized rules make a better game than an overly detailed, cumbersome mess. But so few games even identify realism as a design goal anymore that I can help but root for the ones that do.

Games that can comfortably divide attention among all those things are great.

Quote from: Engine;252700The sheer amount of information required to produce a flawless simulation of fantasy combat would be unlikely and certainly unwieldy. Your character sheet would need to be a thousand pages of muscle response times and whether you'd eaten breakfast and the material properties of your weapon's forge. No, thank you. If this is the realism we cannot have, I dance with glee.

Hence, statistical approximation.

The thing is that in real life as in rpgs we have a certain degree of randomness. There are a whole swag of factors which are smaller than that randomness and will be lost in it. What I had for breakfast affects how good a shot I am, yes - but the wind and how long it is since I cleaned my weapon and the noise of battle and whether I'm being directly shot at affect it so much more that we can ignore it.

So we just deal with the big things, the things as big as the randomness. The extraordinary number of variables in reality we simulate not by listing them all, but by rolling the dice. Thus not every little thing is realistic, but the sum of it all, the feel of the game session, that's realistic. There's no feeling of "what the fuck? that was stupid!" afterwards.

Quote from: EngineNearly all game systems attempt to model reality; some do so more accurately than others. Those which are more accurate, we would call "more realistic." Those which are acceptably accurate - for whatever our needs might be - we might call "realistic." Will such a game be a flawless statistical model of reality? No. It might be realistic, to some degree or another, but it is not real.

I prefer to say that this or that campaign is... not "realistic" but realistic-themed. That is, not every detail is going to be a perfect simulation of reality, but the general themes, the feel and tone of the thing, will be realistic.

Rather than whether a sword does 1d6+1 or 1d6+2 damage, I find the behaviour of PCs and NPCs is much more important to me in the whole thing seeming "realistic". For example, take a look at the series of events  (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm)which led to the Metropolitan Police in the UK killing an innocent man. It's the sort of fuckup PCs make all the time. The exact range and accuracy of their firearms and the exact effect of seven rounds in the head aren't as important as the general theme of the story - people under pressure making mistakes.

I could easily imagine something like that as a scenario in a game session, the players sweating as they were pressed for a decision.
"Is it him? Do we move?"
"I couldn't tell... he was too far. It might be him."
"We have to know for sure. He's going into the Underground now."
"Shit... I..."
*zzzt zzzt buzzzz* "Comms are down, what are you saying? Is it him?"
"Fuck! Team Alpha, follow him!"
"He's waiting on the platform. He's carrying a backpack."
"Yes but so are thousands of others. Is it him?"
"Can't say."
etc.

That would be a realistic-themed scenario. That's something that gets into players' heads and makes them think much more than a page of stats of guns, or how fast they can run, or whatever. It's not realistic, but it has realistic themes. I think that's the best way.

Ahem, realistic in gaming doesn't mean, that it look similar to reality, but the fact, that it look like someones interpretation of what reality looks like... so in most cases for example gunfight would not look like in reality or military handbook, but like in movies, and players would still think, that it's "realistic" (unlless they are informed, but with how many people who at least read military handbooks have you played?)

No, "realism in gaming" does mean that the overall results of the game session look similar to what we see in reality.

Certainly there are players who base their ideas of reality on movies they've seen. But like teenaged boys watching pr0n and thinking that's what sex is like, they're soon disabused of that notion. If the GM and/or one or more of the players know better than the nonsense in movies, then they can sort the ignorant player out. If the whole group is ignorant then they will all be happy with a movie world, and there's no problem.

Realism is not in itself a good thing in a game. Fun is. Realistic themes can but do not always make the game more fun. We don't want it all the time.

Quote from: Fritzs;252911Ahem, realistic in gaming doesn't mean, that it look similar to reality, but the fact, that it look like someones interpretation of what reality looks like... so in most cases for example gunfight would not look like in reality or military handbook, but like in movies, and players would still think, that it's "realistic" (unlless they are informed, but with how many people who at least read military handbooks have you played?)

I would say that realistic means similar to reality -- not the same as reality, but bearing a resemblance rather than having deliberate difference.  In most cases, games aren't realistic, and deliberately so.  For that matter, most movies aren't realistic, and deliberately so.  

I'd say that nearly all of the players I've played with understand that the typical Hollywood gunfight is not realistic, and don't equate seeming like the movies with realism.  They might not have read military handbooks, and couldn't accurately say about what was wrong -- but they perfectly well understand that most movies are unrealistic.

Firstly, let's not have another realism thread where we debate what it means until the point is lost.  It's tiresome.

In ordinary life, if someone says you're not being realistic about something, we know what that means.

In ordinary life, if someone says that a desired outcome is unrealistic, we know what that means.

In ordinary life, if someone said that our ideas of likely outcomes from a firefight were unrealistic, we would know what they meant, even if we might not know what realistic outcomes were.

It's a perfectly ordinary word, I struggle to see any reason why we can't use it in its ordinary sense.

I'll post a separate post on my thoughts on the topic, this point now aside.

Right.  Firstly, Brian is right to differentiate between realism of process and realism of outcome.  Secondly, he is right that abstraction is not per se a barrier to realism.

I consider the outcomes generated in the wargame TBA realistic, it is however a highly abstracted game.  All games abstract, to do otherwise is impossible, what level of abstraction we are comfortable with is not necessarily relevant to how realistic a game is.

So, what makes a game realistic?  Quite simple really, given two or more design choices, the choice taken is that which accords most closely to potential real world outcomes.  

Let's fatten that out.  Let's say, for sake of argument (I'm making up these numbers here, they're not intended to be credible) that statistics show us that a single bullet hit has a 20% chance of killing the target outright, 30% chance of incapacitating them with death following within an hour unless medical aide is received, a 30% chance of having no immediate effect but still potentially killing them inside an hour if medical aide is not received and a 20% chance of almost no effect at all.

Now, even if that were true, it's already pretty abstract, does the size and health of the target make a difference for example?  Still, it's a starting point.

Clearly, a game in which you get hit by a bullet and cannot be killed from that one shot is not realistic on those numbers, a credible real world outcome is not represented.  Similarly, a game in which you are necessarily decreased in your effectiveness (a wound spiral system) is also unrealistic, on those numbers I just made up.

So, on those numbers, a realistic mechanic might be to simply roll a d10.  1-2 you're dead.  3-5 you're out of the fight.  6-8 you're fighting but may die later.  9-10 you're fine.  

That would be too extreme for many people, so still keeping my made up numbers (just to keep a common baseline for this thread), let's say our putative game has you roll percentile dice, on a 01 you're killed instantly, on a 2-25 you're incapacitated, 26-75 is varying ranges of incapacitation, 76-00 is you're fine.  We've lost fine but die later entirely now, we've gained a whole swathe (26-75) that don't exist in reality, and the chance of death is way low, but it's still more realistic than a standard wound spiral system with no chance of instant death or of being fine.  It's not realistic, that's an absolute we can never attain, but it's more realistic because it's looked at real data and sought to at least partly reflect them in its design choices.

Taking my example numbers for discussion again (1-2 you're dead.  3-5 you're out of the fight.  6-8 you're fighting but may die later.  9-10 you're fine), most gamers would simply not be happy with those outcome probabilities, many would consider them unrealistic (even if they were in fact broadly correct), so games have to balance player expectation and where players desire a degree of realism how much realism will be acceptable to those players.  Those choices are the essence of realistic game design, the more you choose realism over a more player comfortable outcome the more realistic the game will tend to be.

On another point, realism in rpgs is all about physical realism, rarely psychological realism.  As a teenager I encountered an rpg, I forget which, in which with each attack you rolled how many bullets you expended.  It struck me and my friends as ludicrous, profoundly unrealistic, how could you not know how many shots you were firing and why did you need say 5 bullets to hit a guy a few yards away?  I now suspect the mechanic was influenced by someone who had served in the military, but our ideas of psychological reality were far off base and something which I now suspect was quite a realistic mechanic seemed to us absurd.

That's common with attempts to model realistic psychology.  Gamers hate losing autonomy and control, but probably the most unrealistic thing in rpgs is that our characters don't hesitate to pull triggers, calmly operate on a one shot one kill policy (I believe the US Marines have to train a bit for that goal in reality) and rationally select targets and attack forms while in the middle of a life threatening encounter.

Psychologically, it's all bollocks.  I used to run tons of Gurps, we thought it realistic.  I now think that deciding on a second by second basis which part of my opponent to strike for is more fantastic than dragons, it may be physically credible (though I'm not wholly persuaded of that) but I doubt it's psychologically credible.

I now hand you over to Kyle for his willingness to kill speech, since he knows that stuff better than me, but my point is that physical realism is the choosing in design of a more realistic rather than less outcome when that choice presents, psychological realism is normally avoided entirely.

Oh, one last example.  In all rpgs I play I like there to be a chance, however small, that being knifed by a punk kid with a dagger may kill you.  In Bushido, the chance of that is 1 in 400, the kid has to roll a critical (20) and then a worst outcome on the crit table (20 again), but it can happen, one time in 400.

Is that realistic?  Not sure, probably not exactly, but however likely it is that a punk kid with a knife can kill you in real life it is possible and a game which includes that possibility (whether at a realistic likelihood or at a probability far less than realistic) will always be more realistic than one that does not, because PCs will react to that possibility accordingly.

More perhaps later.

Another thing, if someone says they want a recommendation for a realistic rpg, or that they like their rpgs to be realistic, I reckon generally they are not asking for an rpg which approaches the Platonic form of Realism.  Rather, they are saying they want an rpg which priorities realistic outcomes (usually outcomes rather than processes) in its design choices.  Unless they're a total lackwit, they will be aware that every rpg makes some compromises, but the essence of what they're looking for is in my view fairly clear.

A recommendation of Gurps might be in order, a recommendation of Cartoon Action Hour probably not.

I find it deeply frustrating how often such a prosaic request, particularly on rpg.net, is drowned in an ocean of definitional hairsplitting.

Quote from: Balbinus;252936Psychologically, it's all bollocks.  I used to run tons of Gurps, we thought it realistic.  I now think that deciding on a second by second basis which part of my opponent to strike for is more fantastic than dragons, it may be physically credible (though I'm not wholly persuaded of that) but I doubt it's psychologically credible.

Length of combat turns rarely matters. It only matters in two respects,

• how much action you get compared to someone else's movement; if they get too little movement everyone ends up toe-to-toe slugging it out, too much movement and when a grenade lands at someone's feet he can be 20 yards away by the time it goes off
  
• ticking bombs nearby
  

The rest of the time, turn length doesn't matter. It's relatively easy to settle the first issue - there's a range which is reasonable. The second scenario is pretty rare, I reckon.

I've always said that a combat round is an indeterminate period of time of 2-30 seconds which varies according to the circumstances, and people involved in a combat won't be aware of exactly how many seconds are passing.

Quote from: BalbinusI now hand you over to Kyle for his willingness to kill speech, since he knows that stuff better than me, but my point is that physical realism is the choosing in design of a more realistic rather than less outcome when that choice presents, psychological realism is normally avoided entirely.

You make it sound like I'm posting from HM Prison Maximum Security. But anyway, that's what I wrote this (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=18417&it=1) for. As for the rest of people's psychology, I think that's largely roleplaying skill, and reminders from the GM and other players. "Um... you said your guy was like X, why is he doing Y?" etc.

Oh, one last example.  In all rpgs I play I like there to be a chance, however small, that being knifed by a punk kid with a dagger may kill you.  In Bushido, the chance of that is 1 in 400, the kid has to roll a critical (20) and then a worst outcome on the crit table (20 again), but it can happen, one time in 400.

Is that realistic?  Not sure, probably not exactly, but however likely it is that a punk kid with a knife can kill you in real life it is possible and a game which includes that possibility (whether at a realistic likelihood or at a probability far less than realistic) will always be more realistic than one that does not, because PCs will react to that possibility accordingly.

More perhaps later.[/quote]

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;252945Length of combat turns rarely matters. It only matters in two respects,

I wasn't saying it mattered hugely, it's just an example of psychological unrealism, in reality people don't in fights to the death take precise second by second decisions - most people anyway.

Is that one a big deal?  Not really, for the reasons you rightly say.  But is it realistic?  No, your variable length turn is more realistic.

What I meant was that while it's unrealistic, it's unrealistic in essentially a cosmetic way. Saying that combat turns are (say) 1 second, pi seconds, 20 seconds or whatever, it's like saying that a PC's hair will be messed up after a melee. It very rarely matters.

That the authours think it matters, and that the time's so short, just shows they're geeks with the Overconfidence flaw ;)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;252945Length of combat turns rarely matters. It only matters in two respects,

• how much action you get compared to someone else's movement; if they get too little movement everyone ends up toe-to-toe slugging it out, too much movement and when a grenade lands at someone's feet he can be 20 yards away by the time it goes off
  
• ticking bombs nearby
  

The rest of the time, turn length doesn't matter. It's relatively easy to settle the first issue - there's a range which is reasonable. The second scenario is pretty rare, I reckon.

I disagree most people I know tend to view combat as one dice roll as one swing of the sword. Even when the rules say it is an abstract roll to resolve a period of combat people continually slip into thinking 1 die roll = 1 swing of the sword.

For the most recent example of this disconnect is just look at the people reaction to the various 4th edition powers that do damage even on a failed die roll.

The happiest combat round setup I encountered is one where you can go move and attack (or attack and move).  GURPS is a tad too short, D&D in various editions is too long. Fantasy Hero was good with the maneuvers printed right there on the sheet but players have difficulty using the Impulse turn chart for themselves. Not a problem for me as I am an old Star Fleet Battles grognard. Harnmaster is a good system but limited in its focus.

In the end I like GURPS the best. One people get used to the one second  combat rounds it is very easy for them to figure out what they can do.

Rob Conley

Quote from: Balbinus;252947I wasn't saying it mattered hugely, it's just an example of psychological unrealism, in reality people don't in fights to the death take precise second by second decisions - most people anyway.

No but then real combat or sports happens very quickly and you have to make multiple decisions within seconds of each other. The part that stretches out is the time between the different periods action. Basically the old "Hurry up and wait" adage.

One reason we play GURPS because one of guys gaming with my group is a Marine Gunnery Sargent and he views GURPS as the only RPG that realistic enough keep him immersed.  I find GURPS advanced seems to accurately mirror the same factors and decision points I experienced while playing sports in high school and and later doing medieval reenactments and LARP for a decade.

Don't get me wrong it perfectly OK to have 1 minute AD&D rounds. A lot of people have fun with that. But it not particularly realistic, doesn't simulates the same decisions you would be making if doing for real, and finally people wind up thinking one roll= one sword swing anyway.

The key to making a system like GURPS work is the fact it is a well designed game in of itself. The fact that Steve Jackson, a noted wargame designer, was involved made GURPS rules shine and more importantly playable. To top it off they successfully integrated two basic combat systems (skill vs skill, and the basic system) to make the game appeal to other types of gamers.

I get that combat is a big part of gaming but I much prefer the "realistic theme" approach of kyle's post than to get bogged down in a discussion about combat (Granted it seems to be the biggest factor when it comes to realism in rpgs). I mean we can deal with the consequences of violence in a realistic manner even if the combat itself isn't very realistic.

Regards,
David R

Man I hope you people are more fun to game with, because based on this conversation people like Brian must have the worst gaming groups I can imagine. Talk about lifeless, and grinding.

Quote from: estar;252956The key to making a system like GURPS work is the fact it is a well designed game in of itself.

I would completely disagree as I consider GURPS to be one of the most poorly designed rpgs ever to reach significant sales.

It's off-topic and better left to another thread, but I couldn't leave it unsaid.

That no RPG can model reality with flawless precision is not disputed. I suppose they could come pretty close to modeling reality completely incorrectly - "You fire your weapon at the guard. You turn into a daisy. From the future." - although doing so would be a strange exercise indeed. Between the two improbable or impossible extremes lies the gradient of realism: closer to a flawless model is more realistic, further from would be less realistic.

Some games seek to place themselves further from reality: in Toon, Paranoia, Two-Fisted Tales, weapon effects and physics may bear only a slight resemblance to the behavior we would expect in our own universe; this is quite intentional, and for many people, quite good fun! Like a Hollywood action movie, setting aside or diminishing reality-modeling can produce effects we couldn't possibly experience otherwise. The most we expect from such games is internal consistency; there are very few games which seek to reduce that, because most people like to have some idea of what's going to happen when they do something.

I prefer games which more closely model reality, in which someone falling a given distance will be injured approximately as much as they would in reality, for instance. While we agree it's impossible for someone to be injured in exactly the way they would in real life - particularly when you start introducing elements of the fantastic! - there is a spectrum of closeness, from a game in which anyone can fall 200 feet without injury, to games which seek to more closely model the reality of a fall by including localization and terminal velocity and suchlike.

To take this to a metaphor, let's say you wanted to built a model of a Ferrari. Now, no model of a Ferrari will precisely describe the reality of a Ferrari without actually being identical to it in size, mass, weight, and in every other way: in order to perfectly model the reality, it must be the reality. At the other end, I suppose you could build a model of a Ferrari that was quite unlike one: a daisy from the future, perhaps. But in-between, there's a graduated spectrum of realism in modeling, from a wooden board with four wooden wheels nailed to it, to a metal toy with a few components mostly in the shape of a Ferrari, to a plastic model with working rubber wheels and opening boot and doors, to a scale replica which includes every component of a Ferrari made from the same materials but at a smaller size. All are models of a Ferrari, each more realistic than the other. While none are a "real" Ferrari, all fall within a spectrum of realism.

Just as I would not say it is impossible to build a realistic model of a Ferrari, I would not say it is impossible to build a realistic model of reality in the form of a roleplaying game. Will that model be real? No, it will be a model. But between real and unreal is the spectrum of realistic, and I personally favor games which more closely approach real. Clearly, such games are not impossible.

Quote from: Balbinus;252936I consider the outcomes generated in the wargame TBA realistic, it is however a highly abstracted game.  All games abstract, to do otherwise is impossible, what level of abstraction we are comfortable with is not necessarily relevant to how realistic a game is.

I love posts by Balbinus, even when I don't agree with them. In this case, I agree with most everything so it's even better :)

I do however want to hit on the abstraction point more because it's the one place where I feel Balbinus goes slightly wrong (if in a different direction than that he was looking in) and as it was one of the key points that made me make the OP in first place.

Let's start with a very abstract combat resolution system.


System 1: Combat Strengths are compared with one's opponent and a d100 rolled to determine the final results. It's range of outcomes are rather complete- based upon real world outcomes. Sure it has it's problems as the real percentages aren't truly nailed down by real world data- but the attempt was made and it's closer to being 'realistic than not.

But it is very abstract. A single die roll giving the final outcome per character.

Example 1: Now with System 1 in place, let's imagine a group of five PCs are engaged in battle with five foes of lesser but still threatening skills. On odds, the PCs should win.

However the die rolls go badly, and the PCs end up losing the fight. All nice and fine, we know the outcome- and it was a rather realistic one. But we don't know the reason.

That because all possible reasons for losing or winning is covered and concealed by the abstraction. This is an important point and we'll return to it in a minute.

Now that abstract system used was all nice and fine, but it didn't give the players much to do besides agree to combat- and maybe not even that. Generally players want more than that to keep their interest.

IMO, the first and primary reason to insert more detailed mechanics is to provide the players with interesting choices that influence the outcome.

System 2: So let's beef up System 1 with an eye towards that. We'll put in a attack/parry core combat mechanic, roll hit locations and damage. Die rolls of various types are used to resolve these details. We'll add choices for the attacker and defenders that play off those mechanics. Let's add a battlemap with facing and movement rules. Let's put in weapon and armor options each with their advantages and disadvantages.

This system hasn't really changed the realism level of System 1, and in fact it's now introduced the need for judgement of its Realism of Process (ROP). But let's pass on that for now and assume it passes close enough to meet our needs and that the new outcomes map nicely with those of System 1.

Example 2: Now with System 2 in place, let's imagine a group of five PCs are engaged in battle with five foes of lesser but still threatening skills. On odds, the PCs should win.

One again however things go badly and the PCs lose. And one again we know the outcome, but do we now with all this detail know the reason?

The answer is no.

Oh sure, we have more stuff to point at than before. However the abstraction of the die rolls are still concealing the actual causes. Sure we know Player A missed Player B in round 4 because he rolled a 97 which resulted in a automatic counter-attack and that turned the tide of the battle. But was that because he tripped, mis-judged the distance, was overwhelmed by a second of panic, or something else? All possible reasons and there are many more- but we have no idea which one was the true cause. The abstraction of the die is concealing the true reason.


______
And this is where I move full circle back to the reason I made the OP- morale in rpgs.

No where in either System 1 or System 2 did I mention morale rules. They aren't there. However in either System 1 or System 2 the actual concealed cause may well have been a morale melt down on the part of the PCs.

Thus realism is NEVER a valid reason alone for the addition of morale rules as was claimed by some in the previous thread. It's already present and handled in the system's abstraction.

Thus this is the reason I've claimed that the only possible reason for their inclusion in a ruleset, is to control or modify the decision making of the players. And IMO, that is a poor reason in general- and an unjustifed one depending upon the genre in question.

Edit: the above was written with an eye towards PCs and not NPCs.

Quote from: gleichman;253003Thus realism is NEVER a valid reason alone for the addition of morale rules as was claimed by some in the previous thread. It's already present and handled in the system's abstraction.

I think the only true valid reason is simplicity IMO.  Then again that's my only reason for ever using morale rules.  I like them for NPCs in mass combat situations.  Then again, that's my opinion and I'm often wrong in the eyes of other people.  :)

Quote from: gleichmanThus this is the reason I've claimed that the only possible reason for their inclusion in a ruleset, is to control or modify the decision making of the players. And IMO, that is a poor reason in general- and an unjustifed one depending upon the genre in question.

That's not true.  Morale rules could be included for NPCs only to ease combat especially when managing large amounts of peons and not wanting to keep track of each individual thugs mindset.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;253013That's not true.  Morale rules could be included for NPCs only to ease combat especially when managing large amounts of peons and not wanting to keep track of each individual thugs mindset.

I was only speaking of PCs in my original statement, I'll go and edit it to make it more clear.

For NPCs, there may indeed be other reasons, although in the end those too boil down to Controlling and modifying the behavior of those NPCs.

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...

I shoot for verisimilitude as reality is wacky and unexpected. Rules don't model it well - they only model expectations and beliefs.

Seanchai

Quote from: Balbinus;252934In ordinary life, if someone says that a desired outcome is unrealistic, we know what that means.

Yeah - that it doesn't conform to their expectations.

Seanchai

gleichman: I don't think, that combat is good example, when talking about "realistic" RPG... how many times do you get into combat IRL... well, unless you are soldier or policeman or maybe mobster, there is chance, that you will never see combat during entire life... at least in first world countries. What about job related problems and relationship related problems instead of fighting in "realistic" RPGs

Quote from: Fritzs;253054What about job related problems and relationship related problems instead of fighting in "realistic" RPGs

First, I'd like to point out that (counter to the Forge), I don't consider the mere presence of a sub-system in a full featured rpgs to be the determining factor in how often or under what conditions that sub-system comes into play.

Thus if one was doing a 'realistic' game of Patrolman- The Beat, the combat system may not be used at all- but only exists because it could.

Beyond that, the advice above applies equally to anything one attempts to model in an rpg. I only focus on combat because that's my interest.

Quote from: gleichmanFirst, I'd like to point out that (counter to the Forge), I don't consider the mere presence of a sub-system in a full featured rpgs to be the determining factor in how often or under what conditions that sub-system comes into play.

That's what I call "waste of paper", I woul also like to point out, that many trad RPGs lack some subsystems, for example how often you see subsystem for stock exchange...?

Quote from: gleichmanBeyond that, the advice above applies equally to anything one attempts to model in an rpg. I only focus on combat because that's my interest.

Then I would not call it "realistic" RPG, but "RPG with realistic combat"...

Quote from: Seanchai;253038...reality is wacky and unexpected.

What do you mean by this? How is verisimilitude - giving the appearance of reality - less wacky than actual reality? It seems to me as if what one thinks is real differs from what's real, the problem is one's misunderstanding of what's real.

Quote from: Fritzs;253064That's what I call "waste of paper", I woul also like to point out, that many trad RPGs lack some subsystems, for example how often you see subsystem for stock exchange...?

I see many "wastes of paper" that turn out to be very useful indeed when they are after months of play called into use. This includes stock exchange rules published as part of the old Star Trek rpg.

Quote from: Fritzs;253064Then I would not call it "realistic" RPG, but "RPG with realistic combat"...

There is no requirement for Realism that would include those things not appearing in play anymore than realistic crash testing for automobiles include requirements for realistic testing against anti-tank weapons.

Thus I would assume that people would pick and judge systems to their own needs without tossing rather lame sideswipes at the choices of others.

Quote from: gleichmanThis includes stock exchange rules published as part of the old Star Trek rpg.

Stock exchange... in Star Trek?! WTF, isn't Star Trek commie setting...?

Quote from: gleichman;253003...
Let's start with a very abstract combat resolution system.


System 1: Combat Strengths are compared with one's opponent and a d100 rolled to determine the final results. It's range of outcomes are rather complete- based upon real world outcomes. Sure it has it's problems as the real percentages aren't truly nailed down by real world data- but the attempt was made and it's closer to being 'realistic than not.

But it is very abstract. A single die roll giving the final outcome per character.

To follow your original post as well...real world data does exist on just the ROO you seek at least with respect to the modern age.  Reems of data poured over and modeled many times.  Such data at least once was the grist of the more "simulation" based war games.   Depuy's "Understanding War" is an accesible starting point for finding this information.


Personally, I live VoO (versimilitude of outcome) with just enough detail in the mechanics to make me feel like have a variety of options and can exercise some tactics.  The kind of versimilitude I'm looking for depends on genre for me.

Quote from: Xanther;253322To follow your original post as well...real world data does exist on just the ROO you seek at least with respect to the modern age.  Reems of data poured over and modeled many times.  Such data at least once was the grist of the more "simulation" based war games.   Depuy's "Understanding War" is an accesible starting point for finding this information.

I've spent a good deal of time researching this specific matter, and while there is some wonderful data indicating some nice trends- it breaks down for individual cases (which rpgs are designed around) and is often disputed.

I do make use of the most likely trends and other good information- one can check out my website under HERO System House Rules- real world conversions.

Even so, this does not meet Engine's original realism requirements. It's only 'better realism'.

Quote from: Fritzs;253203Stock exchange... in Star Trek?! WTF, isn't Star Trek commie setting...?

Trader Captains and Merchant Princes, 1st Ed. (supplement, 1983)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_RPG_(FASA)#Supplements

The old show wasn't the commie heaven the later series were.

Quote from: Engine;252994"You fire your weapon at the guard. You turn into a daisy. From the future."

I have played games like this.

They are some of my fondest roleplaying memories, ever.

Quote from: Koltar;252878How about instead of "realism" how about going with PLAUSIBLE.

This. Trying to model an absolute Reality is doomed to failure given no one even has enough facts to discern the chances of a particular outcome for a particular situation in Real Life (a situation which hasn't actually happened in Real Life - a contradiction?) and distill a general solution for such situations into a manually-operated dice mechanic.


I think die rolls only help model reality inasmuch as the randomness represents all those factors that weren't already specified by the players before resolution. By that logic, the finer-grained a system is, to preserve verisimilitude the smaller the range and/or the tighter the bell curve of the resolving roll ought to be.

Quote from: gleichman;253331Even so, this does not meet Engine's original realism requirements. It's only 'better realism'.

And what were my original realism requirements? You made a comment earlier about them that I didn't recall having made, and I'm concerned I may have said something I later forgot, a not-uncommon occurrence. Could you refresh my memory with a link?

Quote from: gleichman;253334Trader Captains and Merchant Princes, 1st Ed. (supplement, 1983)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_RPG_(FASA)#Supplements

The old show wasn't the commie heaven the later series were.

Yes, while true - that Stock Exchange section was the most useless part of that book.

 That fictional magazine that was made "as if published in the TREK Universe" was actually the most useful thing in there for giving flavor to the universe.

Back in the mid 80s to mid 90s , I rean deveral ST campaigns using the FASA rules. I remember both the good and the bad. Hell, we had special cardboard rulers constructed just to figure out Warp Speed travel times for stories set in the Triangle.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Engine;253423And what were my original realism requirements? You made a comment earlier about them that I didn't recall having made, and I'm concerned I may have said something I later forgot, a not-uncommon occurrence. Could you refresh my memory with a link?

It's provided in a previous post in this thread.

Between me paging back to find and you, I choose you :)

Quote from: Koltar;253436Yes, while true - that Stock Exchange section was the most useless part of that book.

Different strokes, we actually have fun with it (and had little use for the rest of the book).

Our Star Fleet characters used it to save/invest for their retirement. And there were an adventure hook or two as well.

Quote from: Vaecrius;253404I think die rolls only help model reality inasmuch as the randomness represents all those factors that weren't already specified by the players before resolution. By that logic, the finer-grained a system is, to preserve verisimilitude the smaller the range and/or the tighter the bell curve of the resolving roll ought to be.

While true, the lack of data required to make really sound original random ranges combined with even more lack of data to determine how more detailed rules would impact results in that desired outcome being effectively impossible.

About all one could hope to expect is that games from the same designer would follow that basic pattern, i.e. a certain consistency of his judgement.

However I'm willing to bet that most designers have no clue that it should work this way and haven't even given the subject a first glance.

Quote from: Xanther;253322Reems of data poured over and modeled many times.

Ok, folks, I can handle grammar errors, but we are smart people around here.  One 'pores (http://www.dailywritingtips.com/poring-over-pore-and-pour/)' over a tome or data.

And a minor spelling whine:  reams.

Carry on.

Quote from: gleichman;253437It's provided in a previous post in this thread.

Between me paging back to find and you, I choose you :)

I've made the following posts to this thread: 9 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=252700&postcount=9), 16 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=252700&postcount=16), 22 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=252700&postcount=22), 25 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=252700&postcount=25), 71 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=252700&postcount=71), 80 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=252700&postcount=80), 87 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=252700&postcount=87). On reviewing them, I see nothing that would qualify as my "original realism requirements" that Xanther's post would not qualify as. Could you please let me know which of the relevant posts contains the "realism requirements" his post doesn't meet? I'm particularly concerned with how this contrasts with what you then call "better realism," since that's the only realism my requirements include, we all having agreed that absolute realism is impossible to model.

Quote from: Engine;253455I'm particularly concerned with how this contrasts with what you then call "better realism," since that's the only realism my requirements include, we all having agreed that absolute realism is impossible to model.

Just from the start of your first link alone, I've bolded certain words

Quote from: Engine;253455I think most conditions in roleplaying games can be modeled and tested with reasonable accuracy and from these models and tests realistic mechanics can be devised.

To me those words mean something closely approaching total realism. Your posts later and even at the start of this very thread give me the same impression.



You're only back away is is (again from your first link) is not the lack of certain data which is the core of our disagreement but merely that it wouldn't fit into a game:

Quote from: Engine;253455"That way lies Rolemaster," I believe I said once before. The sheer amount of information required to produce a flawless simulation of fantasy combat would be unlikely and certainly unwieldy. Your character sheet would need to be a thousand pages of muscle response times and whether you'd eaten breakfast and the material properties of your weapon's forge. No, thank you. If this is the realism we cannot have, I dance with glee.

Even here you are off base, as abstraction and Realism of Outcome can easily handle this objection at the resolution level of a game system if only the data to create those outcome (and complete acceptance of that data as correct) existed.

Quote from: gleichman;253457To me those words mean something closely approaching total realism.

They do not, to me. "Reasonable" is very different from "closely approaching."

Gleichman, what are you doing? I mean, what are you trying to do? You've said that RPGs can't be realistic, and we all agree they cannot model reality with perfect accuracy, but can model reality with varying degrees of accuracy. I don't think you even disagree with that, so what are you doing?

Quote from: Engine;253461They do not, to me. "Reasonable" is very different from "closely approaching."

Not to me.

And more importantly I maintain that you and I (or any other two people) could never come to agreement on simple elements of reality common to rpgs.

At best, we might be able to agree on what's unrealistic- and frankly even that's in doubt.

Quote from: Engine;253461Gleichman, what are you doing?

In general, closing down some outstanding threads so I can leave the site.

In specific, wondering why you re-entered this debate long after most here have seem to have accepted the view of the OP. Attempting perhaps to deny your original statements and implications due to wounded pride? Don't waste the effort, no one here cares. Least of all me.

Quote from: gleichman;253465Not to me.

Okay, but you get how I actually said it, right? You're applying your standards of semantics to my statements and using them to indict people's arguments, which just doesn't make sense.

Quote from: gleichman;253465In general, closing down some outstanding threads so I can leave the site.

Well, okay. You're not doing that great a job of it, if you don't mind my saying.

Quote from: gleichman;253465In specific, wondering why you re-entered this debate long after most here have seem to have accepted the view of the OP.

Because you were misrepresenting my statements as regarded my "original realism requirements."

And since I've already agreed with everything you've said, it can't be a pride issue: I think my view [absolute realism impossible, degrees of realism possible, higher degrees desirable to me personally] isn't incompatible with anything you've said. That's why I can't figure out what you're doing: we agree, but you keep fighting.

I want to ask you for a short, clear thesis, but that conflicts with my greater desire: to see you take some time off and recharge whatever it is that needs recharged for you to stop feeling the way you clearly do about being here. What do you need from me to accomplish that?

Quote from: Engine;253470Because you were misrepresenting my statements as regarded my "original realism requirements."

I don't believe that's the case, and I think a close reading of the record would reveal that.


But if that's true are you now willing to agree to the following statements:

1. Realism in rpg design is of itself a impossible goal for the data does not exist (or is in dispute) to even define reality that rpgs attempt to model.

2. People often disagree about the facts of reality to the point that agreement is impossible, long before they make the attempt to import them into a rpg.

3. Therefore judging the realism of a game system is impossible outside the individual.

4. It is typically easier to prove what is unrealistic, and also easier to get agreement. As a result the only meaningful move towards realism in game design is the removal of obviously unrealistic elements.


If you can agree to all four of the above points, there we are now in agreement. To me, this would represent a change in your position on the matter. I leave others to judge if that is correct or not because frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about your original intent at this point.

Quote from: gleichman;2534751. Realism in rpg design is of itself a impossible goal for the data does not exist (or is in dispute) to even define reality that rpgs attempt to model.

Definitely agreed. While the "broad strokes" of reality are pretty well-understood, the details are often not, and certainly application of the fantastic introduces elements which may well be impossible to test under any circumstances.

Quote from: gleichman;2534752. People often disagree about the facts of reality to the point that agreement is impossible, long before they make the attempt to import them into a rpg.

I think the broad strokes of reality are pretty well agreed-upon, as I said. You don't often find people debating what the value for acceleration due to gravity is, for instance. But science - that inveterate modeler of reality - is always changing, and all should be considered "in dispute."

Quote from: gleichman;2534753. Therefore judging the realism of a game system is impossible outside the individual.

This is where you lose me. If reality is unknown, judging is possible, but flawless accuracy in judging is not. This quality exists both for the individual and for the collective.

Quote from: gleichman;2534754. It is typically easier to prove what is unrealistic, and also easier to get agreement. As a result the only meaningful move towards realism in game design is the removal of obviously unrealistic elements.

I've never quite understood this issue of negative versus positive testing in realism, but I'm not sure it matters in this case. Wouldn't the removal of obviously unrealistic elements make a game more realistic? Of course, if we're wrong about what's real, then perhaps not, but all we can ever do is look at reality, judge it, and try to make the game match those judgments. Is there a chance that our perception of, say, acceleration due to gravity is incorrect? Well, certainly it's possible, but it's less likely than the other thing.

I mean, is this really a point about how the nature of reality is unknowable, so science is useless? That's where this logic leads: if reality cannot be modeled due to possible ignorance of reality, then nothing is knowable and all is uncertain, Nihil bless us everyone. And I agree with all of that, but in the context of making a roleplaying game more closely match what we perceive as being real, I don't think it matters very much.

If you want to call it "verisimilitude," because this exercise in nihilism leads us to understand that the appearance of reality may or may not match actual reality, that doesn't really bother me, but I always thought "realism" came with a nihilistic asterisk on it anyway, because it is impossible to make anything realistic, because we don't ever really know what reality is.

Still, it seems like an existential circle-jerk to me. When we talk about games being realistic, to me we must mean "matching what we know to be true about reality," which mostly isn't hugely under dispute. Like I say, you can enshrine the nihilistic asterisk by using the word "verisimilitude," but we'll have to stop ever using the word realistic, because it'll never apply.

Quote from: Engine;253494This is where you lose me. If reality is unknown, judging is possible, but flawless accuracy in judging is not. This quality exists both for the individual and for the collective.

And thus I stand by my characterization of your viewpoint.

Quote from: Engine;253494I've never quite understood this issue of negative versus positive testing in realism, but I'm not sure it matters in this case.

Of course you're unsure, you're viewpoint couldn't let you be anything else.

I believe we're done, as I have no interest in wasting my time convincing you. Simply identifying where we differ is enough to meet my own goals.

Excellent. See you when you get back!

Quote from: gleichman;253503I believe we're done, as I have no interest in wasting my time convincing you. Simply identifying where we differ is enough to meet my own goals.

What are your goals exactly?  To prove that you're different from other people without a shadow of a doubt?  To stuff other gamers of into a box and then stand outside that box pointing out how uncomfortable they must be?

Well I've got news for you, it's fun in the box.  There's a party going on with or without you, and the fact that people are willing to discuss things with you means that on some level you are obviously welcome amongst them regardless of any differences.

If you have to leave, do yourself a favor and just go.  That way when/if you do come back people won't be wondering why you made such a pronounced exit for nothing.

Have fun wherever you go.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;253531What are your goals exactly?

That was the question I asked myself after demoniod maded his public call for serial murder here, and others joined in agreement.

What exactly were my goals, what was I getting from my presence?

The polls predated the call for murder, but added their voice as well. The results were even more extreme (from my PoV) than I expected- explaining in many ways why Demonoid's post made so few waves. And explaining why so few rpg topics were of any interest to me.

In the end I realized that I was basically killing time with no specific goal other then keeping in touch with a handful of posters here. And that's not that good of a reason. And it was plain to me that I wasn't adding anything either being a minority on every issue or question.

As for making a big deal of it, it's not. The site will carry on and I'll make better use of my time. It's a benefit for both. I only make note of it so that no one is lefting wondering what happened (I for example get emails about people who just up and leave and wish to spare anyone from having to answer the same about me).

christ. always with you it's like pulling taffy. nice way to make yourself center of attention

Quote from: gleichman;253003And this is where I move full circle back to the reason I made the OP- morale in rpgs.

No where in either System 1 or System 2 did I mention morale rules. They aren't there. However in either System 1 or System 2 the actual concealed cause may well have been a morale melt down on the part of the PCs.

Thus realism is NEVER a valid reason alone for the addition of morale rules as was claimed by some in the previous thread. It's already present and handled in the system's abstraction.

Thus this is the reason I've claimed that the only possible reason for their inclusion in a ruleset, is to control or modify the decision making of the players. And IMO, that is a poor reason in general- and an unjustifed one depending upon the genre in question.

Edit: the above was written with an eye towards PCs and not NPCs.

That's what this stupid fucking thread is about? The conversation in the morale thread? Why not just pick things up where you left off? This is the only part of the thread that isn't achingly boring to me, so I'll answer this.

Realism is a valid reason to add morale rules, at least to a degree. Even if we can't perfectly simulate "reality", we can still simulate a reality. A reality where people get frightened, or bleed out from wounds, or possibly die from a single hit. Get this straight, gleichman...we weren't saying that morale automatically means you have to relinquish control over your character, but somehow you've got it in your thick head that morale must be that way.

We were not necessarily proposing that your decision-making abilities be automatically controlled or modified. We were discussing the potential of morale to influence combat effectiveness. Do you get it now?

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;253627That's what this stupid fucking thread is about?

The only thing stupid about this thread is your sudden appearance in it.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;253627Realism is a valid reason to add morale rules, at least to a degree.

No it's not, as I showed above morale is already present (in EXACTLY the way you say- i.e. not control of the character but in an impact on the outcome of the battle) within the abstraction of the game system.

The ONLY reason to include it explictly is because you wish to modify the behavior of the players.

Quote from: gleichman;253634The ONLY reason to include it explictly is because you wish to modify the behavior of the players.

Just like including rules at all in any RPG...

No reason to have skills and rules covering those skills nor having attributes and rules limiting actions based on those attributes unless you wish to "modify the behavior of the players".

Quote from: gleichman;253634No it's not, as I showed above morale is already present (in EXACTLY the way you say- i.e. not control of the character but in an impact on the outcome of the battle) within the abstraction of the game system.

No, it's really not. You're saying it's there because it's hidden by the abstraction, but that doesn't mean it's there, because the abstraction isn't in any way influenced by the character's "morale attribute," whatever that might be within the system. It's like saying you don't need a weapon speed, because initiative's already an abstraction: certainly it is, but unless the abstraction is influenced by the factor, the factor is not part of the abstraction; the whole point of weapon speed is to remove the factor from random consideration and make it dependent on characteristics of the character. Thus it is with morale.

Quote from: Engine;253655No, it's really not. You're saying it's there because it's hidden by the abstraction, but that doesn't mean it's there, because the abstraction isn't in any way influenced by the character's "morale attribute," whatever that might be within the system.

A morale attribute doesn't exist or rather is itself abstracted out UNLESS you put it in there.

So in effect you're saying that it's there because I put things in there that required it to be there. Wonderful circular logic that, I wish it was a rare thing. But wait- that's you're entire world view isn't it? Consistency is nice at least.

So Engine, how many times do you have to say bye to me and yet keep coming back to this thread?

Quote from: gleichman;253666A morale attribute doesn't exist or rather is itself abstracted out UNLESS you put it in there.

But if you don't use any attribute to determine morale, then it's not there in the abstraction, which means the morale system isn't covered by the abstraction of die rolling. If a game doesn't have weapon speed, then weapon speed isn't covered by the abstraction of combat, it's absent from consideration altogether. You can say the abstraction covers that - the random die roll standing in for dozens of such un-named factors - but unless some weapon speed factor influences the abstraction, it's not in there.

Quote from: gleichman;253666So Engine, how many times do you have to say bye to me and yet keep coming back to this thread?

Well, of the two of us, I'm the one who isn't leaving, so my further participation in this thread isn't counter-indicated. I guess the more important question would be, "hey, guy who so publicly said he's leaving, how many times are you going to keep coming back to this thread?" Or are you a Settembrini, all bold talk of leaving until it's actually time to?

Oh, sure, you can say it's just these couple of threads keeping you here, but there will always be something if you let it. This isn't a crucial issue, and nothing of import is happening in your other threads, so why don't you just say, "Fuck those people," and heave to for a few weeks or months or whatever?

Quote from: Engine;253674Well, of the two of us, I'm the one who isn't leaving, so my further participation in this thread isn't counter-indicated. I guess the more important question would be, "hey, guy who so publicly said he's leaving, how many times are you going to keep coming back to this thread?" Or are you a Settembrini, all bold talk of leaving until it's actually time to?

Oh, sure, you can say it's just these couple of threads keeping you here, but there will always be something if you let it. This isn't a crucial issue, and nothing of import is happening in your other threads, so why don't you just say, "Fuck those people," and heave to for a few weeks or months or whatever?

Well, he's stated what a special snowflake he is. He has announced how awful this place is - there's one more thing he has to do before he's off. Announce victory!

He's only followed that pattern on this board 3 or 4 times before. He's a bit like the queen - he expects us all to stand when he gets up to go.

See you next year Gleichman! ;)

Quote from: One Horse Town;253677See you next year Gleichman! ;)

You know, I'm only following the advice you yourself gave me here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=252318&postcount=38

You're ability to give that advice, and then turn around and attack me for taking it is a nice hallmark of your character.

Quote from: Engine;253674But if you don't use any attribute to determine morale, then it's not there in the abstraction

You're not serious are you? You are aware that the whole point of abstraction is to not include things right? You are aware that you're attempting to use the term in a way that I've never seen attempted before?

Quote from: Engine;253674Well, of the two of us, I'm the one who isn't leaving, so my further participation in this thread isn't counter-indicated. I guess the more important question would be, "hey, guy who so publicly said he's leaving, how many times are you going to keep coming back to this thread?"

And now in addition to making up new requirements for abstractions (i.e. it must include details for those things you've abstractions out... man, that sounds just soooo stupid to even say), you can't read?

I stated that I'd leave after this thread is (and the two poll results threads) are done. Go back to the OP and check.

Quote from: gleichman;253682You know, I'm only following the advice you yourself gave me...

But...you're not. You're saying that you're going to take it, but you still haven't taken it. Why haven't you left yet? I'd like the good gleichman back, and the bad gleichman is holding up the process.

Would it help if I didn't say anything to you for, say, 24 hours? Would you then be temporarily gone, recharging your Tolerance Drive? Or is something else holding you here, as well?

This thread really isn't about gaming any more, and doesn't belong in the Gaming Forum.

Quote from: gleichman;253684You are aware that the whole point of abstraction is to not include things right?

You're saying a morale system is unnecessary because it's reflected in the die-rolling abstraction, but unless the abstraction is based on morale in some way, it's really not. It gives the appearance of being there, yes, but unless it is effected by a morale factor, the abstraction cannot meaningfully represent morale; it just stands for "random factors," which are not specific.

Sure, you can say morale is one of those random factors, and that's cool, but morale will not actually have any effect: two characters who are identical in every way save their ability to be effected by morale will get the same results on the same die roll, meaning morale is not reflected in the abstraction. Omitting any attribute or factor which represents morale means that every character has the exact same ability to resist morale effects, which certainly doesn't meaningfully include morale, either.

Quote from: Engine;253685But...you're not. You're saying that you're going to take it, but you still haven't taken it. Why haven't you left yet? I'd like the good gleichman back, and the bad gleichman is holding up the process.

You're approaching One Horse Town's rather low level. If you think I should be out the door, the proper action is not to be posting replies to me keeping me here. It's to shutup and get out of the way.

Quote from: Engine;253690You're saying a morale system is unnecessary because it's reflected in the die-rolling abstraction, but unless the abstraction is based on morale in some way, it's really not.

By defintion the die abstraction covers all influences on the outcome of the event it covers expect for those influences directly reflected otherwise.

Thus if morale is not mechanically covered- it's abstracted into the die roll (for systems that use dice anyway).


You know, I didn't think you were this stupid. Are you refusing to understand something that simple out of spite, because I can't really imagine any other cause?

(http://imagesource.art.com/images/-/Screw-You-Guys--C11755105.jpeg)

Quote from: gleichman;253691If you think I should be out the door, the proper action is not to be posting replies to me keeping me here. It's to shutup and get out of the way.

Right, but you think you should be out the door, right? So the proper thing for you to do is to stop posting replies that keep you here, it's to shut up and get out of your own way!

But you're right: if I'm keeping you here, and I want you to go take a break, I shouldn't continue to reply. So no matter how untrue and ridiculous the things you say from now on in this thread, I'll not attempt to argue with you. I'll just say, "Lollipop," and that'll be our secret code for, "I think you're incorrect, but to dispute you would be to unfairly keep you here."

Now, that means you'll be gone today, right? This thread's all wrapped up - yes, in a lollipop sort of way, but wrapped up - the religion results thread hasn't had anything since yesterday, and the gaming style hasn't had any action since 30 September. So you're done, right? We'll see you later?

Quote from: gleichman;253694By defintion the die abstraction covers all influences on the outcome of the event it covers expect for those influences directly reflected otherwise.

Thus if morale is not mechanically covered- it's abstracted into the die roll (for systems that use dice anyway).


You know, I didn't think you were this stupid. Are you refusing to understand something that simple out of spite, because I can't really imagine any other cause?

Ok...I'll raise my hand...I'm stupid...

Let me see if I can piece this together, out loud such as it is in a forum...

Anything not called out specifically is, by definition, included in the abstraction, in most cases represented by the roll of one or more dice.

Since morale is not called out specifically in System A, it can therefore be concluded that morale it part of the abstraction.

Is that correct?

ETA: We can continue this elsewhere if that is the consensus. As difficult as it may seem, Mr. Gleichman often has, IMHO, insightful things to reveal. Nothing good is free, as they say. So if you'd like, Mr. G, I'd be happy to question yo over at my place...

Quote from: gleichman;253682You know, I'm only following the advice you yourself gave me here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=252318&postcount=38

You're ability to give that advice, and then turn around and attack me for taking it is a nice hallmark of your character.

You know you love me really.

Quote from: Engine;253697Right, but you think you should be out the door, right? So the proper thing for you to do is to stop posting replies that keep you here, it's to shut up and get out of your own way!?

I made a promise to you that I'd post this thread, and I tend to keep promises unless something changes the conditions under which they were made.

One made, I also have a implied requirement to see it through.

Quote from: Engine;253697But you're right: if I'm keeping you here, and I want you to go take a break, I shouldn't continue to reply.

I'm starting to think you need a break Engine, even when you end up saying someone else is right- first you have to attack them as you did in the first quote. If I'm right, I'm right- and that should be the end of it.

Quote from: Engine;253697So no matter how untrue and ridiculous the things you say from now on in this thread, I'll not attempt to argue with you. I'll just say, "Lollipop," and that'll be our secret code for, "I think you're incorrect, but to dispute you would be to unfairly keep you here."

Why must you comment at all? Do I really control you that much?

Quote from: Engine;253697Now, that means you'll be gone today, right?

When the thread drops to the second page after a two or three days of inactivity.

Quote from: Engine;253690You're saying a morale system is unnecessary because it's reflected in the die-rolling abstraction, but unless the abstraction is based on morale in some way, it's really not. It gives the appearance of being there, yes, but unless it is effected by a morale factor, the abstraction cannot meaningfully represent morale; it just stands for "random factors," which are not specific.

Sure, you can say morale is one of those random factors, and that's cool, but morale will not actually have any effect: two characters who are identical in every way save their ability to be effected by morale will get the same results on the same die roll, meaning morale is not reflected in the abstraction. Omitting any attribute or factor which represents morale means that every character has the exact same ability to resist morale effects, which certainly doesn't meaningfully include morale, either.

I would agree with this. An abstraction is an abstraction "of" something. That is to say, you cannot say an abstracted combat has factors of the effects of a nearby super nova because you think it should. This makes no sense. You could make the argument that hit points decreasing is a reflection of morale but then you are making unfounded assumptions on the design of the system. So, in this manner, if you wanted, you could say similarly that fatigue, armor effectiveness, and environment are all abstractions of the hit point system. However, if Constitution was a factor in determining your hit points now you would have a basis for an abstraction. With morale, you have no factor figuring into your combat effectiveness and thus it would not follow that it is a part of the abstraction.

As you say, if morale stat was present, part of a hit point calculation, this would be an abstraction. However, without any reference to morale and it not factoring into combat somewhere, it would not be an abstraction.

Bill

Quote from: One Horse Town;253700You know you love me really.

Actually there are times I really rather admire your posts. Believe it or not, reading them is one of the reasons I visit here.

Which is why a stunt like you just pulled is so disappointing...

Quote from: James J Skach;253698Ok...I'll raise my hand...I'm stupid...

You are never stupid James.

Quote from: James J Skach;253698Let me see if I can piece this together, out loud such as it is in a forum...

Anything not called out specifically is, by definition, included in the abstraction, in most cases represented by the roll of one or more dice.

Since morale is not called out specifically in System A, it can therefore be concluded that morale it part of the abstraction.

Is that correct?

Completely.

Well, there's one exception.

If it's specified up front that something doesn't exist in that setting, it can't be assumed to be covered by the abstraction. Thus if a campaign says that our heroes are always brave- morale likely isn't part fo the abstraction for them (although it could still be for the non-heroes).

In the same way, those things that aren't an influence on the outcome aren't part of the abstraction. That's rather common sense. So proper pumbing repair isn't likely to be part of a melee combat abstraction.

Quote from: James J Skach;253698ETA: We can continue this elsewhere if that is the consensus. As difficult as it may seem, Mr. Gleichman often has, IMHO, insightful things to reveal. Nothing good is free, as they say. So if you'd like, Mr. G, I'd be happy to question yo over at my place...

We may have to end up doing that although I'm not sure given some of the members of that site if it would be an improvement.

Quote from: gleichman;253705You are never stupid James.

My wife begs to differ :D

Quote from: gleichman;253705Completely.

Well, there's one exception.

If it's specified up front that something doesn't exist in that setting, it can't be assumed to be covered by the abstraction. Thus if a campaign says that our heroes are always brave- morale likely isn't part fo the abstraction for them (although it could still be for the non-heroes).

In the same way, those things that aren't an influence on the outcome aren't part of the abstraction. That's rather common sense. So proper pumbing repair isn't likely to be part of a melee combat abstraction.

OK, so there are flip sides. Could we assume that something is part of the abstraction except...

• If something is specifically called out not to be part of the abstraction.
• If something that would normally be part of the abstraction  does not come into play because of genre or setting.
• Things that aren't normally part of the outcome are not covered in the abstraction (I'm assuming unless specifically noted).
• Things that are normally part of the outcome, but are otherwise addressed with specific mechanics, are not part of the abstraction.

Is that a decent list?

Quote from: gleichman;253705We may have to end up doing that although I'm not sure given some of the members of that site if it would be an improvement.

Eh - given the traffic level there ;)

Quote from: gleichman;253701I'm starting to think you need a break Engine, even when you end up saying someone else is right- first you have to attack them as you did in the first quote.

Um, no. I made two true statements, neither of which contradicted the other, neither of which were "attacks," both of which were "right."

Quote from: gleichman;253701Why must you comment at all? Do I really control you that much?

It's strange that the guy who won't leave until we've all not said anything for "two or three days" would try to make some sort of play out of how much he controls us! :rotfl:

Quote from: gleichman;253701When the thread drops to the second page after a two or three days of inactivity.

Ah, so no one can discuss them at all, even amongst themselves, even if you're not involved. Man, it's starting to sound like you're never going to leave. Ah, and it nicely removes the lollipop clause: clever.

In that case, I'll make sure you stay a good long time.

Quote from: James J Skach;253706OK, so there are flip sides. Could we assume that something is part of the abstraction except...

• If something is specifically called out not to be part of the abstraction.
• If something that would normally be part of the abstraction  does not come into play because of genre or setting.
• Things that aren't normally part of the outcome are not covered in the abstraction (I'm assuming unless specifically noted).
• Things that are normally part of the outcome, but are otherwise addressed with specific mechanics, are not part of the abstraction.

Is that a decent list?

Points 1 and 2 are basically the same, with point 2 just specifying why something was called out to not be part of the abstraction. IMO, point 2 may be the most common reasons (for people who think about their reasons)- but that's just IMO.

Point 3 as I said is rather common sense. A abstraction should only cover (i.e. conceal) those things that influence the outcome of whatever is being abstracted. It would be sad indeed to see someone contest this.

Point 4 is correct.

I would say however that after one moves from a very general abstraction (single roll combat resolution say) to a more detailed one- that it may become difficult to determine where a certain influence is covered as those subsystems are abstractions themselves. Forrests and trees as it were. I don't feel this impacts the concept itself, but thought I should mention it.

Quote from: James J Skach;253706Eh - given the traffic level there ;)

As long as some of the people not posting there don't suddenly start posting there again :)

Engine, I can see that you're having a very hard time with this.

Would it help if I put you on ignore? I think it would be less embrassing for you when (if) you regain your senses and look back on this.

Quote from: gleichman;253703Actually there are times I really rather admire your posts. Believe it or not, reading them is one of the reasons I visit here.

Which is why a stunt like you just pulled is so disappointing...

I'm honoured (truly). I guess i'm fed up with getting the feeling that you're always running a measuring stick against folks you're talking with. Well, it's not even a feeling really - you state it pretty often too. It's as though you're keeping dossiers or something. ;)

Anyway, FWIW, you have my apology. I'm at home and bored and over the last week it's showed.

Quote from: One Horse Town;253712I'm honoured (truly). I guess i'm fed up with getting the feeling that you're always running a measuring stick against folks you're talking with. Well, it's not even a feeling really - you state it pretty often too. It's as though you're keeping dossiers or something. ;)

Anyway, FWIW, you have my apology. I'm at home and bored and over the last week it's showed.

Apology accepted, and it's worth a great deal to me.

And you're correct, I do sadly run a measuring stick. It would be better if I didn't in a way. But I do, and I'm too honest to conceal it.

Quote from: gleichman;253710Points 1 and 2 are basically the same, with point 2 just specifying why something was called out to not be part of the abstraction. IMO, point 2 may be the most common reasons (for people who think about their reasons)- but that's just IMO.

Point 3 as I said is rather common sense. A abstraction should only cover (i.e. conceal) those things that influence the outcome of whatever is being abstracted. It would be sad indeed to see someone contest this.

Point 4 is correct.

I would say however that after one moves from a very general abstraction (single roll combat resolution say) to a more detailed one- that it may become difficult to determine where a certain influence is covered as those subsystems are abstractions themselves. Forrests and trees as it were. I don't feel this impacts the concept itself, but thought I should mention it.

OK, I can get behind your comments on that list, except to not that while I agree that #3 is common sense, I still like to include it for the sake of being as thorough as possible. I also thought that, after writing it, 4 and one were close to the same - so I'll break it down a bit differently...

So I end up with a list that looks something like...

The following things are not assumed to be part of a mechanic's abstraction:

• Something normally part of the outcome but excluded directly through inclusion in a separate mechanic.
• Something normally part of the abstraction, but excluded indirectly, such as:

[LIST=a]

• genre
• setting

• Something not normally part of the outcome.

Closer?

Quote from: gleichman;253710As long as some of the people not posting there don't suddenly start posting there again :)

You know me, sir - everyone is pretty much welcome (until given a reason to be considered otherwise - which, thankfully, has yet to come up). Sometimes it helps just to get out of here for a while, I've found...

Quote from: gleichman;253711Engine, I can see that you're having a very hard time with this.

And I can see that you're having a very hard time with this. But let's stop trading barbs and discuss the issue, shall we? I'm not going anywhere, you're not going anywhere, and we're not understanding each other very well, so what the hell.

There are some factors which roleplaying chooses to abstract, by letting a die roll stand in for those factors. That die roll is generally modified by the factors of the game which aren't abstracted: your attack roll is modified by your strength, or agility, or your skill in attacking. Those static factors are combined with the abstracted factors - wind speed, acceleration due to gravity, whims of the gods - to produce the result.

Wind speed, though, isn't really meaningfully included in the abstraction: it's literally just ignored, and a die roll substituted for it and a dozen other abstracted factors. Wind speed - unless there's a mechanic for it - isn't part of the abstraction: it's "in there," but it produces no unique effect in its own part. So if you abstract morale completely - your die rolls aren't in any way influenced by a static morale factor - then it's being abstracted into meaninglessness; it has the same effect as wind speed and gravity and gods' whims: 1d20. Or whatever.

Two characters in a system in which morale is abstracted in this way - just made part of the die roll, with no static factor to change the result - could have utterly different abilities to resist morale effects but be otherwise identical, and their attack roll would be exactly the same unless you got a different die result, and that die result is an effect of out-of-game conditions, not the morale ability of the character. Morale thus abstracted is as meaningless as the wind [in a system in which wind has no static factor].

Quote from: Serious Paul;253686This thread really isn't about gaming any more, and doesn't belong in the Gaming Forum.

Naw- as of the last few posts, they got back to the actual gaming talk.


 Again, I argue its best not to worry about "realism" and instead just go with something if its plausible.  The kind of thing where in some Action comedy movies and Tv shows ...1 character says to another after a weird, but believable explanation of something:

"Yeah, I can see how that could happen"

-OR-

"Yeah, that could happen"

-OR-

"Damn! I wish I'd been there! That sounds like it was fun."


As for leaving or not leaving this forum. The cause of some of that stress just got banned, plus it was the sockpuppet of a previously banned poster. As he started the thread that gave Gleichman convcerns in the first place - I'd say problem mostly solved and everybody on here keeps posting

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;253727The kind of thing where in some Action comedy movies and Tv shows ...1 character says to another after a weird, but believable explanation of something:

"Yeah, I can see how that could happen"

Yeah, now, see, there's a style difference, right there: I hate that kind of thing! :) There's been a real trend lately in science fiction TV shows - okay, "forever" - to simply handwave aspects of realism, often when they don't need handwaved at all. Some shows have descended to a sort of sick pseudoscience: close enough in technological terms to present-day reality, shows like Eureka and Bones and Fringe and Heroes use the nomenclature of today's science without bothering to learn anything of the substance of that science. [Not that I want to give a pass to shows like Star Trek and Stargate, which just use their own made-up nomenclature and don't really pay attention to science much at all.]

Most people don't care. Hell, most people aren't going to notice! If Sheriff Carter starts talking about how "dark matter" is going to suck the town into oblivion, hey, most of the audience doesn't know what dark matter is anyway, so it seems reasonable. But it's not, and for people - like science fiction fans, I would have thought! - who know better, it's grating and painful and it's holding us back. And yes, I desperately enjoy some of these shows, despite their lack of realism, but the lack of realism prevents me from enjoying them more.

I think there's a market for entertainment that takes reality seriously, that creates dramatic situations out of realistic ones. Certainly occupational dramas have been doing [approximately] this for most of their run; CSI, for all its flaws in role and pacing, at least bothers [or used to] to get the science right, and still manages to be exciting about it.

Roleplaying is, for me, no difference. Now, some people know real martial arts is nothing like what you see in Wushu: the RPG, but they don't care, because it's fun, and that's fine. But I like realism, and my ability to suspend disbelief is dependent upon at least some fair portion of it. A game that doesn't take into account situational factors, for instance - rain, fog, high winds, broken terrain - would find short shrift with me, because those factors are important. Oh, the game can leave out the realism of the 0.00001 inch diversion of the bullet from its course due to atmospheric pressure, because that's beyond the resolution of the system anyway, and too many static factors leads to long lookup tables that I don't like much.

Quote from: James J Skach;253715So I end up with a list that looks something like...

The following things are not assumed to be part of a mechanic's abstraction:

• Something normally part of the outcome but excluded directly through inclusion in a separate mechanic.
• Something normally part of the abstraction, but excluded indirectly, such as:

[LIST=a]

• genre
• setting

• Something not normally part of the outcome.

Closer?

Those work.

The only hang up is with item #1 as mechanics that cover an influence are in turn abstractions and in a system with a number of mechanics it may be come difficult to tell what influences are covered by what abstractions- but I also think it's unnecessary for the most part.

So, yes. I think those work.

Engine,

 That kind of lines happens even in non-Sci-Fi movies.

THE BLUES BROTHERS:

QuoteElwood: I traded it.
Jake: You traded the Bluesmobile for this?
Elwood: No, for a microphone.
Jake: A microphone?
[pause]
Jake: Okay I can see that. What the hell is this?
Elwood: This was a bargain. I picked it up at the Mount Prospect city police auction last spring. It's an old Mount Prospect police car. They were practically giving 'em away.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;253727Naw- as of the last few posts, they got back to the actual gaming talk.

It's been a mix, and it's my fault. I didn't want to make a new thread of it, but did want to inform certain people, and didn't expect it to derail this thread.

I should have used a PM, and the whole problem would have been avoided (although I'd worry about missing people). The error is completely mine.

But most of it has been game related IMO.

Quote from: Koltar;253727Again, I argue its best not to worry about "realism" and instead just go with something if its plausible.

I'd go you one further, it's best not to worry about anything unless that's one of your defined goals.

Realism may will be a defined goal. IMO making that your primary goal would be a serious mistake, but it's one people make for whatever reason. My advice is that when one does make this error, it's better to focus on removing unrealistic elements than it is to attempt to model realism directly due to lack of data and agreement.

And never ever brag about the realism of your game. That never turns out well.

Quote from: Koltar;253727As for leaving or not leaving this forum. The cause of some of that stress just got banned, plus it was the sockpuppet of a previously banned poster. As he started the thread that gave Gleichman convcerns in the first place - I'd say problem mostly solved and everybody on here keeps posting

I gave that serious thought when I saw the banning. However it was for the crime of being a sockpuppet, not for a public call to murder. Meanwhile there were a number of people who echoed that call and/supported it in abstract. So my concerns about the nature of the site was not address.

Plus one should remember, I'm having time pressures behind this and need to turn my attention elsewhere in any case.

Quote from: James J Skach;253706OK, so there are flip sides. Could we assume that something is part of the abstraction except...

• If something is specifically called out not to be part of the abstraction.
• If something that would normally be part of the abstraction  does not come into play because of genre or setting.
• Things that aren't normally part of the outcome are not covered in the abstraction (I'm assuming unless specifically noted).
• Things that are normally part of the outcome, but are otherwise addressed with specific mechanics, are not part of the abstraction.

Is that a decent list?

You are technically building an assumption not an abstraction. An assumption frames an abstraction and I believe that is where the confusion is coming from. An abstraction cannot be assumed to be inclusive without the framing assumptions. So, if it is an abstraction of combat, you may well have morale as an assumption of that abstraction, but only the designer would know. Morale may have no function within the abstraction or may be core to it but as observers of the final system, we cannot know what is included or excluded unless there are precedents or leading factors (things like a morale stat). Otherwise, you are making your own assumptions and applying them independent of design. This leads to faulty analysis. This is also Engineering 101.

Bill

Quote from: Engine;253723And I can see that you're having a very hard time with this.

No, I'm having a very easy time with this. It's yourself that's getting tied up in the concepts.

For example, you state a correct thing in one sentence

Quote from: Engine;253723There are some factors which roleplaying chooses to abstract, by letting a die roll stand in for those factors.

and then break it by in the next sentence saying something silly in the next:

Quote from: Engine;253723That die roll is generally modified by the factors of the game which aren't abstracted: your attack roll is modified by your strength, or agility, or your skill in attacking.

I'm sorry, but those modifiers are also an abstraction. The baseline hasn't been changed. You've only pointed out that designers added mechanics to highlight elements of the abstraction by giving those elements their own abstraction.

By confusing this you pass on a much more interesting exchange- what elements can and should be so highlighted? What reason drives what answers?

Let me try to explain it another way:

The outcome X of a game design can be expressed as the sum of it's abstraction mechanics (M1, M2, ....).

Let's assume that for the goals of the design, a single die roll table result produces exactly the desired results. It has one abstraction mechanic- a single die roll against some sort of results matrix. The abstraction contains all possible influences on the outcome. This example can be expressed as follows:

X = M1

This mechanic contains all possible influences upon the outcome by defintion.

Now, add all the sub-mechanics you wish for whatever you wish that's one of the influences. Strength, Skill, Height & Weight, etc.

The new system can be expressed as:

X = M2 + M3 + M4.... + Mx

With each of the values of M being their own abstractions in turn. The thing is, unless you've altered the value of X- the following must hold true.

M1 = M2 + M3 + M4 ....+ Mx

Given that M1 contained all influences upon the outcome, so must M2 + M3 + M4 ....+ Mx.

Thus the lack of any subsystem in M2 + M3 + M4 ....+ Mx does not indicate that any specific influence is now missing. It is in fact impossible for that to be the case.

Quote from: gleichman;253634The only thing stupid about this thread is your sudden appearance in it.

The only thing stupid about this thread is your continual pseudo-intellectual fappery. If you're gonna leave, then leave. If you're gonna stay, then stay...but please spare us the lamentations of the poor, persecuted gleichman. You could have sent PMs to the parties you wanted, and quietly left the site, without performing this "drama queen" song and dance. Honestly, if we keep this thread going for three years, will you stay the entire three years, and whine, "But they kept me here! I promised not to leave until the thread was over! I alwayses keeps me promises!"

Quote from: gleichmanNo it's not, as I showed above morale is already present (in EXACTLY the way you say- i.e. not control of the character but in an impact on the outcome of the battle) within the abstraction of the game system.

The ONLY reason to include it explictly is because you wish to modify the behavior of the players.

You showed Jack Shit about morale, and Jack left town. All mechanics have an impact on the outcome of a battle. If we take your silly statements to their logical conclusion, then you'd be forced to admit that all game mechanics modify the behavior of the players.

Comprende?

Sacrificial Lamb there is no requirement that put up with you. Everything you posted has been covered in the posts since the one you answered.

You've presented nothing but unfounded (and frankly rather stupid) claims and insults, and I'd rather deal with more interesting people than such as you. So into the ignore list, you bore me.

And at least Engine never did that.

Quote from: gleichman;253754No, I'm having a very easy time with this.

No, you're having a very hard time with this. Also, I'm rubber, and you're glue. Seriously, can't we do this without the little asides and rejoinders?

Quote from: gleichman;253754I'm sorry, but those modifiers are also an abstraction. The baseline hasn't been changed.

We've got two levels of abstraction: the die roll, which doesn't include any static factors, and the modifiers, which include static factors. The modifiers do change the baseline to which the die roll is added [or subtracted from, or whatever, depending on your system].

Quote from: gleichman;253754Let's assume that for the goals of the design, a single die roll table result produces exactly the desired results. It has one abstraction mechanic- a single die roll against some sort of results matrix.

In this example, is morale included in the results matrix, or is it simply included in the die roll? If it's only included in the die roll, it's not meaningful, because no amount of morale effects the eventual roll, correct?

Quote from: gleichman;253754Thus the lack of any subsystem in M2 + M3 + M4 ....+ Mx does not indicate that any specific influence is now missing. It is in fact impossible for that to be the case.

If X is the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers, and there is no modifier for morale, X is not modified by morale: that specific influence has no effect on X.

Let's look at this in a similar fashion. If X is the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers, and Y is the die roll itself, and Mx are the modifiers:

X = Y + Mx

If Y, as a variable, is determined only by the die roll, and no M stands for Morale, the value of Y is unchanged by varying morale conditions: it is solely determined by the out-of-game factors controlling the die roll.

The only way to make Morale alter X is to make it an M which is added to the resolution. Now, maybe you don't want Morale, in which case it's fine being random, but if you want a morale system in your RPG, it must be a static factor [an M] and cannot simply be considered Y, because that's just the die roll.

Now, if you can show how morale can change the value of Y - not just the value of X, which can include changed static factors - then yes, morale is meaningfully included in a system without specific static factors for M, but I don't know how a character's bravery or lackthereof can influence a player's die roll.

Quote from: gleichman;253762Sacrificial Lamb there is no requirement that put up with you. Everything you posted has been covered in the posts since the one you answered.

You've presented nothing but unfounded (and frankly rather stupid) claims and insults, and I'd rather deal with more interesting people than such as you. So into the ignore list, you bore me.

And at least Engine never did that.

Does it really matter if you ignore me? You're "leaving", remember?

Quote from: Engine;253772No, you're having a very hard time with this. Also, I'm rubber, and you're glue. Seriously, can't we do this without the little asides and rejoinders?

As soon as you start making sense.

For example:

Quote from: Engine;253772We've got two levels of abstraction: the die roll, which doesn't include any static factors, and the modifiers, which include static factors.

The original example M1 did not have modifiers. You've added something that wasn't there and then went on to claim all sorts of things that had no relationship to what I was saying.

Stop for a moment inflicting your viewpoint on my examples, and read them without the bias you're insisting on and free of any conclusions. Indeed, even for the moment assume it's true, ask yourself why you're not seeing it- play your own devil's advocate.

You may be surpised at the result.

Quote from: gleichman;253775As soon as you start making sense.

You, first. Nah, nah, nah.

Quote from: gleichman;253775The original example M1 did not have modifiers. You've added something that wasn't there and then went on to claim all sorts of things that had no relationship to what I was saying.

I can't help but notice you don't make any comment at all about the truthfulness of what I'd said. In fact, you've not really addressed anything I've brought up for quite some time, in favor of demeaning it and then repeating something you've said previously in a different way.

Yes, your original M1 had no modifiers. That's why I said, "Let's look at this in a similar fashion," and not, "I'm using all your variables to mean what you meant," which I couldn't do, because you hadn't specified your variables particularly well.

Quote from: gleichman;253775Stop for a moment inflicting your viewpoint on my examples, and read them without the bias you're insisting on and free of any conclusions.

Dude, seriously, how do you not expect me to say the same thing back to you? You're quite set on what you believe, and anything that doesn't agree with what you believe, you completely ignore it. So stop inflicting your bias on my examples, and read them without the bias you're insisting on.

Quote from: gleichman;253775Indeed, even for the moment assume it's true, ask yourself why you're not seeing it- play your own devil's advocate.

You're not getting it, because you're not listening, and even when you're listening, you're not letting anything you hear change your mind, because you're absolutely convinced not only of the rightness of your position, but also of your own desperate need not to lose this argument, which is ridiculous since it doesn't need to be an argument at all. Your demeanor and your lack of any attempt to question or understand other views tells me everything I need to know about your behavior, and it doesn't surprise me at all.

See, you're not the only guy who can be a dick in an argument. I just don't see how doing it has helped us. Why not let's stick to the issue, and take the bullshit personality crap out of it?

gleichman, even though you've probably put me on your ignore list, and thus will never read this post, I'd like to offer you an apology for so obnoxiously snapping at you. I've been unnecessarily snippy lately, and there's no good excuse to be that way even when people strongly disagree. My apologies, sir...

Quote from: Engine;253777I can't help but notice you don't make any comment at all about the truthfulness of what I'd said.

I'm sure you believe what you're saying...

Quote from: Engine;253777In fact, you've not really addressed anything I've brought up for quite some time, in favor of demeaning it and then repeating something you've said previously in a different way.

Yes, your original M1 had no modifiers. That's why I said, "Let's look at this in a similar fashion,"

And here you prove that you've done what you just accused me of.

And I did look at it that way, that's the "M2, M3, M4....Mx" series. The difference was that I showed how they related and you dropped the ball completely.

Quote from: Engine;253777Dude, seriously, how do you not expect me to say the same thing back to you?

I didn't expect anything else. Makes me rather sad to be proved right however.

Quote from: Engine;253777See, you're not the only guy who can be a dick in an argument. I just don't see how doing it has helped us. Why not let's stick to the issue, and take the bullshit personality crap out of it?

It hasn't helped us.

Help me believe that doing something else actually would.

Quote from: gleichman;253779I'm sure you believe what you're saying...

And you believe what you're saying. So the best way of finding out which of us is right, if either, is to look at the information, and discuss it.

X is the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers.
Y is the die roll.
Mx are the modifiers.

Thus: X = Y + Mx

If Y, as a variable, is determined only by the die roll, and no M stands for Morale, the value of Y is unchanged by varying morale conditions: it is solely determined by the out-of-game factors controlling the die roll.

Do you agree with that? If not, please show how two character's different morale abilities are influencing X. If two characters have different morale abilities, but these do not change X, then the effect of morale is not modeled in the system, but ignored in favor of a random value determined out-of-game.

So, what's the matter with gleichman's leaving this site...? Is he leaving or what? I don't quite get it...

Quote from: Fritzs;253781So, what's the matter with gleichman's leaving this site...? Is he leaving or what? I don't quite get it...

He says he's leaving when this thread, the RPG style results thread, and the religion results thread have all gone 2 or 3 days without comment, and have dropped off the front page.

Quote from: Engine;253780And you believe what you're saying. So the best way of finding out which of us is right, if either, is to look at the information, and discuss it.

It won't work.

Quote from: Engine;253780Do you agree with that?

I assume here that you're not addressing my model and refuse to do so. Thus in the interest of being a nice guy (no promise that it will last), I must ask for the following:

Define X for me.

Quote from: gleichman;253784Define X for me.

X is the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers.

Y is the die roll.
Mx are the modifiers.

Thus: X = Y + Mx

Quote from: Engine;253788X is the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers.

Y is the die roll.
Mx are the modifiers.

Thus: X = Y + Mx

Yes, I understood that. Is that all it is?

(I'm doing baby steps here for a reason)

Quote from: gleichman;253791Yes, I understood that. Is that all it is?

Yes, X is only the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers, at least in any game I can think of. I mean, there's the random stuff you get from dice [Y], and that goes together with the various specific stuff on your character sheet and in the rules [Mx], and gets you X, the final result. Is there a factor determining X I've forgotten, something beyond what's on your character sheet and in the rules, and what you roll?

Quote from: Engine;253793Yes, X is only the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers, at least in any game I can think of. I mean, there's the random stuff you get from dice [Y], and that goes together with the various specific stuff on your character sheet and in the rules [Mx], and gets you X, the final result. Is there a factor determining X I've forgotten, something beyond what's on your character sheet and in the rules, and what you roll?

Is not X a range of possible outcomes?

Reality is an idea created by humans who far from perfect and all insane to varying degrees.  I reject your sense of reality and replace it with one of my own.  You're the only normal person in the world, we're all nuts and it's up to you to fix us with your wisdom.  Unfortunately I like being broken.

Quote from: gleichman;253779I didn't expect anything else. Makes me rather sad to be proved right however.

It doesn't make you sad, since you started this topic your tone has been nothing but "I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it."  Mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong or right, just saying you would be unable to admit to any ounce of defeat since you only started this topic completely sure of your own superiority.  This isn't a discussion, it's a lecture and I'm convinced that no argument would be good enough to even make you bend on your own percieved omnipotence.

It's sad because you obviously have a lot to say on the subject of RPGs and if you'd just lighten up a bit your point would probably come across as less the will of god, and more like constructive views worth reading.

It sounds like you don't even want people to see your side.  You actually want them to disagree with you so you can do your best to point out how wrong they are.   The only thing that's sad here is the fact that you do it about RPGs which have a foundation of personal preference and individual perception.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;253774Does it really matter if you ignore me? You're "leaving", remember?

Except, you and I both know he is not.

Quote from: HinterWelt;253751You are technically building an assumption not an abstraction. An assumption frames an abstraction and I believe that is where the confusion is coming from. An abstraction cannot be assumed to be inclusive without the framing assumptions. So, if it is an abstraction of combat, you may well have morale as an assumption of that abstraction, but only the designer would know. Morale may have no function within the abstraction or may be core to it but as observers of the final system, we cannot know what is included or excluded unless there are precedents or leading factors (things like a morale stat). Otherwise, you are making your own assumptions and applying them independent of design. This leads to faulty analysis. This is also Engineering 101.

I'd agree with this.  I'd also note that how well the abstraction works depends on whether there are established facts in the game that break the abstraction.  For example, if you don't have a hit location system, then you are breaking the abstraction if you specify unequal armor coverage and what wounds are like.  For example, someone's armor is specified as a helmet only, and you state in-game that a given wound is on the head.  

With regards to morale, it seems to me that there are plenty of factors that would affect morale that are often specified in the game.  For example, the presence or absence of leader figures.  Killing the enemy leader should have a morale effect, but could have no different effect than killing an underling.  That would be parallel to being mechanically able to specifically target the head, but then finding that a head shot is no different than a limb shot.  

Some morale effects can certainly be role-played by the GM and/or players, and one can assume that the effects average out, but it is an assumption.

Quote from: gleichman;253797Is not X a range of possible outcomes?

Absolutely. Because Y is a range of outcomes - say, 1 through 20 - X can be a range of outcomes as well. Mx will produce some range of outcomes depending on the situation and on the static factors from which it is derived. Once Mx is determined - "your modifiers add up to 7" - the only thing left is the die roll: once that's made, Y is determined for this case - "you roll a 12" - and X "collapses" to a single, specific value: in this case, 19. But before you actually "run the algorithm," the value of X is a range of outcomes, from [the minimum result of Y + the minimum result of Mx] to [the maximum result of Y + the maximum possible Mx].

Now, if Morale - for instance - is assigned an M value, X will depend on the value of Morale. If Morale is assigned to the Y value - abstracted by the die roll, and not with a static factor - X will not depend on the value of Morale, because Y takes nothing into account other than the result of the die.

Quote from: Engine;253812Absolutely.

Good.

Quote from: Engine;253812Because....

Don't jump ahead please or we're end up back where we were.

So X is a range of possible outcomes, upon this we agree.


May I for this exchange define X as the range of All Possible Combat Outcomes?


btw, for this I'm ignoring all posters except for you (edit: and James. I'll always answer James). I intended this thread for you after all.

Quote from: gleichman;253816May I for this exchange define X as the range of All Possible Combat Outcomes?

Well, it should work for things other than combat, too, but you and I both usually go there when success tests come up, so that doesn't really bother me. Aside from that caveat, yeah, it should be, right? It's the minimum possible of both values to the maximum possible for both values, so it would be the complete range of outcomes. [Until the algorithm's run and it stops being a variable and starts being a result, of course.]

Quote from: Engine;253819Well, it should work for things other than combat, too, but you and I both usually go there when success tests come up, so that doesn't really bother me. Aside from that caveat, yeah, it should be, right? It's the minimum possible of both values to the maximum possible for both values, so it would be the complete range of outcomes. [Until the algorithm's run and it stops being a variable and starts being a result, of course.]

Good. We're still in agreement.

So far we have X = Y + Mx, where X equals  the range of All Possible Combat Outcomes.


Please define Mx for me.

"Mx are the modifiers." To expand, M is the sum of - not necessarily addition, but the end result of whatever crazy equation you build - all static factors. This is your strength bonus, the penalty for firing through mist, injury modifiers, and, in some systems, your emotional state, or "morale." In other systems, emotional states are assigned to Y, the die roll.

Quote from: Engine;253822"Mx are the modifiers." To expand, M is the sum of - not necessarily addition, but the end result of whatever crazy equation you build - all static factors. This is your strength bonus, the penalty for firing through mist, injury modifiers, and, in some systems, your emotional state, or "morale." In other systems, emotional states are assigned to Y, the die roll.

Would it be fair than to phrase this as "The sum of explicit mechanics in the system"?

Absolutely.

Quote from: Engine;253824Absolutely.

Excellent. We're still in agreement.

So far we have X = Y + Mx

Where X equals the "range of All Possible Combat Outcomes"
And Mx equals the "The sum of explicit mechanics in the system"

At this point we have no choice as to what Y represents.

X - Mx = Y

What would you phrase as the meaning of Y?

Before the algorithm is run, Y is "the range of possible die rolls." After it's run, Y is "the result of the die roll."

Quote from: Engine;253830Before the algorithm is run, Y is "the range of possible die rolls." After it's run, Y is "the result of the die roll."

Too focused on what's rolling on the table, and not what the variables mean.

X = Y + Mx

"range of All Possible Combat Outcomes" = Y + "The sum of explicit mechanics in the system"

Y = "range of All Possible Combat Outcomes" - "The sum of explicit mechanics in the system"

Agreed?

Would another way of phrasing Y be "The sum of non-explicit mechanics in the system"?

Are there any non-explicit mechanics which are not the die roll? I know "die roll" is part of the set of non-explicit mechanics, but I'd like to know what else is in the set.

Quote from: Engine;253842Are there any non-explicit mechanics which are not the die roll? I know "die roll" is part of the set of non-explicit mechanics, but I'd like to know what else is in the set.

I would say not, your selected expression only has three variables and two of those have been defined. Everything else affecting the outcome must exist in the remaining term.


Edit: In practical terms, that means all non-explicit influences must exist in the die roll.

I can imagine other influences, GM and players over-ruling the mechanics and/or the die roll for example. But I would call those out of scope because we're concerning ourselves with only the game system here and its abstractions.

Then, those caveats in mind, it's reasonable to consider Y = die roll = "The sum of non-explicit mechanics in the system."

Excellent, then we're still in agreement.

"The Range of All Possible Combat Outcomes" = "The sum of non-explicit mechanics in the system" + "The sum of explicit mechanics in the system"

Shown as: X = Y + Mx

Y = X - Mx

Y/X = (X - Mx)/X

Y/X = X/X - Mx/X

Y/X = 1 - Mx/X

This version of the expression gives the percentage importance of the "The sum of non-explicit mechanics in the system".

Now for battles of no advantage, i.e. those were all the values of Mx taken together equals zero, this is the resulting influence of Y.

Y/X = 1 - 0/x
Y/X = 1

Or the effect of "The sum of non-explicit mechanics in the system" is 100%, i.e. completely determinative.

As advantage is gained by the explicit mechanics, this 100% will drop. At it's most extreme, Mx will will become completely determinative. In real terms, this happens when the total modifiers to the die will max the result matrix no matter the roll of the die (edit: individual systems may or may not be capable of this).

Thus one may say that either Y or Mx may be determinative in direct inverse of the other- with Y being solely determinative at equal encounters and Mx being solely determinative at vastly unequal encounters.

Agreed?

Okay, so all you're saying is if the explicit mechanics have no effect - there are either no static factors, or they end up with a net result of zero - then the result is solely determined by the die roll. And if for some reason the total sum of Mx is greater than that necessary for success, then the die roll is meaningless: if your target number is 10, but your total Mx is already 15, you succeed, no matter the die roll [unless there's some sort of penalty for rolling a one, for instance, or some sort of benefit for extraordinary success].

I agree with that. If X = Y + Mx, and Mx is 0, then X = Y. If X = Y + Mx, and Mx is greater than the threshold for success, X still equals Y + Mx, but the extra bit of Y is unnecessary. [With the exceptions for rolling 1 and for extraordinary success, of course; if those mechanics aren't present, then X can usefully equal Mx, because Y is extraneous.]

So, yes, provided I'm understanding the thrust of your argument, we're agreed.

Quote from: Engine;253952So, yes, provided I'm understanding the thrust of your argument, we're agreed.

It appears we're still on the same page.

Let's talk about the nature of Mx. I believe we can in all reason say that Mx may vary in its rate of change (and thus the significance of its change) between designs.

For example, one may use a D100 system with modifiers like 1%, or one may use a D100 system with modifiers like 5%. It would be clear that the rate of change of Mx would be higher in the latter than in the former.

Agreed?

Quote from: jhkim;253807I'd agree with this.  I'd also note that how well the abstraction works depends on whether there are established facts in the game that break the abstraction.  For example, if you don't have a hit location system, then you are breaking the abstraction if you specify unequal armor coverage and what wounds are like.  For example, someone's armor is specified as a helmet only, and you state in-game that a given wound is on the head.  

With regards to morale, it seems to me that there are plenty of factors that would affect morale that are often specified in the game.  For example, the presence or absence of leader figures.  Killing the enemy leader should have a morale effect, but could have no different effect than killing an underling.  That would be parallel to being mechanically able to specifically target the head, but then finding that a head shot is no different than a limb shot.  

Some morale effects can certainly be role-played by the GM and/or players, and one can assume that the effects average out, but it is an assumption.

To be certain, but one cannot assume (without some sort of indicator as you mention) that an aspect is part of the design. For example, if you look at Iridium (my game) I do not mention weapon speeds anywhere in the rules. They are not part of the explicit rules. However, they are represented by different weapons having different numbers of attacks in a round. There, you can then make the observation that weapon speeds are a part of the design.

The problematic issue in such analysis is whether you bring your own assumptions or merely observe the system and comment on what is there. To assume an aspect is built in as an "abstraction" may be correct or it may be incorrect since you cannot know unless you consult the designer (or there are tells as you have sited).

Bill

Quote from: gleichman;253954Let's talk about the nature of Mx. I believe we can in all reason say that Mx may vary in its rate of change (and thus the significance of its change) between designs.

Absolutely. Think of D&D 3.5e, for instance: usually it assigns a sort of generic +2 modifier for lousy conditions. A system could be identical in all ways, but offer a +4 modifier for lousy conditions. Certainly the influence of Mx can vary drastically, from wildly unrealistic ["Climbing in the rain is 3000 percent more difficult"] to vaguely realistic ["Climbing in the rain is 300 percent more difficult"]. Matching your Ms to reality's Ms is the tough part, and, as we've agreed, precise parity is not only "tough," it's "impossible."

Quote from: Engine;253958Absolutely.

Great, we're doing quite well. And I really liked total f your answer as well.


Now let's review Y and Mx just a bit more.

It would seem clear that in a ideal world with infinite processing ability and knowledge- all possible influences on the outcome could be contained in Mx and made explicit. Y in such a case would be 0.

And it would seem clear that if one was only concerned with outcomes, that all possible influences could be contained in Y, and left non-explicit. Mx in such a case would be 0.

We can also say that between these two extremes one may split the influences between Y and Mx in any way. The only requirement (per our agreements above) is that all influences must be included.

Agreed?

Quote from: gleichman;253959It would seem clear that in a ideal world with infinite processing ability and knowledge- all possible influences on the outcome could be contained in Mx and made explicit. Y in such a case would be 0.

Definitely. There's no need for the random, uncertain element, if you can manage to explicitly include everything.

Quote from: gleichman;253959And it would seem clear that if one was only concerned with outcomes, that all possible influences could be contained in Y, and left non-explicit. Mx in such a case would be 0.

That would leave all factors in the hand of a single random, out-of-game factor. I mean, if you just want a random outcome, a die roll is as good a way to get it as any, but that means absolutely nothing about the modeled reality is being included in the outcome: the outcome will be determined exclusively by real-world factors.

If that's what you mean, then yes, you can leave Mx at zero, and let X = Y, but let's be clear that the result will have nothing to do with any in-game factors whatsoever.

Quote from: gleichman;253959We can also say that between these two extremes one may split the influences between Y and Mx in any way. The only requirement (per our agreements above) is that all influences must be included.

Oh, you can assign any factor you'd like to Y, but that factor now ceases to meaningfully impact the game: it is abstracted to nothingness, since it [and every other non-explicit factor] will be determined by out-of-game factors [the die roll]. But yes, you can, indeed, split the factors between Y and Mx; it's just anything you assign to Y disappears into the singularity of "non-explicitness."

Quote from: EngineDefinitely. There's no need for the random, uncertain element, if you can manage to explicitly include everything.

Which is imposible, so there is allways need for random element.

Quote from: Fritzs;253967Which is imposible, so there is allways need for random element.

Absolutely. I think about the only point on which there's been no contention is that no model of reality can ever be perfectly accurate; I don't want to omit the possibility that some philosophical or technological means will be developed someday, but today at least, a "perfectly realistic" RPG simply cannot exist.

Quote from: Engine;253964That would leave all factors in the hand of a single random, out-of-game factor. I mean, if you just want a random outcome, a die roll is as good a way to get it as any, but that means absolutely nothing about the modeled reality is being included in the outcome: the outcome will be determined exclusively by real-world factors.

Here's our breakdown.

Where in all this was any definition of "In-Game"? It appears nowhere in our expression and our agreed definitions. Indeed if anything, reviewing our past posts its seems clear that everything was in-game from start to finish.


Now if you wish to claim that the die roll is and of itself in no way represents or stands-in for in-game events... well you may do so. I have no control over what you wish to claim or not.

To me, on its face this is an absurdity. And all our exchange has done is to identify an unbending point of disagreement over a concept very basic to game design.

Is this actually your position?

There is no "realism" only good emulation of genre.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;253985There is no "realism" only good emulation of genre.

RPGPundit

If I wanted an idiot to come in and make comments, I would have sent an PM inviting you.

Quote from: gleichman;253977Where in all this was any definition of "In-Game"? It appears nowhere in our expression and our agreed definitions.

It's definitely not something we've talked about yet. Well, I've talked about it, but you're right that it doesn't appear in any of our agreed-upon definitions, because you haven't talked about it at all. Still, I've mentioned it pretty much every time we talked about Y.

Quote from: gleichman;253977Now if you wish to claim that the die roll is and of itself in no way represents or stands-in for in-game events... well you may do so.

The die roll represents and stands-in for in-game events, but as I've discussed previously, it does so with no regard for the in-game qualities of those non-explicit factors.

If Y = "the die roll" = "the sum of non-explicit factors," then all non-explicit factors will be determined by the die roll, as per our agreed-upon definition. The die roll is influenced by no explicit factors, because it consists of only the non-explicit factors, as per our agreed-upon definition. And the die roll is influenced by no in-game factors, because Conan can't reach out of our imaginations and roll the die for us.

The die roll will thus be influenced exclusively by real-world factors, correct? This would mean the sum of all non-explicit factors is determined exclusively by the out-of-game influences that determine the die roll.

edit:

This was in your edit, so I didn't address it:

Quote from: gleichman;253977Indeed if anything, reviewing our past posts its seems clear that everything was in-game from start to finish.

Leaving aside the number of times I've talked about exactly this issue, how could the result of the die roll come from in-game? It's...you know, a die roll.

Y = "the sum of all non-explicit mechanics"
AND
Y = "Nothing but out of game influences"


Yeah, right.



Engine, we've reached the end of our exchange. Sadly it ended much as I thought it would, which is why I don't attempt this online. Nothing has changed except that if anything I'm even more disappointed in you.

Time to re-open my replies to anyone else not on my IL (except Pundit, him I may or may not pause to insult). But I doubt there is much more to say.

Quote from: Engine;253993Leaving aside the number of times I've talked about exactly this issue, how could the result of the die roll come from in-game? It's...you know, a die roll.

And it's out-of game people applying the explicit modifiers according to their judgement. I see no difference, and not reason to define one as in-game and the other as not.


I'm not interested in playing this sort of game. Thank your for your effort.

Quote from: gleichman;254002Y = "the sum of all non-explicit mechanics"
AND
Y = "Nothing but out of game influences"

Yeah, right.

Why not? Look, we've established that Y is the die roll: it's in the definition we agreed on. The sum of all non-explicit mechanics is determined by the result of the die. The result of the die is not determined by anything in-game, right?

Now, if you can show how the die roll is determined by something in-game, then that's something, but otherwise, Y equals the result of the die roll, as we've both agreed. That doesn't mean Mx isn't interpreted, as you said above, by some out-of-game factors: it is, indeed. But we're talking about Y, and Y is determined solely by out-of-game factors.

I'm not sure why that should be a problem. I can't help but feel you abruptly came up against a chain of logic that led elsewhere than you intended. I notice you don't try to gently show where the logic has gone wrong, you simply turn ad hominem and bolt. Now, we can be done, and you can go away, and that'll be that, or you can show me how the result of the die roll is determined by in-game factors.

Does this mean you are leaving now?

Quote from: gleichman;253986If I wanted an idiot to come in and make comments, I would have sent an PM inviting you.

Wow, still so sore about how I kicked your ass in the last argument that you aren't even going to try in this one, huh?

"pundit is a big fat poopyhead" is really the sum of all your rhetorical ability and wisdom... pretty fucking sad.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Engine;254007I'm not sure why that should be a problem. I can't help but feel you abruptly came up against a chain of logic that led elsewhere than you intended. I notice you don't try to gently show where the logic has gone wrong, you simply turn ad hominem and bolt.

If it was logic, I would continue.

But it's not, it pure definition. You've decided to call a roll of a dice as not in-game, but to call players applying modifiers and mechanics per their judgement as in-game.

Feel free to show your logic for such a thing if you wish.

Quote from: RPGPundit;254009Wow, still so sore about how I kicked your ass in the last argument that you aren't even going to try in this one, huh?

"pundit is a big fat poopyhead" is really the sum of all your rhetorical ability and wisdom... pretty fucking sad.

RPGPundit

First, there has never been an ass kicking by you of anyone. I really don't think you're capable of it unless it has already been done by another.

Second, You're not worth any effort on my part other than simple insults. That gets rather boring quickly, and then I just manually skip reading your posts.

In Stone Horizons, during the adrenalin fuelled combat, wounds result in a penalty to your dice pool - after the combat is over, that penalty is doubled. Folks tend to react to non life threatening injuries after the fact of receiving them - in the moment when your life is still threatened, such considerations are lessened...or you bolt. Fight or flight. That's obviously my judgement call on realism, but i thought i'd share.

Quote from: gleichman;254010You've decided to call a roll of a dice as not in-game...

It's not. The die doesn't even exist in-game. The roll of the die is definitely completely out-of-game, and stands for the effect of non-explicit mechanics.

Quote from: gleichman;254010...but to call players applying modifiers and mechanics per their judgement as in-game.

Actually, what I said was, "That doesn't mean Mx isn't interpreted, as you said above, by some out-of-game factors: it is, indeed. But we're talking about Y, and Y is determined solely by out-of-game factors." So, no.

Quote from: Engine;254018It's not. The die doesn't even exist in-game. The roll of the die is definitely completely out-of-game, and stands for the effect of non-explicit mechanics.

And explicit mechanic aren't abstract stand-ins for in-game influences who's use is completely in hands of players.

Yeah sure.

The only different between dice and explicit mechanics is one is ruled by people and the other is ruled by gravity and physics. Is this the basis of your claims?

And by the by, stop making end result claims and present your logic you so bragged about. Otherwise we're done.

Quote from: gleichman;254026And explicit mechanic aren't abstract stand-ins for in-game influences who's use is completely in hands of players.

Yeah sure.

Mx, the set of explicit mechanics, is indeed a stand-in for in-game influences. The usage of those mechanics is in the hands of the players and GM. I don't dispute that at all. Again, "That doesn't mean Mx isn't interpreted, as you said above, by some out-of-game factors: it is, indeed." So we agree regarding that.

But we were talking about Y. Can you show that the die roll is determined by any factors that exist in the game, that the result of the die roll - Y - depends on some factor within the game?

Engine, I denied (and continue to deny) your end Conculsion. I don't agree that there is a significant difference between dice and explicit mechanics such to define one as in-game and the other as not.

Therefore the proof is yours to make.

Suggest common ground, get agreement, proceed with logic thereafter.

Stop avoiding the question. Can you show that the die roll is determined by any factors that exist in the game?

Quote from: Engine;254047Stop avoiding the question. Can you show that the die roll is determined by any factors that exist in the game?

So you're refusing to use a logical argument from a point of agreement? I wish it was unexpected.

I don't believe that any thing "existing" in-game determines anything, for in-game does not exist. Explicit or not. Die or modifier. In-game is an after the fact creation.

You're asking me to prove that which I don't believe, and which isn't necessary for what I've outlined before this.


Edit: by the way, this a very different definition of in-game than the one I normally use.



Suggest common ground, get agreement, proceed with logic thereafter. You're on the edge of ranting.

Quote from: gleichman;254054So you're refusing to use a logical argument from a point of agreement?

No, you're refusing to answer a question, and I don't know why. Stop trying to show why the answer isn't important, and just answer the question: you may proceed to explain why it's not important later.

Quote from: Engine;254062No, you're refusing to answer a question, and I don't know why. Stop trying to show why the answer isn't important, and just answer the question: you may proceed to explain why it's not important later.

I won't attempt to prove something I don't believe. See my last post.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. Actually, I kind of wish you'd stop trying to prove anything: just answer the question, as I have done several times now for you. If something about it is unclear, please feel free to ask for clarification, but all I want to know is if the die roll is influenced by any in-game factors, yes or no.

You said my use of "in-game" was unfamiliar, so if that's troubling you, I can spell it out more: what I mean is if anything from the characters' world determines the die roll, or if the die roll is exclusively determined by factors from the players' world.

Quote from: Engine;254066I'm not asking you to prove anything. Actually, I kind of wish you'd stop trying to prove anything: just answer the question, as I have done several times now for you. If something about it is unclear, please feel free to ask for clarification, but all I want to know is if the die roll is influenced by any in-game factors, yes or no.

I answered that, I don't believe ANYTHING is determined by in-game factors.

Quote from: Engine;254066You said my use of "in-game" was unfamiliar, so if that's troubling you, I can spell it out more: what I mean is if anything from the characters' world determines the die roll, or if the die roll is exclusively determined by factors from the players' world.

The character's world does not exist, it determines nothing.

And this is a really strange definition for in-game. Can you pick something else?

Maybe it is this "in-game" versus "out-of-game" nomenclature that's causing the hold-up, but I'm not sure what else to call it.

Let's grab a random M2, which is "strength." You're chopping some fellow's head off, and we want to know how far into his neck you get, so we add your strength through an explicit mechanic that says, "add your STR bonus to any damage test." Cool. Now, M2 is determined by something that's not real, absolutely: the character isn't real. But within the character's world, that character has a strength, and in our world, we assign some number to that. So M2 - a real-world variable - is determined by the in-game-universe strength of the character. Similarly, M3 - wind speed - is determined by a real-life GM, but represents an in-game-universe wind speed. Is this nomenclature better?

Y is different, though: Y represents a ton of in-game-universe factors, all of the ones that aren't explicit, but the means for determining Y takes place entirely in real-life: no specific in-game-universe factor is assigned to Y, because Y is just a placeholder for "everything we don't have an M for." That's very different from M2, which is a number on the sheet, or M3, a value assigned by the GM. Y represents things, by definition, which are never given an explicit value within the game universe.

Is that more clear?

Quote from: Engine;254073Is that more clear?

No. You're still playing with shadows for all I can tell.

I am starting to laugh at you however, one who denies God defending the independent existence of a fantasy world. It's rather rich.

1st rule of Fight Club - Off-Topic stays in off-topic. :)

Quote from: One Horse Town;2540791st rule of Fight Club - Off-Topic stays in off-topic. :)

:)

Good point.

Quote from: Engine;254073Let's grab a random M2, which is "strength." You're chopping some fellow's head off, and we want to know how far into his neck you get, so we add your strength through an explicit mechanic that says, "add your STR bonus to any damage test." Cool. Now, M2 is determined by something that's not real, absolutely: the character isn't real. But within the character's world, that character has a strength, and in our world, we assign some number to that. So M2 - a real-world variable - is determined by the in-game-universe strength of the character. Similarly, M3 - wind speed - is determined by a real-life GM, but represents an in-game-universe wind speed. Is this nomenclature better?

Y is different, though: Y represents a ton of in-game-universe factors, all of the ones that aren't explicit, but the means for determining Y takes place entirely in real-life: no specific in-game-universe factor is assigned to Y, because Y is just a placeholder for "everything we don't have an M for." That's very different from M2, which is a number on the sheet, or M3, a value assigned by the GM. Y represents things, by definition, which are never given an explicit value within the game universe.

Is that more clear?

I'm struck by the fact that they both represent the very same things, however. The M variables are explicitly represented while the Y variable is "everything we don't have an M for." Which is fine.

Y and M have the same source - the representation of some in-character, in-game-universe factor. Y simply bunches all of the ones for which so specific attempt is made to model, while M's are specific, modeled approaches.

In both cases you're talking about something in-game-universe being modeled or abstracted to represent something from an out-of-game-universe perspective. It's just that in the case of M we try to model something in a particular way, while for Y we do not (for various possible reasons).

Therefore, the only difference between them is that the out of game universe abstraction in the case of M is a specific number, while the out of game universe  abstraction of Y is represented by a random number.

Quote from: gleichman;254075I am starting to laugh at you however, one who denies God defending the independent existence of a fantasy world. It's rather rich.

Right. When I say, "not real, absolutely," I clearly mean "exists independently." :rotfl:

You're clearly done discussing this, hung up somewhere on "within the game universe" and "in the real world," even though obviously both of us know what those things mean. Something else has dumped you out of this conversation - my guess is that it has something to do with eventual conclusions regarding Y and Morale - and that's fine with me.

So are you out of here, then, or are you still hanging out until no one's commented to this thread for a few days? Anyway, best wishes on your time off; provided we don't all drive to Uruguay and get Pundit so drunk he can't type anymore, we'll all be here when you get back.

Quote from: James J Skach;254082Therefore, the only difference between them is that the out of game universe abstraction in the case of M is a specific number, while the out of game universe abstraction of Y is represented by a random number.

Absolutely. That's precisely it. The reason any of that matters is that unless something is stated explicitly, this means it can have no effect on the result [X]: we say the die roll represents morale, but there's never any morale stated! Really what we're doing is not including morale, and using the die roll to stand in for all of the things we're not including. So you cannot say, "This system models morale" if "morale" is modeled with Y, because Y is never based on anything other than the roll of the die, which is unaffected by anything that might be true about the character. Happy, sad, angry, whatever, the die roll will be exactly the same.

Quote from: James J Skach;254082I'm struck by the fact that they both represent the very same things, however. The M variables are explicitly represented while the Y variable is "everything we don't have an M for." Which is fine.

Y and M have the same source - the representation of some in-character, in-game-universe factor. Y simply bunches all of the ones for which so specific attempt is made to model, while M's are specific, modeled approaches.

Exactly.

And this matches the common definition of in-game (which is basically the same as in-character, but expanded) that I've seen before, i.e. those things visible and known to the characters (as a whole, including NPCs).

Thus a character 'sees' a wall (drawn on the battle map) and the rippling muscles of his foe (both explicit mechanics), and knows the result of this attack roll (non-explicit mechanic) for the round.

Granted, he may not 'know' the exact reason for his failure to hit (unless we define it in a very highly detailed random result mechanic), but he doesn't know all the imperfections of the wall either (unless we define them in a very highly detailed explicit wall description).

Both are obviously in-game to me, just as their actual source for being at all is obviously not in-game.

Meanwhile not in-game is using knowlege the character doesn't have, but the player does.

But what use are common meanings in a Internet debate?

Quote from: Engine;254084You're clearly done discussing this, hung up somewhere on "within the game universe" and "in the real world," even though obviously both of us know what those things mean.

I don't have much of a clue as to what you're attempting to say. Every other sentence appears in logical conflict to me, which of course means that your attempts to define the viewpoint aren't helping.

Perhaps you should start at the begining and actually, you know prove your point?

What common ground do we have, what agreements can we reach, and can we get to your end world view through logic?

Quote from: Engine;254087So you cannot say, "This system models morale" if "morale" is modeled with Y, because Y is never based on anything other than the roll of the die, which is unaffected by anything that might be true about the character. Happy, sad, angry, whatever, the die roll will be exactly the same.

Sure you can, for the die rolls includes all possible states about the character (except those defined by the explicit mechanics).

The math of it was clear, and you agreed to it. Are you backing out now?

Yes, absolutely.

Quote from: gleichman;254089What common ground do we have, what agreements can we reach, and can we get to your end world view through logic?

Sorry, man, but we tried doing that. It was nice while it lasted, but it came apart in a hurry. We could do it all over again, but neither of us will be surprised by the result.

That's classic - an "Exactly" and an "Absolutely." I should call it a day after getting that!

But here's the things:

While we can say that Y models morale in that it models everything not explicitly called out by an M, I'm unsure why that in any way precludes us from calling out a specific M, say Mr, to represent Morale (or some set of things we need to represent Morale).

But that probably belongs in the other thread about morale.

Quote from: James J Skach;254095That's classic - and "Exactly" and an Absolutely. I should call it a day after getting that!

Pity he edited it away.

Quote from: James J Skach;254095But here's the things:

While we can say that Y models morale in that it models everything not explicitly called out by an M, I'm unsure why that in any way precludes us from calling out a specific M, say Mr, to represent Morale (or some set of things we need to represent Morale).

But that probably belongs in the other thread about morale.

Sadly that's where I wanted to go, into why people include something in Mx and why they may leave it in Y. It touches everything, not just morale.

Because that's the interesting conversation to have.




Another one is which side of the expression (X = Y + Mx) games are designed according to.

I happen to think that one should first define X (the desired outcomes for you systems) and then design explicit and non-explicit mechanics to reach that end result. However I think most games are designed solely around Y and Mx mechanics and end up with whatever they end up with.

Quote from: gleichman;254096Pity he edited it away.

No, he meant the other "absolutely," from my reply to him. The "Yes, absolutely," I edited out was the one for you, before I decided you deserved better treatment than what I give Jackalope [who is usually the target of my famed dismissive "Yes, absolutely"]. I mean, we might not be seeing eye-to-eye at the moment, but you're no Jackalope. ;)

Quote from: Engine;254097No, he meant the other "absolutely," from my reply to him. The "Yes, absolutely," I edited out was the one for you, before I decided you deserved better treatment than what I give Jackalope [who is usually the target of my famed dismissive "Yes, absolutely"]. I mean, we might not be seeing eye-to-eye at the moment, but you're no Jackalope. ;)

I take as worse treatment, because your new post conceals the fact that you recanted your earlier agreement.

In the very post you reference, you state:

Quote from: Engine;254097The reason any of that matters is that unless something is stated explicitly, this means it can have no effect on the result [X]:

Thus X = Mx and only Mx


Meanwhile, in this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=253788&postcount=154)

You yourself claimed that was not the case, and even expounded upon it in following posts. The very starting point was the one you defined.

Quoted here:

Quote from: Engine;253788X is the eventual result of the die roll + modifiers.

Y is the die roll.
Mx are the modifiers.

Thus: X = Y + Mx

Clearly Y has an affect on the outcome...

...until you changed your mind.

Gleichman, I'm actually done, in case you hadn't noticed.

Quote from: Engine;254104Gleichman, I'm actually done, in case you hadn't noticed.

You're done when you stop posting, not before.

And I did warn you this would go poorly and not to the end you desired.

Fair enough. You may even have the last word:

Well and good.

I'm open to any questions or replies (except for those on my IL and Pundit), and am also willing to let this drift off into the void as do most things of this world.

Quote from: gleichman;254012First, there has never been an ass kicking by you of anyone. I really don't think you're capable of it unless it has already been done by another.

Second, You're not worth any effort on my part other than simple insults. That gets rather boring quickly, and then I just manually skip reading your posts.

Pretty pathetic, Gleichman.  You got your ass kicked over at the Morale thread, and now you can't even do more than roll over and show your underbelly here. Of course, I don't expect too much from the likes of a pathetic loser who threatens to leave forever whenever he sees things don't go his way.  Too bad no one gives a fuck if you stay or not, right?

RPGPundit

Do you know what? (and this comes as a bit of a surprise to me, if i'm completely honest). I'm quite missing Gleichman already, even though we seem to disagree about almost everything in the universe. :D

Quote from: One Horse Town;254444Do you know what? (and this comes as a bit of a surprise to me, if i'm completely honest). I'm quite missing Gleichman already, even though we seem to disagree about almost everything in the universe. :D

Come on over to my house, baby. :D

Quote from: James J Skach;254446Come on over to my house, baby. :D

I hope you've got a camp bed.

Quote from: One Horse Town;254451I hope you've got a camp bed.

Dude, I've got extra rooms!

Quote from: One Horse Town;254444Do you know what? (and this comes as a bit of a surprise to me, if i'm completely honest). I'm quite missing Gleichman already, even though we seem to disagree about almost everything in the universe. :D

Don't worry, it will pass. If that fails, you can always go watch the Jim & Brian Show®! ;)

Bill

Quote from: James J Skach;254460Dude, I've got extra rooms!

Is that an empty nest thing?

Kids move out and you think you'll lover the absece of noise ....then after a month the silence got to you?



- Ed C.

Quote from: HinterWelt;254500Don't worry, it will pass. If that fails, you can always go watch the Jim & Brian Show®! ;)

Bill

I'd prefer the Jim & Bill & Brian & Dan & everyone-under-the-sun show...but...I understand. :)

Quote from: Koltar;254640Is that an empty nest thing?

Kids move out and you think you'll lover the absece of noise ....then after a month the silence got to you?

Nah - I'm just interested in what the various ways are that people approach this stuff; how they come to their conclusions, how they design, etc.

We've got some amazing, creative people here and I just try to help them get along even when they want to fight. So maybe the analogy works on some levels :D

Quote from: James J Skach;254661I'd prefer the Jim & Bill & Brian & Dan & everyone-under-the-sun show...but...I understand. :)

Well, there's only some things that i find interesting, that current thread isn't really one of them.

Quote from: One Horse Town;254662Well, there's only some things that i find interesting, that current thread isn't really one of them.

Fair enough, though I wasn't focusing on that thread (though  I can definitely see how it would be interpreted as such ;) )

Quote from: James J Skach;254663Fair enough, though I wasn't focusing on that thread (though  I can definitely see how it would be interpreted as such ;) )

Go tell me what you want then!

Quote from: RPGPundit;254187Pretty pathetic, Gleichman.  You got your ass kicked over at the Morale thread, and now you can't even do more than roll over and show your underbelly here. Of course, I don't expect too much from the likes of a pathetic loser who threatens to leave forever whenever he sees things don't go his way.  Too bad no one gives a fuck if you stay or not, right?

RPGPundit

In his favor, Pundit, he does create conversation--- or would you prefer to argue only with Forgies? Further, why the vitriol? You'd be better off using a canned response: "And nothing of value was lost." Certainly that would be a suitably memesy rejoiner to "Do Not Want."

Me? I don't have a dog in this hunt, since I refuse to think about pseudo-mathematical formulae describing conversations. Yeah, I think role-playing is irreducibly always conversation... unfortunately, that may put me in the social contract crowd. :(

Quote from: James J Skach;254661I'd prefer the Jim & Bill & Brian & Dan & everyone-under-the-sun show...but...I understand. :)

I think there is at least one poster who is unhappy when I post there. ;)

Bill

Quote from: FASERIP;254688Me? I don't have a dog in this hunt, since I refuse to think about pseudo-mathematical formulae describing conversations. Yeah, I think role-playing is irreducibly always conversation... unfortunately, that may put me in the social contract crowd. :(

I would not say that or more to the point I would be grouped with you most likely. I believe you can create equations that describe RPGs but not with high school algebra. More to the point though, these equations are of very little utility and usually add up to nothing more than "a+b=c". It is FAR more useful and practical to look at it in terms of "What should I include in my modifiers" or "What result do I want? 50% to hit? 25% to hit? a range?". So, yeah, I think we would be heretics in some people's worlds. ;)

Bill

I'll happily join you in heresy. I find equations quite useful, in their place, and if we needed to discern the precise relation between two factors within the roleplaying game, I'd gladly go algebraic, but in instances like this thread, I think it's just confusing. Better to go with prose, to describe and question, than to artificially stuff pseudo-math into things. And that's not to denigrate Brian; I think it does help him, so I'll happily join him in pseudomath when he desires, but for my part, I prefer the precision of carefully-worded prose to the elemental compression of X = Y + Mx, which doesn't usefully - to me - describe the reality of roleplaying any better than, "Your result is your modifiers and your die roll."

Quote from: Engine;254706I'll happily join you in heresy. I find equations quite useful, in their place, and if we needed to discern the precise relation between two factors within the roleplaying game, I'd gladly go algebraic, but in instances like this thread, I think it's just confusing. Better to go with prose, to describe and question, than to artificially stuff pseudo-math into things. And that's not to denigrate Brian; I think it does help him, so I'll happily join him in pseudomath when he desires, but for my part, I prefer the precision of carefully-worded prose to the elemental compression of X = Y + Mx, which doesn't usefully - to me - describe the reality of roleplaying any better than, "Your result is your modifiers and your die roll."

It doesn't for anyone. It's just a misunderstanding of what math does and how. It'd be one thing if he was using symbolic logic (it'd be strange but mildly relevant), but he just makes this shit up wildly to provide an impression of pseudo-precision. Another example would be when he explicitly redefines what people have said to mean what he wants them to be saying.

This is directly relevant to roleplaying in that Gleichman also has his homebrew Age of Heroes game which is needlessly mechanically complex and which is so because he feels a compulsion to pretend at precision where little is possible.

We should take this as a warning, and follow Aristotle's advice to treat each topic or subject with the precision it deserves, no more or less.