TheRPGSite

I fully realize that these are, generally, games based upon fictional worlds, events, characters, phenomena, etc. But I've always liked a higher degree of realism in my games, mostly along the lines of equipment, social structures, economics, and so forth to better engender a feeling of familiarity amongst the players, thereby making the fantastic elements that much more interesting and esoteric. To me it brings more awe to the game table and encourages more player(character) involvement in the world.

I like the weapons, armour, and other equipment to be familiar and make sense from both a design and mechanics standpoint. Maybe it is just my obsession with history and authenticity as a re-enactor/interpreter or the fact that I make medieval weapons and tools for a living, but I want shit to look and perform realistically. I'm not sure about anyone else but huge warhammers made of stone, ungodly massive swords that weigh 10 or 15 pounds, and even daggers that weigh a pound just drives me bug nuts.

So am I alone in my obsession, or are there other nutty bastards out there?

I tend the to enjoy RPGs that have a one to one correspondence between what the character can do or can be and the mechanics. That the mechanics are well designed with the minimum amount of detail to achieve this.

This is slightly different then being 'realistic' as it can be used to depict unrealistic elements like super powers.

It varies.

These days, anything with any degree of realism I tend to run with some variant of BRP/RQ, and for S&S fantasy or pulp fantasy I gravitate towards original D&D or 1e AD&D.  (I can't say I feel much pull towards "high fantasy," lately.)  Even in my D&D, though, I don't go in for 15 pound swords and ahistorical warhammers and ridiculous spiky armor and such.

I should also note that a lot of my need for "realism" need gets fed by war games, rather than RPGs.

In a fantasy setting. Depends on the setting and how near or far it is from the source.

That said. AD&D is mostly real world equipment, and to a slightly lesser degree so is 5e.

The rest really depends on what you are working to accomplish. Too much "realism" in a fantasy RPG can kill it dead for one, or enhance for another.

A more realistic setting where you only have fighters and rogues and no magic or monsters could be very interesting. Or very boring. Its been tried before many times.

And one players idea of realism may not be so realistic after all. See Pundits failure in the Dungeons thread.

I tend to favor the other spectrum,  my fantasy games need to be a bit larger than life or else 8th tends to run a bit boring. Fantastic weapons and weapon styles quickly come to mind here. Then when we get into the actual mechanics, I really enjoy more narrative direction than, say, simulation.

Now that's not saying I'm not in favor of any "realism" because I'd prefer Armor as DR and to use Vitality/Wounds instead of the abstract BP system most games use and I do expect similar weapons like longswords, bows, axes, and maces. I'm just not hung up on the mace looking exceptional or the longswords having a weird design that's maybe not practical

If I'm interested in realism, I'll be using an RPG like Rolemaster or Runequest, rather than try to make a less realistic game like DnD to be realistic.

These days, I run DnD, which is not at all realistic, but a hell of a lot of fun.

I used to run and play a lot of Rolemaster and Runequest.
The MRQ2, Legend and RQ6 edition of Runequest are the most realistic yet for Runequest, but they're much slower than DnD.
You need the right type of players to enjoy RQ in general, whereas with DnD anyone can just pick it up and play.

Internal consistancy over realism

There was a time that I was a bit obsessed with 'realism' in my gaming... but happily I've relaxed since then.
What I want now is an internal consistency... a 'unified bullshit theory' for how and why certain implausible things happen.
Like... dragons bug me because they have six limbs when most large earth critters have 4. So I need a reason, even if just in the back of my head, why they break the mold... so if I set up that they're from some other world... and there is a whole ecosystem full of 6-limbed relatives for them (and that they're not at all related earthly reptiles)... then I'm OK. I also want to keep them relatively small because of the whole wingspan/flight issue. It's not like I delude myself that I'm designing 'realistic' dragons... just that I've squelched the bits that stood out as most ridiculous to ME and let's me get on with it.
Same for magic... I want some sense of how it works... and for spells to line up with that. A feeling that there are some rules and limitations... that it's not purely wishful nonsense, while remaining mysterious and unpredictable.

I dislike the argument that just because it's 'fantasy' that such concerns should be of no concern. And like always gets said, the fantastic bits feel all that much more fantastic if the rest of it feels nailed down and believable.

Quote from: Simlasa;804277Like... dragons bug me because they have six limbs when most large earth critters have 4. So I need a reason, even if just in the back of my head, why they break the mold... so if I set up that they're from some other world...

You arent the only one to come up with the "from another world" angle on dragons. I think it was Dragon Magazine that bounced a simmilar idea around. But not just dragons. It took the idea to all the multi-legged creatures in D&D.

Dragons, Displacer Beasts, Aurumvorax all have 6 limbs. I think it included the Basilisk too which is usually depicted with 8 or legs. Possibly the Pegasus as well. All hailing from the same world where 6 was the norm rather than 4.

Quote from: jibbajibba;804276Internal consistancy over realism

Yeah, I'd go with that. I enjoy bit of sophistication and consistency in the characters (player and NPCs) motivations and actions, at least as defined by genre conventions. And it's nice when plots don't have too many holes in them.

I have little interest in historical, economic or scientific accuracy. If anything cheesy, B-Movie science enhances my enjoyment of a game.

If something exists in the real world I expect it to behave the same way in a game setting. Things that don't exist in the real world I am willing to be far looser in my standards. If a game tells me a two-handed sword weighs fifteen pounds, that bugs me.

It depends on the RPG.

I do not expect realism when I play Teenagers From Outer Space or Star Wars, internal consistency is nice though. I expect enough realism when I play Traveller that my suspension of disbelief is not destroyed.

Quote from: jibbajibba;804276Internal consistancy over realism

I like both. Internal consistency is a must, and the more realism the better, as far as I'm concerned. Not least because the latter tends to make the former easier to do, and more credible.

Things like ten pound swords and cities structured like 1890 London rather than 1290 London used to bother the shit out of me.

After 37 years of pissing into the wind, I've given up.  D&D is just a dumb game and I enjoy it for itself, dumbness and all.

For me, realism takes a back seat to Rule of Cool, Rule of Psychedelia, Rule of Weird, Rule of Gorn, and Rule of MËTAL, not necessarily in that order.

If all the above Rules are met and sufficient surrealism is thereby obtained, a sprinkling of plausibility is fine.

Quote from: Wood Elf;804233I'm not sure about anyone else but huge warhammers made of stone, ungodly massive swords that weigh 10 or 15 pounds, and even daggers that weigh a pound just drives me bug nuts.

So am I alone in my obsession, or are there other nutty bastards out there?

Clearly you are not alone. Surfboard swords, bureau-sized war hammers, and spiked armor that would kill you if you walked into your own closet in the dark bug me and look ugly. Equally clearly, some folks like it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;804276Internal consistancy over realism

This.

I want to know from the outset what I'm buying into, and then not have that violated willy-nilly. The more the consistency is reinforced, the better. My suspension of disbelief should be a setting, not a trampoline.

Quote from: Terateuthis;804306For me, realism takes a back seat to Rule of Cool, Rule of Psychedelia, Rule of Weird, Rule of Gorn, and Rule of MËTAL, not necessarily in that order.

If all the above Rules are met and sufficient surrealism is thereby obtained, a sprinkling of plausibility is fine.

Could some one explain what these Rules are? I'm only familiar with the Rule of Cool.

I do like a good bit of realism. Particularly for things like the size and speed of boats and ships, how far and fast a horse can move in a day, design of a town or city, etc.

It comes back to being predictable. I want to know what is reasonable in a given situation and work from there. A guy in chainmail armor and gear needs to leap over an 8 foot pit, his chances of making it are...? The PCs need to chase after bandits riding horses and they may catch them when...? The PCs need to sneak past an encounter and they make how much noise...?

But some things don't bother me much. The fantastical is fantastical and I don't let the details bog me down. Where do Dragons and Beholders come from? What do they do for entertainment? Who cares? Magic turns a 15 pound sword into a 2 pound sword how exactly? Doesn't matter.

The world still has to have a foundation of believability and predictability however. Otherwise it's just hard to function in a chaotic environment.

Quote from: jeff37923;804352Could some one explain what these Rules are? I'm only familiar with the Rule of Cool.

The Rule of Cool is the only "real" one as seen on TVTropes.com. The others were my own tongue-in-cheek derivatives, intended mainly as humor.

The gist: My personal preferences run to over-the-top Moorcockian sturm und drang, fantasy as shock/awe/spectacle, the baroque, and "weirdness for weirdness' sake"; if these conflict with verisimilitude, so be it. More Zelazny, A Voyage to Arcturus, and Métal Hurlant, less Hârn.

Not that there's anything wrong with Hârn; personal preference =/= value judgment.

Quote from: Old Geezer;804293Things like ten pound swords and cities structured like 1890 London rather than 1290 London used to bother the shit out of me.

After 37 years of pissing into the wind, I've given up.  D&D is just a dumb game and I enjoy it for itself, dumbness and all.

Well a two-handed sword could weigh upwards of 8lb according to some notes. So its not too horribly off if you use that as a basis.

But.

The average weight was around 5lb for the Zweihander, Claymore, Bastard and even the Long Sword. Easy enough to fix if you prefer a more accurate "standard" weight.

Same with things like chainmail. Of course its heavy if you roll it up in a ball and hold it. But its worn like cloth and distributes the same way.

Also easy enough to change if so inclined.

Quote from: Terateuthis;804366The Rule of Cool is the only "real" one as seen on TVTropes.com. The others were my own tongue-in-cheek derivatives, intended mainly as humor.

The gist: My personal preferences run to over-the-top Moorcockian sturm und drang, fantasy as shock/awe/spectacle, the baroque, and "weirdness for weirdness' sake"; if these conflict with verisimilitude, so be it. More Zelazny, A Voyage to Arcturus, and Métal Hurlant, less Hârn.

Not that there's anything wrong with Hârn; personal preference =/= value judgment.

OK, thank you.

 I tried looking them up and got nothing except for a forum post of "101 Rules of Thrash Metal" which can be summed up as the writer thinking that anything not Thrash Metal is gay, which means to me that Judas Priest must make the writer's head implode.

Quote from: jibbajibba;804276Internal consistancy over realism

Pretty much this. Plausibility is nice, but I'm willing to let it slide a bit as long as everything gels in a more or less reasonable fashion. Before reading this thread, f'rex, it had never occurred to me before that there's anything wrong with a dagger weighing 1lb. Now I think about it, I can't help but wonder if every dagger in D&D is actually filled with lead. Within the context of the game, however, it makes at least as much sense as anything else.

I like my settings to be internally consistent and, generally, the more closely I can relate them to an existing real-world historical or legendary era, the more I like them.

For instance, it annoys me that in Westeros the biospehere of the North is still a Taiga of evergreen trees, when with years-long seasons it should instead have short, tough shrubbery. But I forgive Game of Thrones overall because it does such a brilliant job with its culture and history that it makes up for that.

I like my rules to offer associated mechanics (rules-as-physics) that reflect the setting.

Realism compared to our world doesn't matter.  Realistic within the setting, yes.  So in nearly all settings, swords aren't understood to be something significantly different then in our world, so swords that aren't similar to the ones in ours are jarring.  The existence of dragons doesn't automatically validate humans wielding Buster Swords that can cleave castle walls.

How much realism? Just enough to provide a baseline to help contrast the fantastic elements. Otherwise if everything is fantastic, then nothing is.

Then again, I'd love to try a gonzo fantasy sci fi game akin to Moebius and Jodorowsky (no, not quite Numenara)...

Quote from: Wood Elf;804233I fully realize that these are, generally, games based upon fictional worlds, events, characters, phenomena, etc. But I've always liked a higher degree of realism in my games, mostly along the lines of equipment, social structures, economics, and so forth to better engender a feeling of familiarity amongst the players, thereby making the fantastic elements that much more interesting and esoteric. To me it brings more awe to the game table and encourages more player(character) involvement in the world.

I like the weapons, armour, and other equipment to be familiar and make sense from both a design and mechanics standpoint. Maybe it is just my obsession with history and authenticity as a re-enactor/interpreter or the fact that I make medieval weapons and tools for a living, but I want shit to look and perform realistically. I'm not sure about anyone else but huge warhammers made of stone, ungodly massive swords that weigh 10 or 15 pounds, and even daggers that weigh a pound just drives me bug nuts.

So am I alone in my obsession, or are there other nutty bastards out there?

I don't know if an RPG needs to be realistic. But I'd like to do realistic things in my RPGs if needed.

Internal Consistency and verisimilitude are more important to me then realism in general but varies based on the genre. High Anime Flavored fantasy has less realism than gritty survival but in any genre I don't care about things I consider trivial like minutia about equipment function. I'm more concerned that the characters feel like people and act in understandable ways.

Quote from: TristramEvans;804342This.

I want to know from the outset what I'm buying into, and then not have that violated willy-nilly. The more the consistency is reinforced, the better. My suspension of disbelief should be a setting, not a trampoline.

Yes.
Verisimilitude and internal consistency, even better when the setting is backed by a properly underpinned setting, can make for a much longer, deeper game.

Not as important for shorter ones.  But if you want to get the players deeply engaged and thinking in character for years, this is a huge help.

I don't like the term 'realism' as it describes how closely the game in question hews to our reality.  So I see that to be the reason many of us go this direction.

It is also why I've stayed in the same setting so long adding an layering and adding, and the reason I keep most players in the same few play areas.

Detail and consistency.

for the most part i dont care about realism but there are a few things i like to be a bit realistic

Gravity this is the big one i hate falling damage rules that somehow does not take into account acceleration and then those that do often forget to put a cap on for terminal velocity.

Another one is taxs it always bothered me that so many games dont have taxs the taxs i do levy tend to be pretty low rates (1%) but its there. And in a similar vein where does the state spend there money in the setting im working on the main kingdom has free universal health care (although you have to travel to the capital for most of it) and cheap public transport in the form of portals all over the place (the main portal to greyhawk is free though as is the use of the portal to union) and decent education but all this money spent on improving the city has left there military vastly under equipped.

I saw a lot of people mentioned spiked armor while it certainly makes no sense on the battlefield its not so ridicules for dungeon delving.

i also like to have some more realistic pricing on items thats based on more then just balance it bothers me that astral driftmetal only costs 1000 more gold then normal armor the description indicates that its really rare and it feels to me that that should add a lot more to the price.

Quote from: tuypo1;804448for the most part i dont care about realism but there are a few things i like to be a bit realistic

Gravity this is the big one i hate falling damage rules that somehow does not take into account acceleration and then those that do often forget to put a cap on for terminal velocity.

One of the reasons I like Spelljammer. It takes the falling damage and adds in heat friction. Falling from orbit is near guarantee death as the heat overcomes even magic resistance. Falling from orbit to an earth-like world is 150d4 damage total plus the 20d6 impact damage AND save vs death or die on impact. Assuming there was anything left to reach the ground.

Quote from: Omega;804489One of the reasons I like Spelljammer. It takes the falling damage and adds in heat friction. Falling from orbit is near guarantee death as the heat overcomes even magic resistance. Falling from orbit to an earth-like world is 150d4 damage total plus the 20d6 impact damage AND save vs death or die on impact. Assuming there was anything left to reach the ground.

interesting i will have to have a look

The differentiation between "internal consistency" or "verisimilitude" on the one hand and realism on the other hand is a bit silly. Realism at least to the point where real world conditions are concerned within the setting, is a necessary condition for consistency (and really, "verisimilitude" is nothing but realism combined with only superficial research).
Supernatural elements (as a stand-in for anything that by its very concept stands outside of what realism can represent) become a lot more substantial and meaningful when  combining a fully fantastic premise with realistic consequences.
Now, for a gameable setting, it is necessary to find a good compromise between realism and convenience. The most realisitc approach might make a more consistent and believable setting or more convincing rules, but not necessarily a better game.

Quote from: Wood Elf;804233So am I alone in my obsession, or are there other nutty bastards out there?

No, you're not. Welcome into the fold.

Probably the only reason I'm not a re-enactor is probably because there's no Western European Medieval/Renaissance martial arts scene in my corner of the world. When I got into D&D, my dad gifted me with a couple of coffee table books about Medieval arms and armor, and since then I've always been a sucker for Medieval and Renaissance military technology.

Though a casual student at best, who avoids online discussions about historical military technology like the plague (especially when katanas are involved), I've had the privilege of spending a few hours of my life inside such amazing collections as the Armería Real in Madrid and the KHM Neue Burg in Vienna, and I just frickin' know what a Zweihander or a two-handed warhammer look like.

Though I, too, want my fantasy (and SF, and horror) world to behave like our own outside deliberate fantastical elements, I think in the end it's mostly about aesthetics for me. The exaggerated, caricatural style of giant swords with cleaver-like blades and "warhammers" that look like clown mallets, complete with impractical baroque ornaments, has been done to death, and even if it didn't it lacks the deceptive simplicity and dangerous elegance of historical weaponry.

Outside arms and armor, a general understanding of history makes it easier for me to immerse by providing me with ideas on what an average peasant's day looks like, or the relationships between strata of society, religion, trade, etc. -- for sufficiently Earth-like worlds, anyway. But to be honest, I think I feel less strongly about unconventional societal arrangements, especially if they are minimally consistent and provide interesting gaming opportunities, than about the aesthetics mentioned above.

Quote from: Omega;804489One of the reasons I like Spelljammer. It takes the falling damage and adds in heat friction. Falling from orbit is near guarantee death as the heat overcomes even magic resistance. Falling from orbit to an earth-like world is 150d4 damage total plus the 20d6 impact damage AND save vs death or die on impact. Assuming there was anything left to reach the ground.

On top of that, Spelljammer gravity literally doesn't work like real life gravity. As in, intentionally it works differenty, and it has written laws that are far different than the real world. Gravity in Spelljammer is weird.

I like to be able to use the real world as a guideline. Stuff that's possible in the real world should be possible in the game world. And I like to have a similar range of possibilties in the game world as I'd see in the real world.

But I don' t care about making the numbers jibe, and sometimes actively loathe that approach. No pounds of force calculations, no volumme calculations beyond  a quick eyeballing, no calculating the caloric intake a dragon needs to produce that much flame. Certainly not while playing.

There's no question of realism with the utterly fantastic, though there may be in relations to it of the less fantastic; but then the line between 'realism' and mere "internal consistency" is as fuzzy as the distinction of what's sufficiently close to real in what is truly an imaginary whole. (What part of an Elf or Goblin, for instance, is potentially realistic as opposed to just consistent?)

There is a distinction between realism and precision in detail, even more between realism in game-mechanical abstraction and realism in role-playing experience. I am most interested in the last, since other game forms cater to others, and focus on the mechanical simulation tends to distract from what is more special to rpg.

i think in discussions of realism it is important to remember that most fantasy worlds have something that separates them from there inspirations high literacy rates

Quote from: tuypo1;804583i think in discussions of realism it is important to remember that most fantasy worlds have something that separates them from there inspirations high literacy rates

BX more or less didnt. The average non-adventurer in BX was just a step above barely literate.

In AD&D it is harder to say. The PCs tend to be literate. The NPCs is anyones guess. Not sure on 5e.

I think its more a matter if the settings nations or GMs ideals for how prevalent or not literacy is.

Quote from: Old Geezer;804293Things like ten pound swords and cities structured like 1890 London rather than 1290 London used to bother the shit out of me.

Bothered me decades ago, and even as a teenager who had yet to turn into a low-tech-everything buff, the notion of "This just doesn't make sense" was what turned me off of OD&D early.

Still bothers me, too -- heck, I bet a quarter of my blog posts talk about verisimilitude in one way or another.

Quote from: jibbajibba;804276Internal consistancy over realism

This.

For me - realism in D&D is either all the way - or staged. I think beyond 9th level you're warping the realities of realism by default unless you adhering to some strict rare-but-powerful-magic applications in your campaign.

I use a semblance of realism to contrast the *fact* that in my games, it's possible to run up the side of the wall due to some special "thing" - and yes it would be highly fantastic. But Spiderclimb exists... so there. Monks exist-  yes they punch as hard a hit from a Great Sword if they're good enough, and move like a fucking Cheetah in heat.

The GM has to set the tempo - preferably with the Players understanding.

Quote from: tenbones;804662move like a fucking Cheetah in heat.

Ah Cheetara.

Quote from: CRKrueger;804670Ah Cheetara.

I am TOTALLY derailed now. I'll be in my bunk...

Quote from: CRKrueger;804670Ah Cheetara.

Well, I'll be in my happy place if anyone needs me.

There's a reason Lion-O's sword grew whenever he yelled out "Thundercats Ho!"

it reminds me just how young i am compared to most of you when i realise you would all be thinking of the original not the remake that i would first consider

As has been stated, I do like internal consistency; it makes the world more easily digested.

Realism for me is not necessarily an all-encompassing facet of a game. I'm fine with certain aspects being more fantastic than realistic. I like many elements of "classical" fantasy/fairy tale in the game. I'm mostly a realism stickler when it comes to relatively ordinary type stuff such as objects, animals, social structure, and glaring anachronisms in the context of what existed in the medieval world despite being on a different planet in a different reality.

"Realism" is meaningless in the context of RPGs.  It's emulation that matters.

Quote from: RPGPundit;805523"Realism" is meaningless in the context of RPGs.  It's emulation that matters.

One of the things I like is games that emulate reality. Realism seems like a really meaningful way to describe that.

Quote from: Bren;805557One of the things I like is games that emulate reality. Realism seems like a really meaningful way to describe that.

Emulation of reality is not the same as reality; I assume that your preferred game doesn't include rules governing how full your character's bladder is, for example.

Quote from: RPGPundit;806157Emulation of reality is not the same as reality; I assume that your preferred game doesn't include rules governing how full your character's bladder is, for example.

No fucking duh. That's why it's called an emulation of reality and not reality itself.

Degree of "realism" depends wholly upon the setting and genre.  If I'm playing a Western or pirate RPG, I like it to be fantasy-free and fairly realistic feeling (key word is feeling). If I'm playing Toon, reality goes out the window. In between is where I like my super hero games: the world is basically our own but obviously there are fantastic elements allowing for super beings to exist, much like early Marvel comics.

Quote from: Matt;806284Degree of "realism" depends wholly upon the setting and genre.  If I'm playing a Western or pirate RPG, I like it to be fantasy-free and fairly realistic feeling (key word is feeling). If I'm playing Toon, reality goes out the window. In between is where I like my super hero games: the world is basically our own but obviously there are fantastic elements allowing for super beings to exist, much like early Marvel comics.

This is what some of us have been saying.  
In the case of this super hero 'genre', like early marvel, since you are playing in an analogue of the 'real world', the term 'realism' has some traction.  Similarly, if it is a pirate game in our own world, the term still holds muster.

It loses me in any fantasy setting.

Quote from: Bren;806237No fucking duh. That's why it's called an emulation of reality and not reality itself.

Exactly.

For example, there are many wargames and scientific/technical simulations that are realistic in that they are used to teach real-world skills and/or predict real-world outcomes. These are obviously not reality itself, and never have bladder-emptying rules, but it is proper to call them realistic.

My simple terminology:

If you consult fiction sources for input on your rules, then you are working on genre emulation.

If you consult non-fiction sources for input on your rules, then you are working on realism. This could also be termed "emulation of reality", but that's just using an alternate term for the same thing.

Generally, I like tangible stuff to appear to obey the laws of science, with magic able to tell those laws to go fuck off for a while.

I've noticed that some D&D players that come into a sci-fi game will think that all the tech used is done by magic. A lot of these players don't drive cars, and think light rail is powered by... well, magic.

Good thing the games are just one-shots.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;806536I've noticed that some D&D players that come into a sci-fi game will think that all the tech used is done by magic. A lot of these players don't drive cars, and think light rail is powered by... well, magic.

Good thing the games are just one-shots.

Are these gamers...hobos?

"Sufficiently advanced" may simply mean beyond someone's education to understand - just as in a more materially primitive society much that we would call magic might be regarded as just another tool because people have a comfortable theoretical basis for how it supposedly works.

Computer programming for instance might as well be magic for all many people can make sense of the invocations, and scientists a priesthood.

Quote from: jibbajibba;804276Internal consistancy over realism

I agree totally. Actually consistency is what I would call "realism" in a fantasy world context. In a D&D world we migth decide that spectres exist. Then I would accept them as realistic. But if they are close to invisible, fly faster than a running horse, can only be killed by magic weapons, can kill a normal human instantly with a single touch (double energy drain) (and presumably would want to) and the victims rise the next night as spectres, then I find it highly unrealistic (internally inconsistent) that not all humans have been replaced by spectres.

The D&D game is filled with these ridiculous inconsistencies. The above example is from the Expert Rules. I have considered starting a thread where we could collect examples of such ridiculous inconsistencies.

Quote from: RPGPundit;806157Emulation of reality is not the same as reality; I assume that your preferred game doesn't include rules governing how full your character's bladder is, for example.

See, that's the kind of straw-man bullshit that breaks reasonable discussions down to, well, bullshit.  Are you really attempting to couple realism with rules for urination, or are you just trying to push people's buttons?

Hence my classic sticky:  R-E-A-L-I-S-M: The Hated Word  (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2014/12/r-e-l-i-s-m-hated-word.html)

Quote from: Ravenswing;806575See, that's the kind of straw-man bullshit that breaks reasonable discussions down to, well, bullshit.  Are you really attempting to couple realism with rules for urination, or are you just trying to push people's buttons?

From my experience, "realism" usually actually means "people demanding their own crazy unrealistic ideas based on pet interests".  I mean, when you have people arguing that "realistically" a katana should cut through a tank (or, as actually happened in one of my campaigns, that a bar stool should actually be a better defensive weapon than a shield), but no one seems interested in tracking bowel movements, then you're not actually arguing for anything 'real'.

Oh sweet Jesus don't get me going on the whole fucking "katana can cut through everything" shit!

It's a piece of fucking steel. Hit another piece of steel or other material of equal or greater hardness/mass/shock absorbancy/etc. and the fucking thing will break, chip, or bend.

Sorry, I twitched.

For myself, I like a level of realism and continuity that gives a feeling of stability and that certain things can be depended upon. The more it feels like home to the players, the more the weird stuff will stand out and/or the only slightly weird will pop out of the background. It seems to make the whole setting and adventure more memorable.

It is highly improbable that an rpg can be made to take into account complete and total realism. When I'm teaching people how to be/improve a quality historical interpretive presentation, I stress that the more things that can be similar to the person's own experience, the easier it will be to accept the role and focus on bringing the dissimilar elements into a smooth connection with the whole. That's why we take historical accuracy so seriously. The more "real" the background is to the audience, the more believable the whole show will become. The willing suspension of disbelief. Now granted I tend to be a method actor and apply that to my rpg shit. It's just what I'm into. YMMV.

Quote from: Wood Elf;807143Oh sweet Jesus don't get me going on the whole fucking "katana can cut through everything" shit!

It's a piece of fucking steel. Hit another piece of steel or other material of equal or greater hardness/mass/shock absorbancy/etc. and the fucking thing will break, chip, or bend.

A lot of RPGs as written will disagree, and GMs follow their illogic, unfortunately.

Quote from: RPGPundit;807133From my experience, "realism" usually actually means "people demanding their own crazy unrealistic ideas based on pet interests".  I mean, when you have people arguing that "realistically" a katana should cut through a tank (or, as actually happened in one of my campaigns, that a bar stool should actually be a better defensive weapon than a shield), but no one seems interested in tracking bowel movements, then you're not actually arguing for anything 'real'.

Pretty much this has been my experience as well. People want only certain things to be covered. For example I've seen "realistic damage" bantered about, but no one wants to talk about gangrene, wound infections, etc that even minor wounds may get and kill you with...

Quote from: RPGPundit;807133From my experience, "realism" usually actually means "people demanding their own crazy unrealistic ideas based on pet interests".  I mean, when you have people arguing that "realistically" a katana should cut through a tank (or, as actually happened in one of my campaigns, that a bar stool should actually be a better defensive weapon than a shield), but no one seems interested in tracking bowel movements, then you're not actually arguing for anything 'real'.

So your argument is that since some people you play with are extremely ignorant and they try to dress up their ignorance by calling it "realism" we need a different word for realism?

Quote from: Bren;807181So your argument is that since some people you play with are extremely ignorant and they try to dress up their ignorance by calling it "realism" we need a different word for realism?

There's real. There's gaming. There's real gaming. Gaming is not real though.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;807182There's real. There's gaming. There's real gaming. Gaming is not real though.

So all those hours I've spent gaming...they didn't really occur in the real world? They didn't involve real people playing around a real table in a real room? We all just imagined we were imagining a shared gaming reality? Really? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Bren;807185So all those hours I've spent gaming...they didn't really occur in the real world? They didn't involve real people playing around a real table in a real room? We all just imagined we were imagining a shared gaming reality? Really? :rolleyes:

You were just gaming, I'm afraid. Bordering on real gaming even. Doing a video about it right now.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;807189You were just gaming, I'm afraid. Bordering on real gaming even. Doing a video about it right now.

All gaming is "just gaming." Of course that really has nothing to do with what words one might want to use to describe gaming where things happen in the game world in a realistic fashion as opposed to gaming where things happen in the game world in an unrealistic fashion. Realism is a perfectly servicable word to use to describe the former situation.

Quote from: Bren;807185So all those hours I've spent gaming...they didn't really occur in the real world? They didn't involve real people playing around a real table in a real room? We all just imagined we were imagining a shared gaming reality? Really? :rolleyes:

Of course. Anyone that has any experience that differs from yours is lying or delusional. That does double if they enjoy something you don't like. Its a rule of the Interntoobz.

Quote from: Bren;807190All gaming is "just gaming." Of course that really has nothing to do with what words one might want to use to describe gaming where things happen in the game world in a realistic fashion as opposed to gaming where things happen in the game world in an unrealistic fashion. Realism is a perfectly servicable word to use to describe the former situation.

Be careful with "realistic fashion". Some GMs don't know politics, but think the politics in their games is realistic. Same goes for GMs that don't know engineering or science, but think the engineering and science in their games is realistic.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;807192Be careful with "realistic fashion". Some GMs don't know politics, but think the politics in their games is realistic. Same goes for GMs that don't know engineering or science, but think the engineering and science in their games is realistic.

Sure there are people who don't know stuff, but think that they do. And there are people that are too lazy or just not incliined to do any research or fact checking. That applies to the real world at least as much as it does to gaming. Pundit mentioned as one example, the lack wits who think samaurai swords are some sort of universal cutting tool that can carve tank armor like butter. Of course the vast majority of us already know that isn't realistic though. So I'm not sure what you think I need to "Be careful" about. Could you elaborate?

Quote from: Bren;807193Sure there are people who don't know stuff, but think that they do. And there are people that are too lazy or just not incliined to do any research or fact checking. That applies to the real world at least as much as it does to gaming. Pundit mentioned as one example, the lack wits who think samaurai swords are some sort of universal cutting tool that can carve tank armor like butter. Of course the vast majority of us already know that isn't realistic though. So I'm not sure what you think I need to "Be careful" about. Could you elaborate?

I would not agree about the vast majority part. See RPG.NET for specimen samples.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;807199I would not agree about the vast majority part. See RPG.NET for specimen samples.

Despite no longer posting on TBP, I still say the majority of members are not idiots. But there is a very vocal pack of idiots who do a lot of posting there. Their posting volume and pack behavior make them seem more common than they actually are. Unfortunately some of those same idiots are moderators and they spend most of their time there enforcing their particular brand of newspeak and looking for new witches to burn. It seems to be the only hobby some of them have.

And my comment on the vast majority was only intended to apply to realizing that katanas don't cut tank armor like butter and they never did. Surveys show that a lot of people in general believe some pretty dumb and unrealistic stuff. But that's not sufficient reason to think we need a new word for realism.

Quote from: Bren;807207Despite no longer posting on TBP, I still say the majority of members are not idiots. But there is a very vocal pack of idiots who do a lot of posting there. Their posting volume and pack behavior make them seem more common than they actually are. Unfortunately some of those same idiots are moderators and they spend most of their time there enforcing their particular brand of newspeak and looking for new witches to burn. It seems to be the only hobby some of them have.

And my comment on the vast majority was only intended to apply to realizing that katanas don't cut tank armor like butter and they never did. Surveys show that a lot of people in general believe some pretty dumb and unrealistic stuff. But that's not sufficient reason to think we need a new word for realism.

Shit, people still believe that Christopher Columbus was tried at Salamanca for saying that the earth was round while the church said it was flat. NEVER HAPPENED! Invented by good ol' Washington Irving to make his "biography" of Chris more exciting. When you look at the works of Aquinas and Bacon, it is clear that medieval people knew that the earth was round.

It's not entirely their fault however. The education system is pretty poor. The same old shit just gets re-spun every time a new history book or movie or whatever comes out.

Quote from: Wood Elf;807228Shit, people still believe that Christopher Columbus was tried at Salamanca for saying that the earth was round while the church said it was flat.

I don't recall hearing that additional detail to the old everybody thought the earth was flat canard.

Quote from: RPGPundit;807133From my experience, "realism" usually actually means "people demanding their own crazy unrealistic ideas based on pet interests".  I mean, when you have people arguing that "realistically" a katana should cut through a tank (or, as actually happened in one of my campaigns, that a bar stool should actually be a better defensive weapon than a shield), but no one seems interested in tracking bowel movements, then you're not actually arguing for anything 'real'.

Ha ha! The katana example is great. However: if I had no weapon and should defend against a sword, grabbing a bar stool in two hands seems to me to be quite a good option, also compared to having a shield. Maybe it is unrealistic that bar stools are not used more in fantasy world combat.

Quote from: Silverlion;807180For example I've seen "realistic damage" bantered about, but no one wants to talk about gangrene, wound infections, etc that even minor wounds may get and kill you with...

My world/system of choice is Harn(master).  We have wound infections.  They're brutal.

Quote from: RPGPundit;807133no one seems interested in tracking bowel movements

Okay, even we don't have that.  ;)

Quote from: RPGPundit;807133you have people arguing that "realistically" a katana should cut through a tank

The difference is that a small percentage of people will still find some fun in the katana vs. tank question (on either side), but a (very much hopefully) smaller percentage will get any fun out of tracking bodily functions.

So the answer should probably be "exactly as much realism/simulation/verisimilitude as will still encourage FUN GAMING for YOUR group."

Quote from: TheHistorian;807443So the answer should probably be "exactly as much realism/simulation/verisimilitude as will still encourage FUN GAMING for YOUR group."

Which is not an argument for "realism" then, but for Emulation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;807726Which is not an argument for "realism" then, but for Emulation.

Remind me, what is it you are emulating in this context? Oh yeah, reality. Yeah we totally need a different word than realism for doing that.  :rolleyes:

Emulation though works great for a describing a style of play where katanas can cut through tank armor.

Quote from: RPGPundit;807726Which is not an argument for "realism" then, but for Emulation.

Okay, I can buy that.

But realism may not be what we really want to talk about in relation to these games, as many genres aren't possible in the real world (as we know it (so far)) and what's left may not be fun for everyone's taste.  Or said differently, almost no one would actually would want to play

(http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/4501185/images/1241809486549.jpg)

so instead we allow for monsters or super-heroes or aliens or super-katanas.  Some people choose internal consistency of a gonzo Toon game (and it's still "realistic" within its frame of reference) while some few probably do bother to track bathroom breaks.  What would even work as real-world-realistic?  Historical gaming?

"subcreation" is a term Tolkien termed that fits this discussion quite well. It refers to internal consistency and verisimilitude in a fictional setting, with an emphasis placed on giving fictional worlds a "realistic" evolution in terms of society, history, sociology and (because its Tolkien) philology.

Quote from: RPGPundit;807133From my experience, "realism" usually actually means "people demanding their own crazy unrealistic ideas based on pet interests".  I mean, when you have people arguing that "realistically" a katana should cut through a tank (or, as actually happened in one of my campaigns, that a bar stool should actually be a better defensive weapon than a shield), but no one seems interested in tracking bowel movements, then you're not actually arguing for anything 'real'.

Then, with as much respect as the statement merits, you're just not paying attention.

How about this thread, for starters?  Do you see people arguing crazy shit like that here?

Quote from: Bren;807230I don't recall hearing that additional detail to the old everybody thought the earth was flat canard.

That's what you get for not reading Washington Irving when you want a biography of Columbus instead of a tale of Rip Van Winkle. How are kids these days supposed to be properly misinformed, I ask you?

Quote from: Phillip;807879That's what you get for not reading Washington Irving when you want a biography of Columbus instead of a tale of Rip Van Winkle. How are kids these days supposed to be properly misinformed, I ask you?

Well we still have the Internet. Misinformation delivered direct to your portable device. ;)

yeah pundit your harping on about emulation does not make much sense

as for katanas i have reached the point where i cant decide what i hate more people claiming katanas are super-swords (hell even in my weeaboo days (well the word weeaboo was not a thing back then but still) i knew katanas weren't that great and i was about 8 years old at the time (although i suppose i was pretty smart for an 8 year old in general) or the people that overreact to those guys and go around claiming they are completely useless.

Quote from: Bren;807728Remind me, what is it you are emulating in this context? Oh yeah, reality.

Yes, we do need a different word than "realism" because the latter suggests we are accurately mapping reality, rather than trying to create something that effectively simulates those parts of reality we want to feature.

Quote from: RPGPundit;808242Yes, we do need a different word than "realism" because the latter suggests we are accurately mapping reality, rather than trying to create something that effectively simulates those parts of reality we want to feature.

It's a roleplaying game. If the word "realism" suggests to you that the game is an accurate map of reality I think you aren't paying attention.

In the context of an RPG realism means the game is representing a person, thing, or situation in a way that is true to life. Which is more or less word-for-word the definition of realism.

I also note that you haven't provided a different word for realism in an RPG context. You used the same word "emulation" for any RPG whether it is realistic or intentionally, like TOON, contrary to reality. So you've introduced a new word that doesn't describe the thing we are discussing. How is that helpful to communication or understanding?

Quote from: Bren;808255It's a roleplaying game. If the word "realism" suggests to you that the game is an accurate map of reality I think you aren't paying attention.

In the context of an RPG realism means the game is representing a person, thing, or situation in a way that is true to life. Which is more or less word-for-word the definition of realism.

I also note that you haven't provided a different word for realism in an RPG context. You used the same word "emulation" for any RPG whether it is realistic or intentionally, like TOON, contrary to reality. So you've introduced a new word that doesn't describe the thing we are discussing. How is that helpful to communication or understanding?

Using the term realism this way seems to me somewhat foolish.  Realism pertains to reality.  Not fantasy or science fiction.  Your statement reads, to me, as, "In the context of a game probably not set in reality, this facet is 'realistic' and true to reality ".  I really don't care how many idiots use it thusly, or how common it is or isn't.  It is just slipshod, as I see it.

I generally use the term 'logical' or 'internally consistent' in the cases above.  Purposely conflating the term 'realistic' with a situation that is 99% set in non-real situations is, to be kind, at linguistic cross-purpose.
The term 'Logical' infers that the example in question makes sense and is reasonable, without the underlying supposition that we are modeling our reality.

Emulation, or emulative, normally describes how a game or facet of a game. often system-related, models a media or other construct.  We often use the example of how a system for suffering damage whilst falling 'emulates' the actual effect, or emulate in the gravity or armor system in the setting in question.
Emulation, as a term, shines when used with  a media expression.  How does a system for Star Wars emulate the Force as seen and understood by fans?  How many examples of poor emulation can you find in how D&D 'emulates' Tolkien?  (the answer?  6 dozen threads....)?

Or this is how I try to use the terms, to keep things clear.

Quote from: LordVreeg;808257Using the term realism this way is foolish.

Yes, realism is in reference to reality. This is in opposition to unrealistic settings like TOON, a Hollywood action film, or a wire fu martial arts film. I want to be able to differentiate between those fictional tropes and settings and realism and to do that we need different words to describe those things. Wanting different words to describe those things is neither foolish nor idiotic.

When I include realistic elements in a game it is because I want to simulate reality, not because I want to emulate a media property that emulates reality. Maybe you don't ever do that. It appears that you would prefer that we have to say, for example, that game X emulates of the reality of real world gun combat (or physics, or travel, or morale) instead of saying this game includes realistic gun combat? That strikes me as redundant and silly. Especially as even that silly circumlocution is in fact a short cut for saying that game X emulates the reality of Band of Brothers which emulates the reality of World War II combat in the real world. Game X includes realistic WWII combat is at least as clear, much easier to parse, and more succinct.

Quote from: Bren;808258Yes, realism is in reference to reality. This is in opposition to unrealistic settings like TOON, a Hollywood action film, or a wire fu martial arts film. I want to be able to differentiate between those fictional tropes and settings and realism and to do that we need different words to describe those things. Wanting different words to describe those things is neither foolish nor idiotic.

When I include realistic elements in a game it is because I want to simulate reality, not because I want to emulate a media property that emulates reality. Maybe you don't ever do that. It appears that you would prefer that we have to say, for example, that game X emulates of the reality of real world gun combat (or physics, or travel, or morale) instead of saying this game includes realistic gun combat? That strikes me as redundant and silly. Especially as even that silly circumlocution is in fact a short cut for saying that game X emulates the reality of Band of Brothers which emulates the reality of World War II combat in the real world. Game X includes realistic WWII combat is at least as clear, much easier to parse, and more succinct.

First off, 99% of games are placed in settings that are not real.  I note you don't even address this central point.  And it is central.  
To this point, there are these parts of the hobby that deal with fantasy or science fiction.  You might have heard of these games.  Since they are the preponderance of the hobby we are talking about.  

Which is probably why your examples are based on actual historical events, which does not really apply to 95%+ of RPGs.

But as long as you are using the term 'Realistic' only when dealing with a direct comparison to actual history, I'm good.  In the tiny sliver of a subset when we are talking about a game dealing with a historical media property that is purely based on fact, sure.  I'm good.

Quote from: LordVreeg;808260First off, 99% of games are placed in settings that are not real.  I note you don't even address this central point.  And it is central.

I didn't address your made up statistic because 99.5% of all RPG games are placed in settings that include a moderate to a large amount of realism. Sci-Fi settings, for example routinely include the effects of gravity which is why games like Traveller include a Zero-G skill for combat in environments without gravity and why games like Star Wars invent all sorts of handwavium to overcome gravity and to exceed light speed. But even in Star Wars when a character falls off their speederbike they fall down in a gravity field.

If you want to use the term emulation when referring to the various unrealistic things that comprise many RPGs that's useful. Your seeming insistence that 99% of RPGs are like TOON where reality is irrelevant is ignorant or foolish.

I guess I'm not quite convinced that reality is a curse word.  For example, in a Hyborian Age campaign, are swords and armor supposed to work differently then in our world? No, they work exactly like they do in our world.  So if I use a combat system for the Hyborian Age and say it has "realistic" armor and weapons...I see nothing wrong with that, as for that purpose, there is no difference between realities.  

Now if I talk about the stats for Cimmerians being "not realistic", that starts to fall down, because we have to get into exactly what "At birth Crom gives a man the strength and courage to slay his enemies." actually means.

Sure there are dumbfucks everywhere, but I think among intelligent people discussing in good faith, very few people would have a problem understanding the context of the word.  Plus it's easier than typing verisimilitude (which if you want to be more restrictive in the definition, just means like reality anyway).

If for you, "realism" always means the extreme like using Phoenix Command, or calculating caloric intake and expenditure and adjusting weight accordingly, or determining semen density based on intercourse frequency and calculating chance of conception accordingly, or dealing with bowel movements, etc, then I'm not sure the good faith description applies.

Sure, 99% of games feature some form of fantasy or science fiction. But that doesn't mean that everything about those environments is fantastical or crazy-technological. There still has to be a solid foundation of "reality" underlying the genre or else the whole world melts down into chaos. One moment the walls are stone, the next they are made of cheese and singing opera. The air is oxygen & nitrogen one day then pure carbon dioxide the next. A sword does 10 points of damage one hit and 1,000,000 points the next. In a few specific environments this stuff might be alright, the realm of Chaos at the edge of the universe for example. But in a standard fantasy or sci-fi world there has to be some consistency or explanation of why these events occur else no one can effectively plan their next move.

I find that too little realism gets tiring. I enjoyed watching the series Avatar: The Last Airbender, yes, a fantasy show for kids. But, how many times do I need to see a character fall 30 yards and suffer no broken bones? Or several characters scale a 20 yard tall wall in 2 seconds? Or a guy get hit by a bolt of fire and not get, you know, burned? Or a guy get smashed by a giant boulder and suffer no lasting wounds?

Similarly in the movie The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen there is a large fight scene at the end. In it Captain Nemo is punched by a Hulk-like giant, thrown back 50 yards and crashes into a stone wall. Nemo, a genius but otherwise normal man, is dazed but suffers no broken bones or crushed organs. The film is a fantasy but where does it say that in "fantasy" characters take no damage? Is there a stated reason why Nemo is immune to harm? No, there isn't. (Another character is, but that is his special trait.)

The "wire-fu" antics of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon are cute and since everyone can do it I accept it as part of the magical fantasy of that world. It's not realistic, but I accept it.

For players to plan their PC actions (or even the GM planning NPC actions) they have to understand the environment. Things have to be predictable. If there is too much fantasy, too much chaos, then plans become moot. Having a game world adhere to "reality" is a quick and easy shorthand for explaining things. If I have my PC leap off of a 100 foot cliff to the ground below will he land safely or will his legs be crushed? If he steps into water will he sink or can he dance upon the waves? If he swings his sword at a stone wall will the blade bounce off or slice it like butter? If my PC attempts to pilot his spaceship to an asteroid will it suddenly turn into a basket of flowers?

If the world is too chaotic, too fantastical, then every move by anyone becomes a question and the game can quickly bog down. I would even say it becomes less a game and more of an attempt to understand the drug high visions of the GM. Do you want your entire campaign to be "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"?

Quote from: CRKrueger;808269If for you, "realism" always means the extreme like using Phoenix Command, or calculating caloric intake and expenditure and adjusting weight accordingly, or determining semen density based on intercourse frequency and calculating chance of conception accordingly, or dealing with bowel movements, etc, then I'm not sure the good faith description applies.

Obviously I agree.

Quote from: Doughdee222;808270If the world is too chaotic, too fantastical, then every move by anyone becomes a question and the game can quickly bog down. I would even say it becomes less a game and more of an attempt to understand the drug high visions of the GM. Do you want your entire campaign to be "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"?

To be fair, I don't think that level of Yellow Submarine-like hijinks was what LordVreeg meant by "99% set in non-real situations," but that is one of the troubles with their desire to ban the use of realism as a descriptor. Non-real could easily mean emulating TOON, Arioch's realm of Chaos, the Beatle's Yellow Submarine, or an LSD trip as a genre and those settings are internally consistent despite the illogical nature of the settings, but most of the time (shall we say 99% of the time) RPGs are much closer to reality than to some whacky fantasy.

Quote from: RPGPundit;808242Yes, we do need a different word than "realism" because the latter suggests we are accurately mapping reality, rather than trying to create something that effectively simulates those parts of reality we want to feature.

That's a defensible wish, but nomenclature is what it is.  We use terms not because the terms themselves make objective sense, but because those are the terms in common use.  The syndrome we're discussing is generally known in the RPG field as "realism."  You can always use terms few people recognize as meaning the same thing, but I'd figure you'd much rather people responded to your posts with solid discussions of your POV, rather than with "Huh?"

Quote from: Bren;808267I didn't address your made up statistic because 99.5% of all RPG games are placed in settings that include a moderate to a large amount of realism. Sci-Fi settings, for example routinely include the effects of gravity which is why games like Traveller include a Zero-G skill for combat in environments without gravity and why games like Star Wars invent all sorts of handwavium to overcome gravity and to exceed light speed. But even in Star Wars when a character falls off their speederbike they fall down in a gravity field.

If you want to use the term emulation when referring to the various unrealistic things that comprise many RPGs that's useful. Your seeming insistence that 99% of RPGs are like TOON where reality is irrelevant is ignorant or foolish.

I introduced uses for the term 'Emulation' and the word 'Logical' in their proper places, in opposition, for use in their proper place.  However, I would not say most games are set in worlds with lots of 'realism'.  

I don't think it is the right word.  Earlier, I introduced the term, 'logical' as the proper term to describe something that makes sense based on what is known in a setting. Somehow, that was ignored.  
I also use verisimilitude a lot.  But when I talk about whether something in a  non-real setting makes sense, I eschew the term 'realism'.

Why is it less correct?  Because using 'realistic' to describe the effects of Hyborian Age arms assumes more than the term 'logical' does. Do we know how they were made? Or what they are made of. I love me some KRKrueger, but I'd never use the term 'realistic' for a combat system or describing the arms there.  But I could use 'logical'.  
So does assuming the affects of gravity and physics in the Star Wars universe.  It may make sense and be logical and internally consistent that a certain person with certain skills (the Force or certain training or alien biology) can fall off the aforementioned Speederbike at 60 miles per hour and survive, but it would be much less realistic.  Because you are talking about a situation that involves both factors, physics (that may or may not work the same way as the real version) and the setting specific facts involved.

Quote from: LordVreeg;808298I introduced uses for the term 'Emulation' and the word 'Logical' in their proper places, in opposition, for use in their proper place.  However, I would not say most games are set in worlds with lots of 'realism'.  

I don't think it is the right word.  Earlier, I introduced the term, 'logical' as the proper term to describe something that makes sense based on what is known in a setting. Somehow, that was ignored.

It was ignored because "logic" isn't really a very good term to use to describe RPGs that include things like TOON or Arioch's realms of Chaos in which things that are anything but logical in the way the word is usually meant routinely occur. You would have us to use logic to mean "Cartoon logic" "Wu-Shu logic" or "real-world logic." But "logic" alone doesn't tell us how a setting is supposed to work. You should eschew using the word 'logic' to describe an RPG setting for the exact same reason you want to eschew using 'realism.'

QuoteWhy is it less correct?  Because using 'realistic' to describe the effects of Hyborian Age arms assumes more than the term 'logical' does. Do we know how they were made? Or what they are made of. I love me some KRKrueger, but I'd never use the term 'realistic' for a combat system or describing the arms there.  But I could use 'logical'.

Logic tells us nothing about how weapons work in anyone's notion of the Hyborian Age since your use of the word logic is setting dependent. Which means we need to already know how weapons work in the setting to know what the phrease "weapons work logically" even means. And the same exact phrase may mean that weapons work like they do in the real world or that they work nothing at all like weapons work in the real world but instead weapons logically work like the surf-board sized swords in certain anime-inspired games.

 

QuoteIt may make sense and be logical and internally consistent that a certain person with certain skills (the Force or certain training or alien biology) can fall off the aforementioned Speederbike at 60 miles per hour and survive, but it would be much less realistic.

Yes we all know that the Force is not realistic. You seem to think that is some important revelation. It's not. The realistic part of the setting is that someone needs some unrealistic element like the Force or cybernetics or a hell of a lot of dramatic coincidence to survive such a fall undamaged. As opposed to a setting like D&D (in some versions) where a high level fighter would survive such a fall with no superhuman capabilties but just a large pot of not very realistic hit points.

And when people are annoyed that the high level fighter is effectively unharmed after leaping off a 100 foot cliff or after being pincushioned by 10 arrows they are usually annoyed because they desire more realism in how the abstract hit point mechanic of their game treats certain sources of damage not because they don't like the same movies as someone else.

Pundit is just being arbitrarily a freak. Realism has been spoken of in wargaming for ages - and  that damn well is a matter of choosing what aspects we wish to feature!

"Suggests" to Pundy does not change the reality that to normal people it does not imply Campaign for North Africa.'

RPGs are pretty pretty crappy reality emulators mainly because reality would make a pretty poor game for the most part. But it is entirely reasonable to say a game is or aiming for more realism than another. A fantasy game where the characters appearance, arms and dress are modeled from Boris Vallejo art and 80s hair fantasy could be called less realistic than a game where those things are modeled from A Game of Thrones without either being absolute realistic (or objectively bad, that's a matter of taste).

Quote from: Nexus;808817But it is entirely reasonable to say a game is or aiming for more realism than another.

But if you just say "more realism" then the listener is left wondering whether you mean low magic or internally consistent or non-magical physics matching the real world. A different word doesn't help much, unless we agree on a separate word for the various aspects that might be intended. "Gritty" might be one such word. (I did like "logical" for "internal consistency" without regard to the real world.)

Quote from: rawma;808820But if you just say "more realism" then the listener is left wondering whether you mean low magic or internally consistent or non-magical physics matching the real world.

Yes, that's why you need to further define what you mean if you you wan to have an in depth discussion about a game setting or piece of fiction. I don't think there is a perfect one word summation that's going to explain everything  but saying something is more or less "realistic" has worked for me as a short hand and jumping off point. I certainly don't feel its wrong to use it unless the game is tracking bowel movements and such.

To me Internally consistent is something entirely different from realism and I don't conflate the two and haven haven'so its never been an issue.

Rather than a descent into the minutia of semantics and quasi-intellectualism through argumentative discourse and nit-picking, I was simply attempting to find out how much (evil word here) REALISM people enjoy in their rpgs.

I can understand the desire for clarity to provide a meaningful and appropriate answer, and perhaps that was indeed my fault.

My definition of realism for the purposes of gleaning responses to my original post is as follows:

realism: having qualities that are true to life in an Earth style or similar setting with regards to appearance, reactions, structure, function, atmosphere, physics, politics, art, technology, science, medicine, religion, society, and economics while acknowledging their presence in a science fiction/fantasy setting that are familiar and believable/acceptable to real life players with the objective of making the fictional setting more immersive.

So my question still stands:

How much realism do you like in your rpg's?

Quote from: Wood Elf;809735So my question still stands:

How much realism do you like in your rpg's?

Depends on the game. Typically somewhere between a fair amount and a lot.

Aside from the initial caveats and assumptions of the particular fantasy world, I like actions and events to have logical consequences, civilizations and societies to function in  manner consistent with with human nature, and settings to have an implied or overt sense of history.

Quote from: Bren;809737Depends on the game. Typically somewhere between a fair amount and a lot.

I tend to agree. I usually like to have my fantasy like garlic in pottage: enough for a good flavour, but not all-encompassing. I like to taste the background ingredients as well.

Are the elements of realism what make a game more endearing or is it the fantastic elements?

Quote from: Wood Elf;809743Are the elements of realism what make a game more endearing or is it the fantastic elements?

I don't see that as particularly relevant to how I decide what I like about a game. I don't have much interest in playing TOON or a really gonzo fantasy game. A certain level of realism is necessary for me to enjoy the game at all.

When I run Runequest in Glorantha there is magic all over the place. All characters have magic spells and many have some type of magic item, but all that magic is integrated and integral to the setting.

Currently I am running Honor+Intrigue and so far (after ~ 140 sessions)  nothing clearly fantastic that has been seen in the game.

Actually when I think of what makes a game endearing to me I think of (1) the players, (2) their characters, (3) the setting. As the GM I can most control the setting so I spend a lot of time on that. But it isn't what most differentiates the great games from the only good games.

Quote from: TristramEvans;809741Aside from the initial caveats and assumptions of the particular fantasy world, I like actions and events to have logical consequences, civilizations and societies to function in  manner consistent with with human nature, and settings to have an implied or overt sense of history.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. In a campaign about a year ago in my homebrewed system where each character has a "miracle point" (equivalent to a "slip from death's clutches for free" card, but not guaranteed-gm discretion), my dwarven warrior missed a balance and reaction roll while traversing a narrow but deep gorge on a rotting rope bridge. I elected to allow my character to die despite having a miracle point to spend, because realistically in most instances if you plummet 400 feet onto a rock-strewn creek, you are one dead little bugger.

I've seen games where a character could survive that without miracle points or feather fall, etc. That seems a bit goofy to me and kinda kills the overall feeling.

Quote from: Wood Elf;809758I...my dwarven warrior missed a balance and reaction roll while traversing a narrow but deep gorge on a rotting rope bridge. I elected to allow my character to die despite having a miracle point to spend, because realistically in most instances if you plummet 400 feet onto a rock-strewn creek, you are one dead little bugger.

I'd probably have gone for a loose rope on the rotting rope bridge that the little bugger could grab onto.

Quote from: Bren;809757I don't see that as particularly relevant to how I decide what I like about a game. I don't have much interest in playing TOON or a really gonzo fantasy game. A certain level of realism is necessary for me to enjoy the game at all.

When I run Runequest in Glorantha there is magic all over the place. All characters have magic spells and many have some type of magic item, but all that magic is integrated and integral to the setting.

Currently I am running Honor+Intrigue and so far (after ~ 140 sessions)  nothing clearly fantastic that has been seen in the game.

Actually when I think of what makes a game endearing to me I think of (1) the players, (2) their characters, (3) the setting. As the GM I can most control the setting so I spend a lot of time on that. But it isn't what most differentiates the great games from the only good games.

Fair enough.

Perhaps I should have used a different word than endearing. I agree completely with your last point. I guess I was trying to describe more of a feeling of familiarity and believability. Do more realistic elements enhance that for you?

As a side note, I like your name. I had a character named "Bren Baramar" that I ran for about 7 years. Fun character.

Quote from: Bren;809764I'd probably have gone for a loose rope on the rotting rope bridge that the little bugger could grab onto.

My gm offered that, but it just felt right for the story too. The surviving comrades had a statue built in his honor. He was a brave and sturdy little shit... at least until he ended up splattered on the rocks.

Relastic elements enhance familiarity and believablity for me.

Genre tropes that are familiar (even though unbelievable) also work pretty well as long as they are from a genre I enjoy and the genre fits the setting. So in Honor+Intrigue - a game of swashbuckling cape and sword action - certain genre tropes are likely to occur even if they aren't fully realistic e.g. it is pretty hard to kill a Hero or a Villain by shooting them in H+I. Because in the genre, such matters are decided sword-to-sword. So black powder weapons, though deadly in general, tend not to kill the main characters.

On the other hand, the surf-board swords seen in some anime, mostly bugs me. So I find that less familiar, less believable, and less fun for me.

I like the name as well. :) It's from our long running Star Wars D6 game.

Quote from: Bren;809775Relastic elements enhance familiarity and believablity for me.

Genre tropes that are familiar (even though unbelievable) also work pretty well as long as they are from a genre I enjoy and the genre fits the setting. So in Honor+Intrigue - a game of swashbuckling cape and sword action - certain genre tropes are likely to occur even if they aren't fully realistic e.g. it is pretty hard to kill a Hero or a Villain by shooting them in H+I. Because in the genre, such matters are decided sword-to-sword. So black powder weapons, though deadly in general, tend not to kill the main characters.

On the other hand, the surf-board swords seen in some anime, mostly bugs me. So I find that less familiar, less believable, and less fun for me.

I like the name as well. :) It's from our long running Star Wars D6 game.

No shit!?!?!??? Bren Baramar was my human smuggler in WEG Star Wars d6!!
Weird. Did you ever have a character named Galador Dorthimlion? ;-)

I concur about genre tropes. It gets back to the whole consistency idea. I must agree about the anime style stuff though. Grossly exaggerated weapons and armour in particular make me twitch.
Since I make my living making real weapons and tools, I guess it is an extra shit-fit point for me. If I had a nickel for every time somebody wanted me to make some video game sword, I'd be a rich man.

Quote from: Wood Elf;809781No shit!?!?!??? Bren Baramar was my human smuggler in WEG Star Wars d6!!
Weird. Did you ever have a character named Galador Dorthimlion? ;-)

Nope. :) Apparently I am not your evil twin.

The avatar is Bren.

Lol. My avatar is Galador Dorthimlion, wood elven explorer extraordinaire!

Its a difficult question but I suppose if I boil it down my answer is the somewhat weasel: Whatever works. It depends entirely on the setting and genre. Some call for high realism, some don't. I value consistency more. Once the rules are established they should be followed or exceptions noteworthy events.

I am a big fan of the Rule of Cool and I'm willing to let a great deal for fun things and awesome effects. Big weapons, mecha, one guy fighting an army or actually have chance vs a giant sapient flying dinosaur that breathes fire and has a laundry list of magical powers: bring it on Its just a game.

But I've found the behavior and human interaction that seems "unrealistic" tends to bother me much faster than unrealistic physics, technology or biology.

Quote from: Nexus;809895Its a difficult question but I suppose if I boil it down my answer is the somewhat weasel: Whatever works. It depends entirely on the setting and genre. Some call for high realism, some don't. I value consistency more. Once the rules are established they should be followed or exceptions noteworthy events.

I agree, but some of it depends on the GM; I'm better with some kind of familiar (to me) source material, or just very standard fantasy conventions, than with pervasively weird worlds. The noteworthy exceptions I usually introduce with clumsy exposition from some NPC.

QuoteBut I've found the behavior and human interaction that seems "unrealistic" tends to bother me much faster than unrealistic physics, technology or biology.

But if all the inhabitants behave and interact only in "realistic" ways, the game world feels less real; some of them have to seem really strange for the game world to satisfy me.

Quote from: rawma;810124But if all the inhabitants behave and interact only in "realistic" ways, the game world feels less real; some of them have to seem really strange for the game world to satisfy me.

Wanting people to act "realistically" isn't the same as expecting them to all rationally, logically or even consistently. People aren't like that but there are limits which I admit are arbitrary.

Here's an example of something that bugs me: The Marvel Universe ubiquitous mutant hatred. Not that it exists but that its so universal and specific.

Would there be bigots that hated superhumans in a world like the Marvel universe: certainly. Would some of them make odd arbitrary exceptions (I'm okay with Gods, aliens, sentient robots, etc etc, but those Muties gotta go!"), yeah probably bigotry is rarely rational. But that its so seemingly commonplace in the Marvel Universe (which is overflowing with super beings) that people find Jubilee more terrifying and worthy of fear and hate than the Thing or the Abomination. It feels like every other person in the world would become a Purifier is asked and the other half support them.

Just seems weird and artificial.

To be fair it does seem like Marvel has dialed that back quite a bit since I was last heavily into comics.

Yeah, I always thought that was a silly element that arose gradually out of the X-books.  You're totally cool if you're a superhero and people love you, unless you're a mutant. Or Spider-man.

But the guy who can light himself on fire is totally cool, because cosmic rays.

Quote from: RPGPundit;811018Yeah, I always thought that was a silly element that arose gradually out of the X-books.  You're totally cool if you're a superhero and people love you, unless you're a mutant. Or Spider-man.

But the guy who can light himself on fire is totally cool, because cosmic rays.

I always saw the Marvel mutants as a metaphor for the gay community. Most of them can 'pass' while not being like the majority. Though it can be applied to many minority groups.

Quote from: Tetsubo;811021I always saw the Marvel mutants as a metaphor for the gay community. Most of them can 'pass' while not being like the majority. Though it can be applied to many minority groups.

Brian Singer certainly saw them that way. Pretty sure Stan and Jack had a more generic "minority" analogy in mind though.

Quote from: TristramEvans;811442Brian Singer certainly saw them that way. Pretty sure Stan and Jack had a more generic "minority" analogy in mind though.

I'm not sure I ever read any Singer. It's been a very long time since I was a 'comic book guy'. I also rarely paid attention to who was doing the writing. I was far more into artists.

Quote from: Tetsubo;811462I'm not sure I ever read any Singer. It's been a very long time since I was a 'comic book guy'. I also rarely paid attention to who was doing the writing. I was far more into artists.

Singer is the film-maker who did the first 2 x-men films and Days of Future Past, best known for The Usual Suspects

Quote from: RPGPundit;811018Yeah, I always thought that was a silly element that arose gradually out of the X-books.  You're totally cool if you're a superhero and people love you, unless you're a mutant. Or Spider-man.

But the guy who can light himself on fire is totally cool, because cosmic rays.

I think the difference is that at some level mutants are in evolutionary competition with homo sapiens. As such I can see how instinctively the public at large (rarely the most enlightened bunch) see them as an existential threat to the human race rather than the next step in evolution.

I'm not saying this is proper science fiction, as in the sort of meangiful sociological speculation you might find in the book of Ursula LeGuin, but it sort of works and makes about as much as anything else in comics.

Quote from: RPGPundit;811018Yeah, I always thought that was a silly element that arose gradually out of the X-books.  You're totally cool if you're a superhero and people love you, unless you're a mutant. Or Spider-man.

But the guy who can light himself on fire is totally cool, because cosmic rays.

I expect Spider-man is unpopular because everyone is sure he's actually a mutant. Otherwise all the mutants would claim they were bitten by radioactive whatever and everyone would be OK with that. Like claiming to have gotten AIDS from a mosquito bite.

The guy who sets himself on fire? Heroic astronaut afflicted by a tragic accident, and you and your family are not likely to be similarly afflicted unless you go into outer space.

So the premise of dislike specific to mutants isn't that bad, although one has to wonder why "good at PR" is never a mutant power.

Quote from: rawma;811635I expect Spider-man is unpopular because everyone is sure he's actually a mutant.

The Xmen don't like Spiderman because he's not a mutant which leads me to believe one of Spiderman's major powers is Public Distrust.

In the ultimate universe, Peter Parker Spider-man often would have to say "I'm not a mutant, not that there is anything wrong with that." in response to being accused of being a mutant.

And most of the X-Men in the mainstream universe like Spidey. Even Wolverine does. In his own way. (He even spent his birthday with Spidey at one point, because he didn't feel he had anyone else to spend it with.)

Quote from: Brad;811809The Xmen don't like Spiderman because he's not a mutant which leads me to believe one of Spiderman's major powers is Public Distrust.

He got spider powers from that bite, and Freaking Lots Of People Out appears to be a spider power, so it makes sense.

They know who isnt a Mutant on Earth 616, because they didnt get chased by Sentinels.

Quote from: TristramEvans;811999They know who isnt a Mutant on Earth 616, because they didnt get chased by Sentinels.

What about a mutant who's primary power is invisibility to mutant detection methods?

Quote from: Nexus;812000What about a mutant who's primary power is invisibility to mutant detection methods?

I'm not familiar with that character.


But thats obviously not Spider-man.


Spidey's reputation is largely based on a decades-long smear campaign from a media publisher.

Quote from: Nexus;812000What about a mutant who's primary power is invisibility to mutant detection methods?

How could you ever know if she was a mutant with invisibility to mutant detection methods or a non-mutant who was of course not detected by mutant detection methods?

Quote from: TristramEvans;812001I'm not familiar with that character.


But thats obviously not Spider-man.


Spidey's reputation is largely based on a decades-long smear campaign from a media publisher.

I'm just tossing out hypotheticals!


And I was joking. :)

Quote from: rawma;812002How could you ever know if she was a mutant with invisibility to mutant detection methods or a non-mutant who was of course not detected by mutant detection methods?

Schroedinger's X-gene

Quote from: rawma;812002How could you ever know if she was a mutant with invisibility to mutant detection methods or a non-mutant who was of course not detected by mutant detection methods?

Or maybe a mutant bitten by a radioactive human so she gained amazing human powers*! The Amazing Girl-girl!

*like not showing up on mutant detectors.

Quote from: RPGPundit;807133From my experience, "realism" usually actually means "people demanding their own crazy unrealistic ideas based on pet interests".  I mean, when you have people arguing that "realistically" a katana should cut through a tank (or, as actually happened in one of my campaigns, that a bar stool should actually be a better defensive weapon than a shield), but no one seems interested in tracking bowel movements, then you're not actually arguing for anything 'real'.

This shit again from you? Take a fucking piss and get over it. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Brad;811809The Xmen don't like Spiderman because he's not a mutant which leads me to believe one of Spiderman's major powers is Public Distrust.

Peter Parker, Teenager, is the fundamental thing. It gets a bit awkward when he's pushed past the early 20s college-student phase.

Quote from: Tetsubo;811021I always saw the Marvel mutants as a metaphor for the gay community. Most of them can 'pass' while not being like the majority. Though it can be applied to many minority groups.

Well sure, originally they were a metaphor for racism; later they became a metaphor for gay rights.  But they still don't make sense in the same way that either of those would.  Mainly because there are mutants who look like totally average people and are thus not a 'visible' minority on the one hand, and on the other there are non-mutants who have weird and dangerous powers or unusual appearance and yet these aren't persecuted in the marvel universe.