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.