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



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.