Quote from: Trond on May 30, 2021, 11:17:24 AM
Rather than "realistic" I would say it should "make internal sense".

The word you're looking for is 'consistency'. There should be consistency in theme.

Like many spices, realism is one of those things that you don't want to overuse in a game, and you expect more of it in some games than others. Twilight 2000, yeah, you're gonna track every bullet and bandage. High level D&D? Probably not so much.

There's a reason Phoenix Command didn't exactly take off, after all.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 30, 2021, 11:20:13 AM

Quote from: Trond on May 30, 2021, 11:17:24 AM
Rather than "realistic" I would say it should "make internal sense".

The word you're looking for is 'consistency'. There should be consistency in theme.

Like many spices, realism is one of those things that you don't want to overuse in a game, and you expect more of it in some games than others. Twilight 2000, yeah, you're gonna track every bullet and bandage. High level D&D? Probably not so much.

There's a reason Phoenix Command didn't exactly take off, after all.

That's roughly what I meant. by "internal sense". Internal to the setting and mood.

But what's the issue here with Phoenix Command? Combat taking too long?

It depends on the game.  Someone up thread mentioned Twilight:2000.  I'm less likely to be hand-wavy about that game than I am, say, Conflict, when it comes to games that represent firefights.  As Kyle Schuant has noted, there's accurate, and there's realistic.  They are not always (or often) the same thing.

I'm with Gary Gygax in that people who complain about the lack of realism in AD&D are free to go create a realistic RPG (and many did, they're gone and forgotten or entirely niche, taking the back seat to the fourth power or more to D&D so make of it what you will that having a "realistic" system will get you).  There are games I want realism in, because as it says on the tin, can model realism in the case of say, Heavy Gear (gears are big shot traps that can't carry tons of armor or heavy weapons, they're essentially walking gun trucks, so good at suppressing infantry, fast forward recon, etc., but slugging it out with tanks, not so much).  There are games I expect zero realism from and indeed when they try to be "realistic" it makes them worse games (Battletech). 

It just comes down to individual systems, and what I want out of them.

Quote from: Trond on May 30, 2021, 11:29:43 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 30, 2021, 11:20:13 AM

Quote from: Trond on May 30, 2021, 11:17:24 AM
Rather than "realistic" I would say it should "make internal sense".

The word you're looking for is 'consistency'. There should be consistency in theme.

Like many spices, realism is one of those things that you don't want to overuse in a game, and you expect more of it in some games than others. Twilight 2000, yeah, you're gonna track every bullet and bandage. High level D&D? Probably not so much.

There's a reason Phoenix Command didn't exactly take off, after all.

That's roughly what I meant. by "internal sense". Internal to the setting and mood.

But what's the issue here with Phoenix Command? Combat taking too long?

It's overcomplicated. It's a hyper-realistic simulation of gun combat in an RPG, designed by a no-shit rocket scientist.

Mr. Welch reviewed it here: https://youtu.be/onDYxtDzFuI

It's fascinating to look at, and it's not like the material is stupid or offensive, but... hoo boy, the complexity is off the damn charts.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 30, 2021, 04:16:08 PM

Quote from: Trond on May 30, 2021, 11:29:43 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 30, 2021, 11:20:13 AM

Quote from: Trond on May 30, 2021, 11:17:24 AM
Rather than "realistic" I would say it should "make internal sense".

The word you're looking for is 'consistency'. There should be consistency in theme.

Like many spices, realism is one of those things that you don't want to overuse in a game, and you expect more of it in some games than others. Twilight 2000, yeah, you're gonna track every bullet and bandage. High level D&D? Probably not so much.

There's a reason Phoenix Command didn't exactly take off, after all.

That's roughly what I meant. by "internal sense". Internal to the setting and mood.

But what's the issue here with Phoenix Command? Combat taking too long?

It's overcomplicated. It's a hyper-realistic simulation of gun combat in an RPG, designed by a no-shit rocket scientist.

Mr. Welch reviewed it here: https://youtu.be/onDYxtDzFuI

It's fascinating to look at, and it's not like the material is stupid or offensive, but... hoo boy, the complexity is off the damn charts.

As long as they didn't sell it as "fast and smooth-running" 😀

I seem to remember that there was a fantasy version of this game or made by the same people. Anyone tried that?

Quote from: Pat on May 28, 2021, 06:30:35 PM
Even realistic RPGs aren't realistic. The word you should have used is verisimilitude.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 30, 2021, 11:20:13 AM
The word you're looking for is 'consistency'. There should be consistency in theme.

Quote from: Pat on May 28, 2021, 10:39:32 PM
Because the air of realism is not about being realistic, but about the perception of being realistic. It's a subjective experience (if you've ever had an engineer as a player, you know their standards are different), that's often quite arbitrary because everyone has different interests and trigger points. It's ultimately a form of consensual delusion. To accept a game world as realistic isn't about being the most realistic against some objective measure, but about hitting the parts the players need in order to accept the world as pseudo-real. Tropes are important, because tropes are previously-established mental shortcuts, that have already primed to them to suspend their disbelief. If it's done well, the players will (often unconsciously) gloss over the inconsistencies and unrealistic elements, and become active participants in seeing the world as real, and even realistic.

And yes, creating an air of realism is just a special case of genre emulation.

'Suspension of Disbelief' is another term used in these parts.

Anyway, there is no such thing as a 'realistic' RPG, only one where certain expectations are conveyed and maintained.

Now most #OSR style RPGs favor having an established setting and hidden information under the control of the GM. In such games players solve problems through exploring the setting and verifying the solution. However most indie RPGs favor establishing the setting through player facing rules. In such games players solve problems by deciding which solution makes sense, not by exploring the setting because it technically doesn't exist until the players decide it does. And which method more effectively supports/undermines verisimilitude varies from player to player.

One fascinating corollary is how this seems to also indicate one's ideological outlook, as those who prefer the former tend to be #Republican while those the latter #Democrat. So much so that I don't think we can avoid dividing gamers across these ideological lines any longer.

'Consistency' is good. The more assumptions that are valid, the less work trying to explain them.
When making life or death decisions, it is good to have a solid feel for the world you are in.

Quote from: Greentongue on June 24, 2021, 01:30:59 PM
'Consistency' is good. The more assumptions that are valid, the less work trying to explain them.
When making life or death decisions, it is good to have a solid feel for the world you are in.

It's also one of the fundamental aspects of the old school mindset. Critics call it "mother may I", under the false assumption that each decision by the DM is arbitrary, and made in a vacuum, and that the players are asking permission. But that's not the case. If the game world and the rules it operates under are consistent, it doesn't matter if they're written down in a book. What matters is the rules, whether overt or implicit, have been expressed in previous encounters, and provide a baseline by which players can make rational decisions within the world, without reference to the DM except as a rubber stamp for a knowable outcome.

This also works well with the idea of exploring a new world full of unknowns. The players start knowing little about the world, and about the rules by which the world operates, which makes it seem a very dark and dangerous place, because any misjudgment can be fatal. But over time, as they explore the world, it becomes known. They develop a range in which they can operate with relative knowledge, and thus safety. This is "player knowledge", and is a reward for investment in the game. It's only when they push back the boundaries of unknown that they're taking real risks again, and that can be moderated.

Realism is the right word in my opinion. That is the word used in aesthetic fields for film, art, sculpture, why not RPGs? No one talks about photoverisimilitude or hyperverisimilitude or romanticism vs verisimilitudisim.

My definition of realism is this: An RPG is realistic if, were an action narrated in game to take place in the real world that the game implies, the same range of outcomes would occur for the action taken.

By this standard, a game can objectively be more or less realistic. This standard is among those used to assess the value of wargames in the professional wargame community, at RAND, DoD, etc.

As I have written about in Arbiter of Worlds, I believe the unique quality of the tabletop role-playing game, unmatched by any other type of entertainment, is that it offers maximum agency to the player. Their only competitors in this regard are wargames and videogames, neither of which matches the the tabletop RPG for agency. (To the extent a wargame offers RPG-like agency, it tends to evolve into an RPG.)

In order for a player to have maximum agency, he must be able to freely make meaningful choices that have not been pre-scripted.

a) In order for a choice to be meaningful, there must be a system of causality that links choices to effects in an intelligible and non-arbitrary manner.
b) In order for a choice to be free and not pre-scripted, there must be a system of adjudication for unexpected choices - a judge.

By having a judge, however, we risk introducing the capriciousness of human opinion into our system, which defeats requirement (a)'s demand for non-arbitrary decision-making. This risk is greatly lessened, however, if the game system is designed such that it is realistic. When encountering new situations, the judge can use his knowledge of the game's real world as the basis for a non-arbitrary decision.

Pre-Written Response to Typical Responses:
1) I disagree with your definition of realism for [various reasons].
OK. A shared definition is presuppositional to a debate. You are welcome to your own definition. I won't agree and we'll reach different conclusions.

2) I disagree with your belief that the unique quality of tabletop RPGs is their offering of maximum agency to the player. Actually, RPGs are [whatever].
OK. In taking my stance, I'm adopting a theory of aesthetics called essentialism. An assessment of "essence" (unique quality) is always arguable. Many anti-essentialist aesthetic philosophers don't think forms of art have essences at all, and that everything is arbitrary, socially embedded, and meaningless outside of particular contexts. If you don't agree with me, then... we'll reach different conclusions. We probably also won't like the same RPGs played in the same way, though we might for random reasons.

3) I disagree with your argument that games have to have judges to offer free, non-scripted, choice in order to offer agency. Actually, [whatever] offers agency.
OK. I agree that many games can offer some agency. But any game that offers agency of "x" can offer agency of "x+1" by opening up the menu of choices and having a means to resolve them. As "x" approaches infinite choice, the only available means for us becomes (for now) the human mind. [Caveat: A game can reduce agency for the player if the judge is introduced in a way that allows him to override objective game mechanics capriciously. "Ha, hah, you can't move your pawn to B3 because I said so." This is why I believe the judge has to be constrained.]

4) By your standard, no game can be realistic because Harry Potter isn't real [or whatever]
As noted above, the realism in question is based on the real world implied by the game's setting. It would be unrealistic if Harry Potter couldn't cast magic in the Harry Potter RPG.

4a) Many - if not most - fictional settings aren't self-consistent enough for a game to be realistic by your definition!
That is actually true. You can typically tell when a setting is completely inconsistent, because each designer who gets the license to that setting makes a totally new RPG out of it, and the RPG has little lasting popularity because the fans find it unpalatable, because it's not realistic. Star Fleet Battles - which is based on the self-consistent Starfleet Universe - remains played today, but every Star Trek RPG has a short shelf-life, because none of them can make sense of the insensible world of Star Trek.

5) From the above, it sounds like you believe that there is a Platonic ideal tabletop RPG which involves a set of rules that is realistic, applied to a sandbox campaign with open-ended goals, run by a GM who strives towards objectivity and consistency in all his rulings!
Yes. And that's my goal as an RPG designer.

6) Doesn't your definition of realism and agency lead to unworkably complex and slow-moving games?
No. See note (a) above - "intelligible" choice. Any sufficiently complex system becomes unintelligible. The ART of game design lies in simplifying the complexity of life in a way that the mechanism resolution is intelligible while the outcomes are realistic. If the map is so detailed that it's the same size as the territory, the map is useless; but if the map is so vague that it doesn't guide you through the territory, the map is useless.

Pursuit of realism can lead to strange things like the tippyverse.

I like mechanical intuitiveness in a system; a sameness to resolution for different things, a universal scaling quantification of things that allows for extrapolation and easy statting of creatures spells or items. I often mean this aspect when i say i prefer d6 system or talk about realism; rules as a physics or metaphysics simulator sort of realism.

I dislike realism as some use the word; like when they want a gritty grimdark setting where the local lord rapes all the peasants and adventures are killed on sight for being brigands, I hate that shit,  And often the guy complaining about realism is the same guy that talked endlessly about how realistic the fight between thor and surtur was in thor ragnarok.

For a good long time I was researching grim dark and medieval reality thinking i was going to do a historical game or an arthurian version of d6 fantasy; I discovered I would not like such very much and it would be wasted on most players that are not history fans.

I think what I wish to capture is the feel of old school becmi on mystara, which was tough survival challenge for about the first 5 levels, then began to resemble marvel superheroes once magic became a staple of character ability or gear. Still working on that.

Saw much in pendragon I thought I'd like to steal for such, but then decided to shut it, and save that for actually playing pendragon. Legacy/troupe play and planned campaign years by season is the only components i think i would at this time lift from pendragon for my purposes.

Back on course; for me realism is first and foremost misused by myself as a description of the repeatable ratios, scaling, internal consistency of resolution method of a rules system; for example using d6 fantasys normal wound system as a basis for design of an easy sanity mechanic. As opposed to the classical gygaxian approach of sewing together 18 different minigames to resolve different things, roll high here, roll low there, your level matters, for this it doesn't, use the fighter save chart, and so on.

This is not what most mean when they come at me about realism; they mean the npc reactions to player fuckery and the expectation of a tightly nailed down grimdark world trying to beat you down with mud and porridge at every turn.

I swear I feel too old to argue with teens and young adults about how guards SHOULD react to armed men covered in ichor hauling sacks of loot into town...or that they have a half devil with them...then you always get the player who wants to cite realism to browbeat other players over trivial things that really never come up in game; yeah the real world medieval folk would not abide a known sodomite thats true, but arguing that i should have the guards harrass your cousins character because he wanted to make being  gay a part of the characters persona is petty, trifling, adds nothing, undermines my authority as gm, and is all predicated upon a flimsy non-consistent series of arguments about realism.

Dude can we just fucking kill dragons and save wenches? like please?

From a discussion on Bill's livestream, gamer and lawyer (not rules lawyer!) Ty says,

Quote"You can have a perfectly predictable legal system, or you can have a just and fair legal system, but you can't have both. Because a perfectly predictable system would be a one-size-fits all system that does not take into account particular circumstances. A perfectly fair legal system would take every single case completely and totally on its own merits without reference to anything else and so you'd never be able to predict. [...] The law is always in tension between predictability and fairness - or reasonableness in the case of business law, or whatever."

And this is why we have the framework of the rules (laws) and then the game master makes rulings (common and case law).

Awesome find, Kyle! Great thoughts.

Quote from: Pat on June 24, 2021, 01:40:27 PM
It's also one of the fundamental aspects of the old school mindset. Critics call it "mother may I", under the false assumption that each decision by the DM is arbitrary, and made in a vacuum, and that the players are asking permission. But that's not the case. If the game world and the rules it operates under are consistent, it doesn't matter if they're written down in a book. What matters is the rules, whether overt or implicit, have been expressed in previous encounters, and provide a baseline by which players can make rational decisions within the world, without reference to the DM except as a rubber stamp for a knowable outcome.

This also works well with the idea of exploring a new world full of unknowns. The players start knowing little about the world, and about the rules by which the world operates, which makes it seem a very dark and dangerous place, because any misjudgment can be fatal. But over time, as they explore the world, it becomes known. They develop a range in which they can operate with relative knowledge, and thus safety. This is "player knowledge", and is a reward for investment in the game. It's only when they push back the boundaries of unknown that they're taking real risks again, and that can be moderated.

I have long argued that the when it comes to a conflict between the rules and how the setting is described, the setting should prevail and the rules altered to reflect how things work in the setting.

In short if it makes sense that a character can successfully weave a basket out of reeds, the character should be able to weave a basket out of reed regardless what in the system or not.

The problem with "Mother may I" is not a result of players not "getting" the old school way of doing thing. It is because it a result of poor communication skills on the part of the referee, and because starting out not knowing not anything is a niche of niche taste in gaming.

This issue came when I talked about Sandbox Campaigns. There only a few hobbyists that enjoy starting out a campaign in the midst of a blank hex grids. Fewer still that like to do this repeatable. This was true back in the day as well as the present.

Mostly because it rarely made sense once the campaign unfolded. A character is born and in raised in a setting so they would have a certain amount of knowledge starting out. The same with the rules being used. A character has an understanding of how the world works. Players want to be able weigh their choices and then commit to a course of action especially if it is risky. Most I found hate feeling like they might as well tack the map on a wall and throw a dart at it. In short choosing between six blank hexes is not really a choice. The same with choosing what to do as a character that will be resolved by the system.

You don't have to give the player chapter and verse of the entire book. But they need something to provide enough of an initial context to start the campaign going.

I talk about this in my Majestic Fantasy Rules.

When to make a ruling?
When running a campaign, you will discover that not everything a player wants to attempt as their character will be covered by the system. As a result, you will have to make a ruling.

There are three basic rulings. The attempt is not allowed because it is impossible. The attempt is allowed because it is automatically successful. Or, the result is uncertain, in which case a roll or series of rolls is needed.

The key thing to remember is that you can't assume your players know what you know. It works out best if you are prepared to explain your reasoning and willing to listen to your players' opinions on what factors are important for what the player wants to do.

Be prepared to coach the players from time to time, particularly if your campaign has a lot of setting details that are important. Otherwise, the players may become uncomfortable as they don't understand how you are going to rule when they try something as their characters.

I then go into what I assume about Character Competence,  How to weigh the consequences of failure in deciding which one of the three types of rulings apply.  And finally specific to the classic edition and my rules, the mechanical elements I use when crafting a ruling when rolls are needed.

Realism: 1 blow from a dagger can kill any humanoid creature, either rapidly or slowly.

Realism: Each wound must be tracked and treated individually. Get it wrong and infection and possibly death or gangrene follows.

Basically, reality can be rough, I don't need that too much in a game.