Probably the most low rules RPG with good realism are FU and Mythic. (mythic though is a bit more complex) Thing is, the realism is totally defined by the player and common sense. And that applies to any low rules RPG.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;950116PC's handling of guns is quite (in) famous, but I always wondered if they hand just as detailed rules for hand weapons?

Yes.  Moreso, to some degree.  They had their PC Hand To Hand Combat System, as well as some earlier things that went even deeper down the rabbit hole of it all.

Quote from: Skarg;950054Yeah, I've tried running Phoenix Command shoot-outs, and it was very slow for me and seemed like it would be a long learning curve. It was also disappointingly hard to relate to the system and to pirate much from it due to the all the tables, and not knowing how I could map things to the types of rules I'm used to.

But the satisfied curiosity, and of course the rules for exactly how many fractional seconds it takes someone to saw through someone's body parts with a chainsaw, were worth the purchase!

So, I did just that, pirating the parts that I liked (which included some of the tables) and dropping the parts that either a) I didn't like, or b) that I felt would turn off my stable group of players.  What I wound up with is a d20 based system with a range category-based to hit system as from CP2020.  The damage and healing and were pure PC, and the interaction of the to hit roll and glance/penetration system makes it very interesting to play.  I got away from some of the table lookup problems by just having the hit location/damage table on every character sheet, which made things easier for players to relate to.  Overall, it ran well, but I'm really familiar with the PC system so a lot of it was transparent to the players, just like in Asen's description above.

Overall though, the big takeaway for me that makes it surpass CP2020 is the enhanced emphasis on WHERE you hit as opposed to what you roll.  PC's concept (the basic rules, btw; even I'm not into the advanced hit location tables, screw that) of putting that emphasis makes the combat and wounds a lot more.. vicious, and I liked that bit.  When the players are scared to get in a gunfight, not because "OMG not combat again..." but because "OMG, I don't want to lose this guy to some mook with a shotgun" then they look for other solutions.

Yeah, that sounds much more workable. Good job extracting the parts you wanted.

Since I tend to like games that include some level of focus on combat, I also like the rules to provide reasons to use tactics that make sense, so the gameplay is about what to do to survive, not having a high-rated character that means they can always successfully just run straight at the enemy firing a pistol (or SMG) in each hand.

Absolutely no system is "realistic".  Some systems are more successfully emulative than others. Those are not the same thing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;951501Absolutely no system is "realistic".  Some systems are more successfully emulative than others. Those are not the same thing.

What do you mean? What definition of realistic are you using that would have you prefer the word emulative, and where are you getting that definition?

Quote from: Skarg;952065What do you mean? What definition of realistic are you using that would have you prefer the word emulative, and where are you getting that definition?

I long since elaborated on this subject in some of my previous blog entries.

Quote from: RPGPundit;952778I long since elaborated on this subject in some of my previous blog entries.

Makes sense to me.  (especially the ranting about weapon accuracy by people who obviously have no clue )  I care far more about internal consistency & having the right vibe than an attempt at true "realism".

Quote from: RPGPundit;952778I long since elaborated on this subject in some of my previous blog entries.

Unfortunately that's pretty much just a long angry rant that doesn't really contribute anything to the conversation.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;952791Makes sense to me.  (especially the ranting about weapon accuracy by people who obviously have no clue )  I care far more about internal consistency & having the right vibe than an attempt at true "realism".

That's a completely reasonable preference for you.  However, do you think that anyone else who is interested in realism is mistaken, and that really they must want the same thing that you want?

That's my beef with Pundit's assertion.

Some people are genuinely interested in realism, so for example, they might look into real orbital mechanics for their science fiction game rather than watching sci-fi movies to emulate. Or they might look into real history sources and artifacts for their historical game, rather than trying to emulate historical fiction. It's not to everyone's taste - but it is something that some people are interested in.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;952799Unfortunately that's pretty much just a long angry rant that doesn't really contribute anything to the conversation.

The single best summation of Pundejo since . . . ever.

Quote from: jhkim;952880That's a completely reasonable preference for you.  However, do you think that anyone else who is interested in realism is mistaken, and that really they must want the same thing that you want?

That's my beef with Pundit's assertion.

Some people are genuinely interested in realism, so for example, they might look into real orbital mechanics for their science fiction game rather than watching sci-fi movies to emulate. Or they might look into real history sources and artifacts for their historical game, rather than trying to emulate historical fiction. It's not to everyone's taste - but it is something that some people are interested in.

No - I agree.  But - it all depends upon how you define the terms.

In Pundit's rant - he defined realism as something which would 100% simulate reality.  Since that's impossible - everything is just emulation to some degree, getting closer or further from reality (though you'll have trouble getting any two people to agree how close any given system is).

Now - I think that one could reasonably call that being more realistic while realizing that you'll never hit the mark 100% in a TTRPG - but that gets to be a matter of semantics.  And - based upon how Pundit uses the terms - he's correct.

(Frankly - a large chunk of internet disagreements are due to people not defining their terms.)

In a system are you more likely to score a one-hit kill on someone using a Dane Axe then you are with a small knife? Then your game is more realistic than one where they do the same damage.  Is it possible to hit a man-sized target with a longbow at 400 yards, but requires great skill?  Then your game is more realistic than one in which such a shot is impossible or is commonplace.

That's all realistic means with regards to games, being in line with expectations of how things work in the real world.  Rivers flow downhill, oceans have tides, volcanos are hot, horses don't gallop backwards, giraffes aren't ambush predators, etc...

Despite the fantastic natures of many things in a "fantasy world", most things tend to work roughly the same way as our world does.  Because dragons exist doesn't mean plate armor, shields, weapons, and all the mundane aspects of a world should work any differently then our own.

The idea that the word "realism" is badwrongthink because the most advanced computer model we can create even now for the most simplistic process isn't perfect, is just silly.  It's a strawman to think "realistic" or "realism" means 100% perfect simulation of reality.

However, in some worlds, water may run up hill from oceans to the tops of mountains, where the waterfalls fall upwards to heaven.  That's where the words verisimilar and verisimilitude come in, things being in line with expectations of how things work in the fantasy world.  Internal consistency.

Because it's a fantasy world, do you have to always use verisimilar/verisimilitude as opposed to realistic/realism?  I think most people are capable of shifting back and forth between aspects of the setting which differ from earth reality and aspects of the setting which do not differ from earth reality just fine using either term.

Now can people fall down the rabbit hole in the quest for realism?  Sure.  Do people tend to focus in to a finer level of granularity of realism for their particular areas of expertise, leaving other areas quite broad or fuzzy?  Of course.  Phoenix Command is not for 99% of the gaming population, but some people like it just fine.

Quote from: CRKrueger;952914In a system are you more likely to score a one-hit kill on someone using a Dane Axe then you are with a small knife? Then your game is more realistic than one where they do the same damage.  Is it possible to hit a man-sized target with a longbow at 400 yards, but requires great skill?  Then your game is more realistic than one in which such a shot is impossible or is commonplace.

That's all realistic means with regards to games, being in line with expectations of how things work in the real world.  Rivers flow downhill, oceans have tides, volcanos are hot, horses don't gallop backwards, giraffes aren't ambush predators, etc...

Despite the fantastic natures of many things in a "fantasy world", most things tend to work roughly the same way as our world does.  Because dragons exist doesn't mean plate armor, shields, weapons, and all the mundane aspects of a world should work any differently then our own.

The idea that the word "realism" is badwrongthink because the most advanced computer model we can create even now for the most simplistic process isn't perfect, is just silly.  It's a strawman to think "realistic" or "realism" means 100% perfect simulation of reality.

However, in some worlds, water may run up hill from oceans to the tops of mountains, where the waterfalls fall upwards to heaven.  That's where the words verisimilar and verisimilitude come in, things being in line with expectations of how things work in the fantasy world.  Internal consistency.

Because it's a fantasy world, do you have to always use verisimilar/verisimilitude as opposed to realistic/realism?  I think most people are capable of shifting back and forth between aspects of the setting which differ from earth reality and aspects of the setting which do not differ from earth reality just fine using either term.

Now can people fall down the rabbit hole in the quest for realism?  Sure.  Do people tend to focus in to a finer level of granularity of realism for their particular areas of expertise, leaving other areas quite broad or fuzzy?  Of course.  Phoenix Command is not for 99% of the gaming population, but some people like it just fine.

Hole in one.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;952935Hole in one.

Indeed.

For me, the point of "realism/verisimilitude" is to provide a common frame of reference for everyone at the table. Far too often it's an excuse for self-appointed know-it-all types to bog down the game with horseshit pedantry. You know, the ones don't know as much as they think they know. Like the ones who bitch about ring or banded armor, or who insist that real ogres couldn't walk because of their leg bones or something. People who aren't willing to suspend disbelief are assholes and strangely enough, they will still be assholes no matter how much fine tuning you might try with the rules to accommodate them -whether it's D&D, Boot Hill or Phoenix Command.