Well, it seems to me those three blogs get more refined over time.

It seems to me that the first blog demonstrates the language problem I've harped on a few times, where some people use "realism" to mean some preference for things that seem right to things that seem wrong, whereas other people use "realism" to mean absolutely correct realism, or even no fantastic elements, and/or to judge that any imperfection means a complete failure of realism. That second definition seems like a clear mistake to me (insisting we can't use "realism" to mean a desire for more realistic over less realistic, rather than absolute realism or even non-fantastic), which sidetracks discussions. If we search & replace all "realism" with "absolute realism", the blog makes much more sense, except that I'd say the people that actually mean they want absolutely accurate realism in their games are so ridiculous that it's not necessary to argue about it.

The part about insisting people playing games injure themselves when their PCs are hurt is just even more silly than the trolls the article has any business taking to task.

The "fuckers" section, when we sub in "absolute realism" isn't addressing anyone I know, because I don't think I've ever met anyone (well, no one old enough to legally fuck) saying any RPG is absolutely realistic.

The second blog is far more reasonable, and of course yes we want playable game rules and they don't have to be entirely realistic, but again, that shouldn't mean we need to stop using the word realistic or realism to simply indicate that we prefer rules to seem pretty realistic to us, to rules that clearly have glaring realism issues. Yes, it makes sense to focus details on the game's subject and where the players are interested. I actually love the space story meteor example - I'd say it's a great example of one way realism can spoil expectations and fun, but I also think it is interesting and worth more reflection as a minor topic in itself, not exactly about realism.

When the second blog gets to "So there is NO RPG out there that attempts to be truly "realistic" or a real "simulation" of real life." then again, yup, but that doesn't mean we need to abandon the most natural word in English for saying we want a satisfyingly realistic game, not ever meaning it's absolutely accurately realistic in all ways.

When the second blog writes, "Fortunately, no one really wants that. What one wants is DETAIL, where and when detail is appropriate." well partly, but also some degree of making sense and corresponding to (pardon the word root) reality is desired by some. Yes, we may be wrong about some things we think are realistic, and some of us may really mean we want genre emulation or something, but it's still (for me and like-minded players I know, anyway) about having gameplay match well enough the way we feel a situation would tend to play out. It seems like you get that and agree, but are focusing on an idea of realism in gaming as something we don't mean. We just want to avoid game situations which play out in ways that seem fake/wrong/dumb, and we'd prefer to play games which feel more like they involve appropriate cause & effect that matches our idea of what the situations are about. We don't mean we want unplayable rules and we aren't deluded that we have a NASA-satisfying simulation.

I find the third blog even more interesting and less affected by the extreme definition for the term "realism":

Given your meaning of absolute realism I'd mostly concede your point on genre, although I feel like any game world is in trouble, at least for my tastes, if and when it stops being internally consistent, which for my general use of the world "realism" would be a term I would apply to weird game worlds needing to at least make some sort of sense. Your supers player who knew some physics and had a speedster character and pointed out how much power that implied, to my mind had a really good point, and is why I almost never even begin to try to play supers games, and have trouble enjoying superhero fiction - because it doesn't make enough sense to me. I'm interested in some fantastic stories about people with super powers, but when the author just doesn't seem to know or care that their story makes no sense for whatever reason, I tend to lose interest.

Similarly in other types of fiction and games. Yes my lines of what makes sense and seems adequately realistic are imperfect and arbitrary, but the ones I have I do care about. In fact, the degree to which a story satisfies them is critical to whether I am willing to even bother to keep watching a show, let alone spend hours playing in an RPG. The interesting part for me of stories and games is engaging the situation they're about, and it gets screwed up when the logic of it is un-swallowable and/or unbelievable.

Your argument about Melvin is reasonable to me. In fact, I'd say your approach is quite rational and realistic. Again, most of where we disagree on realism is about what the word means. I would not say "doing what is "realistic" in this case DIRECTLY DAMAGES Emulation of Genre" - I would word it that Melvin's suggestion for what is realistic is clearly not the case in the game world, or else it would be a known powerful application of fireballs, so I would say "realistically", fireballs must not have that effect in this world. Then I'd need to determine if something needs to be fixed in the definition of fireball to explain how it fails when someone tries to do it. Your method of thinking on that ruling is pretty much the same as mine - except you associate "realism" with jerkish OOC arguments, and I associate the word "realism" with the kind of logic you're employing to have your game setting and rules make consistent sense. And if some GM agreed with Melvin and let him be the first wizard to think of his super-tactic, then part of what I'd say is that that ruling is very "unrealistic" for the reasons you pointed out.

I agree that internal consistency is different from realism, but when you talk about people trying to be realistic by adding details that aren't consistent to the setting on the grounds they are "realistic" (and the people in your super-katana and dragons not having their hunting range examples), well I just think those people are confused and/or their setting could probably use some more thought.

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.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;952935Hole in one.

Quote from: Elfdart;952993Indeed.

And +1.

QuoteFor 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.

Strangely enough, I have found such people to stop being "assholes", as you define it, when we were playing a historical game. (But then, they had no trouble suspending disbelief, and when they asked me for sources in case the info was new to them, I presented the sources).

Quote from: RPGPunditExample number one: Melvin the wizard wants to claim that "realistic" physics should let him do some special trick with a fireball that allows him to take down a large number of opponents at once. Now, there are probably a million other magic-users n the game setting, and if Melvin's player was right, and this was "realistic" in the emulation of genre, then either every single one of those wizards (and all others throughout past history) is a moron, or they'd all be using this same tactic and the world would be a fiery hell hole. So doing what is "realistic" in this case DIRECTLY DAMAGES Emulation of Genre (because Melvin getting what he wants means that either something no one had seen in the entire campaign is actually totally common place and all the consequences of that ought to be present everywhere, creating a paradox; or the entirety of wizards everywhere are fucking morons, which kind of ruins the whole feeling of the wizards being, you know, NOT morons).
So the likely answers to this situation are: a) Realism sucks and b) Melvin's Player is a slimy little dipshit who's trying to argue about "realism" so that he can get away with a munchkin move that would unbalance the game and ruin everyone's fun in the long term.

Quote from: Skarg;952995Your argument about Melvin is reasonable to me. In fact, I'd say your approach is quite rational and realistic. Again, most of where we disagree on realism is about what the word means. I would not say "doing what is "realistic" in this case DIRECTLY DAMAGES Emulation of Genre" - I would word it that Melvin's suggestion for what is realistic is clearly not the case in the game world, or else it would be a known powerful application of fireballs, so I would say "realistically", fireballs must not have that effect in this world. Then I'd need to determine if something needs to be fixed in the definition of fireball to explain how it fails when someone tries to do it. Your method of thinking on that ruling is pretty much the same as mine - except you associate "realism" with jerkish OOC arguments, and I associate the word "realism" with the kind of logic you're employing to have your game setting and rules make consistent sense. And if some GM agreed with Melvin and let him be the first wizard to think of his super-tactic, then part of what I'd say is that that ruling is very "unrealistic" for the reasons you pointed out.

This is an interesting question that is hampered by the fact that it is unspecified what Melvin's tactic is. Without that, no, I don't agree that Melvin's player is necessarily a dipshit for trying a seemingly effective tactic.

As a parallel - I recall in an old AD&D game, I was with a group trying to assault a King's castle. The background was that there was constant detect magic around the borders. We determined that a druid transformed into a animal didn't register on detect magic since it wasn't a spell. Further, what the druid is wearing disappears when they transform, and reappears when they change back. So the party all got into our portable hole, the druid wore it, changed into a bird, and flew into the castle. He then changed back and we were able to bypass all the castle's defenses.

Logically, this all worked - but it did expose a hole in this or any castle's defenses, and potentially a destabilizing tactic for all kingdoms. I don't think that the problem was in our attempting the tactic, though, and that we were dipshits for trying it and that it shows that realism sucks. We were just trying to come up with the best plan. Rather, it's just exposing an issue with internal consistency in the world, and it was up to the GM to repair it. The GM was within his rights to retcon and tell us that actually a druid transformed did show up on detect magic, but we should then know about that.

Yeah, without knowing what Melvin's super-tactic is, or the magic system and situation and so on, it's hard to judge whether Melvin was annoying or just clever, and where the issues were with the spell and so on. In general, I like it when players are creative with coming up with solutions, including weird magical loopholes. But when a magic system allows exploits that the setting doesn't account for, and they come up in play, this sort of dilemma can show up. It can also show up when a GM makes a dubious ruling about anything that has implications that contradict the setting. Arguments from OOC "realism" assertions is just one flavor, though there are ones I would agree with and want to change the setting or system for, and there are ones I think are annoying and should be disregarded, which is fairly subjective.

Quote from: AsenRG;953044And +1.


Strangely enough, I have found such people to stop being "assholes", as you define it, when we were playing a historical game. (But then, they had no trouble suspending disbelief, and when they asked me for sources in case the info was new to them, I presented the sources).

My experience was different, so consider yourself lucky. The closest I ever saw gamers come to fisticuffs was over a game of Squad Leader, when an M5 Stuart knocked out a Tiger by planting an AP round up its ass from point-blank range. The guy playing the Germans insisted it was impossible and not only threw a fit at his opponent and the referee, but nearly threw his drink at a spectator for laughing at him. As is usually the case, he was full of shit.

Quote from: Elfdart;953303My experience was different, so consider yourself lucky. The closest I ever saw gamers come to fisticuffs was over a game of Squad Leader, when an M5 Stuart knocked out a Tiger by planting an AP round up its ass from point-blank range. The guy playing the Germans insisted it was impossible and not only threw a fit at his opponent and the referee, but nearly threw his drink at a spectator for laughing at him. As is usually the case, he was full of shit.

I'd rather consider you the less than lucky side, if you don't mind;).

Realistic rules, historical games, "genre emulation", and people being silly/wrong/belligerent over details/events trying to use dubious realism arguments, are all different things.

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

No, it's an explanation of why "realism" is bullshit, and how most people who aren't autistic actually mean "emulation of something" ('something' depending on what they're looking for) rather than actual "realism".

Quote from: jhkim;952880Some 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.

They might. But I bet there's 50000 other things from "real science" or other facets of the "real world" that they wouldn't give a fuck about and would find annoying to have to nitpick about in their games. I don't see many games where you have to keep track of how full your character's bladder is, for example.

QuoteOr 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.

Again, looking at real historical sources and artifacts is a totally sensible thing to do if you want to create a setting that emulates history. But again, that would not mean it would be "realistic" in the sense of imitating every tiny detail of history.

Quote from: RPGPundit;953585No, it's an explanation of why "realism" is bullshit, and how most people who aren't autistic actually mean "emulation of something" ('something' depending on what they're looking for) rather than actual "realism".

No they don't, but unfortunately you don't understand what they mean, so you throw "autism" around as an insult.

Being angry and confrontational is rarely helpful.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;953609No they don't, but unfortunately you don't understand what they mean, so you throw "autism" around as an insult.

Being angry and confrontational is rarely helpful.

True, that.

Quote from: jhkimSome 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.

Quote from: RPGPundit;953587They might. But I bet there's 50000 other things from "real science" or other facets of the "real world" that they wouldn't give a fuck about and would find annoying to have to nitpick about in their games. I don't see many games where you have to keep track of how full your character's bladder is, for example.

The same thing can be said of any real-life simulations that are used for scientific or other research purposes. Nothing simulates all of reality. Car crash tests only look at how the human structure is stressed in a crash, without tracking bladder fullness or beard growth of the dummies. Does this mean that we can dismiss that no such test is realistic, and realism doesn't apply to such tests? No, that's ridiculous. Realism has a pretty simple real-world meaning. If I say a crash test is realistic, that doesn't mean that I think it properly simulates bladder fullness and beard growth. It means that it gives results like what would really happen to the rough structure of a person in a car crash. The same can be said of paintings, or statues, or dioramas. Can no statue be realistic because it doesn't move? No, that's not expected of a statue - but it is more realistic if it more closely matches the shape of a real person.

And likewise, the same applies to games. No game is perfectly gives every detail and perfectly matches reality, but some are closer to reality than others.

Sometimes, a group will enjoy deliberately non-realistic cinematic action - like doing Star Wars style starship battles with banking turns and so forth. Sometimes, a group will enjoy more realistic action where spaceships follow momentum and thrust in a vacuum. Both of these are perfectly good preferences, and thus there is a term to distinguish them. And yeah, often players will want more realism in some parts of the game, and less realism in other parts of the game. There's nothing wrong with that as a preference either.

Quote from: RPGPundit;953585No, it's an explanation of why "realism" is bullshit, and how most people who aren't autistic actually mean "emulation of something" ('something' depending on what they're looking for) rather than actual "realism".

Fucking neurotypicals and their pathetic attempts to rehash arguments settled in the 80s when the term "playable realism" was coined ::rollseyes::

The treatment of "realims" looks to me like the whining of someone who doesn´t get his hyperpowered archmage-ultimate swordmaster-ninja pointing out that true balancing of game characters is not possible anyway and what people want to get is heroic stories - with Mary-Sue-fiction his only reference available ... .
Sure you can overdo ist and reduce playablility too much for even the most enthusiastic "autist", you can get it plainly wrong, you can choose the wrong focus to finely modell for the game you said you want to make, but lastly there is also a broad field where you just can make it better than what is available (or at least try it) and thus improve the "fun" for those that have the fitting taste to appeciate this efforts.

As seen here it seems to me to be just a rant of someone that again fears that a game style fitting to a different taste is leaving him alone without players for what he likes.

I consistently have enough players.  What other people do at their tables is their business.