I think a general consensus among gamers is that, within bounds of the genre, EDIT: realism/versimiltude is generally a good thing. But we've all seen systems and subsystems with more details than others. My general question is, when is not only realism/versimiltude neccessary, but when are detailed results or procedures neccessary?

My general thinking is that detail is neccesary or desireable only when the player can have a direct impact on the outcome or event the system is modeling. While playing in, say, a police drama type game, a system modeling a trial might be useful, but since a police officers role is limited to providing evidence and testimony, an elaborate model of the trial itself (outside of the PCs contribuations,) is to my mind, uneccesary. While a more elabroate model might create more varied outcomes or complications, the lack of influence players would have over the trial overall would be more of a distraction than a play aid.

What say others?

Realism 'needs' depends on the setting. I prefer to base on 'realism' in settings as much as possible because A) the information is out there, saving a great deal of work,  and B) it adds sense of impartiality to the setting. Plus it aids the players in developing plans.

But in actual non-combat gane mechanics, I feel flow is more important, so long as the GM has at least a basic understanding of the process being undertaken (or in the case of sci-fi or fantasy, something that sounds logical), and the situation is decently represented.

To use your courtroom example, being a police officer of many years the PCs have been tried, sued, and on occasion prosecuted cases in my campaigns. (most recently, a chicken accused of witchcraft. And before you laugh, animal trials actually did occur in the Middle Ages. Realistic does not have to mean un-weird). Other than testimony by PCs or cross-examination by PCs, and closing arguements, a trial is handled by a half-dozen pool rolls.

The dice always lay as they fall, but using a d10 pool system, I don't really see the need for a detailed charts. The detail is provided by GM narration.

The smooth continuation of the game is the most important thing; it doesn't matter if the players are making a shambles of the plot, so long as they are gaming, and nothing is more distracting that a GM fumbling his way through tables.

Quote from: andar;253608What say others?

One down, one to go.

Quote from: andar;253608My general thinking is that detail is neccesary or desireable only when the player can have a direct impact on the outcome or event the system is modeling.

That's certainly one place it's necessary. Another is when that detail is noticeable to the players: if you're playing with a bunch of dense 5-year-olds, you probably don't need to include terminal velocity in your falling rules, because they won't care [although I think you'd be passing up a nice opportunity to make them care]. If you're playing with a bunch of physics grad students, it's probably going to be a good idea.

When your players ask for it.

Quote from: Serious Paul;253657When your players ask for it.

As a DM, I think I need/want it far more than my players do.  It's an illness, I think.

Quote from: Buttercup;253661As a DM, I think I need/want it far more than my players do.  It's an illness, I think.

And that's a fair request-after all the game is supposed to be fun for all of us, not just the players or the DM.

I've been known to get into "discussions" with my husband about things as stupid as how many clergy there would be in a fantasy frontier town because if we implemented his idea it would completely destroy my ability to suspend my disbelief, as a player or DM.  Fortunately he's more easy going about that sort of thing than I am able to be.  Seemingly minor things in an RPG can seem so jarring to me that they're game breakers.

For instance, often times the inclusion of firearms just doesn't work for me.  It's fine in a piratey setting or a steam punk setting, but in standard medieval-analog D&D it's just wrong, IMO.

Quote from: Serious Paul;253663And that's a fair request-after all the game is supposed to be fun for all of us, not just the players or the DM.

That's why I think it's extremely important to discuss issues like this before the campaign. Expectations not met is a campaign killer IMO.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Serious PaulWhen your players ask for it.

I agree with that. Only think I want to note is that you need to know, what your playrs think is realistic.

Quote from: andar;253608My general question is, when is not only realism/versimiltude neccessary, but when are detailed results or procedures neccessary?

When it adds to everyone's fun.  

If the slavish adherrence to realism only jacks off the GM or one player while boring the rest to tears, then kiss it goodbye.   There is no doubt that prosecuting chickens for witchcraft ranks very high on the "adds to everyone's fun" chart.

Quote from: andar;253608What say others?

There needs to be enough realism/versimiltude to allow players to engage in enough suspension of disbelief to enjoy being in the world they are role-playing in. Immersion is key, at least in my games, but the level of immersion needed varies from group to group. When dealing with multiple players, there tends to be trend of fewer players=more immersion while more players=less immersion because the players themselves assist in creating the suspension of disbelief.

That's my two cents worth.

Quote from: Spinachcat;253748When it adds to everyone's fun.  

If the slavish adherrence to realism only jacks off the GM or one player while boring the rest to tears, then kiss it goodbye.   There is no doubt that prosecuting chickens for witchcraft ranks very high on the "adds to everyone's fun" chart.

Actually, it served as a lead-in to a larger issue.

Plus one PC is a Witch-hunter, and the pre-trial investigation involved the entire party.

In the War Hammer setting, you can do a great deal with very little.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;253613But in actual non-combat gane mechanics, I feel flow is more important, so long as the GM has at least a basic understanding of the process being undertaken

Do you ever find a need to abstract combat? Like, for example, a combat where the PCs are not directly involved (say, directing a squad over a radio link,). It's never come up for me, but I'd probably abstract something like like that even if the system was fairly detailed.

QuoteWhen your players ask for it.

Ok, broader question...I guess this question is less about "realism/versimiltude" and more about detail in mechanics, specifically, what systems or subsystems do you generally like to see detailed, and what ones do you prefer more abstraction/GM or player fiat/GM or player interpretation of die rolls/whatever.

(I've seen that combat tends to be the most detailed subsystem, in comparison to, say, skill systems. Spycraft 2 seems to be a bit more complex in that regards, however, with fairly detailed results and expectations in their skill system, from what I've seen.)

QuoteWhen dealing with multiple players, there tends to be trend of fewer players=more immersion while more players=less immersion because the players themselves assist in creating the suspension of disbelief.

Not sure what you mean here...are you saying the more players there are, the less immersive the game? Just curious. I honestly haven't noticed a difference either way.

Quote from: David R;253696That's why I think it's extremely important to discuss issues like this before the campaign. Expectations not met is a campaign killer IMO.

Regards,
David R

100%

I can think of two useful ways that expectations of verisimilitude can be determined. The first is to consult a player with relevant expertise in the relevant subject - police know a lot about modern police procedures, the guy with a Ph.D in mediaeval studies is probably a good resource for features of mediaeval life, etc. Reference to relevant authority is incredibly useful.

However, since most gamers play pastiches, not historically accurate settings, it's also important to present the expectations of the game prior to play, and to encourage the development of a consensus. You do that by being upfront, but not necessarily specific, about what sorts of things you find plausible.

I don't like references to other media for this purpose, but many people do ("My game will be like a cross between Samurai Champloo, George R. R. Martin and Desperate Housewives"), and that can be useful because it does help to avoid anything too specific.

By avoiding specific details right away, you can negotiate towards a consensus. One broad principles and common standards are set out, specific stuff can be filled in as needed.

So, for example, you might say "I want to play something grim and gritty" instead of "I don't want guns"; or "I want to spend a lot of time in the game socialising and intriguing" instead of "I want to be a character with tons of social skills".

By moving from general to specific, you avoid having the whole process of negotiation break down or get caught on a minor aesthetic point ("Is it more like Imperial Japan or Imperial China?" "I'm not going to play in a game with guns"). By establishing common standards, you provide a common basis for evaluating one another's inputs and you end up with a much more stable kind of game.

This last method avoids aesthetic clashes or suspensions of disbelief because everyone has already bought-into the game in the process of building the consensus, and feels some responsibility for why it is the way it is.