Quote from: andar;253896Do 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.

Interesting question.

In our Fading Suns campaign, the PCs had a small landing force, which on a couple occasions they left to guard places/people while the PCs did somehing else. I worked out a simplistic 'combat' resolution for them for these situations. It was pretty abstract, just 3-5 contested pool rolls with mods for different in gear, training, and conditions.

Quote from: CavScout;253653One down, one to go.

Report me

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;253913Interesting question.

In our Fading Suns campaign, the PCs had a small landing force, which on a couple occasions they left to guard places/people while the PCs did somehing else. I worked out a simplistic 'combat' resolution for them for these situations. It was pretty abstract, just 3-5 contested pool rolls with mods for different in gear, training, and conditions.

Yeah, I was thinking along those lines. My general thesis is that detail is only really enjoyed when the players are active participants and can have a large effect on the overall outcome (like combat), but more abstraction is desired the further removed the players are, or the less effect they have on a situation. GMs are kind of an exception, since they "run the world" they might have more of an interest in detailed procedures that the players never get to really see or deal with directly, (I know I've done similar things.) Has anyone had different expirences?

Another exmpale might be finance. The stock market is very complex in real life, but unless the game is about players trying to manipulate the market, I don't think you need very complex rules for investing and sotck prices and whatnot.

Quote from: andar;253914Yeah, I was thinking along those lines. My general thesis is that detail is only really enjoyed when the players are active participants and can have a large effect on the overall outcome (like combat), but more abstraction is desired the further removed the players are, or the less effect they have on a situation. GMs are kind of an exception, since they "run the world" they might have more of an interest in detailed procedures that the players never get to really see or deal with directly, (I know I've done similar things.) Has anyone had different expirences?

I agree. The only exception is in situations where the PCs have a large stake in the undertaking. An example was in the same campaign, where a rival faction tried to hijack the PCs ship while the entire party was off doing something. The players ran their NPC staff to resolve the attempt, as the loss of the ship would have had huge consequences for them.

Realism is a phantasm, its impossible to achieve.

What you're really looking for is emulation of genre.

RPGPundit

Quote from: andar;253896Not 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.

I should have clarified that a bit because I'm talking about the effort I have to put in as a GM during the game. The fewer the players I have then the more effort I have to put forth to maintain immersion/suspension of disbelief. The more players I have, the less effort I have to exert in order to maintain immersion/suspension of disbelief because I am supported by the players who are already immersed in the game. The players who buy in to the immersion help to create the suspension of disbelief for the game by actively participating in the environment as their characters.

Quote from: andar;253896Not 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.

I should have clarified that a bit because I'm talking about the effort I have to put in as a GM during the game. The fewer the players I have then the more effort I have to put forth to maintain immersion/suspension of disbelief. The more players I have, the less effort I have to exert in order to maintain immersion/suspension of disbelief because I am supported by the players who are already immersed in the game. The players who buy in to the immersion help to create the suspension of disbelief for the game by actively participating in the environment as their characters.

I try to to get as many of the game group as possible to buy in to the immersion of the game world.

There are a few different kinds of realism / verisimilitude that I think are important:

The logical consistency of the work including the social and economic aspects, its history, and the motivations of the characters in it is, I think, very important. It's important for two reasons:

a) For the character's actions to matter the nature of cause and effect have to be reasonably established and understood. Otherwise, the outcomes of their actions are arbitrary.

b) Immersion is better served if the players have a naturalistic understanding of the world similar to their character's.

I think this kind of consistency comes from the GM more than the game rules, and is something that, for games set in non-realistic-settings (e.g. fantasy or science fiction) something that needs to be developed over time.

I think the game should model physical phenomenon in a way that conforms to genre expectations -- that might not necessarily be realistic, but players should be able to predict the results of falling, drowning, setting/being-set on fire, gun shot wounds, etc.

Obviously if the players involve want any kind of tactical experience then the game needs to provide that. Even if they don't, I'd argue that a physics model which matches the genre will, at least, help meet genre expectations.

I do not think that the model needs to necessarily be highly detailed or complex to execute; elegant mechanics can go a long way toward defining the world effectively. The level of abstraction should, in all cases, be as simple as possible while still meeting player expectations.

Cheers,
-E.

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

Honestly, I think this can be the only right answer.   Saying it's okay when the players don't want it is just wrongheaded in my opinion.

I will say realism often gets confused with the Specificity-Abstractness scale.  The level of detail given to any one element during play.  For instance, a gaming group can skip over any form of combat in their games (perhaps leaving it a simple die roll) and still have their games be utterly realistic.

These degrees of specificity are all up to the group too, of course.  Since it's an RPG I prefer it all done in character, but their can certainly be OOG agreements before and during.  All of which make single rule tool sets (one option game systems) ironically nearly useless to every gaming group.  I mean, how can your rules be exactly right in every situation for every gaming group?  Sheesh.  Talk about one note play.