More about Realism

[RPGPundit]

Right. Now howzabout if the GM offers a Roman campaign set in 50 AD and then partway through the third session it turns out there's a plot centering on a wealthy merchant who's trying to get elected to the Senate so he can then work his way up to Emperor?

Presumably you'd laugh your head off. Whatever you call the reason, it's what I think of as "lack of realism".

Well, what you call "realism" and what I'm calling "realism" are two seperate issues, it would seem.
What you call "realism" I call "accuracy", and this is something that I agree is not only possible but desireable in various genres.

So I would laugh in your scenario, but because it was inaccurate. "Unrealistic", to me, would be a whole other issue; mainly ones that would come up in terms of combat mechanics and people obsessing over minutae based more on their own biases than on any kind of accurate "reality".

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

Good call. Out-of-control historical accuracy fetishists are way, way worse than armchair commandos could ever aspire to be.

I agree that this can be a problem; I think it almost always IS a problem if you're talking about anything OTHER than an historical campaign (and note that by Historical Campaign I mean one where a major stated goal of the campaign is to emulate an historical era; not just a campaign set in a period in history; so I'd say there's a big difference between, say, an historical campaign set in 17th century France and a "Three Musketeers Campaign" that happens to be set in 17th century France).

However, at least in this area there are a few of us who genuinely ARE qualified to talk about these things and have degrees to prove it, etc. Compared to discussions about "realism" in combat (or worse, magic), where the proponents of such a thing are usually wankers and obsessives with wierd ideas of "reality".

RPGPundit

[Christmas Ape]

Man, don't those goal posts get heavy after a while?

[jhkim]

Well, what you call "realism" and what I'm calling "realism" are two seperate issues, it would seem.
What you call "realism" I call "accuracy", and this is something that I agree is not only possible but desireable in various genres.

So I would laugh in your scenario, but because it was inaccurate. "Unrealistic", to me, would be a whole other issue; mainly ones that would come up in terms of combat mechanics and people obsessing over minutae based more on their own biases than on any kind of accurate "reality".

However, at least in this area there are a few of us who genuinely ARE qualified to talk about these things and have degrees to prove it, etc. Compared to discussions about "realism" in combat (or worse, magic), where the proponents of such a thing are usually wankers and obsessives with wierd ideas of "reality".

So your definition of "realism" is that it is about minutiae having nothing to do with reality?!?  Wouldn't it make more sense to complain about the people who misuse it, rather than redefining the term this way?  For that matter, why is minutiae about combat "realism" and minutiae about history "accuracy"?  

In general, I can see you've got a bug about combat here.  I think one of the problems is that combat can have macho posturing around it.  But IMO the attitude of "You don't know realistic combat, man!  Realistic combat is too much for you to handle!" is just as much macho posturing as debating hit locations.  

Notably, I just started a WWII game where the PCs are all paratroopers, and I would like the game to be accurate to reality.  (And I consider "accurate to reality" and "realistic" to be synonymous.)  I don't see how making the combat like it historically was any different than making other parts of life the way they historically were.

[RPGPundit]

When two historians (as in, people who actually have studied history) are asked about whether the Romans used Longbows or Plate Mail, they will usually be able to provide the same answer.

When two self-proclaimed experts on realism in combat are asked about the cutting power of the katana, or whether tae kwon do is superior to Dog Style Kung Fu, you will end up getting a couple of wankers debating about how long their penises are because each has read different books or taken different community college martial arts classes.

Therein lies the difference.

RPGPundit

[jhkim]

When two historians (as in, people who actually have studied history) are asked about whether the Romans used Longbows or Plate Mail, they will usually be able to provide the same answer.

When two self-proclaimed experts on realism in combat are asked about the cutting power of the katana, or whether tae kwon do is superior to Dog Style Kung Fu, you will end up getting a couple of wankers debating about how long their penises are because each has read different books or taken different community college martial arts classes.

Therein lies the difference.

As an ex-academic (former physicist), I'm going to call you on this one.  In my experience, academics are just as prone to dick wars as anywhere else -- often moreso.  They'll use a different tone and cite different books to say how long their penises are, but it's the same thing.  Maybe it's different for Roman historians, but I'm skeptical.  

In short:

dick wars = bad

realism = good

You can be realistic (aka "accurate to reality") without having dick wars, and you can have dick wars without being realistic.

[arminius]

Yes, I can confirm that there are some such wars between historians. I mean, that's what books like Problems in Ancient History and Major Problems in American Foreign Relations are basically about: watching historians argue and then deciding which one is right.

Except that most academics, in my experience, tend to be a little more humble about the limitations of their evidence and models than are gun-and-sword fanboys. When it comes to games, I think the smartest thing to do is to just lay your sources and biases on the table, or to abstract out the difference. (I.e., whether you get hit by a .38 or a 9mm bullet, it's going to hurt either way, so let a bit of randomness take care of the doubt as to which is worse.)

[David R]

You can be realistic (aka "accurate to reality") without having dick wars, and you can have dick wars without being realistic.

But this just begs the question : Would it be realistic not to expect any discussion on the internet quickly dissolving into a dick war ?

Regards,
David R

[T-Willard]

Every time I think of realism, and people shouting "THAT CAN'T/CAN HAPPEN" I think of a story Heather told me about a casualty she treated in the days following the ground war of the 1991 Gulf War.

He came in, missing his pants and one boot. He was deaf as a post, scraped up on his legs, and had two broken fingers on his right hand. His BDU top was in tatters, and was missing his LBE.

I asked one of the men who brought him in what happened to him. It was simple: When they stopped to take a piss, he stepped on an MRLS bomblet, and it detonated under his bootless foot.

Aside from the deafness, the broken fingers, and the scrapes, he was unharmed.

What are the fucking chances of that? Have you ever seen an MRLS detonate over the target? It turns the whole fucking field into a shitload of explosions. It can tear the shit out of tanks, level buildings, and kills EVERYTHING in the area.

And this guy stepped on one of them, and blew his fucking boot and pants off. Pretty fucking unrealistic, eh? Yet weird shit like that happens all the fucking time.

Realism is whatever is happening at that second, to the people it's happening too, and I'm starting to feel sometimes like reality is becoming mutable.

[jhkim]

And this guy stepped on one of them, and blew his fucking boot and pants off. Pretty fucking unrealistic, eh? Yet weird shit like that happens all the fucking time.

Realism is whatever is happening at that second, to the people it's happening too, and I'm starting to feel sometimes like reality is becoming mutable.

The unusualness of this case is easily handled by just having a bell-curve damage roll.  As long as there are tails to the distribution, that means that rarely, people will be nearly unhurt by things which would on average kill a normal person -- and very rarely people will die from minor attacks.  There are a number of games which do this already.

[eruditus]

The unusualness of this case is easily handled by just having a bell-curve damage roll.  As long as there are tails to the distribution, that means that rarely, people will be nearly unhurt by things which would on average kill a normal person -- and very rarely people will die from minor attacks.  There are a number of games which do this already.

I have to say that this is sometimes why narrative games can often have a deeper sense of reality because they are more spontanious.  It can use people's knowledge and experiences to make that connection between players and characters.  I think it would rock to have a GM be like, "roll while your pissing to determine if your caught off guard."  the player rolls and succeeds and proceeds to narrate this scene with the lug wandering into the triage unit.

That story rocks!

[Spike]

Man.... I want a copy of this game: Dick Wars

But only if it throws dice at me.


Now for my own wankery: There is a huge fucking difference between an MLRS cluster bomb going off and wiping out city blocks, and an MLRS cluster bomblet lying on the ground. One has hundreds of the other spraying out in a veritable rain of death, the other is a pissant nuisance until some shithead steps on it (possibly buried or 'indirectly' exposed to the target... for example, military boots have very thick soles...).   Most explosives are extremely potent in terms of 'shatter damage' at extreme close range: Contact people... while significantly less powerful when even inches away (for the small amounts in a bomblet, for example...)  

There is a school of thought that suggests that if you were to lie down next to (but not touching) a stick of dynamite, you could escape relatively harm free, as you were not within the shatter range of the explosion, and the expanding shockwave is not yet powerful enough to pulp your internal organs (having moved a relatively tiny mass of air)... I leave it to you, the reader, to actually TEST this theory. I for one have no intention of being anywhere within 50m or so of a lit stick of dynamite, much less lying on the ground next to it.

:pundit:

[T-Willard]

Man.... I want a copy of this game: Dick Wars

But only if it throws dice at me.

Sounds like a best seller to me.

Now for my own wankery: There is a huge fucking difference between an MLRS cluster bomb going off and wiping out city blocks, and an MLRS cluster bomblet lying on the ground. One has hundreds of the other spraying out in a veritable rain of death, the other is a pissant nuisance until some shithead steps on it (possibly buried or 'indirectly' exposed to the target... for example, military boots have very thick soles...).   Most explosives are extremely potent in terms of 'shatter damage' at extreme close range: Contact people... while significantly less powerful when even inches away (for the small amounts in a bomblet, for example...)  

Still, pretty bizzare, right? Kinda like God rolled 1's on the damage dice.

There is a school of thought that suggests that if you were to lie down next to (but not touching) a stick of dynamite, you could escape relatively harm free, as you were not within the shatter range of the explosion, and the expanding shockwave is not yet powerful enough to pulp your internal organs (having moved a relatively tiny mass of air)... I leave it to you, the reader, to actually TEST this theory. I for one have no intention of being anywhere within 50m or so of a lit stick of dynamite, much less lying on the ground next to it.

:pundit:

Be interesting to test out. Write it in to Mythbusters.

[Spike]

Sounds like a best seller to me.



Still, pretty bizzare, right? Kinda like God rolled 1's on the damage dice.


Be interesting to test out. Write it in to Mythbusters.

Indeed... (take your pick as to which part I am endorsing, I agreed with this post 100%):cool:

[fonkaygarry]

One of me dear old Da's Vietnam stories:

Firefight in the canals on the Mekong.  Sea Wolves were inbound, flying close air support.  The boys on the ground called in the strike on the "fourth canal" or some such.

But no one told the pilots that there was a canal on the ground that wasn't on the map.  Rockets away, right into a canal where a man had taken cover.  The shockwave blew him up into the air, over the ridge and into the adjacent canal.

"You dead?"

"I don't know, lemme check!"

Not even a broken bone, IIRC.