I don't think you are missing it. You twist things I say in my posts too consistently for them to be accidents. You know what I mean and do this deliberately.
You are wrong. I don't know what you're defending.
As I already posted, I GMed Rolemaster continuously for about 19 years. As you may know, the slogan for RM is "Get Real, Get Rolemaster". I own and have read dozens of RM rulebooks, containing dozens and dozens of mechanical subsystems. I'm familiar with the concept of "realism" in RPGing.
But I can't make sense of what you're arguing for. For instance, you seem to be saying that RPGs are more realistic than they might otherwise be because they contain such real-world phenomena as objects falling to earth when dropped, or people wielding swords that hurt others when struck by them. That seems to be using, as a criterion of "realism",
the presence of real-world phenomena in the fiction.
But you appear to deny that introducing content such as disease, or damaged weaons, as an element of narration increases the realism of the fiction. I don't know why. My sense is that when you deny that GM narration of such things as diseases, maimed limbs, notched weapons, etc is a way of introducing realism you are using a different criterion - one which emphasises
mechanical system. (This is what Rolemaster means when it talks about realism. RM eschews GM narration as a way to establish fictional elements.)
You also appear to have asserted that a system for generating RPG content that is triggered by extraneous events - like clocks chiming or feline flatulance - is not a realistic one. And that also seems to be using, as a criterion of "realism",
the process whereby the fiction is established.
I don't know how to reconcile what seems to me to be an oscillation between two different criteria for realism. And I don't know how to reconcile either candidate criterion with what seems to be a further claim you're making, nmaley, that
any well-intentioned mechanical/dice-oriented system for introducing content is per se an increase in realism, regardless of whether that system and the outcomes it produces correlates in any genuine fashion to reality.
I'm sure you have something in mind that makes sense of all of the above. But I don't know what it is.
One thing I do know is that, despite invitations by me and many other posters to draw distinctinos like the ones I'm drawing - say, between
the content of the fiction and
the method for generating that content - you have not done so. I don't know why you don't. And the fact that you don't only makes it harder for me to work out what you have in mind.
If I were to then implement a system of weapon degradation and breakage, even if that system did not mirror real life AND if I didn't consult an expert on swords, that would also be a realism increase that is not based on subjective interpretation.
See, the olnly person I know who uses the word "realism" like this is you. Everyone else I know would say that if the system you implement produces unrealistic incidences of swords breaking, then it in fact has not increased realism and may have decreased it.
In your usage, a player who says
The game was more realistic without that silly subsystem is literally engaged in self-contradiction. Whereas it strikes me as obvious that a player who says such a thing not only is not engaged in self-contradictio, but might be saying something true!
One of your more recent comments has only confused me all the more, namely, your suggestion that the system of damage dice in D&D is an instance of realism. Because that's not even pointing to a real-world phenomenon. Swords are longer than daggers, and hence give better reach; I suspect they may be better for parrying (for similar reasons). But is a sword twice as "stabby" as a dagger (4.5 vs 2.5 average damage)? What does that question even mean? Damage dice perform a clear function in the game, but the notion that they map "realism" in any serious way is something that I can't even make sense of. And that's
before we even get onto the relationship between hit points as a damage mechanic and "realism".
When RM advocates talk about
increasing realism I know what they have in mind: more systems that (i) will produce in-fiction events that roughly correlate (in character and frequency) to real-world events, and (ii) involve a granularity of process that more-or-less reflects what happens in the real world,
especially as far as key decision-points are concerned. Mere narration doesn't cut it. And it would never occur to them to point to equipement lists with metal longswords on them as evidence of realism: even Tunnels & Trolls has that!
I have a certain fondness for the RM aesthetic. I don't play RM anymore, but two systems that I do play - Burning Wheel and Classic Traveller - have aspects that resemble RM quite closely.
But you aren't advocating for the RM aesthetic. You oscilllate between
fictional content and
content-generating processes as your criterion for realism. And you seem to deny that realism in any way depends on the relationshiop between the frequency of ingame events and the frequency of their real-world correlates. And you point to stuff that has virtually no meaning outside of its mechanical context - like weapon damage dice - as instances of realism.
When I say that I don't understand what the position is that you're defending, I'm quite sincere.
