A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

I disagree profoundly. As a mathematician and computer scientist I can tell you that this sort of area is exactly where I am currently engaged.

Back when I was a kid, and (as outlined in another post) I believe in the idea of verisimilitude and 'true to life play' arising out of accurate simulation, I thought "gosh, its impossible to do this with paper and pencil. How about a computer?" So I, and many others, thought things like that we would take D&D's simplistic combat system and simply add 500 more variables to it and code it all as some complicated computer algorithm and produce realistic results. Ha! What fools we were!

You see, that can't be done. Not by some simple process of a human being sitting down and creating a model and simply adding more elaboration to it until they think they've accounted for every variable and coupled them all right. If that was true children would have programmed self-driving cars in about 1987. Marvin Minsky would have produced general purpose AI in plenty of time for HAL 9000 to be booted up in the late 90's, as the movie so optimistically imagined.

Instead what we discovered is that reality is exceedingly intractable, and you can't even get close to analyzing it by any sort of 'mechanics'. Instead, only in the last 10 years, we have made progress via massive application of brute force pattern matching with reinforcement, and high order multivariate analyses.

So, nowadays, I can generate actionable predictions about complex business processes by running clusters of 1000's of servers for weeks at a time performing 500 dimensional correlation analyses against petabyte data sets to produce models which can predict things like who's likely to win a given basketball game on a given day, or which stock to buy, etc.

Cool. I'm not trying to mirror reality, so this does not apply to me. To improve realism you don't have to hit exactly like reality. That's a False Dichotomy. Realism is a scale, not all or nothing. You may not have mirrored reality with those 500 variables, but it was closer to reality to some degree than no program at all. Even it was only closer by .00001%.

Imagining that we can make a realistic model of wear and tear on weapons, and the likelihood of them failing at any given time using a few charts is simply not realistic at all.

It doesn't have to be. It only has to be more realistic than no system at all, which it is.

I can tell you that we made a model that predicts when a specific tire on a specific wheel is going to fail, and its pretty darn good, but it has to rely on an analysis that was done of 100's of thousands of full tire lifetimes of other tires, and its inputs include 1000's of data points related to each and every usage of said tire. It is still only maybe accurate to plus or minus 10%. That's good enough to make a business use case. It might well be good enough for an RPG too, but clearly games are far too abstract to support this.

That's awesome, but I don't need things to be that accurate for my game.

 

[chaochou]

Isn't the shorthand for this realism. Will you be happy with more authentic? more immersive? more RL illusionary? more dramatic? I mean looking for a better description/buzz-word is just playing silly buggers...

So you think the claim 'My game is more realistic than yours' is the same as 'My game is more immersive than yours'.

The latter is clearly the self-righteous claim of a pompous tool.

The former is as well, but pretends to be a claim of objective fact.

 

[Sadras]

So you think the claim 'My game is more realistic than yours' is the same as 'My game is more immersive than yours'.

The latter is clearly the self-righteous claim of a pompous tool.

The former is as well, but pretends to be a claim of objective fact.

Pompous tools aside, your stance comes from semantics, when I'm only using the shorthand version of attempting to describe something, which I believe we all understand which term is even used by designers. I do not believe designers are attempting to be pompous tools with claims of objective facts when they use the term to market a mechanic that your game does not possess.

@Maxperson, you have said that no mechanic yields 100% unrealistic, whereas some mechanic yields a step towards realism however minute the step. I believe you also mentioned the mechanic needs to be designed with some competency and honesty (integrity).
Out of interest how do you view the fumble on a 1? Is this a step towards realism?

 

[Aldarc]

But it is not just marketing materials, many gamers use the term more realistic. And we have established that your interest lies in intent/play preferences which had nothing to do with my post and your defense is that your position in the thread has remained constant/unchanged. Honestly, your position in this thread, is inconsequential to my post.

And without further clarification, I think that their use is ambiguous.

Aldarc if you want to base your agreement or disagreement with me on feelings rather than sensible points, that is your prerogative. You replied to my post.

Feelings are not the basis of disagreement. They only

All you seem to be doing though with this line of thought is making me jump over unnecessary hurdles to get to the heart of the conversation.

You are the one who first put me through hurdles by asking initial questions regarding EnSider rather than jump to the heart of your inquiry.

You have said you understand the term more realistic but do not like it.

I said that I was familiar with it. Let's be clear: familiarity does not equate to understanding. And understanding of general use does not mean that I should thereby accept (or understand) Max's specific use as per your original point. As I said, everyone generally brings their own sense about what "more realistic" means rather than existing as some form of concrete terminology. It is relative and contextual, and it can be a smokescreen for other issues.

If I ask you what term do you prefer - you jump to intent/play preferences.

I looked through our recent conversation again. You haven't yet asked me this.

That is not at all helpful given that I'm not discussing intent/play preferences which I deem as something that may be related, but separate.
I'm referring to something that attempts, however abstract and via a mechanic, to echo a RL instance within a game.
You want to know why I'm attempting to create said mechanic.
For me those are separate issues.
You expect me to believe that you sincerely cannot see these two things as separate issues. I'm really struggling to take you earnestly here.
And I'm not concerned how an exciting rule might be incidental in providing realism by a mechanic's inclusion or exclusion.
How in the 9 Hells is that discussing my post or the question I posed to you?

Because in the post to which I initially replied, you chose not to make this solely about how "more realistic" is understood in mechanics or play materials, but also about how Max's use of the expression (and how others react to it). That inherently links the conversation back to its contextual use in this thread, which is a discussion rooted in intent/play preferences. To paraphrase Max (many moons ago), "Context, Sadras. Context."

Thank you! At least someone is willing to accept the plain word, without requiring people to jump through hoops and thereby allowing the conversation to reach the next plateau.

I am not making you jump through hoops any more than you are making me jump through hoops. You keep asking me leading questions, as if trying to make me jump through hoop on demand.

Yeah, I don't find that style of conversation helpful or sincere.

Just because you don't like my answers, it does not mean that I have not been sincere with you, and I would appreciate it going forward into our conversation if you would accept that fact instead of repeatedly accusing me falsely.

 

[Sadras]

I am not making you jump through hoops any more than you are making me jump through hoops. You keep asking me leading questions, as if trying to make me jump through hoop on demand.

Okay let's start again.

My intention is to find a common thread of understanding between us at base level.
I view the AC mechanic, where better Dex and Armour, improve one's ability to deflect, avoid and defend from attacks.
It is an attempt to input RL complexities of the above into a game.
I call this plainly, without heavy thinking, realism - despite however simple and abstract, and possibly flawed, the system is.
Without said mechanic, each hit would be an automatic success within the game.
I view a game with an AC mechanic more realistic than a game without said mechanic.

Do you agree? If not, why?

 

[Lanefan]

Now, see, I am a very completist kind of person and can easily imagine 100's, or even 1000's of similar details which could be, but never are, filled in about a community in a D&D game. Where do people's barrels come from? What are they made of? Who and where is the cooper? Does the blacksmith burn charcoal, and where does he get it from? How many animals does the village have, and what kinds? Where are they housed? Who cares for them? Do they get diseases? If a horse dies is there a knackerman and who does he sell to? Is there a tanner? Miller? What sort of mill is it?

I mean, I could literally go on for HOURS. None of these questions are likely to be answered and most of them are not even answerable, as it would require a vast array of questions about exactly what technology is available in this place and time, open up questions about how magical spell availability would change some of these professions, etc. etc. etc. These become very complex questions very fast and cannot really be answered except in a very cursory fashion which instantly makes me think that someone 'just made up some stuff.' Obviously that IS what happened, so what's really interesting about it? Anything a GM describes is "just explaining it away" because there's no way they wrote out millions of lines of explanations, generated economic and social models, and did the 1000 man-lifetimes of work it would take to truly explicate and analyze everything in that village down to brass tacks. Even if you did, all the inputs to those calculations and explications would still have to be invented largely from whole cloth, since magic and etc. don't actually exist and have such a huge impact on things.

Heck, read some really in-depth material about everyday life in Europe ca. 950 AD. Even for the real world when you go back 1000 years we know so very little about most of the details that our ideas of how things were is mostly guesswork. We are proven radically wrong constantly too, as perusal of any archeology/history journals will very quickly show. That's for the real world, but your fantasy world is 1000's of times less detailed. Just make stuff up! Its the best we can do.

Agreed: almost nobody's ever going to hard-prep all this, and "just make stuff up" works fine.

But within what we make up we have to be consistent or the whole house of cards comes down. If the party hear of a village that's known for its fine sword-making then logic would strongly suggest there's going to be one or two (or more!) top-notch smithies there or thereabouts when the party visit. Conversely, if the party arrive there and find these top-notch smithies they might be justified in asking why they hadn't heard of this place before when previously inquiring where good weaponry may be found.

If the party visit a town ruled by Baron Farengard logic would strongly suggest that the locals will at least know of said Baron when the party six months later return there seeking him, even if he's died in the meantime. Conversely, if the party have previously asked for the names of which nobles rule which areas/regions/towns and been told this town doesn't have a noble ruler they'd be justified in asking wtf on arriving at the town and being expected to present themselves before long-time local ruler Baron Farengard.

And so on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Okay let's start again.

My intention is to find a common thread of understanding between us at base level.
I view the AC mechanic, where better Dex and Armour, improve one's ability to deflect, avoid and defend from attacks.
It is an attempt to input RL complexities of the above into a game.
I call this plainly, without heavy thinking, realism - despite however simple and abstract, and possibly flawed, the system is.
Without said mechanic, each hit would be an automatic success within the game.
I view a game with an AC mechanic more realistic than a game without said mechanic.

Do you agree? If not, why?

I do not.

Blades in the Dark, fir example, has no AC mechanic at all, much less any specific mechanics for combat that are in any way different from sneaking past a guard. Yet, you can have broken or damaged weapons, sucking chest wounds, minor scratches, and many other interesting and "realistic" outcomes of a fight with deadly weapons. 5e, for example, has detailed, combat specific rules, yet generates none of these things. Which is the more "realistic"?

You seem to be focused on game processes being the way to introduce "realism". I disagree this is appropriate.

I also disagree "realism" as defined as more like the real world (graded on a scale or not) to be meaningless in terms of a fantasy RPG. "Realism" defined as more internally consistent, more coherent, and more believable makes sense, though.

 

[Aldarc]

Okay let's start again.

My intention is to find a common thread of understanding between us at base level.
I view the AC mechanic, where better Dex and Armour, improve one's ability to deflect, avoid and defend from attacks.

It is an attempt to input RL complexities of the above into a game.
I call this plainly, without heavy thinking, realism - despite however simple and abstract, and possibly flawed, the system is.

Without said mechanic, each hit would be an automatic success within the game.
I view a game with an AC mechanic more realistic than a game without said mechanic.

Do you agree? If not, why?

I don't agree because this seems like a binary viewpoint of combat defense that evaluates realism in terms of whether a system has an AC mechanic or not. It's overly simplistic, lacking scope of how other games perform a similar function with different mechanics. Some games use counter combat rolls. The DM rolls (defense/combat) and the player rolls (defense/combat), and the success of the attack is in the difference. Is that more or less realistic than AC? Other games have the player roll defense, whether using dice polls or defeating a static difficulty number. Is that more realistic than AC? Many systems use armor as damage absorption/reduction. Is that more or less realistic than AC? I can't say for certain, because this does not fundamentally strike me as a debate on realism, but, rather, a debate on gaming preferences and aesthetics rather than some silly, vacuous notion of realism being on a scale, which unsurprisingly seems to having moving goalposts and arbitrary standards. The "realism scale" has as much "meat" as talking about the invisible hand of the market, the leviathan of the state, the state of nature, or the social contract of governance.

IMHO, "Realism" has more to do with the game fiction than the mechanics, though the mechanics may attempt to support and reinforce that fiction. I think that cultural tradition has largely given the AC mechanic a post hoc justification with fiction. It's "normal" because it's what most are used to experiencing in D&D. D&D often gets a free pass when it comes to how its mechanics and fiction are conjoined (e.g., hit points, saving throws, ability scores, etc.). Moreover, I don't think that it's necessarily about more or less realism. In fact, I have heard many YouTube personalities (who argue about historical combat and the like) get in a heated huff about how D&D does combat and AC, perceiving it to be unrealistic.

This is why I don't necessarily find the "realistic" vs. "unrealistic" debate particularly useful. Generally the more helpful debate pertains to those other gaming preferences/intent, particularly when evaluating, designing, or selecting an RPG for play. What genre are you trying to simulate? How would you like your combat to feel? What choices do you want your players to make? Etc.

 

[Sadras]

I do not.

Blades in the Dark, fir example, has no AC mechanic at all, much less any specific mechanics for combat that are in any way different from sneaking past a guard. Yet, you can have broken or damaged weapons, sucking chest wounds, minor scratches, and many other interesting and "realistic" outcomes of a fight with deadly weapons. 5e, for example, has detailed, combat specific rules, yet generates none of these things. Which is the more "realistic"?

For me the system doesn't really matter in the conversation of more realism. I'm not here advocating for a particular system.
Perhaps overall, given what you have said about the game, BitD is more realistic than D&D.
Do you agree or not agree? If still not why?

You seem to be focused on game processes being the way to introduce "realism". I disagree this is appropriate.

How else? Unless I'm misunderstanding your game processes.

I also disagree "realism" as defined as more like the real world (graded on a scale or not) to be meaningless in terms of a fantasy RPG. "Realism" defined as more internally consistent, more coherent, and more believable makes sense, though.

I have no issue with this understanding of it. I'm using the term more realism as a shorthand for all of that like the En5sider article. I'm not interested in the semantics debate.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For me the system doesn't really matter in the conversation of more realism. I'm not here advocating for a particular system.
Perhaps overall, given what you have said about the game, BitD is more realistic than D&D.
Do you agree or not agree? If still not why?

Agree BitD is more realistic? Nope. It doesn't have to do any of the above -- it's just possible to do without adding any new mechanics.

How else? Unless I'm misunderstanding your game processes.

There's a dufference between process and resultant fictions. "Realism," to me, can only be judged at the fiction, not the process. However, all of your arguments so far about adding "realism" have been about adding additional processes. I'm pointing out that process is not required for "realism."

I have no issue with this understanding of it. I'm using the term more realism as a shorthand for all of that like the En5sider article. I'm not interested in the semantics debate.

I don't know what "realism" means in En5ider ad copy, because, as this thread shows, it's highly situational. En5ider also seems to favor 'new processes' to increase randomly applied negative consequences (in the specific case weapon and armor damage?). I do not agree this necessarily fits my definition of "realism" although it appears to fit yours. Hence the argument.