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

[Lanefan]

The point is not that realism is not present in RPGs

Oh, I dunno - there's a few where it takes a rather distant back seat...

The actual "good" or "value" is not so much "realism," but with how the players engage with the environment (or game) as part of cultivating the desired play experience. Based upon past conversations, I suspect that for the "Old School play" of Bedrockgames and Lanefan, the point is not "realism," but, instead, in having "known knowns" that help players make informed decisions conducive of skilled play.

Maybe not so much "conducive of skilled play", as that's not really the point in this case. I'd like to think, perhaps naively, that internal logic helps players make decisions and take actions consistent with what the setting expects and its internal physics can handle, while at the same time helping me-as-DM present that setting in a consistent and halfway-logical manner.

(If I am mistaken in summarizing their preferences here, I will gladly admit my error and welcome clarification.) This is also why I find appeals to "realism" in a system to be a smokescreen that masks the actual underlying issues of the desired game play. It would be easier to identify, design, and cultivate for that desired play experience without hiding it behind vague and prejudiciously applied notions of "realism" obscuring that process.

I'm not sure here. "It's the same as reality unless something says it isn't" is a perfectly good and simple foundation to start from.

So, again, for example if we take the matter of healing. To me its inclusion as part of a game is not a matter of "realism," but, rather, of pacing and tone. We advocate different types of healing mechanics because we want different things out of the game experience rather than "realism." If we want something "Grim 'n' Gritty" where we want to emphasize character attrition, resource management, or the dangerous, survivalist tone of the imaginative play space, then we may desire to make healing slower or more difficult to come by. But it would be far more difficult to discuss how we would potentially design healing in such a game if it is obscured behind appeals to "realism." "Realism" almost becomes a red herring in the discussion.

Oddly enough, healing is one instance where realism is anything but a red herring. Natural healing and recovery is something we've all directly experienced at some point and that works at a more-or-less consistent rate in real life; and this then becomes a familiar baseline for where one wants to scale it in the game system. "More realistic" implies something closer to this baseline, "less realistic" implies something farther away e.g. in D&D 4e and 5e healing rates are a long way from realistic while 1e by RAW is much closer; no system will ever get it bang on and - given the various oddities and assumptions of the nigh-universal hit point system - is likely well advised not to try.

Another example: one approach to hit points that generally adds some realism at cost of some extra effort is any sort of wound-vitality or body-fatigue system. Wound/body points are actual physical injury, to which we can if desired then apply real-world healing rates or some approximation; while vitality/fatigue points are just that and thus can be recovered fairly quickly.

 

[darkbard]

But no one likes their style to be put to the inquisition. And I think a lot of posters are hiding behind a veneer of theory or analysis, but really just trying to argue against play styles they don't like or have had bad experiences talking with in edition wars.

No one? Really? I think part of the problem here (generally speaking when it comes to these debates) is that some of us do enjoy very much interrogating our own and other styles to better understand our desires/motivations and those of others, how these intersect with game mechanics and principles. Yet your posts here dismiss this kind of interrogation from a seemingly anti-intellectual stance.

 

[Lanefan]

I believe that there are people who say that they do, but then apply that broad (if not exceedingly vague) criteria selectively in their games, and that this tells us more about their preferences for the actual play experience they want the game to cultivate. And I believe that this latter point is more meaningful and practical than the call for realism itself or offering the trite remark that some realism exists in roleplaying games. It's a shift from the vague "I want 'realism' in my game" to the more concrete "I want my game to simulate X sort of play experience."

Fair enough, but not all players know how to put terms to describing said play experience, and so they couch it in terms they can understand: more realistic or less, more magical or less, more heroic or less, etc.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No one? Really? I think part of the problem here (generally speaking when it comes to these debates) is that some of us do enjoy very much interrogating our own and other styles to better understand our desires/motivations and those of others, how these intersect with game mechanics and principles. Yet your posts here dismiss this kind of interrogation from a seemingly anti-intellectual stance.

I think your failing to see how some people see that interrogation, when directed at their own posts (particularly when it questions their own assertions about what they like) as hostile. I am not anti-intellectual. But I am anti-elitism and arrogance. And I think, whether it is intended or not, a lot of the ways people are talking about gaming preferences here, come across as arrogant and dismissive. And I am not sure it is warranted. Intellectualism is good, but I don't think simply using jargon-y language or drawing on various online gaming theories makes on intellectual. And if one is intellectual, using that knowledge to humiliate other people (and I think a lot of posters are being humiliated by this process), is something I don't think you should be doing. If you want to interrogate a concept fine, but do understand that you are dealing with other people here, and it is insulting to be told you really don't understand your own preferences (especially when the people asserting that, are just asserting it without really providing any kind of evidence at all).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm afraid this is a false equivalence, and it's framed such that only way that you will show me good faith is if accept a certain premise as true and you are also presuming in bad faith that I am not showing good faith in my argument. So no, this does not swing both ways. It swings with you showing bad faith towards me and then doubling down on it as if they held equivalent moral weight.

Fair enough, I will try to assume good faith. But I still maintain that the position you hold, where you think you can understand what is going on in other peoples' heads, and where you think you have special insight into how prevalent the desire for realism is in the hobby, comes of as incredibly arrogant.

You may not be trying to be rude, but you're nevertheless doing a darn good job of it. In the same breath that you preach this call to good faith, you also accuse your opponents as being dismissive and arrogant, lacking good faith, holding unfounded assumptions, and engaging in insulting behavior. And then you suggest that while you could be wrong, it's likelier that others are actually the ones in the wrong. Geez. I would hate to see how rude and hostile in tone you could be when you are actually trying. This sort of patronizing doublespeak comes across knowingly or not as hypocritical. And if you have no real interest in engaging with what I wrote so you can just repeat your refrain that I am being dismissive of others, exhibiting arrogance, and speaking in bad faith, then we are pretty much done here. I'm sorry, but that's not looking for a conversation; that's looking to condemn.

I am not trying to be rude, I am trying to be honest (which I think is what you are saying as well). But I will try to moderate my tone here. A conversation is fine. But you got to understand you can't have a conversation where what you are saying is irritating and insulting (which I think your dismissal of peoples stated preferences are) and expect people not to say something about it. And it isn't like they are just stopping at voicing frustration, they are giving you a responding indicating they know what they like, and you keep persisting. It would be like me saying something akin to 'your desire to dismiss realism, reveals a deep subconscious desire to play a deeply simulationist GURPS campaign based on pure, unadulterated, realism. Prove me wrong!". I am not trying to be ridiculous, and I am really not trying to be insulting, but it is a very difficult for me to give anything but my honest reaction to what you are saying.

And I have to emphasize here, I am not the proponent of realism in this thread. I just think it is fair for someone who expresses a desire for realism in the game, to expect other posters to believe them.

 

[innerdude]

It's funny, I was going to make a similar comment about how D&D often feels at-odds with itself when it comes to realism. Some of its mechanics are clearly trying to present real-world analogues; some of them are much more . . . inscrutable, shall we say?

Arguing about realism in TTRPG play generally is an interesting, if occasionally contentious topic of theoretical conversation.

Arguing about realism in D&D specifically feels like cognitive dissonance. I mean, if you squint your eyes and turn your head just so, I suppose you could kind-of, sort-of argue that there's hints of realism in D&D, especially the 3.x line and its treatment of basic skill task resolution. But you'd have to ignore huge swaths of its inner workings to claim that it's simulating "the real world" in anything but the broadest sense.

So what, then, are proponents of realism actually wanting D&D to be more realistic about?

Combat? Exploration? Social encounters? Basic skill checks? What the core attributes mean relative to the real world? The social/economic ramifications of rampant, widely available magic?

If it's purely just combat, the easiest solution is to play something else.

P1: "I want to play a super-realistic combat version of D&D! Why can't D&D be more realistic?"

P2: "Well, there's just so many compromises and holdovers from old war games, and the whole hit points / armor class thing, the lack of realistic wound modeling, the list goes on . . . ."

P1: "I don't care about any of that, just, why can't D&D be better at modeling an actual one-on-one sword duel? How hard can it be?"

P2: "Have you considered GURPS, or Mythras, or Runequest, or Riddle of Steel?"

P1: "No, because I want to play D&D!"

P2: ......

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's funny, I was going to make a similar comment about how D&D often feels at-odds with itself when it comes to realism. Some of its mechanics are clearly trying to present real-world analogues; some of them are much more . . . inscrutable, shall we say?

Arguing about realism in TTRPG play generally is an interesting, if occasionally contentious topic of theoretical conversation.

Arguing about realism in D&D specifically feels like cognitive dissonance. I mean, if you squint your eyes and turn your head just so, I suppose you could kind-of, sort-of argue that there's hints of realism in D&D, especially the 3.x line and its treatment of basic skill task resolution. But you'd have to ignore huge swaths of its inner workings to claim that it's simulating "the real world" in anything but the broadest sense.

So what, then, are proponents of realism actually wanting D&D to be more realistic about?

Combat? Exploration? Social encounters? Basic skill checks? What the core attributes mean relative to the real world? The social/economic ramifications of rampant, widely available magic?

If it's purely just combat, the easiest solution is to play something else.

P1: "I want to play a super-realistic combat version of D&D! Why can't D&D be more realistic?"

P2: "Well, there's just so many compromises and holdovers from old war games, and the whole hit points / armor class thing, the lack of realistic wound modeling, the list goes on . . . ."

P1: "I don't care about any of that, just, why can't D&D be better at modeling an actual one-on-one sword duel? How hard can it be?"

P2: "Have you considered GURPS, or Mythras, or Runequest, or Riddle of Steel?"

P1: "No, because I want to play D&D!"

P2: ......

Like it or not, D&D is The Game. If you want a group of players, your best bet is to play D&D. If you want to play in a group, if you are willing to play D&D your chances of finding people go way, way up. I don't really play D&D anymore that much, so I am not the best person to answer, and I am not really looking for realism as much as plausibility, but I think with D&D it really has to do with quantity. When things exist in the corners of D&D, are not terribly intrusive, aren't super obvious when they do arise or only come up here and there, it isn't a huge deal. There is always going to be some amount of lack of realism in D&D. I don't think you would find GURPS level realism in D&D. I think what people are talking about those mechanics or moments when the game impales realism. Healing rates would be a big issue like others have mentioned. Anytime something happens, but then it has to be described or leads to an illogical outcome, that might another. Again, I think it really comes down to the quantity. A person might not be troubled by Barbarian Rage because it is limited to one class and adds something. They might be bothered if every class has that kind of ability. Or a person might not be troubled by some of the weapons being a little eye balled in terms of damage. But they would have a problem in cases where the damage output discrepancy is impossible to ignore.

Also, I don't think people are saying they want a super realistic version of D&D. I think they are saying please don't add more unrealistic things to the system (or pick an edition that has the least amount of unrealistic things).

 

[S'mon]

I'd be infinitely curious to hear from the One-True-Sandboxers out there if they really do like "sandboxing" the whole time----or if the "sandboxing" portion of the campaign is just a ramp-up to get their hooks into the game world / plot so they can start pursuing stuff that matters to their character.

By 'sandboxing' you mean random exploration? Like random wandering in Skyrim? For me, all play in the sandbox is sandboxing.

 

[Aldarc]

Fair enough, but not all players know how to put terms to describing said play experience, and so they couch it in terms they can understand: more realistic or less, more magical or less, more heroic or less, etc.

That is absolutely true, and I earnestly believe that is valid for those people. But if a player approaches us and tells us that they want us to run a game with greater realism, then we are placed in the position of having to unravel and tease out from them how that means for them and how they want that realism applied more palpably.

Maybe not so much "conducive of skilled play", as that's not really the point in this case. I'd like to think, perhaps naively, that internal logic helps players make decisions and take actions consistent with what the setting expects and its internal physics can handle, while at the same time helping me-as-DM present that setting in a consistent and halfway-logical manner.

Fair enough.

Oddly enough, healing is one instance where realism is anything but a red herring. Natural healing and recovery is something we've all directly experienced at some point and that works at a more-or-less consistent rate in real life; and this then becomes a familiar baseline for where one wants to scale it in the game system. "More realistic" implies something closer to this baseline, "less realistic" implies something farther away e.g. in D&D 4e and 5e healing rates are a long way from realistic while 1e by RAW is much closer; no system will ever get it bang on and - given the various oddities and assumptions of the nigh-universal hit point system - is likely well advised not to try.

I agree that natural recovery is something that we experience in life; however, I still think that it exists as smokescreen for discussion about healing in games where health points are primarily an abstracted pacing mechanic. I see the emphasis of most game design discussion not on "how realistic do we want healing in our games?" but on "what sort of pacing do we want for our games?"

Overnight healing in 5e, for example, does not seem to stem from any debate about the degree of realism, but, rather, from the degree of pacing: i.e., how they quickly they wanted characters back up on their feet for adventurous gameplay. Even with 1e, I suspect that it was less about realism and more about game pacing as well. "If you don't want to be out of action of a long time, play smart and avoid combat!" Any approximation to realism may have been incidental.

So when designing games, this is often a question of "how do we want this mechanic to reflect the tone or desired play experience of the game?" or "How does this mechanic reinforce the themes of the game?" So I don't necessarily assume that realism is the baseline presumption in game design. I do assume, however, that the baseline presumption of game design is a desire to cultivate a "fun" experience.

No one? Really? I think part of the problem here (generally speaking when it comes to these debates) is that some of us do enjoy very much interrogating our own and other styles to better understand our desires/motivations and those of others, how these intersect with game mechanics and principles. Yet your posts here dismiss this kind of interrogation from a seemingly anti-intellectual stance.

I personally think that pemerton becomes easier (and less abrasive) to read when one understands his academic background in philosophy. "Academese" can come across as more abrasive than it really is. His posting style is more akin to a Hegelian dialectic that seeks to derive some form of synthesis or understanding through conflicting points of discussion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I personally think that pemerton becomes easier (and less abrasive) to read when one understands his academic background in philosophy. "Academese" can come across as more abrasive than it really is. His posting style is more akin to a Hegelian dialectic that seeks to derive some form of synthesis or understanding through conflicting points of discussion.

I know about his background. I minored in philosophy. So, while I won't pretend I have his level of expertise in i, I am not ignorant of that kind of discussion or language. Yet I find the way it is used here highly abrasive. Especially when there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement of valid points made by people he disagrees with it. It just seems like he is trying to win the conversation, not arrive at a synthesis of understanding through conflicting viewpoints.