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

[Ovinomancer]

Hey, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], you're killing it the last few posts.

 

[innerdude]

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.

I've bagged on GURPS a bit in this thread already, but to me GURPS is an exception. It very much feels designed with "realism first" as a primary goal, with the assumption that "realism" and "fun" will be naturally and harmoniously synonymous.

And I think this is a common, and largely appealing impulse for certain types of players. If we're going to change something, it should be with the goal of being more realistic. Whereas there are lots of other options, as you've outlined. It can be rules design with the goal of creating a very specific tone and vibe. It can be rules design with the goal to highlight specific aspects of play, or to reinforce certain thematic material. GURPS is devoid of nearly all of this, unless you're willing to spend vast amounts of time carefully poring over the thousands of pages of supplements to build your own "perfectly tuned" version of GURPS . . . and even then, it's still going to basically just feel like GURPS always does anyway, most of the time.

For certain types of players, this experience is rapturous, because they can play with absolute certitude that they're using the most "realistic" set of gameplay options for RPG play on earth. If the resulting game is less fun in practice than say, D&D 5, well, then it should still be applauded for its high-brow, vigilant adherence to its principles.

(I honestly know several of my old GURPS' group players that have this attitude. It didn't matter if playing another system was actually more fun. Since GURPS was clearly the "mechanically superior choice," they blindly stuck with it. Because otherwise they were somehow cheating themselves by using something "objectively inferior."

 

[Immortal Sun]

True, but he keeps it real.

It's funny that's the phrase you used, because originally I had intended to say reality always showed up stoned.

"My hands are so REAL man!"

 

[Lanefan]

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

Combat?

While this would be nice, the result would also quickly become a complete morass of rules, counter-rules, and picky systems that very few (including me) would want to use. 1e D&D tried for some of this with weapon-v-armour-type and assorted other rules, most of which fell to the wayside at most tables.

Exploration?

Not just exploration, but the setting we're trying to explore: yes. Fine - it's a magic-based setting. Now seamlessly integrate those magical elements into the reality we already know and are familiar with so we can know what to expect from them and why. Then, tell us the exceptions.

Social encounters?

As far as reasonably possible, yes. What gets in the way here is most often the acting, emoting, and sometimes thinking skills of the players at the table; but if it can be done in LARPing it can be done at a table, says I.

Basic skill checks?

The phyiscal ones, if done right, already do a vaguely reasonable job of mirroring reality. Chuck the social ones out.

What the core attributes mean relative to the real world?

Yes.

The social/economic ramifications of rampant, widely available magic?

Assuming it's both rampant and widely available then yes, and this is one area that many systems and-or settings don't look into very well at all. Eberron did, to its credit; and while I'm not otherwise fond of that setting it's got some good ideas in this regard.

 

[Maxperson]

if you read my arguments in good faith, you would know that it is not about minimizing realism, Max.

Calling realism a smokescreen and saying you "wouldn't call it realism," followed by equating it to pocket lint is minimizing it. Perhaps you didn't intend to minimize it, but you did.

but, rather, that (1) notions of realism are prejudiciously applied (this is also a key point), and (2) this is typically for the sake of other underlying game design goals. IMHO, the underlying design goals within calls for "realism" serve as the actual end and value rather than "realism" itself. I think that both [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]'s excellent response here and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s suggestion to replace "realism" with "internal logic" allude to this issue. Both seem to acknowledge the deficiency of the term "realism" in describing the actual desired good here. 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. (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.

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.

For myself, realism is always the goal when I talk about it and include more of it in my games. For example, I think going from literally dying to full health after 8 hours to be highly unrealistic, so I'm slowing down healing to give it more realism. There is no other goal for me than added realism. I suspect that's the case for most people who like more realism.

 

[Shasarak]

Even ignoring the fantastical elements within the most popular genre of TTRPG play, I'm not sure if I would call it 'realism' by any reasonable metric. Often that appeal to realism is selectively applied, if not prejudiciously, by both the game system and the participants, typically with some other goal or value in mind. 'Realism' is likely a smokescreen for some other issue(s). This is to say, I don't necessarily think that 'realism' is the genuine goal of people who claim they desire 'realism' in their TTRPG, especially D&D.

But yes, D&D has some realism in it. For example, it depicts the average human with five fingers on each hand. REALISM! So I suppose we should pat D&D on the back for having "some realism in it"? But we should also be clear here. Having "some realism" is not the same thing as valuing or desiring realism. Realism is, to reiterate, likely not the actual goal people drive at when making appeals to it. And valuing realism is not the same thing as attaining or applying it reasonably. Applying notions of realism to D&D is an inherently failed enterprise because our biased notions of 'realism' are woefully stuck in a position of ignorance (and irrationality) about a wide variety of pertinent subjects that would inform our preparation and play about the game world.

What makes for "realistic" imagining of hit points? What makes for "realistic" falling damage? What makes for a realistic damage for a longsword? What makes for realistic natural healing rules? Or Armor Class rules? "Realism" is lipstick on the pig of D&D's gamism. "Realism" is the Emperor's New Clothes: We all know that the emperor is naked, but some people go along with the farce and pretend that he is cloaked with "realism" all the same. Because if they didn't they would have to admit that they are looking at the naked imperfections of an emperor.

Maybe you are right that people dont actually want "realism". Probably they want something that makes sense, something that they can identify with either from real life or at least from some kind of story. A good word is verisimilitude and on the other hand it is $5 word and realistic is so much easier to spell.

 

[Maxperson]

I think D&D occupies an odd space here because it is The Game. It kind of has to be everything to everyone. So it is natural that this will be a point of contention among D&D players (and like others have pointed out, it has always been so). I remember when I first started playing the realism debates. With D&D it was interesting because realism seemed to be present in some places and not in others. I think with D&D it is about how noticeable it is. In some editions it feels more noticeable that realism is being breached than others. I think with a game like that, where they have to cater to multiple types of players and play styles, it is a question of how prevalent each thing in the system. I am willing to bet someone like MaxPerson can stomach an edition that to him feels realistic the majority of the time, but not an edition that feels like he is constantly running into realism issues. Would be curious of his feelings on this.

4e was the only edition I had so much trouble with that I just didn't play it. I tend to house rule the heck out of any game I come across, so it's no big deal to me to modify things that I don't find realistic enough and move on. I start by playing the game as is with no modifications, then as I discover how things work and which things I have issues with, I either modify things on the spot if it's major, or wait until the next campaign if it's not. I don't like modifying minor things in the middle of a campaign, so as to not cause too much disruption to the players in how things work.

I also don't mind things that are unrealistic and/or downright silly as a one shot game, or a few short sessions. They can be really fun and I kind of handwave away my expectations on realism and just have fun. Long term, though, I want the game to fit my preferred style of play, which tends to be a bit more realistic in multiple areas than D&D has as its baseline.

 

[Maxperson]

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: ......

Some of us actually enjoy the way D&D is set up. We like the D&D specific mechanics and systems. Those are not present in other games, so even if those other games are more realistic than D&D, they won't feel right or be as enjoyable to us as modified D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

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?"

I think this may be where you are going wrong when we talk about realism. We are not designing a game, so it's not a game design discussion. Were I designing a game, then yes, I would look at hit points as part of the pacing and take that into consideration when figuring out the level of realism I wanted in that game. However, when I am just playing a game and I want to tweak hit points to be more realistic with regard to healing, I don't give a flying fig about pacing. Sure, the pacing will change, but that's not even a remote concern of mine.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think this may be where you are going wrong when we talk about realism. We are not designing a game, so it's not a game design discussion. Were I designing a game, then yes, I would look at hit points as part of the pacing and take that into consideration when figuring out the level of realism I wanted in that game. However, when I am just playing a game and I want to tweak hit points to be more realistic with regard to healing, I don't give a flying fig about pacing. Sure, the pacing will change, but that's not even a remote concern of mine.

You're fooling yourself if you think game design isn't a part of you sitting down to play on game night. Game design runs through adventure design, and definitely through consideration of house rules or rulings at the table -- you're engaged in game design at all of those points because you're making decisions that change how the game plays. Note, not is played, but plays -- how the mechanics work to achieve a goal.

When you talk about how you want your game to have more realism, that's game design -- you're taking the general rules of 5e, say, and adding your design layer on top to achieve your play goals. Game design isn't just creating a new ruleset, it's also in how choose to use a ruleset. Frex, I know for a fact that when you sit down to play a game, for instance, it doesn't play like my game does, even if we both use the same system. Why? Game design choices we're both making for our different tables.

As for 'realism', that cannot be a goal for you in a game with elves and magic. What you're looking for is a game that is as close to normal assumptions except where specifically detailed otherwise. So, people can't "heal" overnight because that's bad, except magic. Just like hitpoints must be some kind of wounding because how else can you fight dragons and knights that "hit" you and not take wounds, which don't heal overnight, so they can't, except magic. You're bringing a lens of "as much like the world as possible so magic can be more magical" without ever examining why or what you get from doing this. Heck, you're outright hostile when even asked to consider you might be looking for some other thing and realism is just a means to that end. Why would that question make you hostile? It isn't challenging your preferences, it isn't saying you're wrong to want to play how you play, it's asking you to consider if there's another goal you're aiming for but misidentifying because you haven't stopped to really think it through. I used to be you, man, used to fret of realism, used to fret over how much my game "made sense". So, I get it. And, it's likely we want different things, even when I thought like that, and I certainly don't think my current play is in any way better or superior to how I used to play except that it's better for me. Still, being able to actually talk about how games work, what they incentivize, how they do it, is very interesting because I'm still on my journey, but you get mad when asked what your journey is. I don't get it. Or, rather, I do, but I hope you might realize how silly it is to be mad about this kind of question.
[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] has been pleasant in his posts. If you're taking offense, you're looking for it.