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

[Maxperson]

And EGG notably refers to the entire realism matter as "an absurd effort at best considering the topic!" while engaging the matter. His position is comparable to the position many of us here also have: it's an inherently absurd, futile effort. So it sounds as if EGG did not really think that realism was something that could be feasibly modeled in the game, and he even puts 'realistic' in quotes with a tinge of irony.

His position is not one that either you or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. Gygax came from Wargaming where realism meant get as close to reality as possible. Realism no longer means what he was talking about with that statement, and if you actually read 1e and 2e, he supports realism as it means today all over the place. Gygax with how he designed his games actually supports my position far more than he supports yours.

And what remains unresolved: how the frak do you objectively compare the modeling of realism between games? Let's imagine that all else being equal, what is more realistic? A D&D 5E that has its longsword do d8 damage or a D&D 5E that has its longsword do a d10 damage?

That's easy. It's d8. Size matters for damage in D&D, and d10 is for larger weapons than a longsword. Glaives, halberds, pikes, and heavy crossbows(which hit with more force than a longsword). So in the damage system that D&D has utilized since the early days, d8 is more realistic than d10 for longswords

 

[Maxperson]

This "debate" really has nothing to do with what we are discussing, but rather has to do with other debates you have had. And since you've had those debates (and apparently you don't much enjoy people using the word "realism" against you) you've decided to fight against the word, "realism," instead of the substance.

This.

 

[Maxperson]

Comparing RPG rules to flight simulators is (in my view) largely unhelpful and unilluminating. I'll let [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] repeat his account of why, should he care to. All I'll say is that people desigining simulations of that sort don't just make stuff up. Whereas that is precisely what most game design involves.

That's patently false. People don't just make the vast majority of stuff up. They make decision based on reason and what they know, which is kinda the opposite of "just making stuff up."

 

[pemerton]

It's nonsense for the DM to include degradation for NPC items, but make PC items immune to degradation.

Why? There's no mechanic in most versions of D&D (some 2nd ed AD&D variants may be exceptions, I think) by which an orc can maim a PC with a sword. But presumably some people sometimes get maimed in sword fights. So all those people must be NPCs!

I've never played a D&D game in which my PCs had fleas or lice. But presumably they abound. They must be on the NPCs!

Etc.

So far from being nonsense, in most RPGing it is NPCs - or more generally, the setting - that bears the weight of signally the genre, the default expectations, the background reality. While the action of the protagonists plays out in ways that depart from that "normality" in all sorts of ways.

 

[pemerton]

That's patently false. People don't just make the vast majority of stuff up. They make decision based on reason and what they know, which is kinda the opposite of "just making stuff up."

No it's not. It's a version of it.

Last week I gave a lecture on social science methodology to non-social scientists. The most important point I made in the lecture was that a lot of work is produced that makes empirical claims about social institutions, social causation, etc, in which those claims are simply unsubstantiated. The people who write that work don't think that they're making it up - they think they're using reason and what they know. That doesn't make their work any more realistic.

I was cautioning my audience not to fall into that error, of making unsubstanitated claims grounded in nothing but reason and what they know.

 

[Aldarc]

1. Notice how you're continuing to compare different TTRPGs? There's a reason for that (see also, 2). Despite what I've written repeatedly that this is about comparisons within a single thing, not between things (is the flight simulation more or less realistic with or without wind, not is the flight simulator more realistic with wind than the space simulation). But the thrust of this is you keep discussing, and retreating to, "established fiction," which is completely orthogonal to what we are discussing, which is why the issue is described in terms of realism/simulation. There is nothing wrong, or right, with fiction that is great, or bad, or in-between; only that it has little to do with simulating or modeling reality (realism).

You are presenting a strawman here (if not multiple ones), and I'm sure you will get some XP kudos from [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] for it.

The reason for comparing different TTRPGs is that a singular TTRPGs generally do not have multiple subsystems for whether they "model wind" or not. They usually either do or do not because systems generally come as pre-packaged systems. We can look at singular systems such as D&D, but then when we speak of adding models or not, we are typically dealing with house rules.

Likewise, I do not "retreat" to establishing fiction; I use it because it provides one way to compare claims about the realism added of "modeled realism" versus "no model." Even if we look within a singular system that added a model of wind, the same point would largely hold true. The addition of a model intending to model realism does not inherently provide a net positive of realism to a system.

2. Which brings me to my second point, which I have both alluded to and outright stated. This "debate" really has nothing to do with what we are discussing, but rather has to do with other debates you have had. And since you've had those debates (and apparently you don't much enjoy people using the word "realism" against you) you've decided to fight against the word, "realism," instead of the substance. But let me assure you again- I am not a part of you edition or gamist or whatever wars.

Contrary to your assertion, these are not edition or gamist wars. These are debates regarding realism that exist in this thread, and many of those same issues and positions have resurfaced in our current discussions about realism. These are discussions that involve the same participants about the many of the same points. And others have raised similar points as I have. So here is something else that I swear is "really not hard" is refraining from bad faith arguments that you put in the bold. I would suggest that you don't insinuate my intent or motives.

His position is not one that either you or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. Gygax came from Wargaming where realism meant get as close to reality as possible. Realism no longer means what he was talking about with that statement, and if you actually read 1e and 2e, he supports realism as it means today all over the place. Gygax with how he designed his games actually supports my position far more than he supports yours.

I'll let someone more well-versed with those days to go down this rabbit hole.

That's easy. It's d8. Size matters for damage in D&D, and d10 is for larger weapons than a longsword. Glaives, halberds, pikes, and heavy crossbows(which hit with more force than a longsword). So in the damage system that D&D has utilized since the early days, d8 is more realistic than d10 for longswords

You basically just described gamist justifications and not realist ones.

 

[pemerton]

I'll let someone more well-versed with those days to go down this rabbit hole.

The bit of that rabbit hole that I ignored was the completely unsubstantiated assertion that the meaning of "realism" in RPGing has changed in the past 40 years. Obviously I missed that memo (despite playing Rolemaster continuously from early 1990 to late 2008!).

You basically just described gamist justifications and not realist ones.

Are you suggesting that if I open a book about weapon-inflicted wounds, or fighting styles, it won't catalogue weapons by die size?

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is inconsistent, which is something to be avoided. It's nonsense for the DM to include degradation for NPC items, but make PC items immune to degradation. If PC items are not immune, there should be a mechanic to demonstrate it.

But, we've been repeatedly told that even a crude or bad model increases realism! How can more realism also be nonesense?


As I noted, it's been clear for some time that there are additional unstated requirements and that this is where the subjectiveness is hiding.

 

[Maxperson]

You basically just described gamist justifications and not realist ones.

Hmm. Looking at the forge I see Gamist, Narratavist, and Simulationist. No Realist. You're confusing yourself with terms again.

Realism exists in all three of the above game types.

 

[Maxperson]

The bit of that rabbit hole that I ignored was the completely unsubstantiated assertion that the meaning of "realism" in RPGing has changed in the past 40 years. Obviously I missed that memo (despite playing Rolemaster continuously from early 1990 to late 2008!).

Perhaps if you paid more attention to how terms are used by the gaming industry at large, and not how you personally choose to define terms, you wouldn't have missed it.

Are you suggesting that if I open a book about weapon-inflicted wounds, or fighting styles, it won't catalogue weapons by die size?

And this is irrelevant to realism for reasons you already know.