Yet you fairly confidently assert that your D&D play is more realistic than my BW play. So either your assertion is based in ignorance, or it is not an assertion about the content of the fiction. I've always assumed the latter: that by "realism" you don't mean the content of the fiction, but something about the manner in which it is produced - that is, the procedures for prep, for play, and for how those two things are related.
For instance, it seems to me - from your many posts - that you regard the first of the two episodes of play I set out immediately below as more realistic than the second:
* The GM draws up a map of a city square, and notes where there is a hiding place between the corners of two adjacent-but-not-quite-touching buildings. And the GM makes a note that, if a PC enters this square at night, there is a 30% chance that one of the ninjas who has been tracking the PCs - for reasons connected to stuff that has happened in an earlier session - will be hiding there, hoping to ambush the PC. Subsequently, when in play a player declares that their PC goes to the square, and everyone agrees that it is night time, the GM rolls the % dice, and they read 15 (and so fall within the 01 to 30 band to "trigger" the 30% chance). The GM therefore asks the player to make a Perception check, and - based on the result of that check - proceeds to resolve the ninja's attempted ambush of the PC.
The GM prepares, inspired by events in a recent session, makes notes on a front - the front includes ninjas among its threats. The front has an impulse *to relentlessly pursue its targets, and as a GM-move to ambush someone. Subsequently, in play, a player declares that their PC goes to the city square. The GM describes it being night-time - the square is empty, the silence oppressive, the shadows threatening. The player says "I look around - if I need to get out of here, what's my best way out?" The GM applies the principle If you do it, you do it and so tells the player - "OK, you're reading the situation. Roll the dice!" The player rolls, and fails, and so - as per the rules of the game - the GM is entitled to make as hard and direct a move as they like. So the GM consults their prep, notes their front with its impulse and its move, and so tells the player, "You are looking around, trying to identify your possible way out, and then something strikes you in the neck. A dart!" And then they go on to resolve a ninja's attempted ambush of the PC.
These two episodes of play don't differ in their fictional content. Nevertheless, as I said above, I am reasonably confident that you -
@Micah Sweet - would regard the first as more realistic than the second. Given the lack of difference in content, this must be because of how they differ in their procedures.
Those difference can be spelled out fairly easily. The two episodes differ in the way the GM preps: the first is fairly typical for D&D, the second fairly typical for Apocalypse World or Dungeon World. They also differ in the way the GM approaches framing: in the first, the presentation of the city square by the GM is neutral, and the GM relies on the % dice to tell them whether or not a threat is present; in the second, the GM presents the square as sinister, thus instigating the player into action. They further differ in the way that action is resolved: in the first, the GM deploys the hidden element of the framing (the ninja they have rolled up, but not yet announced), and calls for a Perception check based on that deployment; in the second, the GM calls for a roll based on the player's declared action, and then draws on their prep to make a move that is appropriate to the result of that roll. This move includes introducing an ambushing ninja into the scene.
I personally don't find the label "realistic" a very helpful way of distinguishing the two approaches to prep and play. But it is at least pointing to a an actual difference, even if - in my view - misdescribing it. Unlike some of the other claims about "realism" in this thread.
