Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wombat" data-source="post: 4738762" data-attributes="member: 8447">I think, as can be seen from the responses here, that &quot;realism&quot; is defined differently by different people.There is, for example, &quot;rules realism&quot;.&nbsp; This seems to be generally based on the notion that rules follow from each other -- if A1 is possible then A2 should be possible.&nbsp; This is something that i tend to look for in games quite a bit.&nbsp; Ultimately this falls under the purview of the rules designers.&nbsp; They are under an obligation to take such consistencies into account.&nbsp; There is also &quot;world realism&quot; which is a very confused notion.&nbsp; A large part of the problem with this concept is essentially the reversal of my core axiom: match the rules to the world rather than the world to the rules.&nbsp; If there is a disconnect between what is perceived as &quot;possible in the setting&quot; and &quot;possible under the rules set&quot; many people get annoyed.&nbsp; This is particularly important with already established settings and places.&nbsp; Take these two examples.&nbsp; One poster earlier mentioned Toon, a wonderful game.&nbsp; In Toon you would expect, given the world-rules, that if a character runs off a cliff, that character may continue running ... until the character looks down; at this point the character looks chagrined/worried and then plummets downwards towards pain, perhaps giving a little wave along the way.&nbsp; In Ars Magica, another wonderful game, there are assumptions about 13th century Europe and the social mores of the time -- peasants have no influence, dukes may raise vast armies, religion is vastly important, there are no gunpowder weapons, etc.&nbsp; If a peasant spits on a bishop, the peasant will be, at a minimum, severely roughed up and probably killed.&nbsp; These are two rather different takes on &quot;world realities&quot;.Another take on &quot;world realism&quot; is a level of consistency.&nbsp; I A begets B one time, but A begets aardarks another, people get to get worried.&nbsp; This becomes important in an otherwise unknown fantasy or science fiction setting, one where fewer of the &quot;ground rules&quot; are known.&nbsp; If, for example, giving a nah-flower to a priest of Floogey grants a peasant the ability to fly, that should always be the case.&nbsp; If the next time a peasant hands a nah-flower to a priest of Floogey the peasant is torn limb from limb, there needs to be a reason for this - perhaps the third moon is in the wrong phase or suchlike.&nbsp; If a spaceship can travel at faster-then-light speeds with a single pilot in one instance, then this should always be true for that ship; if there is an alteration to this situation, again there needs to be an explanation.&nbsp; Much of the &quot;world realism&quot; falls on the shoulders of the GM -- this mighty individual may seem to have a lot of power, but also a horde of strange responsibilities.A few people use &quot;realism&quot; to mean &quot;I didn't get what I want&quot;; in this case the problem is between the player and the group as a whole and there is no pat answer.Again, &quot;realism&quot; is a variable term.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wombat, post: 4738762, member: 8447"] I think, as can be seen from the responses here, that "realism" is defined differently by different people. There is, for example, "rules realism". This seems to be generally based on the notion that rules follow from each other -- if A1 is possible then A2 should be possible. This is something that i tend to look for in games quite a bit. Ultimately this falls under the purview of the rules designers. They are under an obligation to take such consistencies into account. There is also "world realism" which is a very confused notion. A large part of the problem with this concept is essentially the reversal of my core axiom: match the rules to the world rather than the world to the rules. If there is a disconnect between what is perceived as "possible in the setting" and "possible under the rules set" many people get annoyed. This is particularly important with already established settings and places. Take these two examples. One poster earlier mentioned [I]Toon[/I], a wonderful game. In Toon you would expect, given the world-rules, that if a character runs off a cliff, that character may continue running ... until the character looks down; at this point the character looks chagrined/worried and then plummets downwards towards pain, perhaps giving a little wave along the way. In [I]Ars Magica[/I], another wonderful game, there are assumptions about 13th century Europe and the social mores of the time -- peasants have no influence, dukes may raise vast armies, religion is vastly important, there are no gunpowder weapons, etc. If a peasant spits on a bishop, the peasant will be, at a minimum, severely roughed up and probably killed. These are two rather different takes on "world realities". Another take on "world realism" is a level of consistency. I A begets B one time, but A begets aardarks another, people get to get worried. This becomes important in an otherwise unknown fantasy or science fiction setting, one where fewer of the "ground rules" are known. If, for example, giving a [I]nah[/I]-flower to a priest of Floogey grants a peasant the ability to fly, that should always be the case. If the next time a peasant hands a [I]nah[/I]-flower to a priest of Floogey the peasant is torn limb from limb, there needs to be a reason for this - perhaps the third moon is in the wrong phase or suchlike. If a spaceship can travel at faster-then-light speeds with a single pilot in one instance, then this should always be true for that ship; if there is an alteration to this situation, again there needs to be an explanation. Much of the "world realism" falls on the shoulders of the GM -- this mighty individual may seem to have a lot of power, but also a horde of strange responsibilities. A few people use "realism" to mean "I didn't get what I want"; in this case the problem is between the player and the group as a whole and there is no pat answer. Again, "realism" is a variable term. [/QUOTE]

Verification