Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8962648" data-attributes="member: 5142">I agree, but I will go ahead and raise one of my usual objections to &quot;realism.&quot;I tend to find that there are those who appeal to &quot;realism&quot; who have widely divergent understandings of what makes something &quot;realistic&quot; when it comes to simulating anything with the rules or game processes.So part of my contention lies with that selectivity process, which comes across as trying to turn a subjective perspective of realism into a sort of objective truth about what is &quot;realistic.&quot; This is even excluding the introduction of things like &quot;magic,&quot; &quot;cosmologies,&quot; or the &quot;supernatural&quot; into the equation that should render the application of our understanding of realistic physics null and void.So that subjective selectivity when applying &quot;realism&quot; sometimes feels more like post hoc justifications of personal biases than anything else. Why is realism important for game elements A, B, and C but not these other game elements X, Y, and X that should and probably would have large ramifications on A, B, and C?Moreover, more problematically, I find that sometimes appeals to &quot;realism&quot; often entail a desire to sneak in unsavory things under the banner of &quot;greater realism&quot; (e.g., sexism, racism, etc.). The obvious example here being F.A.T.A.L., which branded itself as the most realistic game.This undoubtedly reflects my own biases, but I will admit that as a result of my time in this hobby, appeals to &quot;greater realism&quot; often shoot up a bunch of red flags for me because of things like this. I am aware that there are people who want more &quot;greater realism&quot; who don't share such unfortunate prejudices; however, I find that &quot;realism&quot; is often where I find that the subjective prejudices of the designer/GM often intrude in the game space in unpleasant ways.Edit: This is one reason why I think that I would personally favor a move away from an appeal to &quot;realism&quot; as a term to something else that is a little more cognitive or self-aware of its fictive or subjective nature: e.g., imaginary naturalism.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 8962648, member: 5142"] I agree, but I will go ahead and raise one of my usual objections to "realism." I tend to find that there are those who appeal to "realism" who have widely divergent understandings of what makes something "realistic" when it comes to simulating anything with the rules or game processes. So part of my contention lies with that selectivity process, which comes across as trying to turn a subjective perspective of realism into a sort of objective truth about what is "realistic." This is even excluding the introduction of things like "magic," "cosmologies," or the "supernatural" into the equation that should render the application of our understanding of realistic physics null and void. So that subjective selectivity when applying "realism" sometimes feels more like post hoc justifications of personal biases than anything else. Why is realism important for game elements A, B, and C but not these other game elements X, Y, and X that should and probably would have large ramifications on A, B, and C? Moreover, more problematically, I find that sometimes appeals to "realism" often entail a desire to sneak in unsavory things under the banner of "greater realism" (e.g., sexism, racism, etc.). The obvious example here being F.A.T.A.L., which branded itself as the most realistic game. This undoubtedly reflects my own biases, but I will admit that as a result of my time in this hobby, appeals to "greater realism" often shoot up a bunch of red flags for me because of things like this. I am aware that there are people who want more "greater realism" who don't share such unfortunate prejudices; however, I find that "realism" is often where I find that the subjective prejudices of the designer/GM often intrude in the game space in unpleasant ways. Edit: This is one reason why I think that I would personally favor a move away from an appeal to "realism" as a term to something else that is a little more cognitive or self-aware of its fictive or subjective nature: e.g., [I]imaginary naturalism[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification