Well, the obvious answer is "logical, self-consistent results" but I'm not entirely sure logical self-consistency is entirely at odds with "realism" per se.
Who said they were at odds? Not me!
You were the one who put logical and realistic together, and asking what we were looking for. I'm merely pointing out that some people may be looking for the logical, but not so much the realism.
Magic, for instance --- if you postulate magic to functionally operate as some kind of controlled interaction between the matter-to-energy or energy-to-matter spectrum of physics, it's entirely "realistic."
Yes, except that large swaths of the fantasy genre *fail* on that point - we get matter or energy coming from nowhere, or other violations of the laws of thermodynamics. The origin genre cannot be said to be realistic, in general, so I don't see how you'd ever guess that realism would be the ultimate panacea of RPGs.
Of course, this does go a bit back to the whole idea of "process sim" that's been brought up so many times in other places around here. Are we trying to create mechanics that model discrete process outputs, and if so how "high up" are we abstracting them? If you're not doing discrete process output, what are you modeling?
Do you mean "we - RPG players in general" or "we - people in this thread"? I'm guessing the former, as you were talking about a panacea above, and "pan-" means "all". And if that's the case, I think we can pretty easily say that "we" are then not all trying for *any* particular goal. "We" aren't all the same. "We," are looking for different things from games. We are not all "trying to model" something. "We," are not actually a single, unified, monolithic body.
It then follows - there is no single panacea, no One True Way. And that's okay.
If you are talking about some select sub-group... then it follows your panacea is still then just a... someacea, a "thesepeopleacea".
Last edited: