Why is realism "lame"?

[amerigoV]

Anymore than a two year old armed with a pin can kill you. That's the size relations we're talking about.

Although I 100% agree with you -- my 2 year old daughter might just make a great linebacker some day with the way she crashes into me while I am wrestling with her 3 year old brother. She might not kill me with a pin, but I lets not give her one, shall we?

I like stuff just realistic enough that logical tactics matter (vs. "system tactics" - where the rules says x is better than y).

 

[Ahnehnois]

But that doesn't help too much. Plausibility (being seemingly reasonable or probable) is audience-dependent. Unless we are unified in what we all think is "reasonable", asking a game to be plausible isn't an objective bar for them to meet.

True, but, other than sales figures, what criteria by which an rpg could be evaluated are not audience dependent? Balance, ease of learning, speed of play, "feel", all of these things are in the eye of the beholder. Plausibility is at least on the same plane as these other things.

 

[DM Howard]

But that doesn't help too much. Plausibility (being seemingly reasonable or probable) is audience-dependent. Unless we are unified in what we all think is "reasonable", asking a game to be plausible isn't an objective bar for them to meet.

Exactly. That was my point, it isn't dependent on the system. Sure Pathfinder has outrageous ideas on what size great swords are but I can find it plausible for me. It's more of a group conflict thing to me if the idea of realism comes up.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Somehow "down to earth" or even "realistic" stuff has become so lame in the mind of the current generation of gamers that they do not want to do anything to do with it.

I think you're confusing two issues here, probably flavor versus mechanics.

I like down to earth or realistic flavor. That's one reason I'm a huge fan of A Song of Ice and Fire as a fantasy setting. Being a person with honor before reason, for instance, isn't an advantage in the setting. (Well, not usually.) People can die of disease, bad luck, saying the wrong thing to the wrong person, etc. Being a socially powerful person actually meant something, like it did in the Middle Ages. I'm a big fan of the Bond movies without stupid gadgets. (My favorites are Bond's knife-in-a-briefcase and his exploding pen. I don't like invisible cars.)

But if you're talking about mechanics... real-life isn't balanced, real-life combat isn't fun, and many other things that adventurers would deal with (logistics, for instance) isn't a whole lot of fun either.

 

[ggroy]

I blame Tolkien and the Matrix*


* I knew we were in trouble when I saw a commercial for Charlies Angles and its was all Matrix-like.

This sort of thing was around earlier than The Matrix, such as the late-1980's/early-1990's cartoon version of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the early-mid 1990's X-Men cartoon.

 

[Aeolius]

I prefer the term plausible to realistic. I want elements in my games be they Fantasy or Science Fiction to be plausible to the audience.

But that doesn't help too much. Plausibility (being seemingly reasonable or probable) is audience-dependent.

One's willing suspension of disbelief seem to be a bit more developed, when one is a gamer, also. "A shrunken head, talking octopus, and a merman with the lower torso of a jellyfish swim into a bar." Yeah, I can see that. But then again when I shine a flashlight in the backyard and see a dozen deer eyes shining back at me, for a hundredth of a second I actually think "ZOMBIES!".

"Thinking outside the box might be facilitated by having a somewhat less intact box" - Dr. Fredrik Ullén

 

[Umbran]

"Thinking outside the box might be facilitated by having a somewhat less intact box" - Dr. Fredrik Ullén

I am stealing this quote.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But that doesn't help too much. Plausibility (being seemingly reasonable or probable) is audience-dependent. Unless we are unified in what we all think is "reasonable", asking a game to be plausible isn't an objective bar for them to meet.

People disagree over what constitutes balance as well but that doesn't mean designers can't try to appeal to their audience's sense of balance and plausibility. The more you interact with and know your audience, the more you get a feel for what the find plausible and what they regard as balanced. Its also entirely possible to forge forward using your sense of what is plausible. I don't think we should toss these things out the window simply because there is a subjective element to them. It helps to understand them as being part of a spectrum of preferences, but I do think these are important categories to consider when designing a game (even if that just means the designers asking themselves what plausibility means for the purpose of the game they are making).

 

[Aeolius]

I am stealing this quote.

yeah, it's a personal favorite. I found it in an article entitled "Dopamine System in Highly Creative People Similar to That Seen in Schizophrenics". Which also seems to fit.

 

[Umbran]

Exactly. That was my point, it isn't dependent on the system.

Okay, then we agree - it just wasn't so clear to me in the statement, so I bought it up.

True, but, other than sales figures, what criteria by which an rpg could be evaluated are not audience dependent?

Few to none. But, how often do we see folks try to take their own measure of an aspect of the game to be objective? I was merely pointing out that while shifting from "realism" to "plausibility" may be a useful change in connotation, it doesn't get around that basic problem.

People disagree over what constitutes balance as well but that doesn't mean designers can't try to appeal to their audience's sense of balance and plausibility.

Quite correct. This makes it clear that it is now about choosing a particular audience that agrees on the matter. It shifts the discussion from, "This game is more plausible," to, "I find this game to be more plausible." The issue is shifted from the game, to the audience, where it should be.

People gripe that the "I find..." or "I feel..." should be understood - but in writing it almost never is.