"Realism is overrated" Topic

We all say we want "realism" in our games. I don't believe it. It also leads to endless and pointless discussions on the merits of one ruleset vs. the other.

Realism is dull. What we really want are the heroic actions, the stuff of legend, the fun and action parts. We don't want the logistics and the planning and the waiting on the fringes of the battlefield.

I also don't understand why this goal of making wargames realistic ever became the gold standard in the hobby.

Wargames should be inspired by real military actions, not try to mimic them.

Why…wargames certainly don't have to be inspired by real military actions, IMHO.

Raise an army, transport them to an earthly location, or to some other world(s), and let the rumbles begin!!

Very well said Phil. To me, wargaming is a social event that is a time to gather with your friends and have FUN. I know that some people cringe at the word FUN, but there you have it.

To me, realism is when someone is actually shooting at you – I want none of that, thank you.

All that I ask of a Wargame is that it be plausible .

I prefer rules I play to be realistic in the sense that they seem generally consistent with historical accounts of conflicts in the period. I don't expect them to be a perfect simulation in any sense but prefer that they not seem totally disconnected of my understanding of the underlying history. They should help me understand historical accounts of combat not be totally disjoint from them.

Personally I see little relation between realism and the amount of detail in the rules. If anything rules with excessive detail included tend to be less realistic in my experience rather than more so.

Given this, I've certainly been known to play and enjoy rules that strike me as not very realistic but can provide an enjoyable time with good company.

Chris

Yes, plausible.
A handgun should have no affect on a Tank.

Yes, heroic.
The figure should be able to shove the handgun through a vision slot, and affect a Tank.

Neither myself, nor anyone I know has ever expressed a desire for "realism" in wargames. Perhaps you just need better friends.

There should be more emphasis on the fun in gaming as it's virtually impossible to be realistic unless someone is actually shooting you or your troops. From the Gods eye view, to such often heard phrases like "they're ok, they've only taken a quarter casualties" or "he's ok to carry on, it's only a light wound", absolute nonsense when said seriously. It's just a game and should be treated as such. Tactical geniuses are made by staff colleges not Bolt Action😀

If you aren't laughing with your friends every other turn or so, why are you doing it?

My tastes vary. Some times I want a set of WW2 rules that plays like Sgt. Rock. Some times I want rules that play out more like Band of Brothers or a documentary.

For SciFi some times I want "roll dice, stuff 'splodes." Other times I want to work my noodle and think about the trade offs of EW; complex resupply; aliens with truly different fighting styles; how an "empire" in space might really work.

On top of all that there are at least half a dozen definitions of "realism" which lead to very different kinds of games.

Is there some specific ruleset, instance of game design or thread/post on TMP that spurred you to post about this, Phil?

Also, who cringes at the word fun?

As for realism vs fun, I don't view it fully as a spectrum of realism at one end and fun on the other. Fun is always the number one priority of a miniatures wargame. If a game can handle a bit of realism all the while remaining fun, then that's well and good. If a game unceremoniously defenestrates realism in favour of sheer wacky chaos, or comic book heroics, or "naive" old-timey visions of "gentlemen's wars", or whatever, and is fun as such, then that too is well and good. They're all just different flavours.

To me, realism is when someone is actually shooting at you – I want none of that, thank you.

That's well said, though.

Fun and realism are NOT mutually exclusive.

Try TooFatLardies rules for games that are both fun to play, and about as realistic in terms of cause and effect as you will get.

I disagree.

Certainly inspired by them, but they can also be fairly realistic too. Realism and wargaming don't have to be mutually exclusive.

I do dispense with the whole logistics, endless waiting, and a good portion of the in depth planning though, since troops in the front lines weren't involved in the former, or latter usually, and just had to follow orders.

Tip of the spear gaming for me, that strives to be both realistic, and fun at the same time.

Now, go take those crossroads, hill, or town, soldier!

Of course, the Northeastern USA would be perfect right now for those outdoor Stalingrad, or Battle of the Bulge games, if you really want the right ambiance and backdrop to your battles. Remember not to lick the metal minis.

"What we really want are the heroic actions, the stuff of legend, the fun and action parts"

And enough decision points along the way to keep it interesting.

Is there some specific ruleset, instance of game design or thread/post on TMP that spurred you to post about this, Phil?

No, not really.

It just came out of a discussion we had after our last game, and about "realism".
It seemed no one was really interested in realism. It's not that we don't believe you can bring it to the tabletop. It is also not about realism vs fun and whether you can bring them together. I think you can. It's just that no one really cared about realism. Perhaps we had too many whiskys, that might be possible.

Anyway, I started wondering when and why this gold standard of realism ever entered the hobby. Perhaps we should – as a hobby – take another look at the toy soldier games that existed up to the point when the books by Featherstone et al were published in the 60s.
Those somewhat naive games were ditched in the name of realism. Perhaps we should take some steps back and take another look at our roots? After all, is the core of our hobby not playing with nice toy soldiers, and should everything else be subject to that?

I want to have a good time with my friends playing with well painted toy soldiers giving me a result that does not insult my intelligence.
Is that "realism"? Idunno. Who cares?

Don't get me wrong, I suspect Star Wars-style, implausibly impossible running battles against overwhemling odds can be quite fun too, but are really action-fiction, as opposed to historically accurate representations, in many cases.

Not sure where you get your "we all" and "what we really want" ideas, but I assure you, you don't speak for anyone but yourself.

I also don't understand

I agree with you there. :)

All I'm gonna say is….If you invite me over for a game of WW2 and the little tin soldiers are shooting arrows at each other…..

Personally, I think reality is over-rated, so how much does one really want in a game?

Fun and realism are NOT mutually exclusive.

Try TooFatLardies rules for games that are both fun to play, and about as realistic in terms of cause and effect as you will get.

Very much this.

Games need an element of realism to be fun – we have to believe what's going on.

Realistic troop organization, realistic scenario, realistic terrain, realistic way in which movement is handled – all elements of realism.

The fact that my fixed pose, static troops can't move or fire on their own doesn't detract from my desire to have fun or more or less accurately depict a battle.

And some games even have logistics, engineering etc. to add to the realism – Battlegroup for WWII for example. Excellent ways to at least address that these elements are on the table.

If you aren't laughing with your friends every other turn or so, why are you doing it?

Lots of reasons – intellectual challenge, learning about history, trying out different strategies.
I certainly don't find myself laughing every other turn whilst playing, and I'd think it was a bit strange if we were laughing that much about it.

I don't want to field an all Tiger German tank company, because that is not representative of WWII, nor would I want said company to be destroyed by Sgt Saunders and Caje's BAR.
While I don't need to know how many AP rounds a tank carries, I definitely want a historical game to represent real tactics, and where I can learn a little about that conflict.

Batesmotel and Extracrispy expressed my feelings quite well.

For a historical game I do want some reflection of the historical realism and I would like some level of simulation (although yes, too much detail actually detracts from the simulation, realism and fun). So historical tactics should work in the game, I should be confronted with the same problems and decisions as my real life counterpart would face, otherwise I'd play fantasy games.

For a Pulpy adventure type game it's much more about the laughs and die rolling, which is good too.

But I notice the best Pulp games try to emulate their fictional or movie/TV paradigm, so in a sense, they too are trying to reflect a 'fictional realism' by being true to the paradigm. If you see what I mean.

Wow. I disagree with almost every sentence in the original post. And some of the limiting thoughts in supporting posts.

Several years ago, I sat down with a retired navy SEAL. We played a game using rules that I had written with the intent of creating realistic firefights. We fought a firefight with two squads of 20mm figs in the jungle of Vietnam on a 24 inch square battlefield. The game only last a few minutes with a few of the figs getting hit, a couple resolving as fatal.

At the end of the game, he (the SEAL) jumped up out of his chair, and in an expletive filled exclamation, explained that the rules were "awesome". "Absolutely real", "just like being in a firefight, but without dying" were some of the things that he said. He was in an adrenaline charged state, displaying the type of euphoria that I felt after the couple of times that I've been shot at during my life.

While the game was not 100 percent real, since nobody died or even bled from their wounds, I might argue that he perceived the game and rules as being in some way realistic. He did not behave as if the realism was dull, though the interpretation is subjective. I took his reaction as a compliment, as "realistic" was my goal. He had been in dozens of firefights, been shot at least twice, and had killed on multiple occasions. I respect his opinion, based on his personal experience.

At work, we sometimes conduct vehicular crash tests as a part of our accident reconstructions. Often, the results of crash tests are such that we show very similar failure mechanisms, crush profiles and measurements to the actual event. Close enough that if you overlay photos of the subject and test vehicles, you cannot distinguish between their respective crush profiles.

Though most of our crash tests are associated with accidents that resulted in fatalities. Nobody has ever died during, or as a result of our crash tests. I do believe that the lack of deaths in our crash tests is an indicator of a lack of "realism" in our crash tests.

In a similar manner, I do not think that the lack of deaths at the game table is a valid argument, regarding the realism of a set of rules. I think it is pretty easy to argue that unless it was the intent of the rules to produce deaths or wounds, that there should in fact, be no deaths or wounds resulting from a given set of rules. And that the lack of deaths and wounds are unrelated to the magnitude of realism presented (or not) by a given set of rules with respect to those aspects that the rules try to represent realistically.

I know gamers that approach the game as a creative experience and do not look for realism. It is more of an artistic thing to them.

I look for realism in some, but not all aspects of a given game or set of rules. For example, I am happy to play games involving fictional nations and fictional armies, but if a Panzer IV and an Abrams have the same armor values (i.e., all tanks have the same values) it doesn't work for me. It is just a function of which aspects that I am trying to model "realistically".

I am currently playing a campaign game involving fictional armies in a modern setting. A portion of the game is played with miniatures on the tabletop. Some of the game is managing military budgets, procuring weapons, tracking delivery times, maintaining supply lines and inventories at various points along those lines and in the units in the field. Part of the game is strategic planning, part of it is picket duty, part of the tabletop game has been 70 turns of recon. I enjoy all of that. I am entertained by it. Oh, and did I mention that most of this campaign is played solo. This game isn't a social event, though some of my gaming is very much so.

I guess that what I'm really saying is that the rules, the game, the hobby are different things to different people. Comments that rigidly define what the limits should be, are from the vantage point of the interests of the individual. They are subjective and exclusive.

Imposing some of the restrictions or perceptions shared above would exclude me from my hobby.

Let me warn you, you try to take away my toys… you gonna get bit!

irishserb,

Are your firefight rules available?

Thanks,

Bill.

I also don't understand why this goal of making wargames realistic ever became the gold standard in the hobby.

There's no mystery, Phil. Game designers try to produce games that gamers will buy and gamers seem to buy games that promote 'realism', as undefined as that is. If you look at the promotional blurbs in most all wargames, board and miniature, you see this focus, even if the word 'realism' isn't specficially used. Be more than happy to provide all sorts of examples from past and current rules sets.

Wargames should be inspired by real military actions, not try to mimic them.

So real military actions should inspire wargamers to act out unreal actions? That's a tough one for designers.

I guess that what I'm really saying is that the rules, the game, the hobby are different things to different people. Comments that rigidly define what the limits should be, are from the vantage point of the interests of the individual. They are subjective and exclusive.

irishserb:

Here, here. Unfortunately, there are folks found on both sides of the 'realism' fence who insist that wargaming is only or *should be* something. This kind of discussion isn't found in most other hobbies. No one argues that the RC model plane hobby is ONLY Free scale or ONLY true scale models, ONLY off the shelf RC planes, or ONLY super detailed models. So why is it such a bugaboo in our hobby?

Personally, I only ask that whatever it is particular game designers say their games are and do in the realm of history and realism, that they at least give gamers some proof of contents--some idea of what the hell they're talking about.

I do think that even if someone did succeed in imposing some kind of restrictions or perceptions on the hobby, no one is ever going to be taking anyone's toys away, so you don't have to sharpen those knives anytime soon.

I prefer "reasonable" but i find it hard to believe that realism is not a goal ultimately.

If I put out FiveCore 3 (no, I'm not going to for years, relax) and infantry move faster than cavalry, pistols can penetrate tank armour and firing a tank gun at another tank heals it, instead of damage it, people would think I was bonkers.

So clearly some realism is expected.

What people object to is complexity without good reason.

Crossfire is, by and large, pretty realistic in how it plays out, and it's dirt simple.

At the end of the game, he (the SEAL) jumped up out of his chair, and in an expletive filled exclamation, explained that the rules were "awesome". "Absolutely real", "just like being in a firefight, but without dying" were some of the things that he said. He was in an adrenaline charged state, displaying the type of euphoria that I felt after the couple of times that I've been shot at during my life.

That is one way [of eight] of validating a simulation: experts review the system. And by experts, I mean those how have actually experienced the situations portrayed by the game system. Get enough such experts to sign off on your game rules, and you can have a high confidence that the system captures something of the real world.

While the game was not 100 percent real, since nobody died or even bled from their wounds,

One of the basic benefits of a simulation. You don't have to build the new production line to know if it will work, you don't have to travel millions of light years to know what will happen if two galaxies collide, you don't have to risk a billion dollar jet to train someone to fly it and of course, you can have a number of the tactical elements and consequences of a modern firefight without having to risk your life doing it. The whole point of a simulation is to NOT BE 100% realistic. Just realistic at specific points.

I might argue that he perceived the game and rules as being in some way realistic. He did not behave as if the realism was dull, though the interpretation is subjective. I took his reaction as a compliment, as "realistic" was my goal. He had been in dozens of firefights, been shot at least twice, and had killed on multiple occasions. I respect his opinion, based on his personal experience.

The simulation definition of 'realism' is how closely a system, whether computer or game, matches the aspects of reality chosen to be mimicked. Obviously, there have to be some objective ways to determine that, or it is all just BS. Considering the success of simulations in a wide variety of arenas, that is possible. But, yes, just like games, not all simulations are successful or even work well.

In a Dynamic Simulation, where people are creating the events with their decisions, [input], what is being simulated are not the events, but the decision-making environment, in this case, the Jungles of Vietnam with historic weapons and physical dynamics.

I know gamers that approach the game as a creative experience and do not look for realism. It is more of an artistic thing to them.

Whatever those gamers look for, there is a great deal of artistic expression in even the most realistic simulation.
Even in the hard sciences. Crick, one of the discoverers of the double helix configuration said of such research: "It is as much art as hard science." There is no realism vs art, science vs art dichotomy in either wargame or simulation design, just the goals of the game system, which will in every case depend on both calculation and artistic expression.

I agree, but then again, my gaming tends to be Fantasy and Sci-Fi. I'm much more interested in a "fun" game than a "realistic" game.

If I were gaming historical, I might feel differently, but I'd stil probably l prioritize abstractions that keep the game moving over ultra-realistc detail.

General prescriptives (like "we should all…" or "what we need is…") will always fail to resonate with some groups or individuals, and thus are never fruitful lines of thought. Witness the backlash ("Old School" and "Fast Play") to the ultra-realist wargames of the previous decades.

Wargaming reaches its peak of effectiveness when it achieves a balance in all of its aspects (social, intellectual, entertainment, aesthetic) that suits the group that is involved in the activity. Balance is the key, but no one recipe for balance will suit every group.

The aspects don't exist independently of each other. If a game's mechanics are fast and engaging, but it allows events that are greatly at variance with historical possibilities, then some will not find it "fun". If a game gets all the details right, but is so overloaded with situational modifiers and elaborate mechanics that they interfere with the narrative flow of the game, then some will not find it "realistic".

Subordinating everything to one aspect, whether in the design of the rules or in the execution of a particular event, creates gaming experiences that are at best unsatisfying, at worst disastrous wastes of time and energy.

To a true student of history who likes to understand a era by using simulations, fast play is over rated and realism is a must.

No correct answer for this issue. The entire concept depends on the goals and needs of the individual.

What people object to is complexity without good reason.
Crossfire is, by and large, pretty realistic in how it plays out, and it's dirt simple.

I don't know how 'realistic' Crossfire is. I've played it, but not knowing what reality/history it is based on, that judgement is just a 'feeling', no more than my opinion, which could depend on how much beer I had while playing it.

But yes, there is no actual design coorelation between complexity and realism in simulation or wargame design just as there is no direct coorelation between simple games and fun or complexity and boredom.

I agree, but then again, my gaming tends to be Fantasy and Sci-Fi. I'm much more interested in a "fun" game than a "realistic" game.

Again, those two things aren't mutually exclusive or on some more or less continuum where more realism means less fun. I am sure that even with Sci/Fi games, you don't have an axe wielder cleaving an entire company of orcs in one blow or a squad of space rangers crossing the battlefield at light speed. Right? Realism is in the details and even in a fantasy, what keeps you in it is the 'real world' details, such as they are.

If I were gaming historical, I might feel differently, but I'd stil probably l prioritize abstractions that keep the game moving over ultra-realistc detail.

It's not the quantity of details that make something realistic, but the quality and placement. And news flash:

a wargame, historical or fantasy is ALL abstraction from beginning to end. It has been ever thus.

McLaddie – Realism in gaming is all about the "feeling" though.

We play a game and it "feels" right. Sometimes it feels kind of hokey. It's all in the perception of the audience.

As an example, while I really enjoyed Face of Battle, it never gave us the "feeling" despite being a really solid system with a lot of detail.
Troops, Weapons and Tactics did though.

I know with games I've introduced people to, some systems have given that feeling, some did not.
Maybe it's just reaffirming our biases, of course.

The OP is a pretty broad generalisation, we all have our own motivations and expectations from 'the hobby'.

'realism', such as it is, largely exists in our imaginations, but you can find elements of realism in even the most daft of mechanisms (such as HG Wells firing toy cannons at his figures, an excellent way of modelling beaten zones and importance of both spreading out and enfilade fire without tons of complicated rules).

Any, as I have often posted, the long lamented AHGC summed it up very neatly, "Bringing history to life". Exactly what form that may take, will vary from one individual to another.

I like to war "game" if I want realism I reach for the bog roll :) thats 'real' enough for me.
Mechanics of the game are just that, mechanics, some we like some we don't, and then we interpret them as realistic or not. I have the 'realism' running through my mine when I play seeing its part of our imaginary process and that is subjective anyway
Cheers all happy gaming

It must be that time of the month again. We are having THAT discussion. Again.

To me if it doesn't insult my intelligence, it's "realistic ".
Until someone comes up with a better definition , get off my lawn and stop your noise.

I play regularly Age of Reason, the Sword and the Flame and Flames of War. Are they "realistic"? They don't insult my intelligence so as far as I am concerned, they are.
Guess what? I don't care if you disagree. Drone on all you want about whatever it is you drone on about.

" Eight ways to determine ….. "
Give me a break. Go bore some board of directors somewhere.

Realism? No … But who really claims that these days?

Plausible? Yes …

Historical? … Certainly.

But I'm more than happy for the rest of you to define for yourselves what your games aspire to … My games? Well, that's for me and the fellow enthusiasts who play them.

Phil

The realistic slow traditional rules are still out there. Though only played in pockets. Our Fire! Ogon! Freur! rules still uses the armor penetration combat system. Good for tank to tank combat in 15mm, 10mm and 6mm.
others for different eras are still (1980s design era) as well.

McLaddie – Realism in gaming is all about the "feeling" though.

We play a game and it "feels" right. Sometimes it feels kind of hokey. It's all in the perception of the audience.

Weasel:

If that is how you judge the realism in a wargame, that's fine by me. I do think you are confusing entertainment and feelings you get playing a game with the functional ability of game mechanics or any system to replicate real-life dynamics.

The latter is often claimed, but in our hobby all you can get at the moment is the former criteria: Feelings. So, it isn't surprising that you and most all wargamers feel 'realism' is all about feelings. Lots of characters in books 'feel' real. Movie scenes can feel real while watching them. Wargames can feel real for all sorts of reasons when you play.

Your feelings, my feelings, everyone's feelings can be influenced by all sorts of things consciously or unconsciously that have very little to do with the game. Some folks judge a game's realism solely on who designed them.

There is nothing wrong with any of that. We play wargames that we enjoy for our own reasons. End of story. However, that isn't the issue here. A 'feeling' of realism [It's like you are there] isn't all or even most of what wargame designers are offering or selling.

Yesthatphil asks "Realism? No … But who really claims that these days?"

Well, most wargame designers. Here are what some designers say about their current wargames:

TwoFatLardies tag: "Play the Period, Not the Rules."
For Le Few Sacre "The actual combat elements are, although historically accurate, deliberately simplified to allow focus on what really deermined victory on many Napoleonic battlefields…

For Black Powder The designers state:

"Naturally, we wish our game to be a tolerably convincing representation of real battle;…"

Or Regimental Fire & Fury

"It took years of refining the rules and much playtesting to find the balance between playability and historical accuracy players expect in a Fire and Fury game."

Or "LaSalle can also be used to simulate historical battles of the Napoleonic Wars,…"

Or even Command & Colors Napoleonics

The Napoleonic tactics you will need to execute to gain Victory conform remarkably well to the advantages and limitations inherent to the various Napolonic National Armies of the day the battlefield terrain features on which they fought…"

Or Flames of War
"Flames Of War is a game that allows you to recreate the battles of World War Two using miniatures figurines, and so experience the war from the point of view of a front-line company commander…But by using the sort of tactics and cunning that a real-life commander would, you and your miniatures soldiers will fight their way to victory after victory!"

[Italics mine of course] I could go on for a long time with quotes. What they have in common is that they are making statements about something far different than 'feelings' and subjective impressions somebody might have. They are saying there is a objective connection between the wargame system and 'real-life'…that their games 'conform' well to actual battles. [i.e. realism in some form.]

No body has to care. Such claims certainly don't have to affect you enjoyment of wargames one iota. And everyone is free to define 'realism' anyway they want and write off all the above as smoke and mirrors hype if they want to.

Never-the-less, 'realism', an identifiable connection between history, real-life and the game mechanics are what these designers are aspiring to based on their own statements.

So IF one was going to take them seriously, the question is simply 'how do you do that?' What is a 'convincing representation of real life' in game terms. How do we know what was 'really important' in winning battles, or how something 'conforms well' to historical battle?

One way would be to purposely do what irishserb described. Have say 20 soldiers with firefight experience play the wargame and sign off on it's 'realism.' Or maybe 30. They would know whether there is any game connections between their REAL experience and playing the wargame.

But there are many proven tests that do the say kind of thing. That is a far more objective way to establish 'realism' and not simply somebody's feelings at the moment.

So, gamers might not care, they might feel perfectly happy to define 'realism' any way they want, and certainly go with what feels right. That's Okay by me.

But that still leaves us with what the designers are claiming for their games and the implication that *somebody* buying them does care.

And if everyone in the hobby decides to stick with what 'feels' right regarding 'realism', I have no problem with that. Regardles, 'realism' [that connection between history and real combat] remains a technically achieviable, objectively varifiable quality in a wargame or simulation game.

Whether that established quality makes it more fun is entirely dependent on how you feel about playing the resultant wargame.

Good grief, this drivel again?

Some times I want a "realistic" game, some time I don't. I have played games that got "realistic" to the point of requiring us to use spreadsheets to track logistics. We enjoyed them.

Sometimes I just want to roll dice and blow stuff up. Ogre/GEV is a great game for that. Is it realistic? Not on your life! Tanks flinging tactical nuclear shells at each other, giant cybertanks, yeah, that's realistic. But it is hugely satifying when I want stuff to go boom.

40K 2e was a great unrealistic slugfest of fun for us back in the day. Fine for fantasy, but I will admit to liking more realism in historicals. I love Larry Brom's Disperse Ye Damned Rebels for AWI because of the realism it brings to troop evolutions on the tabletop. Linear formations is a part of 18th Century set piece battles, and without them it isn't fun for me.

I might want realism but no way do I want your version of it.

One of the reasons I posted the OP is that I think this quest for realism is stalling innovation in the hobby. Hence my question when this holy grail of realism became the driving force in the hobby of miniature wargaming.

"Realism" – in the sense that we want to mimic historical battles – is only one way to approach gaming with toy soldiers. There must be others designs – games that are good games, but do not necessarily score very high on the "realism" scale.

I am not against realism in wargames, if that is what players prefer. I do think that one can achieve "realism" – however you may define it – with simple and fun mechanics. But that is not the point.

What I am trying to get a view on, is why we as wargamers (and I know I am generalizing here), put so much importance on this realism metric.

Military history has many different facets: one has the very factual OOBs and what unit was located where during a specific battle; one can also study the decision making that led to certain battles; one can study the technology that proved to be decisive; there are also storylines of various protagonists – real or imaginiary – in battle. There are also the emotonial, patriotic issues (often carefully constructed on fake premises) that military history can evoke. Etc.

I think that wargaming with miniatures only tries to capture a very small subset of some of the aspects above. Many rulesets focus on the movement/combat/morale of troops on the battlefield – as accurate as possible as it happened in real life. But that is not the only "truth". The (imaginary) stories that are told in movies or novels also shape our image of military history, but I think that miniature wargaming fails to capture them. Why is this? Is it because the device (moving toy soldiers around) only allows a very specific form of game? That might be.

But – if the latter would be true – why do boardgames succeed in capturing a much wider variety of views that cover a specific subject? Perhaps boardgames are better suited at allowing themselves much more freedom in modeling, simulating, evoking, portraying certain events and emotions?

Are we too locked up in our medium of pushing toy soldiers around, in order to see beyond the "quest for realism", and is this quest, by consequence of the medium, only limited to modeling the movement/combat/morale of troops as realistic as possible on our tabletops?

"Is it realistic?" My boyhood question, and core to having a fun time.

I hate suspensions of the laws of physics. Equally I hate having my BS meter pegged.

Games should be as simple as possible to get the "job" done, of having realistic mechanics in place and producing FUN times playing….

One of the reasons I posted the OP is that I think this quest for realism is stalling innovation in the hobby. Hence my question when this holy grail of realism became the driving force in the hobby of miniature wargaming.

Phil:
Well, I'm not sure that it is a driving force in the miniature hobby in the sense you mean, particularly as something stalling innovation. In other hobbies I have been in, when some aspect of the pasttime has become a 'driving force', two things happen: 1. A lot of attention is given to describing it technically, and 2. That effort spurs innovation. In the RC modeling hobby, there was a real surge in the True Scale models: how detailed could you get? The first thing that was done was 'True Scale' was technically defined and then all sorts of innovations in modeling occurred in response.

Our hobby hasn't even defined 'realism' in any technical, game terms. It makes chasing that holy grail far more etheral. Chasing a phantom can stall any progress or innovation in something technical like wargame design.

–why do boardgames succeed in capturing a much wider variety of views that cover a specific subject? Perhaps boardgames are better suited at allowing themselves much more freedom in modeling, simulating, evoking, portraying certain events and emotions?

Boardgames have a wider range of scale and subject matter that they can easily handle than a tabletop set of rules, no doubt. Board games can go from skirmish games to world conquest. Certainly that increases the subject matter that can be covered. You also have a much, much wider audience with board games, so more designers.

But when you come down to it, the scale or limits in subject matter don't necessarily increase a designer's freedom in modeling, simulating, evoking, portraying certain events and emotions. Board games have their limits to, but as far as I can see, just as many, if not more board wargame designers chasing after 'realism.' The words 'simulation' and 'realism' are far more prevelent on 'consimworld' lists for instance than the TMP or other miniature wargaming lists.

Are we too locked up in our medium of pushing toy soldiers around, in order to see beyond the "quest for realism", and is this quest, by consequence of the medium, only limited to modeling the movement/combat/morale of troops as realistic as possible on our tabletops?

The medium of miniatures on a table have their own unique limits, as do board games. Neither medium limits innovation, only focuses it.

"Realism" – in the sense that we want to mimic historical battles – is only one way to approach gaming with toy soldiers. There must be others designs – games that are good games, but do not necessarily score very high on the "realism" scale.

The quality of "Realism" isn't a 'one way' street or a single expression. If it was actually defined, that would be easier to see. Regardless, there are current miniature games that are good games that don't score very high at all on the realism scale [however you define that]. I just did a table top version of Command and Colors:Napoleonics It's a good game. There are current designers that purposely dismiss the issue or 'realism' altogether. Some design 'good games' that are well received.

I think the word 'evoke' is an interesting word in game design. How do wargames 'evoke' history and 'feelings' of realism? Ah, but that gets into technical questions of design.

Yes, evoke is probably the operative verb here. For me, the "evocative scale" runs from, "chess pieces with Napoleon and Josephine" to "equivalent of counters with varying degrees of period chrome and flavor, to 1:2 figure ratios and accurate ground scales with enforced period methods. The width of that scale creates quite nice range of evocative comfort zones. (Imho)

McLaddie – Interesting points but I think part of the challenge, from a design perspective, is what things you can actually quantify if we want a "hard realism" simulation.

For example, we can quantify armour penetration of this gun versus that tank (sometimes… if we have the data available, understand what that data means and can correlate it with real-life results).

Other things we cannot. There's no mathematical formula for a morale check and while we can find plenty of real life data, translating that into gameplay mechanics is tough because it's messy, inconsistent and..well.. human.

And sometimes we become enslaved to the data.
How many WW2 games start with 2 textbook platoons, with every man and item that's in the TO&E present.
That's arguably realistic because that's the TO&E but then, how often would they actually look like that?

So in that case, by relying on the data, we might be making the game less realistic.

Or we might have a game with realistic, data-based rates of casualties, armour penetration, hit rates etc. but the scenario lets the player fight until their platoon is nearly wiped out.
We used the right data (the accuracy and casualties) but got an unrealistic result (units rarely fight to extinction, if they have an alternative).

I think that the first step should be to define what kind of real event we are trying to simulate. For instance, imagine that you want to design a game based on the Yom Kippur war. First, you would need to decide what level of command will the players represent. Is it company, battalion, brigade or division level? Imagine that you have chosen Division level, because you want to represent the Israeli counterattack on October 8th near Ismailia. The concrete effects of sagger, rpg's and tank guns against the different types of tanks used by the 162nd Armored Division wouldn't need to be represented in minutiae detail; what you would want is to represent the overall accumulative effect of those weapons systems, plus the break down of command and control. However, if the level of representation would have been a skirmish -a platoon of Israeli Centurions trying to breakthrough the Egyptian positions- the particular performance of the weapons systems against the Centurions should be taken in account in the design process.

I think that the first step should be to define what kind of real event we are trying to simulate.

Based on how you explain it, I would have phrased as "First, you need to decide what is important to you for your game." Which is exactly what I think.

For example, we can quantify armour penetration of this gun versus that tank

Even these types of "empirical" things bring a lot of context. There are at least fifteen sets of significant parameters that impact the effectiveness of a round against a potentially mobile target. It's great fun when you blow stuff up for a living, as you have to take lots of shots to fill out all the tables with a reasonably robust set of data. But even with a 15-DOF (Degree of Freedom) design, which sounds all sciencey and mathy, it comes down to framing your problem, which comes down to judgment calls about what "significant" means.

with every man and item that's in the TO&E present

I completely agree with your point and would even go farther that a TOE only tells us what a side used, but not how they used it. DOM is writing a history paper about how at the beginning of WWI, the machine guns different armies themselves were not appreciably different, but the way in which they were employed (19th Century vs. Modern) allowed them to have radically different effects.

only limited to modeling the movement/combat/morale of troops as realistic as possible on our tabletops?

Actually, my favourite technique for modeling morale is not to model it. Well, at least not explicitly as a part of the game mechanics. I like to model morale as the interplay of the victory conditions with the actions of the players to safeguard their units in play.

McLaddie – Interesting points but I think part of the challenge, from a design perspective, is what things you can actually quantify if we want a "hard realism" simulation.

Weasel:
Agreed. However, 'hard realism' implies a lot of things. I'm simply speaking of the similarity between reality/history and the game dynamics. Either the system succeeds where the designer meant it to, or it doesn't. That is what has been mentioned above as what is important to the designer. The designer sets the game system goals--if recreating history is one of them, then the question is 'how is that done?' That is a game DESIGN question. Gamers buying and playing the game aren't asking that question. They just want to know if it's fun and gives them the right 'feel', both of which are different for every gamer. Which is just fine for the gamer. That doesn't help the game designer much unless he simply copies what gamers have already decided they like.

For example, we can quantify armour penetration of this gun versus that tank (sometimes… if we have the data available, understand what that data means and can correlate it with real-life results).

Well, as etotheipi noted, even such 'quantifiable things turn 'dicy' when you attempt to interpret them with a system. As he says it "comes down to framing your problem, which comes down to judgment calls about what "significant" means"--even with something so technically quantifiable. It really is the same kind of problem in many respects with the same 'significance question' with human behavior issues like morale.

Other things we cannot. There's no mathematical formula for a morale check and while we can find plenty of real life data, translating that into gameplay mechanics is tough because it's messy, inconsistent and..well.. human.

I agree. It is messy. Yet war is all about human behavior… As Napoleon said, morale is to numbers 3:1

However, that difficulty in creating a mathematical formula for morale [e.g. human behavior] is one that simulation designers have struggled with for decades--and they have come up with some methods to quantify such things, particular when dealing with sizable groups. Hardly perfect, but much more in the ballpark in a demonstratable manner, which is really the issue, isn't it?

So in that case, by relying on the data, we might be making the game less realistic.

Or we might have a game with realistic, data-based rates of casualties, armour penetration, hit rates etc. but the scenario lets the player fight until their platoon is nearly wiped out.

We used the right data (the accuracy and casualties) but got an unrealistic result (units rarely fight to extinction, if they have an alternative).

It is an important issue, but if you can see the problem, then there is a chance to solve it.

On the other hand, if you don't have the right data, how do you know the results are unrealistic? [In other words, doesn't match what the historical sources/data is showing you.]

You've noted a real problem, but it is not new to simulation and wargame designers. They are solvable.