"Can we have "realism" while playing with toy soldiers?" Topic

A loaded question, I admit.
I happen to think that the most we can expect is that the results do not insult our intelligence.

I have seen rules that claim to be "realistic" (Let's just assume the quotation marks in the future, shall we? At least when I am typing.) when all they are is liong, insanely conmplex and take far too long to play. In fact, the game turn lasts far longer than the Real Time™ episode they seek to, for want of a better word, simulate.

Simple question for what SHOULD be a simple Poll.

Yes
No
No opinion.

Please let's not dilute this with varying shades of Grey.

OK, smarty pants OFM. Give me an example of game time taking longer than Real Time™.
Easy. Any dogfighting game. I love Blue Max and Check Your 6, but plotting and resolving a single second can take more than 10 minutes.
Realism? Get real. we choose the mechanics that are most fun, and include the detail that "we cannot leave out".

I tend to agree with you, OFM. The problem for me is each new set of rules has some unique twist or approach or spark of creativity that just begs to be tried. So instead of just piling each new adaptation wholesale onto an already complicated, growing set of rules – I try to incorporate a segment here or there into my home-based set that will give the intent/flavor of the innovation without the complication. (Often much easier said than done.) If I can't do it easily, though, I tend to just cut it loose. The creativity may be nice, but bottom line is I want the rules to be playable and give the flavor of the reality, but I'm happier with a less-pungent whiff of reality if it means preserving playability and fun.

No.

We can "evoke" a period; we can study various elements of military decision-making as it relates to a given period; and we can explore plausible outcomes and alternatives, but that's it. (And even these in very limited ways). Realistic--not even close.

I'd actually go further and say that 'realism' is actually a false idol anyway; every game is at best a very abstract representation of the reality. What we're actually looking for is 'reasonable' results; do the likely outcomes conform to what we know about the subject? A rules set that routinely allowed green troops to charge and rout veteran troops in a straight-up fight probably isn't all that reasonable, but allowing for it happen once in a while probably would be.

-Will

No.

No rules can be "realistic." They all require compromise based on the authors interpretation of reality and based on how to portray events using miniature figures on a table top…then there's the time vs. distance factors, and the human factors that cannot be portrayed, i.e. fear.

I also think jeffreyw3 is on to something; when I look for rules that are 'realistic' or reasonable, one thing I check out is the 'are my decisions informed by the same sort of factors that actually informed military decision makers at the time' factor. For different eras and conflicts, and scales of warfare, that means different things. But most of my favorite 'reasonable' rules sets tend to concentrate on the areas that a commander would have actually cared about and places less focus on the rest.

-Will

No

The question is ill posed. First simulations should be graded on resolution (detail) and fidelity (the outcomes are sufficiently useful). So they are all "realistic" on some continuum from silly to pretty good. If a set of rules represents in a reasonable way those aspects of a historical period that the author and ayers think are important, then you can argue that they are in some ways realistic. If another player thinks the author abstracted out an important feature of the period, he would argue that the rules are less realistic

Fidelity and resolution are independent. Simple, playable games can be higher on the realism continuum than complicated ones.

Why use a word that requires masses of definition like 'realism' then ask for a simple yes/no answer?

TMP is just about the only wargame forum where I see the word 'realism' used these days.

So its a bad idea for a poll … but I'll vote yes, just to shake the tree …

Phil

Absolutely No!

Realistic decision making? Yes

Realistic emotional involvement? No.

Funny how the anti-realism guys keep bringing this topic up over and over and over again. Go ahead and play Tiddlywinks with your toy soldiers, it is no problem for me. Honest, really.

Depends on what you mean by realism. Are we talking realism in a game where a player is successful by making those decisions that a real general would make on a battlefield or are we talking about realism where every little itty bitty detail is modeled? In the former case, 'yes. you can obtain that level of realism in a game.' In the latter case 'no you cannot obtain that level of realism in a game.'

Yes.

and then there is the I am standing over the battlefield with an unobstructed view of the battlefield. no terrain surprises you. what's on the other side of the hill? you know already.

If realism means painting dysentery, then I'm out.

Yes, a toy soldier or model represents a unit just like a marker does on a map.

I prefer "strategic placement of historically accurate model miniatures" to "playing with toy soldiers" … I guess that makes me a "yes"

I take exception to your choice of the word "realism". Why ask something that way when the majority response is a foregone conclusion?

"Can we have accurate simulation while playing with toy soldiers?"

Yes. As you said, if the results don't insult our intelligence then the results are accurate. Some war games are realistic. If you are the general well behind the lines, pushing units around on a board, and the battle that occurs is reflected on your miniatures board, how is that not a realistic experience? Are you experiencing combat up close and personal? No. The game does not realistically reflect battlefield experience. Only a battlefield experience would give that level of "realism"….

Yes.

Yes.

No. Any rules set is by definition an exercise in exclusion, hence, subtraction from reality. You look at the menu of possibilities and order up what suits you, or in my case, can afford.

Can you imagine a "realistic" set of 18th siege rules? How do you simulate loosing a really upset bear into a tunnel full of sappers?

Yes, depending on what aspect of warfare you are striving to reflect

By making the answers a choice between "yes" or "no" means all nuance is lost if one is not allowed shades of gray.

"Realistic?"

YES

"Real?"

NO.

And by "Real" I do not mean actual scale bullets and shells flying about. As Rich Bliss cogently said, "Real emotional involvement" is impossible, and battles run on emotion 10 to one over reason.

We don't need or want actually to be terrified for our lives one minute, and exultant in a momentary success the next, nor have our hearts and minds broken over mindless loss and destruction, or find comfort in the final destruction of an evil cause.

That, in part, is what happens to real soldiers. TOY SOLDIERS give PLAYERS the chance to experience many, if not all, the positive and uplifting aspects of a dramatic conflict. These can include making decisions such as might have been made by the commanders and having them succeed--or fail--for the same reasons we read in history.

If I can win against the Gauls using a tactic successfully used by Montgomery at Alamein, but not one used by Caesar at Alesia, the game is NOT "realistic."

"Realism" is a continuum, and only a few in this silly hobby want to do without it altogether, but where each of us says "This is as far as I wish to go" along that continuum is simply a matter of taste.

The fellow trying to reach 100% Realism will never get there, and has no right to look down on those who stop somewhere behind him. Those who have found their comfort zone along that line should not be made to feel like slackers, nor should they in turn look down on the folks behind them.

I agree with Dynaman in that, to me, too, there are games out there closer to Tiddlywinks, games that can be won by playing the RULES rather than imitating historical factors. How much and/or what "historical factors" is the decision of the rules writer, and he's on some point of that continuum as we all are.

I've said before, and now again, there are "Toy Soldier Games" and "War Games," and each class is valid unto itself.
The frustration for many comes when some confuse the one for the other.

TVAG

Hmm Paddy Griffith had some good ideas on this. He did point that for all its problems with realism, miniature war-gaming has the benefit of getting the player emotionally invested in his army. And for me at least their is a point for it. Last week I sent several battalions in a game into forested terrain and a bloody, nasty knife fight erupted with the units defending it. I felt really bad for using my toys that way.

Also when I play grand tactical games I get very tired by the 2 and a half time mark, which makes me 1) make mistakes 2) be willing to break off contact and rest myslef and my troops.

I do not know how realistic games can be. I do not fully care, but I do think that those two things can give small tiny feel for some of the issues of command.

Anyway we are talking about reduced models of reality. They have an element of realism (friction due to luck at the very least). You can make them better or worse models, though some of them will be worse.

I must say, I really dislike when people cannot call their models toy soldiers. That is what they are, and we are playing with them. All games are reduced models of reality. To try and differentiate games from simulations in my opinion is the path to much consternation.

Of course.

AND, perhaps you play with toy soldiers.

I have in the past, and will probably do so again, but most of mine are accurate, scale miniature representations of the real things, as opposed to toys.

If real soldiers can play wargames in the aid of training, planning and 'realism', I don't see why we can't.

So yes, although of course it depends what degree of abstraction we are happy to accept.

Our toys are only pretty 3D counters.

All games are simulations, they just have varying degrees of granularity.

Battle of Waterloo, roll a D10, the French win on 5+. Napoleon reckoned they had a 60:40 chance of winning, do you wish to argue with the Corsican Ogre?

I don't see why those of us who like to have the fantasy that playing with our toy soldiers has some passing resemblance to reality can't be left in peace. It is almost as if someone is telling us that how we play with our toys is the wrong way?

Hi, my name is Condotta, and I play with a Toy Soldiers. Really!

To answer the question posed by the OP:

No. Not really. Like to think so at times, though.

It is all a game, a fantasy we create for fun. Even Empire, which I enjoy playing and is as close to simulation as I get, is nothing more than a game. I have some beautifully sculpted miniatures in "realistic" poses and formations, but some are "realistic" Thunderbolt goblins and elves :-)

Yes.

we choose the mechanics that are most fun, and include the detail that "we cannot leave out".

This leads to the core of the issue, which is "realism" is not an objective criterion. The detail you can't leave out (lace on the cuffs) might be the mind bendingly dull minutiae for someone else and their engaging "essential" detail (lots of little dots on BattleTech hit charts) could be a dreaded graduate level course in accounting to you.

No, unless you smash them with a hammer or blow them up.

No – it's certainly ironic to read this thread right after reading the blog about spending 24 hours in a WWI trench and all the stuff done to make it seem realistic. I'm in agreement with wminsing in that what we should be asking is if we are getting reasonable results for the period with the game rules. In looking at it this way, playing with toy soldiers can model a reasonable result.

Of course.

Any game set in a particular time period, or trying to mimic a particular activity, can evoke that period or activity more or less accurately or realistically. Since wargames are games, and games revolve around player decisions, the place where we will "feel" the realism of a game is if our decisions are based on the same factors that commanders dealt with during that period, and the results of those decisions make sense given the many variables particular to the period. Where wargames differ along that scale are the information given to players (fog of war), what they can do with information (friction), and the details included in the outcome derivation (the factors affecting dice rolls). Having more or less of any of these doesn't make a game more or less realistic – applying them in a way that properly evokes the limitations and advantages of the period in question does.

Given that one can only appreciate the fidelity and realism of a game to a certain period if one actually knows something about the period, this is a sliding scale based on how much people know and how much they *want* to know – some people will play a game to learn more about a period, and some people will knowingly play a game regardless of any period fidelity because its fun and scratches their itch for a game set in that period. Some of my friends happily play a game that literally drives me crazy from lack of period fidelity – but they are having fun, so is it my loss for not participating? And am I a hypocrite because my favorite colonial rules are still TSATF anyway? Nah – you play the games you enjoy, and period fidelity is an important part of the mix, but only a part.

Cheers,

Christopher

And by the way, all the people that preach about how wargames can't be realistic because we can't feel the pain and suffering and fear etc. ad nauseum … yes, we get it. But that is not what we are talking about! We are not talking about whether we can realistically recreate *war* – but whether a *wargame* can evoke and represent a realistic sense of command during a period as a *game*. Gamers play commanders, not soldiers – and for good reason.

I'm currently editing an archaeology PhD on osteology and historical health, and part of that study is how one of the major effects of war on a population during what we would call the horse-and-musket period was the increase of infectious diseases, including venereal diseases … why would anyone even *want* to game what war was really about on the human level?

It can be as realistic as a staff exercise with blobs and arrows on maps.
We just use counters or miniatures instead.
Realist it can be for those who have a pretty good understanding and knowledge of the subject. The others will have opinions ( like they might have on the financial crisis).
Thankfully will never be as realistic as actual war.
We wargamers have the other aim: entertainment.

Realism to me is a relative thing, unlike perfection, which is an absolute

That sounds way too philosophical

You can certainly get the feel of a period from gaming, which is one shade of realism – and as noted the military has for years gamed simulations which often turn out to reflect reality

A wargame with toy soldiers can evoke the same sense of realism as a painting of that same historical battle does, or a movie, or a novel, or a memorial.

I do not think that the act of playing out the wargame (and I do mean hobby wargames, not prof. wargames, which in my mind are totally different beasts) has a strong resemblance to the act of being a general at the battle it portrays; just as looking at a painting is a different act than being at the battle. But they can evoke the same type of emotions.

Have you not had pangs of guilt for a decision that you did in game?

Made a choice you knew was bad, because it was the only available?

Panicked?

Hollered in anger or rage at the vagaries of luck?

Felt exhausted after a 4-8 hour game to the point were you could not think straight ?

Felt sorry for what you miniatures may had gone through in a game? Long marches, nasty engagements in broken ground?

Have you made a decision in order to avoid such situations arise?

I dare say that all of the above, were and are part of the emotional space of a real commander. Not by a long-shot the whole, but a part yes.

no
toys cannot die

yes.

I have played wargames as training tools when a cadet in the military. If said tool was not realistic it would have been thrown out of the training regimen. How much effort is required, and how many variables can be addressed and valued are subjective but the veterans who put on these games and acted as umpires for double blind games felt they made leaders take the same sort of decisions as real combatants had to.

Perhaps you could have more realism by having to get rid of of the miniatures lost in battle and them buying new ones…or at least have to repaint the wounded. Well, maybe it isn't realistic, but battles would be more cautious.

Ravenscraft, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the horrors a 9 year old can inflict on their "toys".

Why would you want to?

We have to live in a "real" world every day. We deal with realism every day. I just came back from my mother-in law's funeral. She died at 96 in a nursing home and was an emaciated frail husk of a once vital women and living human being.

We live in a universe which does not seem to have been constructed with human happiness in mind, which for all we can see with our science and senses is nothing but a place of continuous, pointless, meaningless, useless pain and suffering. Faith is castigaged by the atheist as belief in an invisible friend and a fairy tale.

You want realism in your gaming?

What is there not misery and suffering enough in the world for you?

Now let me tell you about the Grand Duchy of the Grand Duke of Gorgonzola or Princess Trixie of Saxe Burlap und Schleswig Beerstein where everyone lives happily ever after.

My games are a perfect simulation of my games.

On the issue of realism of involvement – does a player feel the stress, concern, agony, etc. of an actual battle:

Involvement, like other aspects of immersion, is external to the game proper. It is not a function of the game you are playing, but rather the players' reasons for playing it. If I am playing a wargame to rehearse modified tactics for actual use in the field, I will go in with a different external mindset than if I am playing a beer-and-pretzels Charge of the Orque Brigade to kill time before the Battle of Balaclava game starts. And all kinds of different mindsets between, orthogonal to, athwartships, and upside down from those two examples.

toys cannot die

Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any game or gaming system. It is anchored in a user's perception about what is necessary for realism, external to any wargame.

The realism of involvement can be different for different players in the same game and is independent from the content of the game (and its other aspects of realism), except where the players' internal mindsets make it dependent. Playing a Star Trek game can be a very "real" experience of the obvious future for one player and a campy 60's era hack job for another. The second player can be deeply involved in a Star Wars game where the first is enjoying a nice space opera samurai movie rip-off.

Etotheipi reminds me of something important:

Realism and Simulation aren't just a question of real-world.

A star wars game has certain expectations to be held to, as does a pulp "nazi gorillas in space" game, just as much as an american civil war or world war 2 game.

Star wars gamers are simulating as much as the treadheads and button counters are.

Very true. In fact, if the gorillas' hit roll for firing a machine gun while parachuting out of a blimp isn't just right, Mexican Jack Squint will have a tizzy. Not that that isn't an entertaining thing to watch.

Yes.

Dad once responded to to a rather loud and obnoxious gamer during an early TSATF demo. This player kept harping on how "non-realistic" the rules were. He mentioned several other Colonial sets from the time and touted their realism. Dad waited and then said when you got down to it, no game rules were realistic. The guy shouted, how can you say that?" And Dad responded, "To be realistic, we'd take a hammer and crush every casualty we suffered each turn. I'm not doing that to my troops, are you?" The guy just turned away from the table and walked off…….