"What Makes A Set of Rules 'Realistic'?" Topic

Sadly, I didn't see an "all of the above" box to check. there's so many choices that it really is difficult to check just five.

I'll give it a go.

The last point, about 'critical processes' of a given situation, is what does it for me. Rivet counting, not so much – a) I want a game and b) it's hard to give each detail the correct weight.

Is there a historically plausible result?

the more absract the more realistic , a paradox..

I just want to play a game that is fun.

Realism is when the figures start firing back at you.

Fun is good!

Realism can be fun. Fun can be realistic. They are not mutually exclusive, nor is one required for the other.

So, by definition, a sci-fi or fantasy rule set can't be "realistic"?

Of course they can because when we are talking about "realism" in table-top gaming we are not exactly talking about "reality".

I think we are talking about perceptions.
Therefore the answer to the poll question must be a rule set is "realistic" if it allows & encourages players to do what I think they should be doing.
(whew!)

Realism in Fantasy/SciFi should relate to an imagined or projected 'reality' – given that premise, the same definitions can apply as much to those genre as to 'real' 'reality'.

To be honest I can't see what the gamers' perceptions of reality has to do with the subject. How much 'reality' may affect their enjoyment is relevant but not what they think is or isn't realistic.

Realism in Fantasy/SciFi should relate to an imagined or projected 'reality'

Actually, realism with respect to history is based on an asserted reality … unless someone can point me to a game system that starts up from string theory and, along the way creating the missing Grand Unification Theory, encapsulates the state of every particle in the universe (including all parts of things that make up the game … oooh … recursion headace coming).

Everything else is just a subset. A subset that begins with "here's what I think is releveant". Granted, that was an absurd starting point requirement, but I think it reasonably illustrates the point that no matter what, you are leaving something out and you can't "prove" that it isn't relevant, you can only assert that you got the relevant parts.

For me, realism starts with a definition of what you are trying to "get right" and then what your criteria for closeness are.

From that standpoint, I think scifi and fantasy can be "realistic". You are just leaving out a lot of the terms and criteria that historical games routinely use when defining your framework.

That said, scifi, fantasy, and even historical games, don't necessarily have to have a base in realism (though historical gamers could reasonably argue that "historical" games that don't, by definition belong to a different category (historcish?)).

Good poll, CS. The choices make us think about our personal expectations form a game.

Rick

realism with respect to history is based on an asserted reality

To a certain extent this is true but there are SOME aspects of reality relevant to military operations in a particular period that are well enough documented to be taken as factual. These should be in ANY rules that claim to be 'realistic'.

Beyond that I'd happily accept that other aspects are a matter of selection – what does the rules' author chose to take as the 'defining' characteristics of the warfare of a particular period.

The problem in discussing this is that some people tend to think in absolutes – anything that is not 100% realistic (whatever that means to them) must be un-realistic. To be sensible about this (OK, not always a TMP methodology) you HAVE to assume a certain amount of 'elasticity' in the term 'real' and thus have the argument focus on WHAT and WHERE such elasticity is or is not feasible/acceptable.

To a certain extent this is true but there are SOME aspects of reality relevant to military operations in a particular period that are well enough documented to be taken as factual.

I pretty much agree with using a basis of in depth analysis as a basis for historical fact.

These should be in ANY rules that claim to be 'realistic'.

But I still assert that the matter of relevance has a primary importance. I think you did, too as yor inital claim appeals to relevance. So I still have to back away from the absolute "any".

I completely agree with the part about elasticity, but I generally come at it from the opposite direction. If you build a fairly well-defined basis from the aim, then a healthy debate about the relevant characteristics to support that aim, you end up with a good basis for the type of discussion you suggest.

So, by definition, a sci-fi or fantasy rule set can't be "realistic"?

Of course they can because when we are talking about "realism" in table-top gaming we are not exactly talking about "reality".

Good point Ochoin. I was referring to outcomes in historically based games, but the results should also be internally consistent within the posited setting of the game's fantasy/SF milieu…..

What DAF said. If I want more realism, I'll deploy again.

Eric

This is one poll that I didn't vote in because we are playing a game with the ability to see all that is happening all the time.

Our games can not really reflect realism of history because there is no cost involved due to loss and resupply. The stands that 'die' are must removed, never destroyed. And, if I lose the game, I have really not lost anything else. In war or combat, loss has other on going effects. If losing meant that I would have to give the other player all the miniatures that I painted for that game, how would it effect my decisions?

Another issue that I have with realism in rules is that they need to stop focusing in on 'how far a gun can fire' to limiting firing of the gun to when it was historical fired. Take the ACW period for example. Forget the distance between a smooth bore musket and a rifled musket, focus on when a commander allow the troops to fire