Help support TMP


"Are Your Games Realistic?" Topic


18 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Return to the Are Your Games Realistic? Poll



255 hits since 30 Jun 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Cornelius Supporting Member of TMP30 Jun 2017 1:47 a.m. PST

Some are, some aren't. For example, I am in involved in a megagame tomorrow – zombies appearing in a fictional NE USA – and the science research can take just a few days rather than months or years.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP30 Jun 2017 2:29 a.m. PST

Of course they are not. Life and/or death falls on the roll of dice?
Let's be serious for a moment.

advocate30 Jun 2017 2:33 a.m. PST

Some people's terrain and figures look much more realistic than mine.
On the other hand, I can often work out what I consider to be a believable narrative out of what happens in the game. To that extent they are realistic.

Personal logo x42brown Supporting Member of TMP30 Jun 2017 4:50 a.m. PST

Whether it's based on a historic period or not nowadays I think games as being fantasy. It saves ne any irritation with anything not fitting with history.

x42

zoneofcontrol Inactive Member30 Jun 2017 5:01 a.m. PST

Are they "realistic"? Yes.

Are they "exact replications"? No.

I don't need to recreate a wounded soldier bleeding or a soldier retying his boot or taking a drink from his canteen to be realistic.

Ragbones Supporting Member of TMP30 Jun 2017 6:30 a.m. PST

I like to emulate what I think is the "Hollywood" version in many of my games, hence, not realistic.

Personal logo Martian Root Canal Supporting Member of TMP30 Jun 2017 7:01 a.m. PST

Define 'realistic.' Reality is subjective.

Personal logo 20thmaine Supporting Member of TMP30 Jun 2017 7:24 a.m. PST

Yes, somewhat. In other ways not so much.

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP30 Jun 2017 8:38 a.m. PST

Yes!
Real life as seen in the movies ^,^

Personal logo Private Matter Supporting Member of TMP30 Jun 2017 9:59 a.m. PST

I said no since nothing captures the fluidity, confusion, and stress of battle field command like actual battlefield command. I like to make the scenarios as real as possible and I like to rules to model possible realistic outcomes but it would be foolish of me to think that my games are realistic.

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP30 Jun 2017 12:28 p.m. PST

zombies appearing in a fictional NE USA and the science research can take just a few days rather than months or years.

I would like to know the methodology of researching "zombies appearing in a fictional NE USA," Years? What are your sources?

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP30 Jun 2017 12:46 p.m. PST

The OP needs to chose which type of gaming. As for Science Fiction, Fantasy or Horror type games, I don't think you can be realistic given the genre. But that is not my hobby. Mine is historical miniature gaming.

I have a problem with the word "realistic" no game is a realistic facsimile of anything. Historical reenacting is as close as it comes but nobody dies. At least lets hope not.

In historical gaming one strives for historical accuracy not realism. You do the best you can do. You study your sources, you research uniforms. You find the appropriate rules.

You look at maps, consult pre-written scenarios, read books on the campaign and battle. You acquire and build your terrain. Accumulate figures and accessories. Write up your scenario and then you playtest. It depends on the GM how much of this he does.

In the train hobby they call it prototyping. In our hobby it's called simulation not realism. Critics of simulation confuse the two. No one in my games has shot anyone with a musket. At least not lately.

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP30 Jun 2017 8:40 p.m. PST

Since no one is shooting at me while I decide what to do with my troops, I voted "no."

Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP30 Jun 2017 8:56 p.m. PST

Gosh. What a Dada question. Must retreat to Plato's Cave to ruminate for a spell….

Wulfgar Supporting Member of TMP01 Jul 2017 12:43 p.m. PST

I'm playing a game based on history, and I have zero experience with real combat. Its just a way of having fun with history and getting to know nice people.

Cosmic Reset01 Jul 2017 2:50 p.m. PST

When I originally asked the question, I specifically stated that I was asking about gamers perceptions of their own games, leaving the term "realistic" to be defined by each gamer as they saw fit.

I was just interested to see how we broke down on either side of the issue, which seems to be a pretty even split at this point.

My approach is that rules can be built to model some aspects of battle with a high degree of "realism". Obviously, not all games are realistic in every respect, and some may not be in any respect, whether by intent or accident.

I would argue that the stresses of command, combat, of the firefight can be modeled realistically, based on the reaction and feedback of some combat veterans to games that I have played with them. I imagine that those games were more realistic to them, than to me, as they are combat veterans, and I am not. It is endlessly subjective, and I think very dependent on the player, and what he is looking for from the game.

In the end, I don't think the realism issue is important. At least, not with respect to any kind of a consensus. In my case, I was just curious how we see our games.

All that really matters is whether you get from the game, what you are looking to get from the game.

Joe Legan Supporting Member of TMP02 Jul 2017 5:22 p.m. PST

My WW II games are with FOF, Combat Patrol and Bag the Hun modified. But for dark ages I like SAGA which isn't.

Joe

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP05 Jul 2017 7:27 a.m. PST

The "other and explain choice" is not on the pole choices.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.