What's Your Realism Quotient?

[robject]

This is nearly a subset of the IMTU Code, but I thought I'd bring it up for the sake of... nothing in particular.

I'm sure I've forgotten other topics, but these three seem to appeal to the call for realism most often.

Realism is where the game system produces results to a level of detail beyond that used in the game. For example, gun design sequences where you specify the barrel length and design the ammunition. Economic rules borrowed from college texts. And world building which tells you variance of a world from the ecliptic plane within a fraction of a degree. All three of those examples can be used in a Traveller game, but in general their application is rare and niche.

Economics in Traveller. Is realism important to you?
Worldbuilding in Traveller. Is realism important to you?
Equipment design in Traveller. Is realism important to you?

 

[rust]

Well, I have to confess that I am a "simulationist" ...

While I obviously have to accept some "breaches of realism" (e.g. FTL drives)
to be able to play a science fiction game, I try to keep my setting as realistic
as possible within the framework I have chosen for it.

 

[RandyT0001]

I would like it more realistic than what it is but I don't want to go to the same extreme that you want Robject. I don't think it's so important to design the ammunition for the weapons when the only variation is between 1d6 and about 6d6 for personal weapons in combat resolution. Some well statted vehicles and a means for the PC's to interact with them in combat would be great. I don't want to have to have a degree in economics to play the game, but economic rules that make sense from starship finances to interworld trade would be nice. I don't want 1000 mile diameter rocks to have atmospheres and hydrographics that the world's gravity can't scientifically maintain for any period above a few thousand years but I also don't care to have to use orbital mechanics everytime the PC's jump insystem to find the exact position of the moon that's orbiting the mainworld just to make sure thye don't run into it. I want gross mistakes of the past fixed realistically not precise and perfect realism.

 

[rust]

I think there is a difference between realism and detail.

While I really do not indulge in considering, mentioning or designing every tiny
detail of the setting, I take care that the informations I give to the players
are realistic, without contradictions and scientifically sound (= sound enough
for someone without a scientific degree in the field in question).

To give an example: When I needed an underwater weapon for my setting,
I did some research about such weapons, and came upon informations on a
Russian underwater assault rifle.
I did not retro-engineer it or use the informations to design my own weapon
and ammunition, I just used the data (weight, range, etc.) for a similar wea-
pon in my setting - that is sufficient realism for me.

 

[Antony]

Apart from those areas necessary to the game. FTL drives for example I like a lot of realism or should I say apparent realism s who knows what will happen over the next few millenia. I of course will be sticking around to find out!

 

[Anthony]

I think this poll doesn't really get at the issue. My requirement isn't realism, it's verisimilitude. There should be a lack of obviously ludicrous features.

 

[rust]

I think this poll doesn't really get at the issue. My requirement isn't realism, it's verisimilitude.

I did not know that word. My dictionary translates it as "probability", but I
doubt that is what you mean ? o:

 

[Anthony]

I did not know that word. My dictionary translates it as "probability", but I doubt that is what you mean ? o:

ver·i·si·mil·i·tude
–noun
1. the appearance or semblance of truth; likelihood; probability: The play lacked verisimilitude.
2. something, as an assertion, having merely the appearance of truth.

I'm specifically referring to the first definition. It doesn't have to be realistic, it has to look realistic on casual inspection.

 

[robject]

I think this poll doesn't really get at the issue.

Very likely. I just sort of cranked it out without a lot of careful thought as to its wording.

 

[Golan2072]

I think this poll doesn't really get at the issue. My requirement isn't realism, it's verisimilitude. There should be a lack of obviously ludicrous features.

I second that. I like realism as long as it doesn't interfere with the fun of the game; when I handwave, I want my handwavings to be believable and consistent. I've voted "not at all" but meant "a moderate degree of realism with focus on believability".

 

[rust]

It doesn't have to be realistic, it has to look realistic on casual inspection.

Thank you very much for the explanation !

Yes, I agree, this is much better than "realism".

 

[Knightsky]

I like realism as long as it doesn't interfere with the fun of the game; when I handwave, I want my handwavings to be believable and consistent.

That's pretty much what I aim for, as well.

I've voted "not at all" but meant "a moderate degree of realism with focus on believability".

Ditto.

 

[casquilho]

I think this poll doesn't really get at the issue. My requirement isn't realism, it's verisimilitude. There should be a lack of obviously ludicrous features.

I agree 100% with this. I also need it to be consistant within itself.

I know the FTL engine is not "real" but as long as the rule makes sense and is consistant to the other aplications of the same "fake" tech in the rules then I am OK.

What I can not stand is when the tech/world generation/ship building systems seem way out of whak amoung themselves etc.

Daniel

 

[Agemegos]

I think this poll doesn't really get at the issue. My requirement isn't realism, it's verisimilitude. There should be a lack of obviously ludicrous features.

Yeah, that's about right for me, too. I want an alternative reality, but I want it to make sense on its own terms and be (1) replete with opportunities, but (2) free from loopholes (perverse incentives to PCs).

 

[Antony]

The gameverse needs to be internally consistant to have any chance of allowing suspension of disbelief.

 

[Icosahedron]

Good heavens, a topic upon which everyone agrees?? o:

Me too. Verisimilitude is the order of the day. I prefer a ruleset that is more realistic than I need, so I can discard some realism/detail - it's easier than having to make it up when the rules can't cope.

I like things to be self-consistent and logical. When I handwave, it should be a casual gesture, not an attempt to beat down the flames of sedition from my players.

Like Agemegos, I like to think I game in an alternative reality, with the emphasis on both words.

 

[aramis]

For me, it is simplicity, followed by realism.

Except for trade. Trade needs to be fun.

 

[rust]

Except for trade. Trade needs to be fun.

I agree, although I think that a certain measure of realism / verisimilitude in-
creases the fun a lot.

Therefore I rarely use "generic" freight and speculative goods, but instead
provide short lists of typical exports and imports for each planet on the
players' trade route, give them some informations each time they visit a
planet, and let them choose which goods to speculate with.

For example, during a visit to the water world Pharos IV a local contact men-
tions that the aquafarmers complain about the short range of their energy
cell powered fishing craft. As clever traders, the players make a mental note
of this information.
Months later on Samarran they see an advertisement for new energy cells
with more storage capacity, and they have already decided to visit Pharos IV
again during the next voyage.
So, among the speculative goods on this voyage there will be some tons of
improved energy cells for the aquafarmers on Pharos IV, and the players can
be almost certain that they will make a very good deal.

The little additional work to design the necessary informations for this kind
of trade system gives the setting more realism / verisimilitude and the players
more choices for interactions with the setting - and in my experience this
means more fun.

 

[Agemegos]

I prefer a ruleset that is more realistic than I need, so I can discard some realism/detail - it's easier than having to make it up when the rules can't cope.

That's a good point. When the characters get into a critical situation and star to depend on the rules, things go a lot more smoothly if things the players knew about get simplifies into broader categories than they do if important detail starts appearing out of nowhere.

 

[sabredog]

I agree with Icosahedron; the more realistic the better because it's less work for me.

If the structure of the game is realistic then it makes for better decision making by the players because everyone knows the ground rules and what to expect so we can concentrate on play instead of constantly having to review rules. It's a hard sci-fi game in my book and I like it that way.

The entire evolution of not just my Traveller roleplaying, but all the other games has been a quest for the balance between realistic play and it just being a game.