What is really realistic?
- Thread starter atpollard
- Start date
I tend to go for swinging-from-the-chandeliers action, and "Sure, you can function in vacuum... lose an end every end seconds" type fast and loose with rules and science.
The "realism" of the universe isn't a big issue for me. Far more important are interesting places to "have been from" and places to "meet new and interesting people."
In fact, given a choice between realistic thrusters and T-plates, I'd take T-plates almost every time. Better for the story.
The "realism" of the universe isn't a big issue for me. Far more important are interesting places to "have been from" and places to "meet new and interesting people."
In fact, given a choice between realistic thrusters and T-plates, I'd take T-plates almost every time. Better for the story.
I tend to go for swinging-from-the-chandeliers action, and "Sure, you can function in vacuum... lose an end every end seconds" type fast and loose with rules and science.
The "realism" of the universe isn't a big issue for me. Far more important are interesting places to "have been from" and places to "meet new and interesting people."
In fact, given a choice between realistic thrusters and T-plates, I'd take T-plates almost every time. Better for the story.
The "realism" of the universe isn't a big issue for me. Far more important are interesting places to "have been from" and places to "meet new and interesting people."
In fact, given a choice between realistic thrusters and T-plates, I'd take T-plates almost every time. Better for the story.
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi !
IMTU "realism" means, that I try to let NPC's act like real persons, with real motivations and reasonable actions. Usually I don't like it very much, if the story starts to become a satire or comedy, but sometimes this happens and could be enjoyable, too.
Player characters don't have to be superheros as I usually try to adapt and prepare the story to PC individual abilities.
For the fictional part I try to present technological stuff with very sharp and detailed behaviour and properties, on which the players could rely on.
This means that even fictional object behaves in a very defined way and are embedded well into the more realistic parts. I don't really care, if those things have a real world scientific base, but I try to make them appear so.
(For the programmers: the "fictional" objects have well defined methods and properties and thus could interact with other "real" objects in a pretty way).
regards,
TE
IMTU "realism" means, that I try to let NPC's act like real persons, with real motivations and reasonable actions. Usually I don't like it very much, if the story starts to become a satire or comedy, but sometimes this happens and could be enjoyable, too.
Player characters don't have to be superheros as I usually try to adapt and prepare the story to PC individual abilities.
For the fictional part I try to present technological stuff with very sharp and detailed behaviour and properties, on which the players could rely on.
This means that even fictional object behaves in a very defined way and are embedded well into the more realistic parts. I don't really care, if those things have a real world scientific base, but I try to make them appear so.
(For the programmers: the "fictional" objects have well defined methods and properties and thus could interact with other "real" objects in a pretty way).
regards,
TE
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi !
IMTU "realism" means, that I try to let NPC's act like real persons, with real motivations and reasonable actions. Usually I don't like it very much, if the story starts to become a satire or comedy, but sometimes this happens and could be enjoyable, too.
Player characters don't have to be superheros as I usually try to adapt and prepare the story to PC individual abilities.
For the fictional part I try to present technological stuff with very sharp and detailed behaviour and properties, on which the players could rely on.
This means that even fictional object behaves in a very defined way and are embedded well into the more realistic parts. I don't really care, if those things have a real world scientific base, but I try to make them appear so.
(For the programmers: the "fictional" objects have well defined methods and properties and thus could interact with other "real" objects in a pretty way).
regards,
TE
IMTU "realism" means, that I try to let NPC's act like real persons, with real motivations and reasonable actions. Usually I don't like it very much, if the story starts to become a satire or comedy, but sometimes this happens and could be enjoyable, too.
Player characters don't have to be superheros as I usually try to adapt and prepare the story to PC individual abilities.
For the fictional part I try to present technological stuff with very sharp and detailed behaviour and properties, on which the players could rely on.
This means that even fictional object behaves in a very defined way and are embedded well into the more realistic parts. I don't really care, if those things have a real world scientific base, but I try to make them appear so.
(For the programmers: the "fictional" objects have well defined methods and properties and thus could interact with other "real" objects in a pretty way).
regards,
TE
Looks that way to me too. I think Mal's right.
The OTU (and Traveller, probably) isn't all that gritty. I'm thinking 2300/2320 is where the grit's at. And since 2320 essentially uses T20's ship design framework, there are more compatabilities now.
I hope so.
This sounds reasonable.
Jack McDevitt rocks. Hutch is my kind of pilot.
Looks that way to me too. I think Mal's right.
The OTU (and Traveller, probably) isn't all that gritty. I'm thinking 2300/2320 is where the grit's at. And since 2320 essentially uses T20's ship design framework, there are more compatabilities now.
I hope so.
This sounds reasonable.
Jack McDevitt rocks. Hutch is my kind of pilot.
Is that similar to the EPIC system?
</font>[/QUOTE]Never played it, I dunno (I'm so old school I never bought a non-LBB Traveller book (besides 'The Traveller Book', of course), but it might be similar! I took a class in good screenwriting and I just find the structure of Acts/Scenes and the use of Standard/Dramatic alternatives is the best way to encourage good 'story arcs'... in order to avoid both the stultifyingly boring and the neverendingly tense games alike, and to encourage ongoing character 'elaboration'.
This sounds like one of the alternate uses of Jack-of-all-Trades, except it's like a JoT that gets "charged up" and "paid out".
</font>[/QUOTE]Yep, and it has the bonus of leaving the decision to the player whether to cash in the Luck points or use them for skill development (XP). Great way to balance individual char development and storyline development - and since you get Luck points based on storyline development in the first place, the whole thing is a postitive feedback loop that just helps the story over and over.
This is neat, and reminds me of a method one of our refs used some years ago.
</font>[/QUOTE]I love it - it really helps the players (like me and some in my group) who often choose non-combative characters (diplomats, scientists, doctors, nobles, scouts, etc.) to be integral to the storyline.
Is that similar to the EPIC system?
</font>[/QUOTE]Never played it, I dunno (I'm so old school I never bought a non-LBB Traveller book (besides 'The Traveller Book', of course), but it might be similar! I took a class in good screenwriting and I just find the structure of Acts/Scenes and the use of Standard/Dramatic alternatives is the best way to encourage good 'story arcs'... in order to avoid both the stultifyingly boring and the neverendingly tense games alike, and to encourage ongoing character 'elaboration'.
This sounds like one of the alternate uses of Jack-of-all-Trades, except it's like a JoT that gets "charged up" and "paid out".
</font>[/QUOTE]Yep, and it has the bonus of leaving the decision to the player whether to cash in the Luck points or use them for skill development (XP). Great way to balance individual char development and storyline development - and since you get Luck points based on storyline development in the first place, the whole thing is a postitive feedback loop that just helps the story over and over.
This is neat, and reminds me of a method one of our refs used some years ago.
</font>[/QUOTE]I love it - it really helps the players (like me and some in my group) who often choose non-combative characters (diplomats, scientists, doctors, nobles, scouts, etc.) to be integral to the storyline.
Here's EPIC: http://traveller5.com/EPIC.html
Here's EPIC: http://traveller5.com/EPIC.html
"What is 'real'?" -- Morpheus
while traveller is held to be a "realistic" game and appeals to "realism" are common, one cannot help but notice three definite limits to the realism the game is able to support.
the first is the game itself. a game is, after all, fundamentally unreal and can handle only so much realistic detail. those who try to design combat systems run up against this limit all the time. reality is finely detailed and enormously complex, but in attempting to match it in a game there are only so many buckets of dice to throw and voluminous charts to consult and massive algorithms to process before the game becomes impossible to play in a time frame that most players will accept.
the second is the players themselves. there is only so much they know, only so much they can absorb, only so much information that the referee can handle and process and present in a timely fashion. ultimately a "realistic" game must relate to what the players know is true or believe may be possible or are willing to rationalize, and to what the referee can handle.
the third is the goal of the game, which in the end is to experience another life. anything which interrupts this or does not contribute to this, no matter how real, just isn't part of the game reality.
these three limits on game realism may have different effects and weights on particular matters. for example, computer sizes in traveller are simply no longer real to many players - they simply cannot accept the rules as originally presented, and thus take action to write more realistic rules. another example is any one of the traveller combat systems in use. while most are acknowledged to be weak or broken, most people accept one or another of them as being the best possible. a third example is assertions that various astronomical stellar arrangements are mandatory or are not possible. many referees, busy with other matters and faced with players who wouldn't notice one way or the other and finding no game relevance in the assertion, ignore it and move on.
in short, realism in a game can be addressed by considering three issues. one, do we have time for it or not? second, is it acceptable or unacceptable? three, does it contribute to why the game is played or is it just a distraction? if all the players are satisfied with how these issues are answered then the game will be as realistic as it needs to be.
while traveller is held to be a "realistic" game and appeals to "realism" are common, one cannot help but notice three definite limits to the realism the game is able to support.
the first is the game itself. a game is, after all, fundamentally unreal and can handle only so much realistic detail. those who try to design combat systems run up against this limit all the time. reality is finely detailed and enormously complex, but in attempting to match it in a game there are only so many buckets of dice to throw and voluminous charts to consult and massive algorithms to process before the game becomes impossible to play in a time frame that most players will accept.
the second is the players themselves. there is only so much they know, only so much they can absorb, only so much information that the referee can handle and process and present in a timely fashion. ultimately a "realistic" game must relate to what the players know is true or believe may be possible or are willing to rationalize, and to what the referee can handle.
the third is the goal of the game, which in the end is to experience another life. anything which interrupts this or does not contribute to this, no matter how real, just isn't part of the game reality.
these three limits on game realism may have different effects and weights on particular matters. for example, computer sizes in traveller are simply no longer real to many players - they simply cannot accept the rules as originally presented, and thus take action to write more realistic rules. another example is any one of the traveller combat systems in use. while most are acknowledged to be weak or broken, most people accept one or another of them as being the best possible. a third example is assertions that various astronomical stellar arrangements are mandatory or are not possible. many referees, busy with other matters and faced with players who wouldn't notice one way or the other and finding no game relevance in the assertion, ignore it and move on.
in short, realism in a game can be addressed by considering three issues. one, do we have time for it or not? second, is it acceptable or unacceptable? three, does it contribute to why the game is played or is it just a distraction? if all the players are satisfied with how these issues are answered then the game will be as realistic as it needs to be.
"What is 'real'?" -- Morpheus
while traveller is held to be a "realistic" game and appeals to "realism" are common, one cannot help but notice three definite limits to the realism the game is able to support.
the first is the game itself. a game is, after all, fundamentally unreal and can handle only so much realistic detail. those who try to design combat systems run up against this limit all the time. reality is finely detailed and enormously complex, but in attempting to match it in a game there are only so many buckets of dice to throw and voluminous charts to consult and massive algorithms to process before the game becomes impossible to play in a time frame that most players will accept.
the second is the players themselves. there is only so much they know, only so much they can absorb, only so much information that the referee can handle and process and present in a timely fashion. ultimately a "realistic" game must relate to what the players know is true or believe may be possible or are willing to rationalize, and to what the referee can handle.
the third is the goal of the game, which in the end is to experience another life. anything which interrupts this or does not contribute to this, no matter how real, just isn't part of the game reality.
these three limits on game realism may have different effects and weights on particular matters. for example, computer sizes in traveller are simply no longer real to many players - they simply cannot accept the rules as originally presented, and thus take action to write more realistic rules. another example is any one of the traveller combat systems in use. while most are acknowledged to be weak or broken, most people accept one or another of them as being the best possible. a third example is assertions that various astronomical stellar arrangements are mandatory or are not possible. many referees, busy with other matters and faced with players who wouldn't notice one way or the other and finding no game relevance in the assertion, ignore it and move on.
in short, realism in a game can be addressed by considering three issues. one, do we have time for it or not? second, is it acceptable or unacceptable? three, does it contribute to why the game is played or is it just a distraction? if all the players are satisfied with how these issues are answered then the game will be as realistic as it needs to be.
while traveller is held to be a "realistic" game and appeals to "realism" are common, one cannot help but notice three definite limits to the realism the game is able to support.
the first is the game itself. a game is, after all, fundamentally unreal and can handle only so much realistic detail. those who try to design combat systems run up against this limit all the time. reality is finely detailed and enormously complex, but in attempting to match it in a game there are only so many buckets of dice to throw and voluminous charts to consult and massive algorithms to process before the game becomes impossible to play in a time frame that most players will accept.
the second is the players themselves. there is only so much they know, only so much they can absorb, only so much information that the referee can handle and process and present in a timely fashion. ultimately a "realistic" game must relate to what the players know is true or believe may be possible or are willing to rationalize, and to what the referee can handle.
the third is the goal of the game, which in the end is to experience another life. anything which interrupts this or does not contribute to this, no matter how real, just isn't part of the game reality.
these three limits on game realism may have different effects and weights on particular matters. for example, computer sizes in traveller are simply no longer real to many players - they simply cannot accept the rules as originally presented, and thus take action to write more realistic rules. another example is any one of the traveller combat systems in use. while most are acknowledged to be weak or broken, most people accept one or another of them as being the best possible. a third example is assertions that various astronomical stellar arrangements are mandatory or are not possible. many referees, busy with other matters and faced with players who wouldn't notice one way or the other and finding no game relevance in the assertion, ignore it and move on.
in short, realism in a game can be addressed by considering three issues. one, do we have time for it or not? second, is it acceptable or unacceptable? three, does it contribute to why the game is played or is it just a distraction? if all the players are satisfied with how these issues are answered then the game will be as realistic as it needs to be.
Sometimes realism can keep in the way of the game & time spent running a game, The best example the time-killer is the Midkemia (I hope I remember how it's spelled, its been years)system (before Raymond Feist became a best-selling writer). The GM & some of the players liked it's realism our D&D game was transferred over to it. We tended to avoid combat because it was a time killer. A example is a fight against an Orge-Magi that would have lasted 5 minutes in D&D, instead it lasted 20 minutes (the Orge-Magi blocked 2 critical hits) & we retreated, leaving the monster alive. Thank god the game system was short-lived.
Sometimes realism can keep in the way of the game & time spent running a game, The best example the time-killer is the Midkemia (I hope I remember how it's spelled, its been years)system (before Raymond Feist became a best-selling writer). The GM & some of the players liked it's realism our D&D game was transferred over to it. We tended to avoid combat because it was a time killer. A example is a fight against an Orge-Magi that would have lasted 5 minutes in D&D, instead it lasted 20 minutes (the Orge-Magi blocked 2 critical hits) & we retreated, leaving the monster alive. Thank god the game system was short-lived.
Similar threads
