What is really realistic?

[Malenfant]

That's not necessarily a problem with realism, it's more often a problem with numbercrunching. d20 is a very numbers-intensive system, for example (even though it's touted as an introductory system - there are much easier ones out there to play though) - the amount of modifiers etc you have to keep track of in one combat in D&D can be a nightmare sometimes.

 

[Malenfant]

That's not necessarily a problem with realism, it's more often a problem with numbercrunching. d20 is a very numbers-intensive system, for example (even though it's touted as an introductory system - there are much easier ones out there to play though) - the amount of modifiers etc you have to keep track of in one combat in D&D can be a nightmare sometimes.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Yes, numbers is a lot of it, but the realism slows down a combat because (realistically) you have a lot of decisions to make (parry, form of attack, drop one weapon and draw another, run away, etc. - and those are just the high-level decisions). Each one of those decisions is made in a split-second - and rather instinctually - IRL. If you aren't well-trained to make that split-second decision, then you often die just after that split-second.

Players not only have to make those decisions, they have to verbalize them to the ref, the ref has to know (or look up

) which roll/table to use for that decision, a roll has to be made, conclusion reached.... Then you have to do the same thing with the character with the second initiative....

So, the more realistic you make things (even if its just tasks, not combat), the more decisions you allow. Or, the more layers of definition you use (penetration and critical rolls, i.e.). Etc....

That's the big reason for "simplifying" combat and tasks - simulating real life takes loads of time.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Yes, numbers is a lot of it, but the realism slows down a combat because (realistically) you have a lot of decisions to make (parry, form of attack, drop one weapon and draw another, run away, etc. - and those are just the high-level decisions). Each one of those decisions is made in a split-second - and rather instinctually - IRL. If you aren't well-trained to make that split-second decision, then you often die just after that split-second.

Players not only have to make those decisions, they have to verbalize them to the ref, the ref has to know (or look up

) which roll/table to use for that decision, a roll has to be made, conclusion reached.... Then you have to do the same thing with the character with the second initiative....

So, the more realistic you make things (even if its just tasks, not combat), the more decisions you allow. Or, the more layers of definition you use (penetration and critical rolls, i.e.). Etc....

That's the big reason for "simplifying" combat and tasks - simulating real life takes loads of time.

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Yes, numbers is a lot of it, but the realism slows down a combat because (realistically) you have a lot of decisions to make (parry, form of attack, drop one weapon and draw another, run away, etc. - and those are just the high-level decisions). Each one of those decisions is made in a split-second

No, it's not instinct. It's conditioned-reflex. This is why expert swordsmen and gunmen who have had training prevail upon those who've never fired a gun before or swung a sword - because the latter have 'instinct' and the former have conditioned reflexes that come from training.

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Yes, numbers is a lot of it, but the realism slows down a combat because (realistically) you have a lot of decisions to make (parry, form of attack, drop one weapon and draw another, run away, etc. - and those are just the high-level decisions). Each one of those decisions is made in a split-second

No, it's not instinct. It's conditioned-reflex. This is why expert swordsmen and gunmen who have had training prevail upon those who've never fired a gun before or swung a sword - because the latter have 'instinct' and the former have conditioned reflexes that come from training.

 

[kafka47]

Which is nicely built into the Chargen of Traveller. Merchants will get gun skills but not good enough to kill, hiring an ex-Marine as a Purser/Security Consultant helps keep the party alive whilst the Merchant does use her/his trading skills to keep the party fed and the ex-Navy man keeps the whole thing afloat. I think that is essence of what T20 destroyed was the balance of skills & feats by placing them in a table rather a pooling of talent based upon one's past life that plus the ever desire for level advancement. But, I am not here to speak ill of T20, it does great things for my imagination and simplied some of my tasks as a Ref but I do have still some problems just as I do with any other version of Traveller.

 

[kafka47]

Which is nicely built into the Chargen of Traveller. Merchants will get gun skills but not good enough to kill, hiring an ex-Marine as a Purser/Security Consultant helps keep the party alive whilst the Merchant does use her/his trading skills to keep the party fed and the ex-Navy man keeps the whole thing afloat. I think that is essence of what T20 destroyed was the balance of skills & feats by placing them in a table rather a pooling of talent based upon one's past life that plus the ever desire for level advancement. But, I am not here to speak ill of T20, it does great things for my imagination and simplied some of my tasks as a Ref but I do have still some problems just as I do with any other version of Traveller.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by stofsk:
No, it's not instinct. It's conditioned-reflex.

Right you are, stofsk, right you are. I stand corrected.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by stofsk:
No, it's not instinct. It's conditioned-reflex.

Right you are, stofsk, right you are. I stand corrected.

 

[ravells]

There might come a time when traveller combat is done via Wii consoles! Diving behind the sofa while firing a couple of shots might be kind of fun!

Ravs

 

[ravells]

There might come a time when traveller combat is done via Wii consoles! Diving behind the sofa while firing a couple of shots might be kind of fun!

Ravs

 

[Mickazoid]

For the most part, I have to say that I think Wii is Wii-lly Wii-diculous. The games bore me and I hate anime so that's eleven strikes already. And while I don't own a nice 40" plasma LED screen that would serve as a wonderful target for an involuntarily-launched Wii controller, I could get into a wireless, extra-accurate conducting baton...

 

[Mickazoid]

For the most part, I have to say that I think Wii is Wii-lly Wii-diculous. The games bore me and I hate anime so that's eleven strikes already. And while I don't own a nice 40" plasma LED screen that would serve as a wonderful target for an involuntarily-launched Wii controller, I could get into a wireless, extra-accurate conducting baton...

 

[Havocatalyst]

I agree with TheEngineer. Realism is the way things happen not that device "a" is realistic because it is founded in scientific fact. I find it annoying when a player makes the statement "that is not very realistic". This statement usually winds up in an argument that ends with the player stating "well, if that is the way it is in Traveller...". This just pisses me off because the player is just trying to show how smart they are. We cannot forsee what technology will be out next year let alone thousands of years in the future. In the end the main question is: Are we here to play a game or discuss some freakin singularity?

 

[Havocatalyst]

I agree with TheEngineer. Realism is the way things happen not that device "a" is realistic because it is founded in scientific fact. I find it annoying when a player makes the statement "that is not very realistic". This statement usually winds up in an argument that ends with the player stating "well, if that is the way it is in Traveller...". This just pisses me off because the player is just trying to show how smart they are. We cannot forsee what technology will be out next year let alone thousands of years in the future. In the end the main question is: Are we here to play a game or discuss some freakin singularity?

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Havocatalyst:
I agree with TheEngineer. Realism is the way things happen not that device "a" is realistic because it is founded in scientific fact. I find it annoying when a player makes the statement "that is not very realistic". This statement usually winds up in an argument that ends with the player stating "well, if that is the way it is in Traveller...". This just pisses me off because the player is just trying to show how smart they are. We cannot forsee what technology will be out next year let alone thousands of years in the future. In the end the main question is: Are we here to play a game or discuss some freakin singularity?

Realism is both. If something in a game runs contrary to what somebody knows from scientific fact, then of course they're going to say it's not realistic and they're more than justified to do so. It's nothing to do with "showing how smart they are", it's that what's being presented to them is snapping their suspenders of disbelief because they know it's totally wrong.

There's all sorts of realism - physical realism (can you really get stars and planets like that?), technological realism (would that gizmo really work like that?), game engine realism (do these rules make physical sense?), character realism (would people really act like that?), historical realism (would the sociopolitical side of the setting really turn out like that?), economical realism (would trade really work if it was set up like that?) and so on. And they're all equally valid concerns for discussion, and how they're defined in an RPG go a long way to determining the feel of the game.

If all you want to do is play a beer and pretzels action game and have fun and not care about any of that then, then go right ahead. But some people do care about any or all of those things and enjoy thinking about them and playing in scenarios where those are important. They're not wrong to do so, just as you're not wrong to ignore it all if that's your thing.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Havocatalyst:
I agree with TheEngineer. Realism is the way things happen not that device "a" is realistic because it is founded in scientific fact. I find it annoying when a player makes the statement "that is not very realistic". This statement usually winds up in an argument that ends with the player stating "well, if that is the way it is in Traveller...". This just pisses me off because the player is just trying to show how smart they are. We cannot forsee what technology will be out next year let alone thousands of years in the future. In the end the main question is: Are we here to play a game or discuss some freakin singularity?

Realism is both. If something in a game runs contrary to what somebody knows from scientific fact, then of course they're going to say it's not realistic and they're more than justified to do so. It's nothing to do with "showing how smart they are", it's that what's being presented to them is snapping their suspenders of disbelief because they know it's totally wrong.

There's all sorts of realism - physical realism (can you really get stars and planets like that?), technological realism (would that gizmo really work like that?), game engine realism (do these rules make physical sense?), character realism (would people really act like that?), historical realism (would the sociopolitical side of the setting really turn out like that?), economical realism (would trade really work if it was set up like that?) and so on. And they're all equally valid concerns for discussion, and how they're defined in an RPG go a long way to determining the feel of the game.

If all you want to do is play a beer and pretzels action game and have fun and not care about any of that then, then go right ahead. But some people do care about any or all of those things and enjoy thinking about them and playing in scenarios where those are important. They're not wrong to do so, just as you're not wrong to ignore it all if that's your thing.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by ravs:
There might come a time when traveller combat is done via Wii consoles! Diving behind the sofa while firing a couple of shots might be kind of fun!

Ravs

I give you.... Wii Have A Problem (Wii Injuries)
And I say the bit about the gerbil half way down, while not related, is hilarious. The knee injury a little further down than that looked bad.

Imagine diving behind the couch... landing on the cat, which knocks over the coffee table, crashing into the light, which falls into the fishtank, causing a massive short, killing the fish, setting fire to the old wiring in the house, leaving a family homeless. And all because someone tried to pull a John Woo....

"But.... Honey... come on.... be reasonable.... he had a Gauss Pistol!"

For equal insanity, I give you.... Guitar Hero Broke My Knee

Moral: Gamers (sedentary low STR, low DEX, low END types) should not be engaged in physical hijinks while concentrating on a TV screen. That's almost as stupid as driving while yacking on a cell-phone and putting on makeup all at the same time.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by ravs:
There might come a time when traveller combat is done via Wii consoles! Diving behind the sofa while firing a couple of shots might be kind of fun!

Ravs

I give you.... Wii Have A Problem (Wii Injuries)
And I say the bit about the gerbil half way down, while not related, is hilarious. The knee injury a little further down than that looked bad.

Imagine diving behind the couch... landing on the cat, which knocks over the coffee table, crashing into the light, which falls into the fishtank, causing a massive short, killing the fish, setting fire to the old wiring in the house, leaving a family homeless. And all because someone tried to pull a John Woo....

"But.... Honey... come on.... be reasonable.... he had a Gauss Pistol!"

For equal insanity, I give you.... Guitar Hero Broke My Knee

Moral: Gamers (sedentary low STR, low DEX, low END types) should not be engaged in physical hijinks while concentrating on a TV screen. That's almost as stupid as driving while yacking on a cell-phone and putting on makeup all at the same time.