What's Your Realism Quotient?

[aramis]

Ironically, I prefer a ruleset that is just a bit under.
Why? Because:

• It is easier to add realism than take away complexity.
• Increased realism usually comes at the cost of much increased complexity
• Attempts to simplify complex rulesets (ala SSDS) are prone to major errors, and seldom produce results similar to full-on use of the more complex system
• Players (versus GMs) seldom like rules being redacted. They seldom complain when rules are added.

So, give the choice of too much or too little, I'll take too little, and apply common sense.

 

[Agemegos]

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

There are fewer pitfalls for the players in a more realistic setting, too.

There is no getting around the fact that in an SF or Fantasy setting there is a lot of knowledge that the players have that is going to be useless: geography and history and knowledge of cultures that just doesn't apply in an alternative reality. Still, it's helpful to arrange as far as possible that player's knowledge doesn't lead them into traps: relying on an understanding of orbital mechanics or atmospheric chemistry or fundamentals of human motivation that don't apply. Often, differences between the familiar world and the alternative world can lead to misunderstanding and mistaken plans that are hard to detect in time. So you have to be explicit up front about those things before mistaken assumptions on the players' part leads your campaign into quicksand.

The fewer differences between the real world and the alternative reality there are, the less has to be explained and remembered, and the easier it is to play a character or to GM. Though complicated counterfactuals are the price of playing in a world of wonders, it still makes sense to get as much bang as you can for as fewer bucks as is possible.

 

[Sifu Blackirish]

As referenced by some above, more detail is always better--it can always be ignored if desired.

Personally, I have an intense desire to see how things work on the inside. Unfortunately, my players never seemed interested in that intense level of detail--except to see how much damage they could cause...

These days, I still like detail, but I keep it in the background. If PCs want to dig for the info, it is readily available. As someone previously mentioned about the powercells...if they pay attention, they can gain an advantage!

Most importantly, things must be consistent in order to maintain that "willing suspension of disbelief" that is so important to involved and fun play.

 

[Ishmael]

IMHO, realism does not have to mean complexity during play....most of the realism issues; worldbuilding, shipbuilding, etc. are done before play much akin to building a set/props for a play or movie.

I also would opt for more detail ( not neccesarily the same as realism ). Mundane things can always be glossed over, but important things seem more concrete and beleivable if they have more details ( trivial or not ).

But once the set and props are built and the play begins...faster is better and that means 'simple to administer' rules.

 

[Major B]

For me the detail is important to keeping play fast.

To maintain a fast pace during play, I like to have the detail available to me when needed. That way, when the inevitable question arises I can flip to the pertinent section and provide only the necessary details, then get back to what is important.

As Referee I can always make it up on the fly, but as BlackIrish points out maintaining consistency is easier if the detail has already been worked out in advance.

 

[rancke]

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?

Answers: No, no, and no. What is important to me is self-consistency and verisimilitude.

Of course, staying within spitting distance of realism is often a good way to achieve self-consistency.



Hans

 

[Anthony]

I will note that specifically the sort of realism that matters is the stuff that PCs have easy access to. If it's impossible for a jump-2 trader to make money using a normal business plan, that's a problem. If speculative trade is a way for the PCs to magically make tens of millions of credits, that's a problem. However, flaws in the macroeconomic structure of the Imperium are difficult for players to exploit and may not be obvious in the first place, and are thus a relatively low priority.

For worldbuilding, you want to avoid the stuff that makes your players roll their eyes and go "This is dumb"; it's not otherwise an exploitable subsystem, and thus doesn't need to be entirely bulletproof. Thus, worlds like Enope (C411988-6) should be avoided. The physics is relatively more tolerable, the big problem is the total lack of a link between habitability and population. Likewise, the ultra-low-pop high-starport worlds, such as Pixie (A100103-D), cause problems with suspension of disbelief.

For equipment design, the design system, if it exists and is available to the players, should be structured so that canonical equipment designs are rational, and should generally be well balanced. Realism becomes a factor when it lets players do stupid things, such as creating perpetual motion machines.

 

[kafka47]

More and more realism. However, with one provision, the realism should be integrated into adventures rather than rules. People really don't want to read the math of delta V of a Type A Free Trader but they want the game to simulate the results. Therefore, one can always have the math in the background and just make fine descriptions to describe actions...then in some optional supplement or appendix, you can show the math.

 

[Draka]

As much as is possible, I want realism - science fiction is as much science as possible with the fiction added for "What-if". FTL is not possible by today's physics - so is not "real". OTOH, just a while back flight was not possible by the physics of that day. So add the FTL as the "What-if", explore the possible results but keep everything else as real as you can.

As an ex-military man, the weapons/propulsion systems/etc of Striker may or may not be possible - but the effects on the humans in the battlefield haven't changed in the last 10000 yrs that we know about - nor the effect of command and control problems. So I want the battlefields/combat to "feel" as real as possible under the constraints of the weapons/commo gear/etc being portrayed.

Ditto for the economics.

And as has been mentioned, to the players the more that the universe appears to match our own the less the suspension of disbelief, and the more that the DM can concentrate on the differences between the Imperium and now.

 

[jatay3]

I will note that specifically the sort of realism that matters is the stuff that PCs have easy access to. If it's impossible for a jump-2 trader to make money using a normal business plan, that's a problem. If speculative trade is a way for the PCs to magically make tens of millions of credits, that's a problem. However, flaws in the macroeconomic structure of the Imperium are difficult for players to exploit and may not be obvious in the first place, and are thus a relatively low priority.

For worldbuilding, you want to avoid the stuff that makes your players roll their eyes and go "This is dumb"; it's not otherwise an exploitable subsystem, and thus doesn't need to be entirely bulletproof. Thus, worlds like Enope (C411988-6) should be avoided. The physics is relatively more tolerable, the big problem is the total lack of a link between habitability and population. Likewise, the ultra-low-pop high-starport worlds, such as Pixie (A100103-D), cause problems with suspension of disbelief.

For equipment design, the design system, if it exists and is available to the players, should be structured so that canonical equipment designs are rational, and should generally be well balanced. Realism becomes a factor when it lets players do stupid things, such as creating perpetual motion machines.

Why couldn't you have a world with an Ultra-low-pop high-starport? Suppose the planet is nearly uninhabitable or not worth exploiting but intense nearby through-traffic makes a high starport desirable. Compare the great caravan cities of legend.

 

[aramis]

Those cities tended not to stay small, jatay.

When you have a lot of trade flowing through, you have to support the trade with services. Services require people.

You might not have much trade, but you will have commerce providing the needed services. (And if you don't NEED the services, you don't need the port there.)

Take as an example the following map connection between two mains:

/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \
\___/A-9\___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/
/C-6\___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \
\___/B-6\___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/
/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \
\___/   \___/?-3\___/   \___/   \___/   \___/
/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \
\___/   \___/   \___/?-4\___/   \___/   \___/
/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \
\___/   \___/   \___/   \___/A-A\___/   \___/
/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/C-6\___/C-6\
\___/   \___/   \___/   \___/A-9\___/X-1\___/
/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/E-3\
\___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/   \___/

(SP-Pop)

the pop 3 world only NEEDs a D port, and same for the pop 4... Why? because there are high pop A ports nearby. Now, if we instead had 4 hexes between instead of two, traffic would be unlikely to make the jump... and that which did would still be only a jump away from an A port.

If, however, we had a chain of 10 systems, say, a rift crossing each 2-3 parsecs apart, that's far enough that you would need a decent port in the middle; at 10 systems, you are likely to have a ship need maintenance in the middle. (better to be a month or two early than late under CT & MT.) It's not a given, however, that one would arise. And if it did, one can reasonably expect that it would both grow in population AND develop whatever local resources it and the two adjacent worlds would have.