Why do people still talk about MUH REALISM and MUH VERSIMILITUDE in games when this was explicitly solved decades ago?
Games are games first, meant to be fun.
AD&D1e, Player's Handbook:
>It is important to keep in mind that, after all is said and done, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a game. Because it is a game, certain things which seem "unrealistic" or simply unnecessary are integral to the system. Classes have restrictions in order to give a varied and unique approach to each class when they play, as well as to provide play balance. Races are given advantages or limits mainly because the whole character of the game would be drastically altered if it were otherwise.
>>46002075
CONT
AD&D, Dungeon Master's Guide 1e:
>It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).
Hit point implementation, class/skill implementation, whatever differs from game to game but either way they're all games that are intended to be fun. Stop shitting them up with "BUT HOW DOES IT MAKE SENSE???"
Nobody cares.
Just awful OP.
>>46002075
If it's not realistic.
If it doesn't make any sense.
If my "How does that even work?" throws me out if the game.
IT'S NOT FUN.
IT.
IS.
NOT.
FUN.
>>46002192
Do you complain that in monopoly you need four houses to make a hotel?
Do you whine that in Snakes and Ladders, some random snake makes you go back to near the start?
Do you cry when you're playing a video game and the enemies in the last area hit harder than the enemies in the first area even though they both use swords and look similar?
They're all games, anon. They're not reality simulators.
>>46002075
>>46002081
Problem is OP, that some people like me care.
But I understand your intent and sentiment. I've long since stopped giving too many fudges for realism in systems I play (Heck, the next two games I'm hosting are SMT Persona with personally homebrewed system as close to the games as possible and a Magical Girl game run with DREAD), but realism is a big aspect for me while I create my systems.
Problem is with that, is that I hate sheets with more than a handful of skills, because I think the more you turn the character to numbers, the less the character becomes, and more it becomes just a playing piece.
That's why I've actually abstracted the shit out of my systems, and now when last night I figured a really unorthodox damage system (Orthodox HP systems are a personal pet peeve of mine), I will see how weird my system currently in the making will become.
I still agree. The fun in the table is the most important part. But these realistic measures and abstractions I make to my own systems? They're there to enhance the amount of fun I HAVE. I know that sounds selfish, but as a Semi-forever GM, I take what I can.
>>46002075
>Why do people still talk about MUH REALISM and MUH VERSIMILITUDE in games when this was explicitly solved decades ago?
>Games are games first, meant to be fun.
Because it's not fun for me if I can't project myself into it and that requires verisimilitude.
>>46002075
Realism is fun for some folks. Not for me, personally, but it's not a problem if it's what the group wants.
That's the important thing, though, the demand for it needs to at least be the majority. One guy complaining about the over-presence of swords or that wizards don't run everything is somebody who's nit-picking and obsessing over detail. They're not there to play a game, they're there to talk about settings.
Which isn't inherently wrong... It just isn't what you should be playing that kind of game for.
>>46002075
I mostly care about realism because it allows people to think outside of the box and propose things that make sense instead of working under the game's framework that's not always well defined.
This allows more options and, with reality as an arbiter, you can be much more blunt with resolutions rather than negotiate them with your players or just drop a verdict taken from some unknown rule that the player never read and make them feel frustrated.
Look guys, I figured it out. You can take any one of the dozen roleplaying systems that is published online every day, find some other people who feel similarly about the proper mechanics and styles of roleplaying as yourself, and get together in a group and play.
Then, the people who feel differently than you can do the same thing.
And then we can burn this whole board to the ground.
>>46002560
Beware the sacrilege.
>>46002635
I've never really run into this issue. Most games give pretty good guidelines for how difficult things are.
E.g. 13th Age says "here, here's three level ranges. And here's a chart for each level range showing difficulties of Normal, Hard, and Super-Challenging".
Reality is irrelevant because we're playing fantasy heroes, instead I can just go "yeah, that look Hard for a level 5 hero, go ahead and roll."
>>46002566
>>46002635
>>46002560
This about sums it up.
I really hate things that lack verisimilitude, or completely disregard what's actually possible without even bothering to explain it. This is why I play GURPs.
>>46002852
Why do you expect to have fantasy worlds to have anything approaching real world science or understanding of cause and effect?
You're lucky humans exist. And that limbs exist and not pseudopods. And that time flows the same way.
>>46002075
We got a dumbass like this in our campaign. The whole campaign is full of educated people. I'm a scientist, so is this bitch. Every time something comes up regarding something weird involving a magically powerful society, this bitch says:
>Actually that would never happen because I have a degree in some lesser science and I'm a massive cuntfaggot and please rape my face
jesus fucking christ every time she opens her mouth I want to punch her. Every single time I say "You are playing a fucking magus who charges a sword with electrically energy that you make from your ass or some shit and this is what is not plausible?"
>>46003161
No cause and effect and even time flows different.
Whut?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most systems "just as in real life except where noted"?
That should be enough verisimilitude.
>>46002286
>Do you complain that in monopoly you need four houses to make a hotel?
Yes, it's an awfully designed game with no balance
>Do you whine that in Snakes and Ladders, some random snake makes you go back to near the start?
Yes.
>Do you cry when you're playing a video game and the enemies in the last area hit harder than the enemies in the first area even though they both use swords and look similar?
Absolutely.
>They're all games, anon. They're not reality simulators.
Fuck off gaylord.
>>46002075
>One writer's opinion about the game he designed
>Solved for all time, u guise
Your mental faculties are severely lacking, OP.
>>46004327
Not really. Most systems aren't focused on creating a reality, they focus on creating fun in a story or genre. E.g. DnD isn't a 'real fantasy world simulator', instead, the rules are set up to create fun dungeon delving. You wouldn't use DnD for political intrigue, because that's not what it's for.
>>46005278
That's not what I said.
Every system I know has the GM adjudicate results just as in real life except where noted otherwise in the rules. I.e. use common sense where the rules don't reach.
>>46004327
This.
"Here are the rules now bend reality around them" has always been how I played/DM'd. The reality bit being the human component that results in houserules and understandings.
IMO the second you throw in anything remotely magical all of history and reality as we know it would unravel into something incredibly foreign to us. Implying it'd be "realistic" is the bullshit part.
Also if you're complaining about realism in a hobby where you hallucinate with a group of people over ink and paper then this isn't the hobby for you. May I recommend /sp/orts?
>>46003161
Because internal consistency makes a world flow.
>when this was explicitly solved decades ago?
It wasn't solved decades ago.
It was solved, if you consider "Don't think about it" to be an acceptable answer. If you don't, then it wasn't solved.
>>46002075
>Classes have restrictions in order to give a varied and unique approach to each class when they play, as well as to provide play balance. Races are given advantages or limits mainly because the whole character of the game would be drastically altered if it were otherwise.
So -4 Str IS VALID for female characters.
>>46005420
The game can be consistent to itself without any regard the reality.
>>46005554
Blatant violations without good narrative purpose and some (even a scientifically poor) explanation bother me on an instinctual level.
>>46005607
Diagnosis: autism.
>>46002075
>>46002081
Pretending like shit still follows the rules of reality while having magic is fun. When people complain about realism it's often because the DM is being an ass hole or some random shit pops up in mechanics that prevents you from progression as an automatic fun blocker.
Nobody can tell me why it takes 5000gp to build a pit trap in Pathfinder, same as the reason why it takes however many shitloads of gold to make anything in DnD. Realism is important so people don't wallow over stupid stuff and the players aren't forced to be retarded for no apparent reason.
>>46002286
PnP games ain't board games you tard.
Why do you think we don't talk about Monopoly and LIFE here?
>>46005627
Yes.
And?
>>46005659
Because they're of low quality, not because they're board games.
There's a Board Game General, ffs.
>>46005705
So PnP games should mimic low quality games for their low quality traits.
Got it.
>>46005725
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
I just said board games are /tg/-relevant. They just need to be decent in order for people to be interested in discussing them.
>>46005725
RPGs are a subset of 'game'.
Most games, including most RPGs, are for fun.
When fun/design/balance and reality clash, then reality needs to be sacrifices.
And nobody should have a problem with that, because games are not world simulators.
>>46005685
And you're using your condition as an excuse to be a dick. Stop that.
It's a little dishonest to say that RPGs are just like all other games. They're weird, and they've gone through a weird development.
RPGs can be games in which characters are more or less disposable game pieces players use to tackle a dungeon full of grueling challenges. Other RPGs are all about co-operatively crafting a narrative. Even more RPGs fall somewhere in between.
Pretending that there is a single right and good formula for all games on this spectrum is fairly retarded.
If your game of choice focuses heavily on the narrative aspect, a substantial part of the 'fun' will be verisimilitude and a coherent, relatable world for the story to take place in. Sacrificing these for 'gamey' mechanics may very well be the last thing you want to do.
TL;DR:
Stop pretending all RPGs need to do the same thing.
>>46002075
It all comes down to a sense of immersion. If shit happens that makes no sense in-game, that breaks immersion, and tosses people out of their daydream realities and into a mere war game.
>>46002075
>meant to be fun.
Beacuse MUH REALISM and MUH VERSIMILITUDE adds to the fun for people who aren't you
>>46002635
The problem with this line of thinking is that despite what you may claim, you and me and all of our fellow neckbeards really don't know what is "realistic" in any way. Oh sure, you may claim otherwise and I am sure that you have read all those books on swords and armour, but at the end of the day, we're not experts on human biology, applied physics and natural chemistry in any shape or form.
So usually you just end up with a bunch of people bickering about what is and what isn't realistic. The complete opposite of your call for reality to be the ultimate arbiter. I wish what you said worked, but it doesn't, sadly.
>Inb4 "AUCHKTUALLY, I AM an expert on everything!
>>46005990
>Oh sure, you may claim otherwise and I am sure that you have read all those books on swords and armour, but at the end of the day, we're not experts on human biology, applied physics and natural chemistry in any shape or form.
We still know more about reality than not reality.
It is a better basis than nothing.
>>46006017
Alternative: Base the game on objective criteria such as "Every class should be able to contribute" or "Even high-level badass heroes should be weak to a crossbow bolt to the face" and then design the game from there.
>>46002075
This is why we have classifications like gamist, narrativist, etc. for games.
Different strokes for different folks. Some like their realism or internal consistently, some are in it for the mechanics of the game, some are into roleplaying, and some people just want to have some drunk fun with friends.
>>46002081
If the game designer needs to specify how the constitution trait covers things other than what you'd consider constitution, he's kind of bad at selecting the right terminology for his game.
>>46002075
I usually try to insert some realism but not because the lack of realism hurt a good game but i cannot stand the people who treat common myths and misconception as religious truth, i mean if you don't want gunpowder in a late medieval setting is ok, but when you have that asshole that insist that a primitive gunpowder gun is a nuclear weapon in a medieval setting, i feel like a little historical realism can help to settle things beside thanks to internet a fast research is easy enough to not be a problem
I feel a policy of banning people who have only played one system would greatly improve post quality.
Gamist systems are first and foremost games. That's your DnDs and your Shadowruns. Perfectly fine in that, but dont drag Narrativist and Simulationist systems as 'failed attempts' at your narrow genre spread.
All 3 archetypes have advantages and disadvantages. It just depends on what you want out of a game.
But then I didn't post a smug anime girl with a 3-word greentext so this post will be ignored amidst the shitslinging.
>>46005159
You really missed the point of snakes and ladders bro, the games meant to teach you that some things are out of your control. If you sit around whining about it you'll never achieve moksha.
>>46005493
>So -4 Str IS VALID for female characters.
Its -1
Fatal has a -14 on a (4d100/2) -1
This is problably equivalent to a -1
>>46006190
>I feel a policy of banning people who have only played one system would greatly improve post quality.
This is incredible but
a) impossible to enforce
b) impossible to enforce
I actually have a lot more sympathy for the people who have never played a system on /tg/ than for those who've only ever played one.
>>46005776
>physically unable to not be bothered by something
>simply desire things to have a reason and a process
>this is being a dick
Christ Anon I mostly just fill in the blanks in my head, what's up with you?
>>46002075
"Realism" is a noise that 3.5/pathfinder casterfags make with their mouths whenever anything threatens their tier 1 master race superiority. Feel free to ignore them.
>>46006190
>I feel a policy of banning people who have only played one system would greatly improve post quality.
Thats a catch 22, as they would need to avoid one of the places that would make them try another systems unless they already played 2 or more systems. A thing they wont problably do since they wont be on the situations/places that would make them want to try another system.
>>46008991
>"Realism" is a noise that 3.5/pathfinder casterfags make with their mouths whenever anything threatens their tier 1 master race superiority. Feel free to ignore them.
Realism would make life worse for caster.
>>46009149
You are correct, but that's not how they think. They think non-casters are the only people who should be bound by realism and they get a free ride because it's magic, they don't have to explain shit.
>>46005493
Don't forget some proficiency and cooking if they take the Farmer's background.
>>46008122
Doing that without any tact or attempts at diplomacy is being a dick, yes.
>>46009232
>and they get a free ride because it's magic,
nope their spells dont need to be bounded by reality.
With realism, they would need to be tired to sleep (unless they are from a race or someone cast a spell that allowed them to sleep without being tired), non casters damage would be way higher,......
>>46002075
>Games are games first, meant to be fun.
Some people like realistic games. That is why train simulator is a game. Some people simply like hyper autistic realism even if it slows shit way the fuck down. It isn't even a bad thing, just go with groups who have similar mindsets. If you like fun and simple games don't join a game with a GM who is an autist obsessed with realistic weapon damage and combat. Likewise if you like to put a ton of thought into how you move in combat or what body parts you aim at or whatever try to find a GM and group who are similarly specific or else your DM probably won't care too much that you hid behind this specific rock here, or the pattern of firing you do when you lay down covering fire.
Pretty much this argument is the same as low vs. high lethality, neither is inherently better but you will enjoy games more if you gave with people who have the same preferences.
