Does Realism Matter in Tabletop RPGs?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- Realism is a controversial word in tabletop RPG discourse. Some people think it's essential for immersion, others that it's a pain in the neck. So, does it matter? Why do we care so much about realism? That's what we'll discuss in this video.
#rpg #ttrpg #tabletoprpg #dnd #dnd5e #dungeonsanddragons #pathfinder #pathfinder2e #pf2e #cyberpunk #cyberpunk2020 #cyberpunkred #conan #realism #realistic #dm #gm #dungeonmaster #gamemaster
I deeply resent not being presented with the opportunity to be a pirate chimp when we played Conan a few years ago...
Honestly, playing a pirate chimp would have been a nightmare. As a wise man once said, chimpin' ain't easy.
My general rule for realism is that it should be implemented when it’s fun to do so. Forcing characters to send an extended period time recovering from injuries adds a lot of tension to battles which can be really exciting. Making characters deal with brutal infections long after a battle occurs is frustrating since the players can make good tactical decisions and still die for reasons largely beyond their control.
You've really hit close to how I see the desire for realism when you mentioned the imaginative gap. I think I mentioned this stuff in an earlier comment but...
I think "real" in a player's head is simply something intuitive and easy to hold in their head.
You also mentioned the opposite of that with the idea of abstract mechanics. Abstraction often skips over steps and makes things go faster. They're harder to understand intuitively precisely because they skip steps. That is, until the abstraction becomes the norm.
So instead of realism or verisimilitude, I try to balance abstract with concrete as the concepts in tension.
There's a degree of realism that is an absolute necessity as explained. Because having Axes turn stone to cheese, and dying based on noom populations is not something that people will understand. But having the Axes deal damage, and having Hit Points being what kills your character is much easier to learn.
The balancing act with realism and unrealism is that you need to keep the rules simple enough to make them easy to remember, but realistic enough that digesting it isn't an issue. In the end, I think it's important to say "Okay, what makes sense, but is really cool for this idea I'm working towards?" Because nothing says fun like a mouse familiar that can blow up entire houses from a small explosive, or compelling the Dragon and its minions to dance in the middle of a boss fight.
My favorite thing is when players constructively use realism in a game.
Like a favorite moment of mine when a warlock successfully rolled to contact his patron of forbidden knowledge to help conceptualize of a material like tungsten, then used prestidigitation to create and drop a tungsten cube from the rooftop of a wizards tower.
And the players spent multiple minutes crunching math to figure out what kind of damage a one foot cubed lump of tungsten at terminal velocity would do.
Applying realism to the silly rules of ttrpgs when it's fun is by far my favorite use of realism.
It's about having fun, and if you see a full table of players transform, in real time, into cackling gnomes/goblins/kobalds.
Things have gone well.
I try to deliver the degree of realism that allows players to make realistic choices and have a reasonable chance of realistic results. The further away you get from realism, the more it's necessary that the players know the GAME rules instead of real world logic to work for optimal results.
I don't know why anyone thinks "realism' is a goal of TTRPGs. It never really was,. The goal has always been verisimilitude. The rules of D&D 3.5 do not, in any way, describe real world physics. The world the rules do describe is a rather odd and alien place. If you are confused or "taken out of immersion" because of crunchy rules, it may not be the fault of the rules. It just might be a skill issue.
honestly i think a lot of the problems with "realism" that we see generally come from the fact that people don't actually understand how to make something realistic. I mean how could they, have many among us done much reasoning on the mechanics of the real world? More importantly, implementing realism requires critical thought on the nature and virtues of the abstraction in-play. For a given "realistic" introduction to work well, it cannot be introduced piecemeal, but holistically, and with appropriate numbers. If we're talking about hardcore trauma systems for instance, you can't just slap debuffs on top of the hitpoints system, you need to fully evaluate what should render a character unable to continue fighting.
Instead people have this built-in assumption that having 1 HP left means you're fighting with your leg cut off or bleeding everywhere. If both systems are well-balanced, the players will receive both advantages and disadvantages from changing to a system meant to simulate real trauma. Furthermore, reality also has the context that both people and animals avoid conflict and injury where possible. Take bandits for instance; realistically there are not many bandits in real life who would even try to attack a well-armed group of adventurers, ambush them in an even or disadvantaged fight without even trying to talk it over. The odds of dying in an encounter need to be paired with a healthy sense of self-preservation in all the characters in the story, and anything "hardcore" realistic needs to be paired with the contexts that make a problem possible to overcome or avoid in real life.
Again, think about the setting and the game holistically; we can have fun with fantastically lethal scenarios, but in real life, almost any challenge can be overcome with strategy and preparation.
All jokes aside, I'm no expert, but I think that in any kind of storytelling, and especially in a game, verisimilitude is almost always required, while realism is just a matter of personal preference.
Right on. If nothing makes sense, you don't have a story, just a jumble of nonsense.
First time I played Cyberpunk Red, my characters leg got blown off in the first combat. Which turned out to be a random encounter. Wasn't fun from a players perspective.
Sorry that frustrated you. Dismembered Leg is a uniquely un-fun critical injury. But believe me when I say I've inflicted a lot worse on first-time Cyberpunk Red players though (dismembered arm, hand, leg, and foreign object, oh and he hit 0hp for good measure). The nice think about CPR is that critical injuries are pretty easy to remove, so they're more of an inconvenience than a character-altering moment.
@@allseeingeyetrpg As a GM, I see Cyberpunk as a game where Edgerunners are meant to die in a blaze of glory or Cyberpsychosis. Death is the goal of the game as I see it.
12:15 To me, having long lists of modifiers can be (isn't always) counter to the idea of closing an imaginative gap... because once the gap is closed, imagination can take over and the GM / players should be able to agree on what a reasonable modifer would be. So to some extent, trying to codify them all is excessive and just creates bloat / makes the book more overwhelming (looking at you GURPS).
13:50 Every time someone says "It's fantasy, it's not _supposed_ to be realistic" in a context that suggests that they don't care about the basic laws of physics being applied consistently (even if they're not ours IRL), a penguin is struck by lightning.
14:50 What I find a bit sad is that most game designers seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. In response to 1990s spaghetti rules flowcharts, most games releasing today decided to stop _attempting_ to be "high fidelity" (a better term than realistic IMO which I'll explain in a second). I think it's possible for a game to be detailed, crunchy and believable, but still much more _elegant_ than those clunky 90s games. Not every game needs to be, but hardly anyone tries.
16:30 This here is why I'd rather call most games "high-fidelity" rather than "realistic". IMO a _good_ "realistic" system will readily handle more speculative, power fantasy-esque stories fairly well and actually function very well as a power fantasy because you're quantifying just how much cooler the PCs are than most people (or how cool everyone is). It'd never be cartoonish, but it could be larger-than-life. It's cool to be the guy with a giant Guts sword because you were allowed to pump your strength way up, and now the rules are _telling you_ that you're bisecting people every time you swing that thing. You could say that in your setting radiation does X and so long as you're actually trying to track those effects closely it'd still fall under what I'd usually think of as "realism" in an RPG even if it isn't actually replicating what radiation "really does".
22:30 I'd argue that if the Conan RPG specifies that these "fields of expertise" are generalizations and that you should apply common sense, a pirate ship full of chimps isn't RAW at all, actually (although it is funny). "Apply common sense" is a rule that you're meant to defer to in the case of fields of expertise specifically.
...So, like I said, what I want are rules that bridge the imaginative gap so that everyone's on the same page, close the gap just enough for us to all largely agree on what's going on. An example of this NOT happening would be a standard HP mechanic. The throwaway "they're actually luck points" excuse doesn't work when you've generally got magical potions that are meant to heal people, not make them luckier, literal healing skills, and an Armor Class system that explicitly includes the concept of _avoiding_ an attack, implying that you were struck every time your HP goes down. It's tough to imagine many of these fights as anything but two lumberjacks trying to chop each other down like trees. Gross. My (main) game of choice on the other hand, Mythras, has _actual luck points_ that let you re-roll hits among other things. Also, it's wound system isn't too burdensome from a rules perspective- if a limb is at 0 HP, it's a serious wound and maybe you can't use it (you roll to check), at negative max HP, you absolutely can't use it and you roll to see if you've experienced some major trauma. What sort of major trauma (shattered bone, severed limb, etc.) is _entirely_ up to common sense, because you already have the info you need to know what happened. How you would go about fixing it, beyond the Surgery skill, is similarly up to common sense.
I think a mistake that a lot of people who try running "high fidelity" systems make is that they try to simulate basically everything, on the off-chance that it somehow becomes relevant, rather than only tracking what's obviously going to be relevant in the story that you're telling (once again, looking at you GURPS, this is something that new GMs do all the time there.) If something feels deeply tedious, then either the rule for it is too clunky and should be improved, or it's irrelevant to the story you're telling.
Yeah, "high-fidelity" is probably a better word than "realism" for this.
"Apply common sense" is probably the most wishy-woshy that any rule can be, since a) common sense isnt all that common, and b) it's the sort of rule people naturally skip over. I've had a few times with both Conan and Torchbearer (systems with very abstract rules), where the group has debated when and how to apply common sense (as following the rules literally would create bizarre implications).
The idea that we're not supposed to be realistic in fantasy is largely coming from the fact that basically 100% of all fantasy creatures were developed by people largely ignorant of the actual laws of physics and biology, so if you try to apply the laws of physics evenly to people and monsters the realistic answer is that there are no monsters.
I think it's less about realism and more levels of structure. It's the difference between a structured magic rule system like in Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn versus Terry Pratchett's Discworld magic systems. One of them has a well defined set of rules and limitations on how things work. That is something that works well in a gamified story telling setting like a TTRPG, whereas Discworld is more like an old school DnD setting where the rules are lite and things are intentionally left undefined by the creators so that the GM can make those calls at the table. I find a lot of older players are more willing to go with whatever happens and defer to the GM during the game. A lot of younger players that have grown up on video games want clear rules so they can "game" the system and Min/Max more. Even when they don't know they are doing it, I see them doing it right from character creation to plotting combat. Then you have the drama kids that are there for the story telling and don't want any crunchyness and instead want to narrate large portions themselves. Everyone seems to have their own feelings on what they want. Realism is definitely just a word people use with little actual relativity to it's true definition.
I'll be honest and say I haven't read either of the series you mentioned, but you're right that different groups of people want different things from "realism". Oddly, both the older and younger crowds of RPG players think their method is more "realistic" - older gamers tend to think heavily-structured magic systems aren't magical at all, while younger players think more freeform systems are inconsistent and arbitrary. Both will just default to calling it "unrealistic" or saying it "doesn't make sense". The theatre kids, meanwhile, will straight-up belittle for even attempting realism. It really does depend.
I never did like realism as a word in relation to TTRPGs. If we wanted to simulate reality we'd need a supercomputer bigger than our universe factoring in all natural laws, including the mathematics of physics, yes including quantum probability and relativity, all the way to what we see as the beginning (like some big bang). Anything but that is some degree of summary of rules and estimations to reduce the workload.
What we need to focus on is verisimilitude. Of consistency within the framework given. Cartoon kid-friendly worlds suddenly having serious deep drama, switched demographic focus, and constant retconning would not have good verisimilitude. A cartoon kid-friendly world with tom-and-jerry and acne scenes of physics-defying stunts and exaggerations would have good verisimilitude, because it does not easily get confused with its own identity, or if it does change, it is through measured well-thoughtout evolution.
People want the world, characters, tone, etc, to be relatively consistent, so that they can trust what they are getting into and for their actions to make sense within what is established. That is not to say there can't be a few miracles that work outside the world's identity. Plot armor, narrative railroading, reducing gamey elements to finish the 5-hour long session, these should be done if that is what is wanted to fit with real life commitments and desires, but these should likely be uncommon or rare, like taking on dangerous debts, something done as a back-up or last resort.
I agree, 100%. And the my dragons fallacy, the fallacy that all breaks from reality should be judged equally therefore not at all is a bunch of horse crap. And in different genres and even using different tones verisimilitude may become the most important thing in the campaign to the players, even to the point of resembling a quest for realism sometimes. Everyone isn’t playing dungeons and dragons and some of those playing dungeons and dragons aren’t looking for heroic power fantasy
There's an RPG called Og about playing as cavemen who don't really know how to talk yet. The first version came out in 2004. They only know 18 words. You, Me, Rock, Water, Fire, Stick, Hairy, Bang, Sleep, Smelly, Small, Big, Cave, Food, Thing, Shiny, Go, and Verisimilitude.
I'm sure the next edition of GURPS will find a way to simulate how every proton acts during combat.
@@allseeingeyetrpg Electrons. Protons don't move. And it will still be simpler and more rational than Pathfinder.
Very good video I think your dead on. Definitions are important and issue is when people are arguing over realism in games they often don't actually disagree but just have different definitions of the word or are using it different.
Most realistic game I played is probable Flames of Freedom. Though it has some mysticism and a bit of alt history it is otherwise a pretty grounded late 1700 sim where guns are inaccurate but if you get hit by one you almost certainly are dead and if you are not dead you may as well be with how bad the negative penalties will be and that they will not really heal it also takes several rounds to reload many guns. I like it and will play it but it leans a bit to realistic even for me.
I was thinking hard about most unrealistic game I know I have played more unrealistic games but they were one shots at cons that were so meh that I have almost no memory of them. Will get a ton of flack for this but what keeps coming to mind is DnD 5e is the most unrealistic game I can think of. I do not understand how people can immerse themselves in that system. The absurd bullet sponge healthpools and healing people to full combat effectiveness when they go down is just nuts to me. It just feels so damn gamey it completely takes me out of the experience the mobs feel random and just well generic fantasy the amount of weird races makes it very hard to take seriously. I just frankly do not get that game and how it is the most popular. I ran a game that is purposely not trying to be realistic at all called Ryuutama: natural fantasy rpg. A Japanese casual game for kids and even that was more realistic as the first adventure is basically a realistic travel sim where there is heavy rain and my party got very sick from as they just pressed on through it.
It's because the vibe 5e is going for is somewhere between King Arthur, a Grimm Tale, and Batman. For the same reason people can get immersed into Hansel and Gretel they can get immersed in this.
@@nicholascarter9158 ya ya ya i know I am going against popular opinion and the majority can do not wrong but I just don't get it. The lore seems inconsistent and nonsensical. most players who play make the most absurd characters with weird races. The game play of not healing because I should wait until my party member actually drops then cast a healing spell is just so immersion breaking to me like I just get into a game play mindset cause of the weird system
D&D 5e is a game that doesn't really know what it wants to be. It takes a lot of its design DNA from 3e/3.5e (which was very simulationist), but stripped most of the simulationism out. It tries to have a fun, action-packed combat system, but in practice it's bloated and horribly unbalanced. Once Critical Role took off and D&D was flooded by theatre kids, they tried to pivot to a more narrativist style of play...except D&D's rules are too rigid and too combat-focused to be good for storytelling. The only D&D is good for is finding players that you can eventually rope into playing better systems.
Would love much better audio on these videos - higher volume, warmer and closer. Especially bc there is not much on the screen.
First, thanks for the video, it really clarifies many things
Second, I actually like the idea of a pirate of humanly intelligent chimpanzees so I think I would like to see that confrontation play out
Third, any resource or method to further understand the Imaginative Gap and how to break it?
I have a full video about the Imaginative Gap. The audio isn't the best, but it has plenty of detail: ruclips.net/video/aHNha4AJPIU/видео.html
@@allseeingeyetrpg thanks a lot