While rummaging in old forum post (I read more in older posts - I also enjoyed hot cooked food from the day before), I stumbled upon the following statements:
I wonder just how an abstract system realistic can be.
complex possible? Perhaps a least Unrealistic?
Dogio
Realistic rules
Go play again. Something can and will never exist. It is a role-playing. Exactly. We now read and absorb it all again GAME.
Thank you.
Yes, that was just necessary, I can hear the argument that is slowly realistic rules that represent the impact of a ball on a human body, no longer see or read. I have resigned myself to the fact that a game abstracted and simplified, for reasons of game play, and that's a good thing.
Master Brain
times I grab an example of the first point.
"Rules are not objectively realistic simulation a la Harnam not work,"
I wonder how you can get the idea, role-playing rules would be able to 'objectively' to depict a reality whatsoever? And to simulate?
view this criticism at all is connectable somehow, I am now once tentative, it would be, specifically to fight (as far and wide the most verregelten area pretty much all RPG). How on earth is a set of rules a fight sequence capture correct or less correct? Ultimately, there is always a clear focus on certain, specifically selected areas. From far and realism or simulation no sign. Rather, a symbolic transfer of results into a mathematical level, for example.
If you look at some of DSA (shown very briefly) focuses the exchange of attack and defense, and it fades like fear, adrenaline, balance, anger, blood loss, etc., then this is not a mistake? But a conscious decision on the parameters - how quickly the implementation works at the table? Can I make tactical decisions? How well fits into the overall approach usually works? And the like.
Other decisions in other role-playing games are different in the first place. But not better? Or - for heaven's sake - realisitischer?
I am therefore of the whole approach to criticism complete mystery. A further complication is that I'm in my own little world, well (and constantly) is successful, any situations in the game so in rules to make that a consensus is. This reached my level simulation quasi very respectable 100%.
Sineijdan ar Asjawell
together with other such statements, as the joke when Councilor Manifesto, which brought me to contemplate the role of realism in the game. After all, I'm an old-Hârnmaster fanboy, so a set of rules to play with the subtitle "The realistic role-play - and play like it! Why should the term "realistic" is not allowed to use? First, one must distinguish between two elements: realism in the rules and realism in the setting. The latter is problematic, in fact and is therefore discussed by me in my next post. Now, first of all to the rules: a rule
area appears clear at first glance what does "realistic": the complete picture of the "physics" of the real world in the role-playing rules. This would require you know the complete set of rules (ie the natural and social sciences) of the real world. This is not possible and is also due to infinitely many factors never be possible (even a "Grand Unified Theory" is not the world be able to explain). An example from the battle zone (Sineijdan remains in the fight, so I'll stay there too): Stupid way the fighter a little itchy spot on the back, he also muses on the charge of a friend after last week, is so far so distracted and messed up his sword. Such is not included in any role playing of the game (thankfully). The number of other examples are legion. Therefore, no complete picture of the real circumstances is possible. The control system must remain abstract. As far as I agree with Sineijdan and other scholars agree.
However, this is so banal, that one has to explain to anyone. Skyrock knew the (whose post was referring Sineijdan), the white everyone, even the makers of Hârnmaster. Since it is much more likely that someone in the role play area, used the term "realistic", just not the complete picture of the real world thinks, but only the comparative "more realistic".
And here I see the problem in Sineijdans post. Of course there are "realistic" role-playing rules in the sense that they represent in a better situation (fight) the reality of our world than any other RPG systems. This allows a system to capture real fight sequence or less correct than others, namely, if and when more factors play a role in more elements of a "symbolic transfer" to a abstract level is completed, so there is a lesser degree of abstraction. What elements more? The important! What are the important? In the border area to discuss safety at the core, however, clear: All you in a situation (eg fighting) and a related somewhat to exercise clear: quality injuries, fighting styles, parade and block opportunities, combat experience, military equipment and, detail of the target areas, Moral & panic, and Sineijdans values such as fear, adrenaline, etc. (Good ideas by the way ...) If more of these elements are input into the rules and detailed (Note: keyword) will be shown, the role play more realistic than others, which is not included.
way: A Simulation (Whether it is a simulation or a computer aircraft simulation) has in general only by a right to exist, that it is as realistic as possible and reflects the real world as possible detailed and at a low level of abstraction. Who says reality can in principle also not simulate to some extent, should convince even the airlines expect to sell off their simulators. These are based on rules - much more complex than the role-play, but also on rules.
So maybe we can agree on, which means "realistic" in a role play: " . Lesser degree of abstraction than the average of other famous role-playing systems "Of course it depends on the comparison group, but with DSA or D & D as the most successful systems (in Germany) already given
A few examples .
Prussian Miniature Games of the 19th . Century (the predecessor of today's tabletops) are more realistic than chess, since incorporated more elements of a battle (different types of weapons and the consequences thereof), the level of abstraction is generally lower. Compared to chess are Prussian miniature games so realistic.
Hârnmaster is more realistic than D & D , since D & D to fight very abstract is, for example, there is no way under the ground rules for the parade. If you were but a D & D campaign recount, one would naturally colorful and exciting describe a parade in any form. That on a sword fight there they are, of course - it is not only in the rules shown, because you realize a high level of abstraction is sought.
Now, the Above and reading to me is my post from banal. However, there are apparently enough pundits out there who immediately above pedantic with any "can not be" counter-wisdom, if the term "realism" falls.
To avoid discussions:
And what value Realism has to role-play? Lens no. Subjectively, everyone must decide for itself, because of increased realism usually means increased Regellastigkeit. Realism is thus a relative value. I enjoy playing Hârnmaster because I sometimes (!) Like dirty, realistic battles and then accepting the Regellastigkeit. I play D & D, because I usually (!) Realism is not that important and I prefer interesting tactical battles, which may also be unrealistic (ie, optimal control of abstract). I play DSA, because the rules so great ... uh ... Aventurien can because I like so well ;-) On the matter pass arguments such as "realism is not quite reach eh - Should be left, therefore, remain completely "Oh example of ethics. Can a man in full"?. Be No. Yet you leave please not the desire to stay if you "good realism" subjectively value felt in role play, then on. Strive then, and do not be misled by the fact that one wants to make you, not realism is possible
Finally in this connection two questions for you:
- If the term "fantastic realism" for DSA has shaped? Where is he anyway? In Vinsalt thread found no answer.
- locates How to "realism" in the Forge theory? subcategory of simulationism?
- Realism II - The rules are not the world: If the background / the setting realistic?
- III realism - realism and TARS: Is it possible to play both styles in a set of rules to promote any compromises?
0 comments:
Post a Comment