Complexity and Abstraction
Jason Newquist
I've been considering another game project, and I've been thinking about
complexity and abstraction, and it seems to me that in most simulation
and role-playing games that they are opposites (which is to say that the
more abstract a system is, the less complex it is).
Suppose I'm doing an RPG combat system. I find that if I want it to be
realistic, I deal with less abstraction and import a lot of complexity.
Now, if I wanted to deal with a less cumbersome and complex system, I
would have to abstract reality.
In this way of thinking, all games are, to one degree or another,
abstractions of reality. The quality of a game depends largely on the
type and kind of abstractions involved (obviously).
Just trying to discuss, :)
.............. ........ ......................
Jason Newquist UC Davis jrnew...@ucdavis.edu
BoneGames
complex. The worst of each combines to form a system that (in my case) few
enjoy.
I challange that I've been working toward is this:
Imagine a system that allows for a player to choose what level of
abstraction they wish to use to determine the outcome of a given event. At
a very high level there would be very little complexity - and thus be very
quick. At a much lower level a player would have control of much more
detail, decreasing the level of abstraction, but greatly increasing the
complexity.
There are games that have either, but I've yet (and may be wrong) seen one
that allows for both in a truly scalable manner.
Comments?
joshua
<<<<--------------------------------------------->>>>
<<Contact Bone...@aol.com for information related>>
<< to all of our FREE games available on the net. >>
<< Find our games at ftp.cdrom.com/pub/misc/bg >>
<<<<--------------------------------------------->>>>
Tony Valle
Newquist) wrote:
> it seems to me that in most simulation
> and role-playing games... the
> more abstract a system is, the less complex it is).
>
> Suppose I'm doing an RPG combat system. I find that if I want it to be
> realistic, I deal with less abstraction and import a lot of complexity.
>
> Jason Newquist UC Davis jrnew...@ucdavis.edu
Jason, you have a great deal of insight -- have you designed a game before?
Seriously, this topic has been much on my mind of late since I am current
developing the next generation of a great air combat system. Needless to
say, air combat is quite complex and there is an effective lower limit to
how simple you can make the game and still reflect a reasonable degree of
accuracy. However, I've come to the conclusion that playability and detail
(the opposite of abstraction in this context) do represent a trade-off,
but complexity and realism (and the other combinations) and not true
tradeoffs. It is possible in principle to design a highly playable, very
realistic game -- but it ain't easy. This is where the "genius" of game
design comes in.
Be careful though -- it's also possible to design a completely unplayable
*and* unrealistic mess -- any one for Air War? ;->
Charles Ryan
ez03...@dale.ucdavis.edu writes:
>I've been considering another game project, and I've been thinking about
>complexity and abstraction, and it seems to me that in most simulation
>and role-playing games that they are opposites (which is to say that the
>more abstract a system is, the less complex it is).
>
>Suppose I'm doing an RPG combat system. I find that if I want it to be
>realistic...
You're mixing your issues here. You start out with the fairly accurate
assertion that abstract is the opposite of complex, but then you
substitute in the word "realistic." That's a common mistake that's led to
a lot of bad RPG design.
A game can be both abstract and realistic. If you want realism (and
that's not always a goal, especially in a cinematic or humorous game),
the question is how much =detail= you want. The higher the resolution of
detail, the more you stray from abstraction towards complexity.
That having been said, it's still possible to create systems that have a
high level of detail without getting overly complex, if you're creative.
Millennium's End, for example, provides more detail in combat "to hit"
roll results than virtually any other game system, with far less
complexity than most games. In that case, clear plastic overlays are used
with diagrams of the target--simply lay the overlay on the target, make a
skill roll, and compare numbers. Hit location, target position, and cover
are all accounted for, in a visual manner that ensures that all
participants are reading from the same sheet of music. Elegant,
low-complexity solutions are out there, if you're willing to get away
from the "consult table x" style of design.
Charles Ryan
Chameleon Eclectic
c...@bev.net
http://skynet.bevc.blacksburg.va.us/cee/welcome.html
Rick Cordes
>Game Designers:
>
>I've been considering another game project, and I've been thinking about
>complexity and abstraction, and it seems to me that in most simulation
>and role-playing games that they are opposites (which is to say that the
>more abstract a system is, the less complex it is).
>
>Suppose I'm doing an RPG combat system. I find that if I want it to be
>would have to abstract reality.
The natural assumption is that realism = simulation = complexity
but I think it is somewhat mistaken to think that you need to simulate
reality to achieve realistic outcomes in a game. In designing a RPG, the
trick is to incorporate all the realistic features that are desired in
a manner which is both playable and has a realistic feel, i.e., a
realistic game rather than a boring simulation.
>
>In this way of thinking, all games are, to one degree or another,
>abstractions of reality. The quality of a game depends largely on the
>type and kind of abstractions involved (obviously).
... or based on abstractions of reality to give the game some kind
of feel. The type or kind of abstractions involved are obviously those
that turn it into a game. Simulation is of interest to the degree it
achieves particular ends; abstractions are of interest to the degree
they achieve realistic results. Dice interpretations are at the
interface of this; the not uncommon feeling is that there is
something mistaken or straight-jacketed by what is thereby achieved.
As need be certain things need to be explicitly simulated but in the
main things it is more important to have the sense that all the factors
that should be accounted for are being taken care of implicitly without
resort to explicit simulation. Where and how one draws the line here is
what game quality is all about.
Jason Newquist
: Jason, you have a great deal of insight -- have you designed a game before?
Only in my head. I've been a long-time ponderer of games and game
studies, however. Currently, I'm developing some games for the
Macintosh. One way that computer game designers can really put a twist
on certain kinds of computer games is to see what games excel in other
mediums, and attempt to adapt them to an electronic medium and gauge the
results. This is a fascinating yet tangential issue. ;)
: Seriously, this topic has been much on my mind of late since I am current
: developing the next generation of a great air combat system. Needless to
: say, air combat is quite complex and there is an effective lower limit to
: how simple you can make the game and still reflect a reasonable degree of
: accuracy. However, I've come to the conclusion that playability and detail
: (the opposite of abstraction in this context) do represent a trade-off,
: but complexity and realism (and the other combinations) and not true
: tradeoffs. It is possible in principle to design a highly playable, very
: realistic game -- but it ain't easy. This is where the "genius" of game
: design comes in.
Several people previously in the thread have made the astute and correct
observation that I was mixing oil and water when I glibly switched terms
from "complex" to "realistic" (Rick Cordes and Charles Ryan get this
week's "Sematics Snooper Award of Excellence").
On the other hand, I was not speaking of representations of reality
(which can be simple and realistic both), but the inner working of game
-systems-. The fact is that reality is complex, and any game that can
even make a claim at being "realistic" had better represent their scope
of reality in two ways: exhaustively (within their frame) and with
depth. To me, this sounds like strikingly close to complexity. It may
not be complex in every case, but in most cases for game designers,
representing reality is a recipe for complexity.
That being said, let's look at games. Games, by definition, abstract
reality. They have to, or else they would be simulations. I suppose
many gamers would see the holodeck of Star Trek: Next Generation as the
ultimate game engine (just as therapists would see it as the ultimate
therapy machine, and scientists as the ultimate simulator, etc
etc....this is actually an interesting point...I've often thought that an
excellent way of evaluating a culture is by seeing what ends their
technology is aiming for; many of our technologies aim and seem to
converge at the "reality simulation" machine; I wonder what this says
about us as a culture?). Other people--those with whom I would
agree--say that games have to simplify the workings of some facet
of reality. The method of this simplification is the meat of the game,
and the type of reality simplified is the flavor of the meat.
I'll be the first one to agree that certain parts of reality do not need
simplification (sign the loan or not), and those things are simply not
good candidates for gameplay. If we're talking, as I was, about game
systems (like an RPG or WG's combat or economy system), then specific and
hard-nosed choices have to be made about what level of complexity to
import into the game. Since you are a game designer, you cannot import
all reality into your game. You have to make choices, and attmept to
abstract the portions of reality that you lopped off into the rules of
the game.
One way to solve part of this problem is to ignore a certain degree of
detail below a threshold. This is what happens when an RPG, for example,
does not want to deal with inflation and currency changes over time.
They just simply assume that the currency value is frozen. Combat
systems have these sorts of ignorings all over the place: below a certain
level, the wound your player gets is just a wound. The combat system
(like in AD&D) may not locate the would to a specific part of your
character's body, for example. For AD&D players, that may be to
cumbersome, and not add much flavor to the game (others argue this
point).
Okay, okay. Ramble ramble. The idea that I have about game design is
that there are discernable limits to the amount of detail/complexity that
a person wants to play with. This varies with the person, but clearly
you are designing a game whose object is (probably) to provide not an
alternate reality, but a slice of reality that's abstracted, and that
allows the players to engage in methods of thought that are somewhat
enjoyable. A perfect simulation that lets you pay bills is not fun at
all, but one that lets you move pieces on a grid and cast spells might
be. What I'm after is trying to find where people draw the line,
attemping to see if the elusive Good Game Design Rules (whatever they
might be) say anything on this issue. The more of these rules we can
hunt down and examine, the better our time is spent, and more worthwhile
the results of these discussions can be, I think. It's merely been my
impression that a great many of these rules revolve around an
understanding of issues of complexity (of the game) and abstraction (of
reality).
(I just know I've been rambling. I'm sorry. Best I can do at 2am!)
.............. ........ ......................
Diane Kelly
they are doing is in fact _pretending_ to simulate it. Nobody really
believes that attacking someone with a sword is just a matter of
percentages (do they?). But rolling under a skill level to hit _feels_
like a good simulation.
Therein lies the key. A game designer isn't really simulating reality,
he's creating rules that _convince the players he is simulating
reality_. This may seem like just a bit of juggling semantics, but it's
really quite important. Players are like the readers of a story. The
author of the story doesn't have to know (or reveal) everything about his
characters and setting, just enough to make the reader think, "yes, that
could have happened."
Note that some stories throw the illusion of reality out of the
window completely (magic realism, etc.). They have their echo in games
which deliberately do not simulate reality in the interests of simulating
a particular genre. _Toon_, for example is realistic only in the context
of animated cartoons. Such games have rules which nobody would call
realistic, because when we say realistic we mean games that convince us
they simulate "real life."
So a designer doesn't so much have to worry about accurately
representing reality as he does about _convincingly_ representing it.
Look at Berg's _Campaign for North Africa_: it gets so bogged down
simulating reality that it is almost unplayable.
To sum up:
Simulation only has to be good enough to fool the players
Reality is defined by the genre
All simulations are just approximations
Hope this isn't too disjointed or dogmatic.
Jim Cambias
"A Perfectly Realistic Game Would Be As Dull As Reality"
Misusing My Wife's Internet Access
From Home
Jason Newquist
: Consider also that since all games cannot actually simulate reality, what
: they are doing is in fact _pretending_ to simulate it. Nobody really
: believes that attacking someone with a sword is just a matter of
: percentages (do they?). But rolling under a skill level to hit _feels_
: like a good simulation.
Ooo. This is a rather good point. All of a sudden the rules we make
have several ways they can be good: (1) they are simple enough for the
average target player to reasonably operate within, (2) they are
consistent with the other rules, (3) they have an aesthetic feel that
suits the genre and style of the game.
This is a terrific point when taken in abstract (and codified as I did
above), but let's not forget that all games are not simulations. For
instance, I don't think that games like Go, Craps or Poker are
anything near a simulation of something. Rather, they are more centered
around a concept: Go, strategy; Craps, educated guessing; Poker, also
educated guessing, but things like bluffing and card counting as well.
: To sum up:
: Simulation only has to be good enough to fool the players
In games where simulation is the point, yes, I agree.
Until next time,
Andrew Finch
: To sum up:
: Simulation only has to be good enough to fool the players
: Reality is defined by the genre
: All simulations are just approximations
: Hope this isn't too disjointed or dogmatic.
No, I believe you.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Travis S Casey
>Consider also that since all games cannot actually simulate reality, what
>they are doing is in fact _pretending_ to simulate it. Nobody really
>believes that attacking someone with a sword is just a matter of
>percentages (do they?). But rolling under a skill level to hit _feels_
>like a good simulation.
Huh? I'm afraid that I don't understand the distinction you're
making... using skill levels, etc. *is* a simulation of reality. It
may not be an *accurate* simulation, but it is a simulation
nonetheless.
>window completely (magic realism, etc.). They have their echo in games
>which deliberately do not simulate reality in the interests of simulating
>a particular genre. _Toon_, for example is realistic only in the context
>of animated cartoons. Such games have rules which nobody would call
>realistic, because when we say realistic we mean games that convince us
>they simulate "real life."
> So a designer doesn't so much have to worry about accurately
>representing reality as he does about _convincingly_ representing it.
>Look at Berg's _Campaign for North Africa_: it gets so bogged down
>simulating reality that it is almost unplayable.
>
> To sum up:
> Simulation only has to be good enough to fool the players
> Reality is defined by the genre
> All simulations are just approximations
All RPG's simulate reality; however, the reality which they simulate
is not necessarily *this* reality; in many cases, it is a reality
which has been created specifically for the game.
However, if you plan on using your system again for another purpose,
or are trying to make a universal-type system, I think it best to
try to simulate "real" reality as much as possible. Why? Because
almost all genres of fiction are based on real reality to some
extent. Thus, if you have a game that simulates real reality,
simulating fictional genres becomes a matter of simply modifying
those sections that don't "fit" the genre.
I agree that simulations don't have to be accurate, just convincing;
however, these two goals are complementary (i.e., accurate simulations
are generally convincing, and in order to be convincing, a simulation
has to be at least somewhat accurate). Indeed, in some cases, it
may be better to go for a simulation that is more accurate and less
convincing. As an example, consider a science-fiction RPG's rules
for the effects of vacuum on a human body. Thanks to years of stories,
movies, etc. showing bodies exposed to vacuum freezing, exploding,
having their eyeballs pop out, etc., most people will find games in
which this happens to be more convincing which treat vacuum
exposure accurately. Which should be used, then?
(Note, BTW, that I'm thinking of "hard" SF here, not science-fantasy
along the lines of Star Wars).
Lastly, it's good to remember the "expert factor"; namely, the more
experience players have with a given aspect of a game, the more accurate
they generally want it to be. You need to take your intended audience into
account when designing a game.
--
Travis S. Casey <ca...@cs.fsu.edu>
FAQ maintainer for rec.games.design
<A funny quote should go here>
Diane Kelly
> >Consider also that since all games cannot actually simulate reality, what
> >they are doing is in fact _pretending_ to simulate it. Nobody really
> >believes that attacking someone with a sword is just a matter of
> >percentages (do they?). But rolling under a skill level to hit _feels_
> >like a good simulation.
>
> Huh? I'm afraid that I don't understand the distinction you're
> making... using skill levels, etc. *is* a simulation of reality. It
> may not be an *accurate* simulation, but it is a simulation
> nonetheless.
This may sound like I'm bandying semantics, but game rules are a
representation of reality, not a simulation. They have to be -- a true
simulation would have to exist in a system more complex than the real
world. Anyway, because game rules represent the world rather than
simulate it, the question of "realistic" rules becomes simply whether or
not they represent reality in a way that convinces players it is
"realistic." Much of this depends on chrome -- let's face it, most guns
will do roughly the same thing if you shoot someone with them. But a
whole firearms table with lots of finicky damage modifiers and range
bonuses satisfies players that they have bought a "realistic" game,
whereas a single listing under "guns" would make them think otherwise.
>
> >window completely (magic realism, etc.). They have their echo in games
> >which deliberately do not simulate reality in the interests of simulating
> >a particular genre. _Toon_, for example is realistic only in the context
> >of animated cartoons. Such games have rules which nobody would call
> >realistic, because when we say realistic we mean games that convince us
> >they simulate "real life."
> > So a designer doesn't so much have to worry about accurately
> >representing reality as he does about _convincingly_ representing it.
> >Look at Berg's _Campaign for North Africa_: it gets so bogged down
> >simulating reality that it is almost unplayable.
> >
> > To sum up:
> > Simulation only has to be good enough to fool the players
> > Reality is defined by the genre
> > All simulations are just approximations
>
> All RPG's simulate reality; however, the reality which they simulate
> is not necessarily *this* reality; in many cases, it is a reality
> which has been created specifically for the game.
>
Indeed. In fact, I think that is a major factor in the recent wave of
games with very setting-specific mechanics, rather than the previous
generation of Ultimate Universal Systems. (Not that I'm against either
trend, mind you. Games like GURPS give the hobby a good solid
"backbone," while systems like Whispering Vault provide a testbed for new
ideas.)
> However, if you plan on using your system again for another purpose,
> or are trying to make a universal-type system, I think it best to
> try to simulate "real" reality as much as possible. Why? Because
> almost all genres of fiction are based on real reality to some
> extent. Thus, if you have a game that simulates real reality,
> simulating fictional genres becomes a matter of simply modifying
> those sections that don't "fit" the genre.
>
This is really the difference between adaptability and specialization. A
specialized game system will be best for its own world, but won't have
much applicability elsewhere. A universal system like GURPS or HERO will
usually be not-as-good in a specific setting, but has the advantage of
adaptability. It's a trade-off, and every player and gamemaster must
decide what's more important.
> I agree that simulations don't have to be accurate, just convincing;
> however, these two goals are complementary (i.e., accurate simulations
> are generally convincing, and in order to be convincing, a simulation
> has to be at least somewhat accurate). Indeed, in some cases, it
> may be better to go for a simulation that is more accurate and less
> convincing. As an example, consider a science-fiction RPG's rules
> for the effects of vacuum on a human body. Thanks to years of stories,
> movies, etc. showing bodies exposed to vacuum freezing, exploding,
> having their eyeballs pop out, etc., most people will find games in
> which this happens to be more convincing which treat vacuum
> exposure accurately. Which should be used, then?
>
> (Note, BTW, that I'm thinking of "hard" SF here, not science-fantasy
> along the lines of Star Wars).
>
> Lastly, it's good to remember the "expert factor"; namely, the more
> experience players have with a given aspect of a game, the more accurate
> they generally want it to be. You need to take your intended audience into
> account when designing a game.
>
I'm not so sure of this. It's often been my experience that longtime
players become less concerned with the details of rules and simulations
as they get more involved in their characters and the unfolding
campaign. Your results may vary.
Jim Cambias
(This is someone else's amusing quote.)
Alice Holt
Diane Kelly says :
>Therein lies the key. A game designer isn't really simulating reality,
>he's creating rules that _convince the players he is simulating
>reality_.
I agree entirely.
It is not the purpose of roleplaying games to accurately simulate reality,
but to effectively emulate fiction.
Simon Hibbs
yfc...@castle.ed.ac.uk
Andrew Finch
: This may sound like I'm bandying semantics, but game rules are a
: representation of reality, not a simulation. They have to be -- a true
: simulation would have to exist in a system more complex than the real
: world.
I agree. However, this discussion has been missing a vital point. The
purpose of rules in an RPG is fundamentally different from that in a
tactical wargame, from which RPGs derived.
The Ref. in an RPG is not neutral, nor unbiased, nor should he/she be.
The Ref. in an RPG creates a world/story/environment. The rules are there
to assist the Ref. in adjudications. The Ref. may have various biases,
hopefully fairly based on the actions of the players, and hopefully
applied equally to all players.
The Ref. in a wargame is non-existent, based on the rules themselves,
which must provide an even playing field for a set of opponents in a
tactical simulation. The rules must limit the set of possible actions
into a framework which is complex enough to provide a tactical challenge,
and yet easy enough to be used. Part of the fun is seeing how complex you
can get those rules, providing a better unbiased simulation of the
environment, while still having them usable. And part of the fun is in
seeing how much realism you can pack (ie., simulation power) into the
simplest set of rules.
RPGs function on an entirely different level. The simulation is way out
of bounds of anything that a wargame would ever be expected to handle.
The GM is there to handle the simulation. The rules should be there to
assist the GM in the decision process, yet most rule sets cling to the
wargame methodology, and attempt to directly simulate outcomes, leaving
the GM to handle modifiers for differing situations. What you get is a
very limited subset of possibilities, which whenever used, turn the play
into a wargame.
Here's a simple example of what I'm trying to say:
A PC fires a gun at a moving target down a dark alley, with partial cover,
at night, with lighting provided by streetlamps outside the alley. Not an
uncommon RPG situation.
With your own common sense, write out the set of all possible
consequences. Just put down what comes off the top of your head, and stop
when the ideas stop flowing immediately and become difficult. That is the
set of all possible outcomes derived by human simulation. The question is
which one to use?
Look at the same situation in the light of present RPG rule sets. The
rules define the space of probable outcomes, while the dice select one of
these outcomes in a semi-random manner, such that the frequency of
selection will form a normal curve (on the basis that the normal curve
represents the most 'realistic' representation of outcome frequencies).
So look at the space of possible outcomes. Write them down. Compare those
to the list you got on your own above. Which method provides more detail?
Which method had the greatest range of possible outcomes? Which method
used the fewest rules? Which method was the most complex to handle?
In most cases, the answers I get are:
The human method has a far greater depth of detail.
The human method has a far greater range of results.
The rules method used the fewest rules (the human method used a huge mass
of unstated and highly complex rules, which far outstrip the rule set of
any RPG game mechanic).
The rules method was more complex to handle.
Common sense would seem to be the most realistic way of generating sets
of possible outcomes to these situations, with the most detail, in the
easiest manner. The problem is that you may not know which one to pick.
The rules method picks a result for you, which follows some reasonable
normal curve. My theory is that which one you pick doesn't really matter.
That outcomes in life don't follow a normal curve, and that situations
are repeated in a similar way so few times that you could pick randomly
(that is completely randomly) from the set of possible outcomes, and no
one would ever know the difference. That 'realism' is not a function of
statistical repetition in a realistic frequency pattern, but a product of
detail and reasonable description instead. So that you can get highly
detailed, very 'realistic' outcomes, with hardly any simulation rules at
all. What is required are methods of guiding the process of GM decision,
rather than using the GM to guide the process of rules based decision.
My 2 cents
David
John H Kim
I think that there are a wide variety RPG's: _Twilight 2000_,
_Paranoia_, and _Psychosis_ share that they are games and hence
entertainment - but the philosophies behind them are quite different.
Alice Holt <yfc...@castle.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Diane Kelly says :
>>A game designer isn't really simulating reality, he's creating rules
>>that _convince the players he is simulating reality_.
...
>It is not the purpose of roleplaying games to accurately simulate
>reality, but to effectively emulate fiction.
Hmmmm. You might prefer RPG's which try to emulate fiction,
but that is certainly not a description of all the RPG's which are
out there. There are a lot of RPG's whose intended purpose *is* to
simulate at least part of reality: have a look at BTRC's _TimeLords_
and _Guns, Guns, Guns_; or just look at GURPS.
A lot of players and GM's take reality seriously - they have a
genuine interest in doing things "realistically" (while they might not
all mean the same thing by that word).
For example, a hard sci-fi fan might not know what the damage
caused by a free-electron laser would be at 5,000km. You could probably
fool him by a likely-sounding answer. Nevertheless, what he really
wants is a *realistic* answer, and he will be much more impressed by
a game which is genuinely informative - based on scientific research,
say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
Columbia University | - Stephen Sondheim, _Assassins_
Andrew Finch
: For example, a hard sci-fi fan might not know what the damage
: caused by a free-electron laser would be at 5,000km. You could probably
: fool him by a likely-sounding answer. Nevertheless, what he really
: wants is a *realistic* answer, and he will be much more impressed by
: a game which is genuinely informative - based on scientific research,
: say.
So would I. And you might, just might be able to base your free-electron
laser (whatever that is) range table on some hard scientific evidence, but
you have to be hard core to even try. As soon as you try to get some
'realism' into hyperspace jump drives, and genetic replicants, and even
nanotech boosters, your are really just making stuff up to sound
'realistic'. I think people just mostly feel uncomfortable without the
table in front of them. Whether you want to solve this problem by
continuing to provide tables, or in educating your gaming public and doing
away with such things in favor of other mechanisms, is certainly
debatable. I know where I stand on that debate.
David
Jason Newquist
: However, this discussion has been missing a vital point.
: The Ref. in an RPG is not neutral, nor unbiased, nor should he/she be.
: The Ref. in an RPG creates a world/story/environment. The rules are there
: to assist the Ref. in adjudications. The Ref. may have various biases,
: hopefully fairly based on the actions of the players, and hopefully
: applied equally to all players.
I don't think this makes much difference, to be honest. Sure, you have
two different sorts of games being played, but the idea in each is to
create the feel of a reality to a degree sufficient to satisfy the
players. The fact that you have a human moderator versus a rulebook
makes little difference in the long haul. After all, the human (game
master) is bound by rules himself.
: RPGs function on an entirely different level. The simulation is way out
: of bounds of anything that a wargame would ever be expected to handle.
Right, there are two sorts of "approximated simulations" going on, each
toward differnet ends. The RPG attempts to simulate processes A and B,
while the wargame simulates X and Y. The fact that you need a different
process to mediate the game (GM or a rulebook) should not be suprising
given that you are dealing with significantly different target processes.
I think I'm agreeing with you, here, Andrew.
Ooo...sounds technical. :)
: In most cases, the answers I get are:
: The human method has a far greater depth of detail.
: The human method has a far greater range of results.
: The rules method used the fewest rules (the human method used a huge mass
: of unstated and highly complex rules, which far outstrip the rule set of
: any RPG game mechanic).
: The rules method was more complex to handle.
In this way, I think you can go on a tangent from this discussion and
divide games up in to two groups: open and closed. Open games are those
where the number of possible outcomes are unknown until game-time,
whereas closed games have a predictable, finite set of outcomes. The
same would apply for processes by which the game proceeds, I think. Hrm.
Interesting.
: Common sense would seem to be the most realistic way of generating sets
: of possible outcomes to these situations, with the most detail, in the
: easiest manner. The problem is that you may not know which one to pick.
: The rules method picks a result for you, which follows some reasonable
: normal curve. My theory is that which one you pick doesn't really matter.
I would agree.
: That outcomes in life don't follow a normal curve, and that situations
: are repeated in a similar way so few times that you could pick randomly
: (that is completely randomly) from the set of possible outcomes, and no
: one would ever know the difference. That 'realism' is not a function of
: statistical repetition in a realistic frequency pattern, but a product of
: detail and reasonable description instead. So that you can get highly
: detailed, very 'realistic' outcomes, with hardly any simulation rules at
: all. What is required are methods of guiding the process of GM decision,
: rather than using the GM to guide the process of rules based decision.
So we return to the point I made originally: the fact that the wargame is
disjointed from the processes we percieve in everyday life is evidence
for the fact that it is more abstracted (and therefore yielding less
complex situations, processes, outcomes). Take it to the limit: Go or
Chess is essentially simplified warfare (I think the histories of these
games show this). The idea is that with careful, brilliant
simplification you isolate certain elements of strategic principles that
the players can exploit and explore while playing the game. On the other
end of the spectrum, RPGs show that a rich game experience can be had by
those who do not isolate a few principles, but instead try to form
matrices of converging principles (of gameplay).
Does anyone understand this? Geez, I hope so!
................................................
Charles Ryan
jh...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu writes:
>There are a lot of RPG's whose intended purpose *is* to
>simulate at least part of reality
[...]
> For example, a hard sci-fi fan might not know what the damage
>caused by a free-electron laser would be at 5,000km. You could probably
>fool him by a likely-sounding answer. Nevertheless, what he really
>wants is a *realistic* answer, and he will be much more impressed by
>a game which is genuinely informative - based on scientific research,
>say.
Gotta disgree with you on this one, John. As the author of one of the
more reality-obsessed rpgs out there (as well as the above-mentioned
Psychosis, at the other extreme), I can tell you that the reason it's
that way is not because it's simulating reality, but because it's
simulating the feel of a genre (in this case, technothrillers) that has a
very realistic feel. You said it youself--the player above is a "hard
sci-fi" fan. He loves a genre in which realism is important, and that's
why he wants it in his game.
John H Kim
an assertion that games only have to simulate fiction, not "reality".
I suggested that a lot of role-playing gamers were genuinely interested
in "realism" (which may mean different things to different people).
IMO, these gamers are, in fact, looking for games which try to simulate
reality rather than fiction.
Now, it is obviously an open question how best to simulate
reality. Some games opt for an exceptionally detailed approach (like
_Phoenix Command_, with its quarter-second turns). OTOH, something
which simulates at a less detailed level is no less "realistic".
(For example, _Harpoon_ is an exceptionally "realistic" simulation
of naval combat - but it does not try to simulate the affect of an
individual shot against a ship).
-*-*-*-
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>John H Kim (jh...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: For example, a hard sci-fi fan might not know what the damage caused
>: by a free-electron laser would be at 5,000km. You could probably fool
>: him by a likely-sounding answer. Nevertheless, what he really wants is
>: a *realistic* answer, and he will be much more impressed by a game which
>: is genuinely informative - based on scientific research, say.
>
>So would I. And you might, just might be able to base your free-electron
>laser (whatever that is) range table on some hard scientific evidence, but
>you have to be hard core to even try. As soon as you try to get some
>'realism' into hyperspace jump drives, and genetic replicants, and even
>nanotech boosters, your are really just making stuff up to sound
>'realistic'.
That is spurious - there are many different levels of "realism".
For example, many games introduce FTL travel which, because of Relativity,
technically allows players to time travel (that is, create loops which
break causality) - without addressing the consequences. OTOH, if someone
understands Relativity, one can create an FTL system which respects
Relativity and causality.
Similarly, a game which imposes thermodynamic limits and similar
restrictions on nanotech is more realistic than one which treats them
as do-anything "magic". It could even describe the hypothetical
bucky-ball-like molecules which contain and protect the mechanisms,
and so forth - based on current research.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>I think people just mostly feel uncomfortable without the table in front
>of them. Whether you want to solve this problem by continuing to provide
>tables, or in educating your gaming public and doing away with such things
>in favor of other mechanisms, is certainly debatable. I know where I stand
>on that debate.
Well, before I can debate, I would have to ask: what other methods
are you referring to? Obviously a lot depends on what you are trying to
simulate. I generally prefer simple formulas to tables - but I prefer
tables to anything which requires a calculator.
For example, I think that BTRC's _Guns, Guns, Guns_ is one of the
more informative supplements on realism/reality. It has a lot of tables
for various parameters - which I don't think detract from its being
informative.
That is, what would be your model for a game which "educates its
gaming public" while doing away with such things?
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: That is spurious - there are many different levels of "realism".
: For example, many games introduce FTL travel which, because of Relativity,
: technically allows players to time travel (that is, create loops which
: break causality) - without addressing the consequences. OTOH, if someone
: understands Relativity, one can create an FTL system which respects
: Relativity and causality.
That is also spurious. The Mote in God's Eye is a great SF book, and
probably a wonderful world in which to create a game. The technology is
well integrated with the story, and 'sounds' realistic. It has nothing to
do with relativity, and explains the way in which things work, rather
than how things work. This is the way in which most SF books operate. You
rearely see the equations behind those FTL drives. They may borrow bits
and pieces from current physics and research, to give the book an air of
authenticity. I think that's neat. But you hardly need range tables for
for free lectron lasers to accomplish this. Realism is a product of a
good imagination, the right jargon, and a well integrated world and
technology, and not scientific research.
: Well, before I can debate, I would have to ask: what other methods
: are you referring to? Obviously a lot depends on what you are trying to
: simulate. I generally prefer simple formulas to tables - but I prefer
: tables to anything which requires a calculator.
I prefer a good story to either tables or calculators. I don't think you
need mechanics to simulate reality well, even in an SF game.
: That is, what would be your model for a game which "educates its
: gaming public" while doing away with such things?
Oh, now that's a loaded question.
David
Erik Max Francis
> That is spurious - there are many different levels of "realism".
> For example, many games introduce FTL travel which, because of Relativity,
> technically allows players to time travel (that is, create loops which
> break causality) - without addressing the consequences. OTOH, if someone
> understands Relativity, one can create an FTL system which respects
> Relativity and causality.
This is simply incorrect. No matter how you look at it,
faster-than-light travel violates relativity (special, anyway; general
relativity doesn't prohibit it explicitly, but for it requires spacetime
curvatures that are unrealistic to be manufactured).
Even if you only allow special frames of reference (the Alderson drive
from _The Mote in God's Eye_ essentially does this), you're still
violating relativity, because special frames violate the relativity
principle, which forms one of the essential postulates for special
relativity.
The way you do it is you describe briefly the idea behind it (but don't
go into too much depth, or else you're going to show yourself for the
fraud you are), describe the rules behind using it, and describe the
rules behind what it does. That's it. Specifically, don't _ever_ try to
explain why it is allowed by relativity, because it as a matter of
principle won't be.
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max m...@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA ... GIGO, Hg, Omega, Universe, Psi ... ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- ftmfbs kmmfa mc2 / \
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt. ("All things that are, are lights.") -><- \_/
"We all may have come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now."
Frank Pitt
>
>John H Kim (jh...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>
>: For example, a hard sci-fi fan might not know what the damage
>: caused by a free-electron laser would be at 5,000km. You could probably
>: fool him by a likely-sounding answer. Nevertheless, what he really
>: wants is a *realistic* answer, and he will be much more impressed by
>: a game which is genuinely informative - based on scientific research,
>: say.
>
>So would I. And you might, just might be able to base your free-electron
>laser (whatever that is) range table on some hard scientific evidence, but
>you have to be hard core to even try. As soon as you try to get some
>'realism' into hyperspace jump drives, and genetic replicants, and even
>nanotech boosters, your are really just making stuff up to sound
>'realistic'.
I disagree.
The hardest of the above to explain is FTL, the others are simple and
quite easy to explian in _accurate_ scientific terms.
Even FTl can be made "realistic" by only allowing it to divert from accepted
physics in one way rather than several.
Traveller's FTL for example neatly avoided the usual time pardoxes
generated by FTL by arbitrarily making the jump last a finite amount
of time. And once back in normal space (if you ignored the grav vehicle)
the rest of the rules followed known physics pretty well.
>I think people just mostly feel uncomfortable without the
>table in front of them. Whether you want to solve this problem by
>continuing to provide tables,
Tables, IMO, are irrelevant. What is required is a believable,
internally consistent framework, that is properly explained
for those that want to know those things.
A table may in some cases be the best way to present that information,
but _that_ decision is the job of the graphic design / documentation
consultant, not the culture or rules designer.
IE: tables are an interface design decision, not an algorithm decsion,
Frankie
John H Kim
In a previous article, I had stated that there are RPG's which try to
simulate reality, and there are players who *like* it this way (giving
the example of a hard sci-fi fan who would like a game which is genuinely
informative on things like how much damage a laser causes).
Charles Ryan <c...@bev.net> wrote:
>Gotta disgree with you on this one, John. As the author of one of the
>more reality-obsessed rpgs out there (as well as the above-mentioned
>Psychosis, at the other extreme), I can tell you that the reason it's
>that way is not because it's simulating reality, but because it's
>simulating the feel of a genre (in this case, technothrillers) that has a
>very realistic feel. You said it youself--the player above is a "hard
>sci-fi" fan. He loves a genre in which realism is important, and that's
>why he wants it in his game.
Err- hold on. So what are you disagreeing with? Are you saying
that you are not trying to simulate reality - only fiction? I suppose
in theory, one can make a distinction between:
A] Simulating techno-thriller fiction which simulates reality
B] Simulating reality like techno-thriller fiction
However, is there a functional difference between these two?
In order to develop your "realistic" rules, did you compare solely to
the text of the novels, or did you - like the authors - study reality
and try to base the mechanics on that?
If you were doing an original hard sci-fi game, would you try
to simulate all the science mistakes which previous authors have made -
or would you use real science instead?
-*-*-*-
My point is that - for *whatever* reason - there are games which
are concerned with simulating reality. I made no claims as to *why* -
that leads into confusing questions, like what "realistic genre" is GURPS
trying to simulate, or _Harnmaster_, and so forth.
John H Kim
point (in a previous article) was that there are RPG's which try to
simulate at least parts of "reality" as well as RPG's which try to
simulate fiction. This was intended as a simple statement of fact:
these games exist, and some people like them.
To be more specific: _TimeLords_, _Harnmaster_, and GURPS (to
name a few) all make a point about being "realistic". As far as I can
tell, this is not in an effort to simulate a genre of fiction - but
rather an attempt to simulate reality.
-*-*-*-
This is mostly in reply to David Berkman - on the example of a
hypothetical "hard sci-fi" RPG. (Really, I am confused as to what he is
arguing.) He had suggested that as soon as sci-fi moves into the realms
of FTL travel, or genetic manipulation, or nanotech - that you are just
making up something that "sounds realistic".
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>John H Kim (jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: That is spurious - there are many different levels of "realism".
>: For example, many games introduce FTL travel which, because of Relativity,
>: technically allows players to time travel (that is, create loops which
>: break causality) - without addressing the consequences. OTOH, if someone
>: understands Relativity, one can create an FTL system which respects
>: Relativity and causality.
>
>That is also spurious. The Mote in God's Eye is a great SF book, and
>probably a wonderful world in which to create a game. The technology is
>well integrated with the story, and 'sounds' realistic.
So what is your point? Sure - there is quality sci-fi fiction
which has "bad science". I'm not much of a sci-fi fan, but I certainly
haven't noticed much of a correlation between good science and good
literature.
However, there is still a difference between "good science" and
explanations which "sounds good". You may say that it doesn't matter -
since "bad science" may produce equally interesting stories. However,
there are people who care about this - enough to calculate the stress
on Niven's Ringworld, or theorize about skyhooks and calculate the
tensile strength needed.
Which is simply my original point over again: there are people
who care about "realism". Otherwise, who on earth would buy _Phoenix
Command_?
-*-*-*-
>
>This is the way in which most SF books operate. You rarely see the
>equations behind those FTL drives. They may borrow bits and pieces from
>current physics and research, to give the book an air of authenticity. I
>think that's neat. But you hardly need range tables for for free lectron
>lasers to accomplish this. Realism is a product of a good imagination,
>the right jargon, and a well integrated world and technology, and not
>scientific research.
Oh, no! Do we have to have a Berkmanese definition for "realism"
now, too? (NOTE: a reference to various semantic confusions which occurred
on rec.games.frp.advocacy). Regardless of the semantics, I think there
is a difference between a writer who:
A] Learns some jargon, and writes an imaginative story which incidentally
uses the jargon for atmosphere.
B] Researches his subject, and draws upon that research as inspiration
for his story.
Regardless of how you label these two - I think there are people
who care about [B], and thus appreciate a game or story whose subject is
well researched before it is written. (i.e. historical and factual
research and accuracy for a historical novel; scientific research for
sci-fi or techno-thriller; etc.)
That doesn't mean that method [B] produces better stories - but
simply that it has a draw for at least some people.
Charles Ryan
jh...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu writes:
>Are you saying
>that you are not trying to simulate reality - only fiction? I suppose
>in theory, one can make a distinction between:
>
>A] Simulating techno-thriller fiction which simulates reality
>
>B] Simulating reality like techno-thriller fiction
There's a third option:
C] Creating a model that conveys the feel of the genre through deliberate
decisions on how detailed/abstract and realistic/cinimatic the mechnics
are.
I may be splitting hairs when I use the word "model" instead of
"simulation," but I believe that there are important differences between
the two and that the former is more appropriate.
>In order to develop your "realistic" rules, did you compare solely to
>the text of the novels, or did you - like the authors - study reality
>and try to base the mechanics on that?
Well, both, really. I looked to the genre to give me guidance on how much
attention I should pay to accuracy and detail--in the case of
technothrillers, the genre demanded that I base my mechanics of what
happens in reality, with little alteration. However, if Millennium's End
were based on the modern Rambo-style action-adventure movies, I would
need to start my model with reality, then alter it to allow muscle-bound
PCs to hose down bad guys with M60s fired full-auto with one hand. If I
were instead writing Toon, the genre would tell me to pretty much ignore
reality.
In all of these cases--there's no real distinct difference between the
"realistic" game and the non-realistic ones--the model is as detailed and
realistic its genre demands. In some cases the designer starts with
reality (or his or her perception of it) and stays close to it, in some
he or she doesn't. But rpgs generally don't simulate reality for its own
sake. And gamers who seek realism in games do so because that's their
gaming style--the demands of the "genre" of their campaigns.
Rick Cordes
> This concerns the question of "realism" in games, a re-reply to
>an assertion that games only have to simulate fiction, not "reality".
>I suggested that a lot of role-playing gamers were genuinely interested
>in "realism" (which may mean different things to different people).
>IMO, these gamers are, in fact, looking for games which try to simulate
>reality rather than fiction.
>
> Now, it is obviously an open question how best to simulate
>reality. Some games opt for an exceptionally detailed approach (like
>_Phoenix Command_, with its quarter-second turns). OTOH, something
>which simulates at a less detailed level is no less "realistic".
>(For example, _Harpoon_ is an exceptionally "realistic" simulation
>of naval combat - but it does not try to simulate the affect of an
>individual shot against a ship).
In the context of a game the concern between simulating reality
and simulating fiction does seem equivocal. As you allude, a game can
generate realistic outcomes without simulating reality. Moreover, games
can simulate reality without either achieving realistic outcomes or
without achieving a realistic feel. Likewise with emulating fiction
and internal logic and "feel".
In the context of a game, everything else being equal, the
question as how to best simulate reality seems to be a min/max one:
whatever accomplishes the most, most efficiently: whatever gives players
the most options and handles the wisest variety of situations with the
least amount of time and effort.
>>I think people just mostly feel uncomfortable without the table in front
>>of them. Whether you want to solve this problem by continuing to provide
>>tables, or in educating your gaming public and doing away with such things
>>in favor of other mechanisms, is certainly debatable. I know where I stand
>>on that debate.
>
> Well, before I can debate, I would have to ask: what other methods
>are you referring to? Obviously a lot depends on what you are trying to
>simulate. I generally prefer simple formulas to tables - but I prefer
>tables to anything which requires a calculator.
>
> For example, I think that BTRC's _Guns, Guns, Guns_ is one of the
>more informative supplements on realism/reality. It has a lot of tables
>for various parameters - which I don't think detract from its being
>informative.
All hail BTRC's contribution to game design in general. As
with GUNS, GUNS, GUNS withal, where ever possible, tables should be
left behind on the drafting board. Not a few tables in gaming may be
substituted by simple formulas, and even more may be achieved by
"other methods".
"What you are trying to simulate" is secondary to the
question "how do you simulate things in general in the context of
a game". In the evolution of RPGs, the initial reaction was that the
rules used for mythic fantasy were neither in the first place realistic
nor lastly suited for emulating modern combat. The presumption has become
to design a universal, realistic system. This impetus has achieved mixed
success but has in the main split RPGers into various directions. In
general, one has to question the accomplishments in the field of RPG
design when the most popular development is a version of slap-jack.
Andrew Finch
: Err- hold on. So what are you disagreeing with? Are you saying
: that you are not trying to simulate reality - only fiction? I suppose
: in theory, one can make a distinction between:
: A] Simulating techno-thriller fiction which simulates reality
: B] Simulating reality like techno-thriller fiction
I think that's close.
: However, is there a functional difference between these two?
I would say so.
: In order to develop your "realistic" rules, did you compare solely to
: the text of the novels, or did you - like the authors - study reality
: and try to base the mechanics on that?
Is story a function of the interplay of technology, or is technology a
function of the interplay of story?
: If you were doing an original hard sci-fi game, would you try
: to simulate all the science mistakes which previous authors have made -
: or would you use real science instead?
Depends on the genre and the 'mistakes'.
: My point is that - for *whatever* reason - there are games which
: are concerned with simulating reality. I made no claims as to *why* -
: that leads into confusing questions, like what "realistic genre" is GURPS
: trying to simulate, or _Harnmaster_, and so forth.
I think those are very important questions.
David
Andrew Finch
: This is mostly in reply to David Berkman - on the example of a
: hypothetical "hard sci-fi" RPG. (Really, I am confused as to what he is
: arguing.) He had suggested that as soon as sci-fi moves into the realms
: of FTL travel, or genetic manipulation, or nanotech - that you are just
: making up something that "sounds realistic".
Actually, my point is that as soon as you sit down at the table, you are
doing this. However, we have a test in progress, where roughly modern day,
real world simulation will be important. I will use no dice, and no
simulation mechanics. You tell me how it goes. Unreal, game world physics,
like free- electron lasers, are admittredly harder. You need better
definitions to start with. I can do modern day with hardly any definitions
at all. They are all implicit. However, with good defintions, simulation
mechanics are once again unnecessary, and I find then counter-productive.
Their average ranges can be handled with common sense, and their extreme
ranges are almost always a botch. I can provide more detail, more options,
and I think more 'realism', working from a different basis altogether.
: So what is your point? Sure - there is quality sci-fi fiction
: which has "bad science". I'm not much of a sci-fi fan, but I certainly
: haven't noticed much of a correlation between good science and good
: literature.
Neither have I. That's part of the point. I think the Final Reflection was
a great book, with Star Trek science. The Mote in God's Eye is much harder
Sci-Fi, but works fine without a lot of hard science. Even books with a
lot of hard science are using it to create a genre. It's nuggets of truth,
well placed, which count for the most. They provide the stepping stones of
suspension of disbelief. Story is more important than a consistent
simulation of 'reality'.
: However, there is still a difference between "good science" and
: explanations which "sounds good". You may say that it doesn't matter -
: since "bad science" may produce equally interesting stories. However,
: there are people who care about this - enough to calculate the stress
: on Niven's Ringworld, or theorize about skyhooks and calculate the
: tensile strength needed.
Yes, the bits around which the suspension of disbelief are tied. Sure,
I'm all for it. But Niven also had 'luck' as a hereditary trait.
: Which is simply my original point over again: there are people
: who care about "realism". Otherwise, who on earth would buy _Phoenix
: Command_?
These are not people who care about realism. Realism can be achieved, and
in many cases better achieved, without the simulation engine. Any
simulation must be a simplification, and there are things that Pheonix
Command won't simulate.
So what are these people looking for? I would say an intricate tactical
wargame. Same reason I play Starfleet Battles. But I don't think it
provides realism. I think it provides an interesting and intricate
tactical challenge on an even battle field. That's not why I play an RPG.
Yes, it's a valid reason. But I think it's important to get at what those
reasons are, and why.
: Oh, no! Do we have to have a Berkmanese definition for "realism"
: now, too? (NOTE: a reference to various semantic confusions which occurred
: on rec.games.frp.advocacy).
Yeah, someone has got to get these things right.
: Regardless of the semantics, I think there
: is a difference between a writer who:
: A] Learns some jargon, and writes an imaginative story which incidentally
: uses the jargon for atmosphere.
: B] Researches his subject, and draws upon that research as inspiration
: for his story.
Sure. But you can be both types of writer. The choice is made for story
reasons.
: Regardless of how you label these two - I think there are people
: who care about [B], and thus appreciate a game or story whose subject is
: well researched before it is written. (i.e. historical and factual
: research and accuracy for a historical novel; scientific research for
: sci-fi or techno-thriller; etc.)
I like both Ars Magica, and the idea of doing Ironwood as an RPG. I don't
like Ars Magica *because* it has a lot of historical fact in it, I like
it because it creates an interesting genre.
: That doesn't mean that method [B] produces better stories - but
: simply that it has a draw for at least some people.
Yes. But I think you can produce a game with a lot of hard science fact,
without attempting to produce a reductionist simulation.
David
Diane Kelly
I think John Kim and Charles Ryan are arguing at cross-purposes. Kim is
saying (I think) that realism in games is a Good Thing, and that lots of
research by writers to make their games realistic is a Good Thing.
Nobody would gainsay that.
I believe Charles is supporting my earlier contention that
realism in games is mostly a matter of feel. When you create a game
system or a game world that is realistic, what you are really doing is
making one that convinces the players that it is realistic.
An example from writing fiction may make this clearer. If I write
a Western, I should do lots of research on the American West before I
begin, so that my cowboy story will seem realistic. But of course I am
living in Durham in 1995, not Dodge City in 1879. My story _cannot_ be
realistic. But if I do my research well, I can use enough period detail
so that the story will be consistent with what my readers know about the
period. They will think, "yes, that could have happened." I'm fooling
them into thinking it's realistic.
Now if I'm writing a science-fiction RPG, if I'm going to fool
tough customers like John Kim into accepting it as realistic, I'd better
do a buttload of research on physics, astronomy and biology; read up on
the latest speculations on future technology and daily life; bang on my
structure from all sides to make sure it doesn't ring hollow.
But it's still not realistic. In twenty years it'll probably
seem laughably out of date. But it convinces the reader now.
When we refer to a game as realistic, we mean that it does a good
job of fooling us. There are games which don't try to fool us. They
say, in effect, "we know this isn't realistic, but play along anyway."
Jim Cambias
Wildly Unrealistic
dtulloh
: jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
: > That is spurious - there are many different levels of "realism".
: > For example, many games introduce FTL travel which, because of
: > Relativity, technically allows players to time travel (that is,
: > create loops which break causality) - without addressing the
: > consequences. OTOH, if someone understands Relativity, one can
: > create an FTL system which respects Relativity and causality.
: This is simply incorrect. No matter how you look at it,
: faster-than-light travel violates relativity (special,
: anyway; general relativity doesn't prohibit it explicitly,
: but for it requires spacetime curvatures that are unrealistic
: to be manufactured).
Unrealistic given our level of knowledge and technology, you
mean? If this is what you meant, then I agree with you. However,
it is still possible that someone may come along and further
refine Relativity to allow the creation of warp fields, etc.
: Even if you only allow special frames of reference (the Alderson
: drive from _The Mote in God's Eye_ essentially does this), you're
: still violating relativity, because special frames violate the
: relativity principle, which forms one of the essential postulates
: for special relativity.
Wouldnt General Relativity be the acid test for this, and not
Special Relativity (which we know to be a subset of General)?
: The way you do it is you describe briefly the idea behind it
: (but don't go into too much depth, or else you're going to
: show yourself for the fraud you are), describe the rules
: behind using it, and describe the rules behind what it does.
: That's it. Specifically, don't _ever_ try to explain why it
: is allowed by relativity, because it as a matter of principle
: won't be.
I think what is important in novels is that the background have
the look and feel of authenticity - it is not necessary for them
to be authentic (realisitic). Novels where space travel is
common need to have SOME way to effect that travel, whether it
be through multi-generation ships, passengers in cryogenic
freeze, FTL travel, Jump drives, whatever. The math and physics
surrounding this technology is not that important. What *is*
important is that the universe you've created 'hangs together'
well and that any constructs you created don't seem artifical
within it.
Simulations vs Reality. Hmmmmmm....I could go on for days about
that! Reality is the world/universe as we know it to be. Do
simulations have to accurately reflect this? Not always. What
is important is that simulations accurately reflect the rules
of the universe in which your simulation is going to operate.
What do I mean by this? I mean that if you're going to build a
game around the dragonlance novels, then you need to design a
simulation of the magic system that remains true to those novels.
Whether it matches up with the world as we know it is unimportant.
My two cents worth.
Qaan
about more abstract games? For example, chess is based on abstract
formulae (i.e., pieces move in very specific ways) but is one of the most
complex games ever made. To become a good chess player, one must be able
to think abstractly, yet understand the complex interplay of possible
moves at any particular time in the positon at hand.
To think abstractly, one must "back up" and take a more overall view of
the situation. This helps to define the long-term goals of the player.
To accomplish this goal, one must devise a plan using the tools at hand
and take into account the situational complexities.
In a nutshell, I think that it's impossible to completely separate the two
for all practical purposes. It seems like they are simply two poles (like
infinity and negative infinity on a number line), and most of the time we
just use the middle area (-1,000,000 to 1,000,000).
Qaan
John H Kim
This is a *LONG* article regarding "FTL" travel and Relativity,
in reply to Erik Francis. (That's what you get for talking to a
physicist on the subject.)
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.darkside.com> wrote:
>John H Kim <jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu> writes:
>> OTOH, if someone understands Relativity, one can create an FTL system
>> which respects Relativity and causality.
>
>This is simply incorrect. No matter how you look at it, faster-than-light
>travel violates relativity (special, anyway; general relativity doesn't
>prohibit it explicitly, but for it requires spacetime curvatures that are
>unrealistic to be manufactured).
Uh, so what's incorrect? I didn't specify Special or General,
nor did I specify about the practicality of manufacturing the spacetime
curvatures.
To clarify the subject to others (and to demonstrate my thoughts
on the subject), I am going to post below a working first draft of a
"FAQ" on Relativity and FTL Travel. By all means - tell me what you
think, and/or ask more questions.
This is meant primarily for those who don't really understand
Relativity - it doesn't explain the theory in detail, but it gives some
idea of the complexities involved.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
=========================
RELATIVITY AND FTL TRAVEL
=========================
Faster-than-light travel between star systems is a staple of much
science fiction. SF authors thus come up with various pseudo-scientific
explanations for it. Consequently, there is a lot of confusion about the
Theory of Relativity. This is only natural - it is a very complicated
theory which even physicists often have trouble with.
Thus I am answering *some* of those questions here. Note: I am
a physicist, but I am not an expert in relativity. I will only speak
authoritatively about the simpler `Special Theory of Relativity', which
is correct as far as we know, but which cannot be used to solve certain
problems (in particular, those involving continuous acceleration).
For the benefit of those who want to deal with the math, I am
giving a summary of some common FTL explanations and what laws they
violate.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
The Explanations
----------------
In general, sci-fi FTL travel results in the possibility of
so-called "paradoxes". What this means is that _if_ relativity is true,
then the FTL travel will violate the principle of causality: that is,
that a cause must precede in time the effect it produces. Lack of
causality is known in sci-fi as "time travel", and is even more
complicated in theoretical physics than it is in the stories.
Specifically, here are some common explanations:
-*-*-*-
(1) Warp/Stutterwarp Drives
These posit starships which are able to bend space or skip through
it, resulting in continuous FTL transport through space, even though the
ship itself is undergoing no motion - acceleration or decceleration.
How good this sounds usually depends on the key words thrown in.
However, the lack of actual motion does not prevent the creation of
paradoxes. In fact, given the free-moving ship, it should be fairly
feasible to make practical use of them: for example, a ship detects an
explosion on a distant planet - it then alters its real velocity and
"warps" FTL to arrive at the scene before the explosion happened. This
is an extreme example, but a lot can be done with "arranged" paradoxes.
-*-*-*-
(2) Hyperspace/Jump Drives
These posit starships able to disappear from an arbitrary point
in space, and after some time (hours, days, even weeks later) reappear
at another point light-years away. The explanation is usually that the
ship has passed through some other dimension - such that the actual
motion of the ship was never actually faster than c.
The explanation may be fairly scientific-sounding, but this still
does not eliminate the possibility of paradox - the phenomena is the
same. However, it can be made more difficult for humanity making practical
use of the resulting paradoxes. For example, if the jumps are across
light-years, and take significant time (days), then it might be more of
a major project to create a "usable" paradox (i.e. you have to get up to
really significant relativistic speeds).
-*-*-*-
(3) Stargates/Wormholes
These explanations posit special points in space (either "natural"
or man-made), at which objects can instantly (or near-instantly) transport
to other distant points in space. Thus, a point by our solar system might
be linked to a point by a star in the constellation Orion.
If "gates" can be freely created or moved - then this can result
in the same sort of paradoxes as the other explanations. On the other
hand, natural gate-points which are approximately fixed with respect to
each other can theoretically be resolved without paradoxes - but this
utterly complicates the workings of relativity and will have gravitational
consequences as well (the points have enormous gravitational fields
related to the size of the "hole").
Essentially, you can view this as such: Rather than being a form
of travel, the gates represent a complex shape of space. The point by
our solar system is *physically* next to the point in Orion, in a very
real sense. We normally view space as being fairly "flat" - but in fact
it is much more convoluted than it appears to be. This explanation can
make use of Relativity and causality without paradoxes - but it distorts
the current understanding of cosmology.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
THE BASIC THEORY
================
The essential "paradox" of Relativity is this: two events which
are ordered one way in one frame can be ordered opposite in another.
The relativistic equations for translation between two frames (which
are moving at velocity v in the direction of their z-axes relative to each
other) are as follows:
x' = x
y' = y
z' = (gamma)*z - v*(gamma)*t
t' = (gamma)*t - ( v/(c^2) )*(gamma)*z
1
where (gamma) = -----------------------
{ 1 - (v^2)/(c^2) }^0.5
Note this last term. What is just a matter of *distance* in the
unprimed frame can become a change of *time* in the primed frame. You can
check this in any appropriate college-level text.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Example 1
---------
Imagine that a fast-moving spaceship goes through a short tunnel
as it passes by Earth. The tunnel is 60 meters long, while the ship is
40 meters long and moving at 0.87c (gamma ~= 2). Some sick pup on Earth
decides to close the spaceship inside that tunnel.
Now, the observer on Earth sees the spaceship as being length
contracted. So it is just 20 meters long, and can easily fit inside the
60m tunnel. He observes the spaceship's approach vector, then times
the front and rear doors to both close simultaneously as soon as the
spaceship fully enters the tunnel, trapping the spaceship inside.
Earth POV: /------------\
=SS> R F
\------------/
Spaceship Tunnel
...........................(time passes)...
/------------\
R =SS> F
\------------/
However, from the ship's point of view - things are quite different.
It is standing still, and the tunnel is moving at it. Further, due to
length contraction, the tunnel is only 30 meters long, so there's no way
that the ship is going to fit inside. What the ship sees is that the front
doors close *first*, then as the ship crashes through them, the rear doors
are closed behind it.
Spaceship POV: /------\
===SS==> R F
\------/
...........................(time passes)...
/------\
R ===SS==>
\------/
Now actually, there is *no* violation of causality in this example.
"What?!", you say. Well, you see, in either frame there is no event
which precedes the cause. You have to look at it in practical terms.
Say, for example, that instead of being timed, the front doors
were wired to close only once the rear doors have closed behind the rear
of the spaceship as it enters the tunnel. Thus the closing of the front
doors is now _caused_ by the closing of the rear doors.
The trick here is this: the signal that the rear doors have closed
must traverse the length of the tunnel at *lighspeed*. On the timescale
of events here, that takes considerable time. In _both_ cases, then, the
spaceship has passed through the front of the tunnel before the signal
can reach the front doors. When the signal does reach them, the doors
close on the same point on the ship: just behind the midpoint. As long
as the signal does not go FTL, causality is safe.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Example 2
---------
Now having given you a non-FTL example, I can give a typical
FTL paradox.
Say that a hyperspace-capable spaceship X is sitting still beside
Star A. It activates its "jump drive", disappears, and one day later, it
appears beside Star B, 1 light-year away.
Spaceship POV:
=X=
\|/ \|/
-A- -----------1 light year------------------------ -B-
/|\ /|\
.......................(one day passes)....
=X=
\|/ \|/
-A- -----------1 light year------------------------ -B-
/|\ /|\
But now imagine that another spaceship Y is flying past Star B
going at 0.9c away from Star B, so there is considerable dilation effects
betweens its view of things and spaceship X. Now, spaceship Y is from a
hostile enemy race to spaceship X - and as soon as ship X appears,
spaceship Y guesses where it came from.
Now, from spaceship Y's point of view, everything is dilated
according to the formulas. In *its* reference frame, ship X appeared
by Star B *before it disappeared from Star A*. About five months
after it appeared by Star B, it disappeared from A ("<pop>").
=X=
\|/ \|/
-A- -----------1 light year------------------------ -B-
/|\ /|\
*Y*
.......................(five months pass)....
<pop>
\|/ \|/
-A- -----------1 light year------------------------ -B-
/|\ /|\
Thus, spaceship Y activates _its_ hyperspace drive, and catches
spaceship X by surprise - *before it left Star A*.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
The Experimental Basis of Relativity
------------------------------------
Relativity is based on two assumptions:
1) All observers see light moving at the same speed.
2) All Galilean frames of reference are valid. You will see the same
laws of physics in every frame.
The experimental success of Relativity has been extremely
successful - from detailed measurements of kinematics at relativistic
speeds, to the well-known E=m*c^2, to prediction of the bending of
light as it passes by the Sun due to gravitational effects.
It could be that one of these assumption is wrong - either a
very small error on the observed speed of light; or a "preferred frame"
scheme. If so, then Relativity as a whole is invalid. However: whatever
theory replaces it must also explain everything which Relativity
predicted so accurately. The new theory would undoubtably be more
complicated and confusing than Relativity.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
CONCLUSIONS
-----------
My main conclusion is that, if you want to satisfy gung-ho
science types, you have a few choices:
1) "Shut up and play!"
This is actually the most reasonable, in my mind, and should
definitely be considered. Relativity may or may not be given lip service
as a theory which works - but no one actually deals with the mechanisms
by which it is broken.
Develop a set of reasonable, likely sounding rules for FTL (using
important keywords like 'quantum tunneling' or 'wormholes'), and ignore
the consequences to relativity.
2) "Relativity is *wrong*."
There actually are preferred frames - just that our observational
techniques here on Earth are too limited to notice them. The effects are
large ones across space - which are only noticable if you look on scales
larger than the solar system. One version of this was my 'sub-space
currents' theory which I posted before.
This is 'hoaky' in that relativity has made many darn good
predictions, some of which must turn out to be just coincidences in order
for this to work. But frankly, you're going to have to do worse than this
in any other FTL explanation, as well.
3) "We're violating causality, and we don't care."
Relativity is true, time travel *is* possible, and the universe
really is a wacky, crazy place.
I recommend against this. If you want the universe wacky and crazy,
throw out Relativity and use solution #1. Frankly, no one will understand
this universe - which has time travel considerably less sensible than that
in _Star Trek_ and much more complicated.
4) "The universe is full of holes."
This refers to the `fixed stargate' explanation from the
beginning, which can in theory be resolved with both Relativity and
causality. This is a very limited form of so-called `FTL travel',
however, and it may not fit with many sci-fi backgrounds. Further,
because of how it messes with cosmology and has gravitational effects,
it is not neccessarily any more believable to a hard-science player.
John H Kim
"realism" in role-playing games.
Charles Ryan <c...@bev.net> wrote:
>I may be splitting hairs when I use the word "model" instead of
>"simulation," but I believe that there are important differences between
>the two and that the former is more appropriate.
Hm. I might agree with you, but I think the point is sufficiently
subtle that some more explanation is warranted. As a physicist, I tend
to use "simulation" to refer to something that works more from first
principles - that tries to reproduce the inner workings of a process.
I use the term "model" more often to refer to something that matches the
end product of a process, while not neccessarily reproducing the inner
workings.
By these definitions, I would agree that realistic games are
more "models" of reality rather than "simulations". However, I'm not
sure if that is the difference you are referring to.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>But rpgs generally don't simulate reality for its own sake. And gamers
>who seek realism in games do so because that's their gaming style--the
>demands of the "genre" of their campaigns.
Well, to me, *this* seems like splitting hairs. It appears that
you are saying that gamers are trying for genres, not realism - and then
you call "realism" a genre.
In functional terms, there are games which base their mechanics
on modelling reality - and there are gamers who look for and appreciate
this.
The reasons _why_ are not solely to simulate existing examples
of fiction, IMO. You could still call them "genres", perhaps, but I
would want a clearer definition of "genre" before I could agree with
that. (Again, test cases to explain would be GURPS, _Harnmaster_, and
others).
John H Kim
Berkman. The question I am attempting to address here is: does anyone
care about "realism"?
The issue of how to best achieve that realism is entirely
separate - and I won't attempt to address it here. (In his post, David
argues a fair bit against "simulation engines" and "reductionist
mechanics". I haven't mentioned anything regarding methods of
simulation - so I'll leave that to another post).
-*-*-*-
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>John H Kim (jh...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: Which is simply my original point over again: there are people who care
>: about "realism". Otherwise, who on earth would buy _Phoenix Command_?
>
>These are not people who care about realism. Realism can be achieved,
>and in many cases better achieved, without the simulation engine.
David, it doesn't take a whole lot to disprove the first
statement. In simple terms, *I* care about realism. This doesn't mean
that I want exact realism in everything I read and play - far from it.
However, let me offer some of the following:
On the Internet and among friends, I have spent a lot of time
discussing various issues of realism. For hard sci-fi, I have discussed
the physics of solar collectors, the feasability of nanotechnology, and
many others. In contemporary games, with some friends I have gone through
a copy of Janes who were noting down the stats of various military weapons.
For one of my fantasy worlds, I talked for hours with a friend studying
History of Religion about the social development of the religions. For
another campaign world, I spent a lot of time in the library reading
about Algonquin culture and history.
In this, I have found a lot of people who have been interested
in everything from Mongol culture and tactics to the possibility of
severing limbs with swords. They have also been interested in putting
these into their games.
Unless you have an alternative explanation for the above, I
would assume that these people care about realism. Among other things:
if no one cares about realism - why would you want to achieve it, with
or without a "simulation engine"?
-*-*-*-
My point about _Phoenix Command_ is that there are darn few
reasons to play unless you are interested in realism. It defines itself
as a "small-arms combat simulation".
>
>Any simulation must be a simplification, and there are things that Pheonix
>Command won't simulate.
>
>So what are these people looking for? I would say an intricate tactical
>wargame. Same reason I play Starfleet Battles.
You can get an interesting tactical challenge without realism
(SFB, chess, go, etc.). Do you think that it was a meaningless whim
which made people research actual weapons and combat statistics for
_Phoenix Command_? I don't think so.
If you are just interested in a tactical challenge, there are
many better games to play than _Phoenix Command_. Similarly, if you
want to role-play modern intrigue, you can play _Over the Edge_ rather
than _Millenium's End_, say.
John H Kim
>: the text of the novels, or did you - like the authors - study reality
>: and try to base the mechanics on that?
>
>Is story a function of the interplay of technology, or is technology a
>function of the interplay of story?
Are you answering questions with questions? @-)
Andrew Finch
: >: In order to develop your "realistic" rules, did you compare solely to
: >: the text of the novels, or did you - like the authors - study reality
: >: and try to base the mechanics on that?
: >
: >Is story a function of the interplay of technology, or is technology a
: >function of the interplay of story?
: Are you answering questions with questions? @-)
Yes. I thought it better to let you answer your own question. I seem to
be so poor at it some days. !-)
David
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: >These are not people who care about realism. Realism can be achieved,
: >and in many cases better achieved, without the simulation engine.
: David, it doesn't take a whole lot to disprove the first
: statement. In simple terms, *I* care about realism.
I'll be more specific. The realism which is cared for by people who play
Pheonix Command may be better achieved without the reductionist
simulation engine. I have done this enough times to be fairly sure that
this is correct in at least a large number of cases. I am usually
willing, if I have the time, to test the hypothesis with actual examples,
and I have yet to be dissapointed.
I believe that the poeple who play Pheonix Command, and do not wish to
give up the simulation engine, even in the face of greater percieved
detail from alternate mechanics (and I am arguing from the standpoint of
personal perception, delinieating the one important difference between
wargames and RPGs), *do* care about something, but it isn't the loss in
realism. It is the loss of percieved personal safety. What the alternate
mechanics present these people with is a very minor existential crises.
And I think that if you look at the intention of the effort which has gone
into the creation of systems like Pheonix Command, this is not such an
outrageuos assumption as it may at first appear.
That you care about realism in no way contradicts this proposal. Do you
prefer playing Pheonix Command?
: This doesn't mean
: that I want exact realism in everything I read and play - far from it.
My point exactly.
: In this, I have found a lot of people who have been interested
: in everything from Mongol culture and tactics to the possibility of
: severing limbs with swords. They have also been interested in putting
: these into their games.
Of course.
: Unless you have an alternative explanation for the above, I
: would assume that these people care about realism. Among other things:
: if no one cares about realism - why would you want to achieve it, with
: or without a "simulation engine"?
All of the above may be put into a game without the simulation engine.
And in fact, if you attempted to place such knowledge into such an
engine, in most cases you would lose the very thing you were after. I
have a friend who is really into guns. I mean *really* into guns. I have
learned more from his teaching me about guns than I have ever learned
from the most detailed wargame rules, whether used in an RPG or a
wargame. My ability to provide the 'feel' of real guns in my games has
expanded greatly. And my ability to provide the kind of detail that makes
those guns 'feel' mercilessly real is so much greater without the
reductionist simulation engine constricting me.
What that simulation engine provides is not realism, but safety. And that
safety is both false and ultimately detrimental to its own purpose.
At least that's my theory.
: My point about _Phoenix Command_ is that there are darn few
: reasons to play unless you are interested in realism.
That is where we differ. There are many reasons to use it. Those reasons
may be in concert with the purpose of such a system in any wargame. The
purpose of such a system is in contradiction to the realism of first
person perception in an RPG. Now, I have never doubted that many people
like to play wargames with their roleplay. I am not degrading this sort of
play at all. I enjoy it myself sometimes. But there is a difference, and
that difference does not help to generate realism.
Example:
When a 50 caliber machine gun round enters the cockpit of a plane, from
the pilots point of view there is a sound, destinctive of death close at
hand, the detruction of important machinery (possibly), the lurching of
the plane (possible), and the warm wet feel of his REOs bodily fluids
against the back of his neck (possibly). The blowback of blood obscuring
the windows can slao be detrimental. Exactly where that bullet went, what
it lodged into, and where it ended up, are unnecessary to the creation of
realism in this situation. What is necessary is a sense of the kind of
things which are noticed in such a situation, the ambiance created by
such details, and the personal meaning which the aquire.
Pheonix Command will tell you many things about the path of that bullet,
and take some time to do so, and will leave you with a set of information
which tends to enforce an entirely different sort of description of the
'reality' of the situation. The details thus garnered are not so useful
to the presentation of 'realism' from the players perspective, in my
opinion, take up time, and provide merely a possible simulation of the
physical path of a bullet, which is no more nor less probable than may
other paths.
Statistically, if the audience you're speaking to are all highly skilled
aeronautics engineers, and this sort of thing happemns often enough, the
'realism' created by the descriptive example may be lessened as they
notice consistently unlikely bullet paths. Possibly.
However, in any realistic game, circumstances are constantly changing in a
way which denies the need for statistical accuracy, which is really what
you get from mechanical reductionist simulation engines. What is demanded
is a need for good, detailed, descriptions, which account for those things
which are salient to the first person perspective. A system based on such
description, with the proper background thrown in, can move much faster,
and provide a higher level of detail, than even the most obsessive
simulation mechanics.
: (SFB, chess, go, etc.). Do you think that it was a meaningless whim
: which made people research actual weapons and combat statistics for
: _Phoenix Command_? I don't think so.
Neither do I. And if I was looking for a third person, bullets-eye view
of the structural loss to mechanical and biological parts of the above
plane, I would use Pheonix Command. However, that provides no more
'realism' for me, and often much less, than can be provided in far less
time with an understanding of what such situations look and feel like.
David
Erik Max Francis
> Unrealistic given our level of knowledge and technology, you
> mean? If this is what you meant, then I agree with you. However,
> it is still possible that someone may come along and further
> refine Relativity to allow the creation of warp fields, etc.
Naturally (although it would be more of a replacement rather than a
refinement). Whenever _anyone_ says, "X is possible," or "X is not
possible," they _naturally_ must mean with respect to currently-accepted
theories. Otherwise anything is possible; nothing is forbidden.
> Wouldnt General Relativity be the acid test for this, and not
> Special Relativity (which we know to be a subset of General)?
True, but general relativity decays into special relativity in the case
of weak spacetime curvatures. Unless you're mucking about with black
holes and such, then special relativity and general realtivity make
essentially identical predictions. At least as far as faster-than-light
space travel goes, special relativity reigns supreme.
For those about to mention the Alcubierre drive, keep in mind that it
invokes deformations of spacetime to get where you're getting; these
deformations would almost certainly kill the crew, regardless of the fact
that they require exotic matter (matter with negative mass-energy), which
has not even been demonstrated to be compatible with general relativity,
much less even in existence.
> The math and physics
> surrounding this technology is not that important. What *is*
> important is that the universe you've created 'hangs together'
> well and that any constructs you created don't seem artifical
> within it.
I couldn't agree with you more. The only point which I attempted to add
onto this is that if you _do_ try to explain it too deeply, you'll
demonstrate a flaw in your argument. Better to describe how it works --
not _why_ it works -- and move on.
Jason Newquist
: When discussing RPGs, the 'realism' idea is very appropriate. But what
: about more abstract games? For example, chess is based on abstract
: formulae (i.e., pieces move in very specific ways) but is one of the most
: complex games ever made. To become a good chess player, one must be able
: to think abstractly, yet understand the complex interplay of possible
: moves at any particular time in the positon at hand.
[Pardon the below tangent, but it gets back to the issue that I was
trying to raise when I initially asked the question of complexity and
abstraction a couple of weeks ago...]
This is why I think that chess is not a simulation. A simulation must
attempt to faithfully recreate as best it can a facet of the creator's
vision of reality. Now, it can certainly be said that chess is a war
game, but I don't see how the set of it's rules constitute a simulation.
After all, this is where Queens move in what direction and at what length
they will, Knights move two up and one over, and the list goes on. No,
chess is not so much a simulation as it is a strategy game with rules
designed not to echo reality, but instead to provide interesting gameplay.
When we speak of abstraction, we are claiming a certain constellation of
things at work. In order for chess to be an "abstract game," it must
have been abstracted from something. The abstraction must take place in
certain ways, heading away from a certain complexity and toward
simplifications. But! It's not that simple. Abstaction does not simply
occur on a continuum of <Realism> to <Represented Realism>. I would
argue that the above continuum is precisely applicable to RPGs and
wargames, but not to games like Chess.
With Chess you have a game designed not to abstract the procedures of the
battlefield or diplomacy, but instead a purely strategic game with a
metaphor to make it more intelligible. I think, then, that many people
confuse a game's metaphor with its genre. Chess would be precisely the
same game (and indeed, this is done: look at the Star Trek Collector's
Chess set) with different peices that do the same things. The metaphor
is different, but to the game player--the strategist--it's just a matter
of "same game, different trappings."
: To think abstractly, one must "back up" and take a more overall view of
: the situation. This helps to define the long-term goals of the player.
: To accomplish this goal, one must devise a plan using the tools at hand
: and take into account the situational complexities.
Okay. In the terms I was using above, though, I don't think that we can
necessarily conclude that the long-term goals of the player are more or
less important than any other feature of a game's abstractness. An
abstract game, when I'm playing, feels -exactly- the same as most other
games. Sure, while playing GURPS or AD&D, I'm doing different things
than I am while playing Chess or Go. And while what you say is true--the
kinds of thought that these two sorts of games evoke and require is
different--I would say that they're not all that differnet. Sure: while
in the former you may need to go on a hunt for a Silver Chalice, and in
the latter you press for superior Rook position.
But it seems to me that a game's abstraction is mostly instantiated in
its rules, not in the mind of the player while playing. The best
players of any game can write volumes about how they understand the
rules of the game and the strategies that provide good gameplay to be
-real, concrete things.- The game player's task, just like the task of
the student, is to make concrete, immediate--real--the rules and
strategies of the material.
When you say "thinking abstractly" I would argue that it's a bit more
accurate to say "thinking strategically." What do you think?
This turned into a tangential post, it seems... Yikes!
................................................
Jason Newquist UC Davis jrnew...@ucdavis.edu
Rick Cordes
>On 4 Apr 1995, Travis S Casey wrote:
>> ...or are trying to make a universal-type system, I think it best to
>> try to simulate "real" reality as much as possible. Why? Because
>> almost all genres of fiction are based on real reality to some
>> extent. Thus, if you have a game that simulates real reality,
>> simulating fictional genres becomes a matter of simply modifying
>> those sections that don't "fit" the genre.
>>
>This is really the difference between adaptability and specialization. A
>specialized game system will be best for its own world, but won't have
>much applicability elsewhere. A universal system like GURPS or HERO will
>usually be not-as-good in a specific setting...
I think HERO and GURPS are good examples of mechanics that don't
have a good way of simulating things in general although their approach
is to simulate things in general. As pointed out, all RPGs are based
in reality, and it is the extrapolation of real proceeses that is to
be simulated in the context of game which is of interest here. The question
of "adaptibility and specialization" in this context is specious. By its
very nature, a role playing engine needs to be adaptible. That is, it
should be a means to simulate things in general.
>> Lastly, it's good to remember the "expert factor"; namely, the more
>> experience players have with a given aspect of a game, the more accurate
>> they generally want it to be. You need to take your intended audience into
>> account when designing a game.
>>
>I'm not so sure of this. It's often been my experience that longtime
>players become less concerned with the details of rules and simulations
>as they get more involved in their characters and the unfolding
>campaign.
Again I somewhat question the utility of the distinctions you
draw. The idea is to design a simulation suited for gaming. My own
preference is for an unobtrusive engine which produces accurate results,
and chivies the game along. I think an engine must possess all three
of these qualities if it is going to be any good.
John H Kim
Diane Kelly <dke...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>Kim is saying (I think) that realism in games is a Good Thing, and that
>lots of research by writers to make their games realistic is a Good Thing.
>Nobody would gainsay that.
Uh, wait! *I* would gainsay that. Realism in games is not always
a Good Thing, IMO. There are and should be unrealistic games, IMO: _Toon_,
_Teenagers from Outer Space_, etc. My point was simply that there are
people who like realistic games, and it is a Good Thing to have some games
which are "realistic" (by this I mean more specifically: "as realistic as
possible within the framework of playability, medium, etc.").
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
> An example from writing fiction may make this clearer. If I write
>a Western, I should do lots of research on the American West before I
>begin, so that my cowboy story will seem realistic. But of course I am
>living in Durham in 1995, not Dodge City in 1879. My story _cannot_ be
>realistic. But if I do my research well, I can use enough period detail
>so that the story will be consistent with what my readers know about the
>period. They will think, "yes, that could have happened." I'm fooling
>them into thinking it's realistic.
Oh! Blink...
Well, then ignore a bunch of what I was saying previously. We
seem to be agreeing very closely. Obviously *exact* realism is an
unachievable goal. However, this doesn't mean that it is a Bad Thing
to try to be as realistic as possible.
-*-*-*-
Essentially, I see two distinct attitudes here:
1) "I'll research this so that I can fool my readers into thinking my
story is realistic."
2) "I'll research this because it is interesting, and I'll put it into
my story so that it will be as realistic as possible."
-*-*-*-
The implication which I didn't like was that attitude #2 (which
might be termed "Realism for its own sake") is a Bad Thing. Whatever
you call it, I think that attitude #2 is just as valid as #1. For me,
this is the preferred way to write stories and design games.
He whose name must not be spoken...
>John H Kim (jh...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>
>: For example, a hard sci-fi fan might not know what the damage
>: caused by a free-electron laser would be at 5,000km. You could probably
>: fool him by a likely-sounding answer. Nevertheless, what he really
>: wants is a *realistic* answer, and he will be much more impressed by
>: a game which is genuinely informative - based on scientific research,
>: say.
>
>So would I. And you might, just might be able to base your free-electron
>laser (whatever that is) range table on some hard scientific evidence, but
>you have to be hard core to even try. As soon as you try to get some
>'realism' into hyperspace jump drives, and genetic replicants, and even
>nanotech boosters, your are really just making stuff up to sound
>'realistic'.
Yes and no. I recently read Neil Stephenson's new novel, "The Diamond
Age", and the descriptions of nanotech he gives were so good that as I was
reading them, I felt positively infuriated that I didn't have those neat
gadgets here and now. His understanding of current technology and science
are good enough that he postulates future developments in a manner which is
very believable and approachable, even if thirty years from now we look back
and laugh at his ignorance. :-)
I agree, however that there are some topics for which the designer will
need to resort to the time-honored Black Box (i.e. "Time travel was made
possible by the discovery of the XYZ equation in 2604", and leave it at
that), but even there, a couple hours spent hanging out in the library
is likely to, at the very least, allow you to bullshit your readers more
effectively, or at least avoid sounding like an idiot (i.e. using parsecs
as a unit of time in Star Wars).
While I generally am not a big fan of games which sacrifice playability
for realism, I _do_ notice it when the designers do their homework. Some
of the stuff in some of the SF-type GURPS supplements, for example, obviously
is founded on well-researched fact, but it is still a fast system. A lot
of game realism is stuck away in the background where no one but the designer
is ever going to have to conciously deal with it, but I think that it still
can add to the enjoyment of the game, even if no one conciously is aware
why.
>I think people just mostly feel uncomfortable without the
>table in front of them. Whether you want to solve this problem by
>continuing to provide tables, or in educating your gaming public and doing
>away with such things in favor of other mechanisms, is certainly
>debatable. I know where I stand on that debate.
An excellent point, but it depends on your audience and the type of game.
I can recall years and years ago, when I encountered one of the first
computer RPG's I'd played (a "Rogue" knockoff on an Atari 800), I was
thrilled to be able to play this sort of game by myself, but one of the
things I missed was having lots of charts and dice to mess with. On the
other hand, I'm currently designing a card-oriented space game, and one
of the things I'm trying to deal with is boiling the essentials down so
it plays nice and easy. While there is definitely a market for games
oriented at math nerds, there is also certainly an appeal to games which,
while complex and realistic, make most of that detail transparent.
Perhaps one question a designer can ask themself is this: is the game
going to primarily be an engine to allow players to interact with the game
itself (i.e. "War in Europe" type military simulations), or is it there
to provide an interface for player-to-player interactions (i.e. the metaphor
that RPG's allow you to be more organized when you play cowboys and indians,
so you aren't always arguing over who got shot)? Thoughts?
Rick Cordes
This exchange on Complexity and Abstraction has been very
interesting as it verges on a discussion of the practical aspects
of critical RPG design. The distinction you draw here between the
utility of descriptions from first person versus third person
perspectives with regard to their relative practical "salience"
touches on a critical point in game design. As you point out,
there is a tendency to incorporate realism by using a descriptive
simulation of the real proceeses involved, what you mean I believe
by "mechanical reductionist simulation engines". The practical
shortcoming of this approach being that it can spend a lot of time
generating information which alone does not advance the game.
An example of this, as you allude, is the generation of events
through forensic descriptions of them. Hit locations are a case in
point. Various system use hit locations to determine the nature of
the impairment of a wound. How this is done may to varying degrees
be fine tuned but the point is that while the impairment is predicated
by the hit location, it is really only the impairment that is relevant
to the game. While in reality it is true events occur in a very real
order and with a very real fine structure, in a game, simulating these
processes is not as important as simulating their outcomes.
>: Do you think that it was a meaningless whim
>: which made people research actual weapons and combat statistics for
>: _Phoenix Command_? I don't think so.
>
>Neither do I. And if I was looking for a third person, bullets-eye view
>of the structural loss to mechanical and biological parts of the above
>plane, I would use Pheonix Command. However, that provides no more
>'realism' for me, and often much less, than can be provided in far less
>time with an understanding of what such situations look and feel like.
Ideally it would seem that players should have the latitude to
describe what they are attempting and the engine will determine the
the outcome without resort to a descriptive enactment of the events
predicating the outcome. The test being whether or not the engine
generates a consonant unfolding of descriptions qua outcomes: given
what was attempted and what then occured, players should always be
able to imagine just how it happened. If a quick gnome with a hammer
closes with a giant and thereafter the giant suffers a wound which
slows its rate of movement, one does not need to determine either who
went first or hit location to conceive what happened.
Donovan Loucks
what is required, but what is desired by the players? In a roleplaying
game, is there any need whatsoever for any mechanics? What purpose do
rules serve in a roleplaying game? After all, isn't roleplaying about
_playing roles_ and interacting with a storyline?
I have often asked myself why so many different roleplaying systems exist
when, after all, what I desire is excellent storylines and imaginative
Game Masters. If the Game Master is inventive enough and has a way with
words, there should be no need for rules mechanics, just story. I have
been fortunate enough to participate in a few rare gaming sessions where
this was the case. Unfortunately, many Game Masters are not imaginative
enough, and rely on game mechanisms to fill in where they cannot (I'm very
guilty of this myself).
Equally unfortunate is what players want. When it comes to combat
situations (or other circumstances requiring the check of an attribute or
skill) many roleplayers want a boardgame. Right in the middle of things
they want the roleplaying to stop and the boardgame to begin. I believe
it's because they want to take part in a world whose physics are known;
where they can put their strategic skills to the test and hope to come out
on top. They don't want a Game Master telling them what occurs. They
want to _make_ it happen.
I remember asking a roleplayer once why he never allowed his Game Master
to roll dice for him. He said that it was "dictating". He preferred to
roll the dice himself, even though he knew there was no statistical
difference in either person rolling. Many people simply want a level
playing field upon which to act out their combat strategies and come out
victorious. When these situations occur, they no longer want prose, they
want a simulation.
If this is the case, what kind of mechanics are desired? We've all seen
our share of roleplaying systems, good and bad. They've gone from the
needlessly complicated "Chivalry & Sorcery" to the dreadfully simple
"Dungeons and Dragons" to the middle-of-the-road "GURPS". Is any of these
any more realistic than the other? "Chivalry & Sorcery" once tricked us
all into thinking that throwing every possible statistic in made it more
realistic (and time-consuming). But was it any more realistic than cross
referencing your level with the monster's armor class a la "D&D"? And,
for that matter, is "GURPS" _really_ any more realistic than the other
two? Or is it just perceived as such because it bothers to take into
account the factors we gamers believe are relevant to combat?
I don't believe that realism in the strictest sense should be the goal
here. If we're really concerned about realism, then we'll construct a
computer simulation that takes the length of your character's arm and the
center of rotation of the battle axe into account. What is desired here
is a game mechanism (_not_ a simulation or even a model) that gives
results that tend to be similar to those demonstrated in real life. We
cannot go too far down the road towards a "simulation" or we seriously
compromise the "user interface" of the gaming system. No one (I may be
wrong here) wants to spent 10 minutes calculating the hit probability for
an event that transpires in 5 seconds in real-space.
The solution that many modern games (roleplaying, war, board, and even
card) are currently taking is what I like to refer to as "semantic
simulation" or "semantic modelling". Rather than attempting to force
simulation methods on a game, game mechanics are mapped onto real-world
events to make the mechanics seem realistic. That is, the game events are
isomorphic (can be mapped onto) events in real-space. An example might be
to select a single method of rolling dice (from a catalog of many) that
most accurately models a particular event. Instead of constructing a
model to fit the event (which can sometimes be clumsy), a model is found
that happens to coincide with the event. Or, the representation of
reality itself can be altered to coincide with the model.
Roleplaying games like "GURPS" and especially "FUDGE" come very close to
this. In games like this we don't determine the hit probability of the
average human against an immobile man-sized object by multiplying a
default value of 100% by a percentage based on the length of the
character's arm and dividing by the effective attack region of the
character, yadda-yadda-yadda. Instead, we give +2 for close range, +1 for
dexterity, and -2 for the speed of the target. It gives us a feel for
what's going on by identifying the factors that contribute to the hit
probability. However, it abstracts their effects to a great degree.
Another example might be a board/card game like "Hacker" that "simulates"
computer hacking. When a player is required to roll a 9 or higher to
break into a computer system, this is by no means a simulation. However,
the results of the semantic modelling are identical. Likewise, the use of
2 six-sided dice for hacking attempts was not chosen because the
distribution of hacking successes is Gaussian. Instead, the existing
technique of rolling 2 dice and adding their results was a simple and
common technique that lent itself well to this particular semantic model.
(As an aside, I am currently finishing work on a _non-collectible_ card
game of my own. During the Income phase, players roll 2 dice, find the
difference, and add an Income modifier to determine their income for the
turn. I chose this method because the game already required 2 dice for
rolls similar to those mentioned above in "Hacker", and because the curve
that results was novel: 1 out of 6 times a result of no income occurs.)
The example I usually give of the effects of semantic simulation is that
of a radio broadcast. If you narrated a game of "Hacker" as well as a
"simulation" of hacking, the radio listeners might not perceive the
difference. Which is the most important aspect of all this double-talk.
The system need not be realistic, but the players must perceive that it
is--no easy task. Semantic simulations are difficult to design because
they not only must be sufficient to convey some reality to the players,
they must also have a light enough "user interface" so they do not
interfere with the play of the game.
I believe that in the last decade we've seen a strong movement towards
this type of gaming mechanism. People are starting to realize that there
can be as much strategy in a game of "Risk" as there is in a game of
"World in Flames". The great difference between the two is that the
strategy may be clouded by a mire of rules (some enjoy this--I do not). I
strongly suspect that this trend will continue in the hopes of attracting
players who are not "gamers" to the declining non-computer gaming market.
I feel that the current state of multi-player gaming is due to a lack of
leisure time and the immediate gratification of solitaire computer games.
Here's hoping that many of us never lose our love of the tactile feedback
of holding a hand of cards, rolling dice, and moving pawns!
My next installment: Arbitrariness in Victory Conditions! Maybe...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan K. Loucks dlo...@primenet.com
=================== FAQ-keeper for alt.horror.cthulhu ====================
"How terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the wise, Johnny....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jono Bean
> tough customers like John Kim into accepting it as realistic, I'd better
> do a buttload of research on physics, astronomy and biology; read up on
> the latest speculations on future technology and daily life; bang on my
> structure from all sides to make sure it doesn't ring hollow.
> But it's still not realistic. In twenty years it'll probably
> seem laughably out of date. But it convinces the reader now.
I just noticed this bit, and it gave me pause for thought. Stories with harder
fact driven detail seem to go out of date faster than those which gloss over
those hard facts. As soon as our level of knowledge increase, those "facts"
look like appalling gaffs.
I think this points to another level of realism, that of making reasonable
speculation upon what would happen given a set of circumstances. Putting things
together in a way which makes the reader/player think "yeah, that could happen"
is more than knowing the facts, it also includes thinking about how that
old west gunfighter or starspanning civilisation lives and breathes. (IMHO)
-Klaude Thomas
Tim and Stacey Dunn
A few problems I have with realism:
1) It depends on how you define it. If you're going to be a slave to the
world of this terminal, this article, you and me, then it's going to
hinder the player's enjoyment of an inherently unrealistic ("cinematic"
in GURPS-ese) world such as Indiana Jones or the James Bond films.
2) Realism, even by a definition I find acceptable ("Realism is being
faithful, consistent and believable from within the context of the
genre.") can take lots of time to research if you are running an
established world.
3) Realism wrt this world can be a bone of conention between people of
different experiences/knowledges/perceptions. Often, you get arm-
chair physicists (not you, John) trying to 'debate' the feasibility
of concepts and principles outside their limited knowledge merely
for ego-gratification.
4) 'Realistic' extrapolations of a future sometimes hinder the fun of
a particular setting. The CyberPunk 2020 net is not realistic, but
a good many people find it fun. Likewise, advancement in other
sciences or a good many other foundations to plots or settings.
5) I've found from my experience that players that strive for 'realism'
wrt this world are players that game as simulation. That's fine for
them, but it's not my style. I game to be larger than life. No
one is wrong or right, but I know the game won't be as much fun for me.
6) From the same experience, I've noticed a high corelation between
'realistic' players and poor-roleplayers. This is from a limited
sample size, of course. However, the ones who fancied themselves
to be 'realistic' (wrt this world) were the ones who I had the most
trouble with, both as player and GM, in interacting in-character.
Instead, I look for gamers who can suspend disbelief at anything. A
witch on a broom? Sure. A 50-foot cat? Why not? A hollow Earth?
Lemme at it. Realism plays very little part in my gaming, save the
tweaked definition that I gave in point 2 above.
I'm interested in being faithful to an existing genre, or following
a mood of some existing source material, or being consistent with
the concept of a new setting/genre. I feel that so long as I am
internally consistent, that is all the 'realism' I need.
Tim
--
Laws of Japanese Animation: [by rshellit|dbr...@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu]
#6 - Law of Temporal Variability
Time is not a constant. It stops for something 'cool' or 'impressive'.
It slows down when friends are killed. It speeds up when there's a fight.
Peter Timothy Jackson
In article <3miotm$l...@crl3.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes...
>Is story a function of the interplay of technology, or is technology a
>function of the interplay of story?
Yes.
In good hard SF the story is "a function of the interplay of technology". In
softer SF the technology is "a function of the interplay of story". I like
both, but prefer hard SF.
Peter
Alternative email address - p...@uvo.dec.com
Bob
: 3) Realism wrt this world can be a bone of conention between people of
: different experiences/knowledges/perceptions. Often, you get arm-
: chair physicists (not you, John) trying to 'debate' the feasibility
: of concepts and principles outside their limited knowledge merely
: for ego-gratification.
Speaking of realism, it is not exactly realistic for players to know and
understand the underlying mechanics of their Role-Playing 'universe'. The
real world is more of a black-box experience, where it takes much of your
life span just to know and understand your own limitations.
I'd like to see more in the way of black-box role-playing systems, with
most of the underlying mechanics hidden from the players. (Perhaps by
means of a computer/calculator tool for the GM.) This could combine the
grittyness of real-world results with a player interface that is not
based on a list of statistics (at least none that [s]he can see) but on
language representations.
Anyway, my $.02
--
Bob | I may not know what the heck you're babbling about,
iceb...@eskimo.com | but I'll defend to the death your right to confuse me.
John H Kim
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>John H Kim (jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: >: In order to develop your "realistic" rules, did you compare solely to
>: >: the text of the novels, or did you - like the authors - study reality
>: >: and try to base the mechanics on that?
>: >
>: >Is story a function of the interplay of technology, or is technology a
>: >function of the interplay of story?
>
>: Are you answering questions with questions? @-)
>
>Yes. I thought it better to let you answer your own question. I seem to
>be so poor at it some days. !-)
Fair enough.
Obviously, the answer is both. Some writers are inspired by bits
of technology to write a story; some writers have a story and invent
technology to make the story work.
For myself, I find that in general story is a function of the
interplay of technology. That is - I imagine the technology first, and
as I think about the consequences and possibilities, story ideas form.
I have rarely found the need to change technology to make a story work.
I don't know offhand, but I think that there are writers out there
who work similarly. For example, I think _The Difference Engine_ had its
technology worked out independently of the particular story. OTOH,
there are certainly writers for whom the opposite is true.
John H Kim
and players who prefer realism. Now, obviously it is silly to apply
rigorous mundane realism to, say, a _James Bond_ game.
I agree that realism is not always appropriate. OTOH, in some
cases I find that it is very interesting, and I have found that there are
other players who feel similarly.
Tim and Stacey Dunn <td...@netcom.com> wrote:
>2) Realism, even by a definition I find acceptable ("Realism is being
> faithful, consistent and believable from within the context of the
> genre.") can take lots of time to research if you are running an
> established world.
This is undoubtably true. Realism is a lot of work. If you are
just looking for a fun diversion, then it is not worth the effort. You
should only use it if you find it interesting, IMO.
As an example, I played for a time in an "adventures in history"
campaign - in which the PC's were immortals who lived from before the
8th century to the present. Now, for the episodes I ran, I always spent
some time in the library looking up the time and place of that adventure.
We were in Jerusalem during the Crusades, and talked with Fibonacci in
-*-*-*-
>
>3) Realism wrt this world can be a bone of conention between people of
> different experiences/knowledges/perceptions. Often, you get arm-
> chair physicists (not you, John) trying to 'debate' the feasibility
> of concepts and principles outside their limited knowledge merely
> for ego-gratification.
Agreed. The "know-it-all" syndrome should be cured primarily
by multiple blows to the head and neck with a club, IMO. To me, at
least, using realism is at least 50% a matter of _learning_ - which
this attitude is directly contrary to.
-*-*-*-
>
>4) 'Realistic' extrapolations of a future sometimes hinder the fun of
> a particular setting. The CyberPunk 2020 net is not realistic, but
> a good many people find it fun.
Huh? I agree that non-realistic sci-fi can be fun - but that
doesn't mean that 'realistic' extrapolation is not fun. I ran a brief
'realistic' cyberpunk game which was a lot of fun (in a psychotic,
gun-toting sort of way).
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Instead, I look for gamers who can suspend disbelief at anything. A
>witch on a broom? Sure. A 50-foot cat? Why not? A hollow Earth?
>Lemme at it. Realism plays very little part in my gaming, save the
>tweaked definition that I gave in point 2 above.
Well, you can be "realistic" on different levels. For example,
the GM of one of my current games has spent a fair bit of time showing
us a `realistic' view of the city of Chang'an in T'ang dynasty China.
OTOH, we are also having wild martial arts combats inspired mainly
by Tsui Hark films. Which is to say - you can have suspension of
disbelief and still involve realism on another level.
Of course, realism is not to everyone's tastes - and even those
who enjoy it at times, don't always enjoy it *all* the time. I believe
you when you say you aren't interested in realism. I just don't want
to denigrate who are interested.
Rick Cordes
>On the issue of "Complexity and Abstraction", one must wonder not so much
>what is required, but what is desired by the players? In a roleplaying
>game, is there any need whatsoever for any mechanics? What purpose do
>rules serve in a roleplaying game? After all, isn't roleplaying about
>_playing roles_ and interacting with a storyline?
It is an RPG, not just a game of make believe. On the other
hand making roleplaying an objectively scored part of the game is
tough.
>Equally unfortunate is what players want. When it comes to combat
>situations (or other circumstances requiring the check of an attribute or
>skill) many roleplayers want a boardgame. Right in the middle of things
>they want the roleplaying to stop and the boardgame to begin. I believe
>it's because they want to take part in a world whose physics are known;
>where they can put their strategic skills to the test and hope to come out
>on top. They don't want a Game Master telling them what occurs. They
>want to _make_ it happen.
Combat can be part of roleplaying, and in terms of it being
part of a game, it should be handled fairly and objectively. While
winning or losing does not necessarilly hold as much interest in
an RPG as other elements such as storyline and development, still,
the tactical weave adds another dimension to it all.
>I remember asking a roleplayer once why he never allowed his Game Master
>to roll dice for him. He said that it was "dictating". He preferred to
>roll the dice himself, even though he knew there was no statistical
>difference in either person rolling. Many people simply want a level
>playing field upon which to act out their combat strategies and come out
>victorious. When these situations occur, they no longer want prose, they
>want a simulation.
On one hand I see a group relaxed in arm chairs in a dimly lit
room, and on the other, I see a group crouched around a map-grid with
miniatures. Are armchairs and miniatures mutually exclusive?
>
>If this is the case, what kind of mechanics are desired? We've all seen
>our share of roleplaying systems, good and bad. They've gone from the
>needlessly complicated "Chivalry & Sorcery" to the dreadfully simple
>"Dungeons and Dragons" to the middle-of-the-road "GURPS". Is any of these
>any more realistic than the other? "Chivalry & Sorcery" once tricked us
>all into thinking that throwing every possible statistic in made it more
>realistic (and time-consuming). But was it any more realistic than cross
>referencing your level with the monster's armor class a la "D&D"? And,
>for that matter, is "GURPS" _really_ any more realistic than the other
>two? Or is it just perceived as such because it bothers to take into
>account the factors we gamers believe are relevant to combat?
Realism has come to equal time consumption in the minds of a
few RPGers. I see this to be a direct result of how RPG design was
in direct reaction to the lack of realism in D&D. The general attempt
was made to add realism by using mechanics which where a faithful
simulation of the processes entailed. While this left nothing to
imagination as to what happened between point A and B, it takes
a lot of time to accomplish not a lot. Producing plausible outcomes
can be achieved with varying degrees of effort, but it is not an end
in and of itself. Players neither want to feel their characters
straitjacketed by simplistic mechanics nor want to plod through
cumbersome procedures.
>Roleplaying games like "GURPS" and especially "FUDGE" come very close to
>this. In games like this we don't determine the hit probability of the
>average human against an immobile man-sized object by multiplying a
>default value of 100% by a percentage based on the length of the
>character's arm and dividing by the effective attack region of the
>character, yadda-yadda-yadda. Instead, we give +2 for close range, +1 for
>dexterity, and -2 for the speed of the target. It gives us a feel for
>what's going on by identifying the factors that contribute to the hit
>probability. However, it abstracts their effects to a great degree.
It is desirable to have an engine that adds in such factors but
I disagree that the ease with which it is done necessarilly abstracts
past a point while on the other hand complexity and time consumption
necessarilly yield diminishing results.
He whose name must not be spoken...
Rick Cordes <cor...@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>In article <3n2d4g$q...@news4.primenet.com> dlo...@primenet.com (Donovan Loucks) writes:
>>On the issue of "Complexity and Abstraction", one must wonder not so much
>>what is required, but what is desired by the players? In a roleplaying
>>game, is there any need whatsoever for any mechanics? What purpose do
>>rules serve in a roleplaying game? After all, isn't roleplaying about
>>_playing roles_ and interacting with a storyline?
>
> It is an RPG, not just a game of make believe. On the other
> hand making roleplaying an objectively scored part of the game is
> tough.
>
I think you might get different opinions on this one depending on who you
ask. My personal GM style tends to favor an approach where the rules are in
the background as much as possible. I like to keep the emphasis on the
developing story and interactions, and only break out the books when something
happens like combat, or someone trying to do something weird, etc. For this
reason, I prefer "universal" systems like GURPS and FUDGE, since I don't have
to deal with a whole new set of rules for every game I run. I generally
design my own game worlds, so this approach makes sense to me.
Part of this evolved out of the fact that I always feel self-concious
when the players have to wait 5 minutes for me to dig up an obscure rule. A
lot of the time, if I don't know the precise ruling on something, I'll just
roll some dice behind the GM screen and make up something interesting. If
its something important, I'll look it up, but to me, keeping up the pace of
the action is more important than accurately simulating the loss of velocity
of a bullet due to relative humidity.
At the other end of the spectrum, I recall a Champions game I was in
several years ago which was basically tactical miniatures combat with the
primary role-playing being in character development from adventure to
adventure. Basically, at the start of each session, the GM would tell us
that Death Boy was planning to eat Manhattan (or whatever) and we'd spend
half an hour or so interacting with each other and NPC's until we decided
how to go about stopping the fiend. After this, it turned into a 6-hour
tactical combat. I normally don't go for heavy tactical wargaming, but
this managed to hold my interest, and I still vividly remember the character
I played, so I think there's a role-playing aspect in there somewhere.
I think that overall, there's a wider spectrum of taste than is readily
apparent. I picked up a semi-parody game system a while ago called TWERPS
(I don't remember what the acronym stood for). It sold for $3, and you got
four pages worth of rules (which included a sample adventure!), some counters,
and a 10-sided die. Needless to say, it didn't cover every possible
situation, but we had a blast playing it one night, and there was no doubt
that it was indeed a rpg system. :-)
==
If it weren't for C, we'd be programming in BASI, PASAL, and OBOL.