Josh Sawyer on "the importance of real-world knowledge for game design"

[mcmanusaur]

Also, some things that Josh Sawyer likes in a pnp game may not translate into a crpg, despite wanting to put it into the game. While it might be more realistic, some things just aren't fun in a crpg. We've seen that with item durability being taken out. And it really comes down to is the game fun to play? Yes/No.

 

The thought that- for the sake of being "fun"- cRPG's should be less realistic than PnP RPG's just makes me cringe. In fact, early cRPG's (including the Infinity Engine games at that, in my humble opinion) suffer from playing too much like graphical tabletop RPG's, rather than taking full advantage of the video game medium (which by the way tends toward more realism and complexity, at least in my view). I realize that you're probably just trying to make a general point about how different media vary (that I am agreeing with), but I'd say it's usually the less realistic and heavily-abstracted elements of PnP RPG's that tend to require re-working for cRPG's.

[Gromnir]

will respond to one point only

 

"which by the way tends toward more realism and complexity, at least in my view"

 

am thinking you is going down a highly suspect path. is many who will argue that video game media has significant reduced likelihood of complexity, at least in recent years. for hardcore crpg fans, "console" is ineherent including a quality o' "dumbed down." one word: fallout. compare 1997 fallout to fallout 3 and then try to convince folks at nma that you is right. although resources is not shared such that increase graphics results in less resources for mechanics realization, it frequent seems that current emphasis is 'pon making visually appealing 'stead o' making deep or complex. a text-based game, on the other hand, would have no such limitations as graphics is a non-factor. etc. regardless, while it is true that better computers increases POTENTIAL complexity, the reality has not supported the actualization thus far.

 

furthermore, we would caution against coupling realism and complexity. without even discussing we thinks it should be clear that there is no direct correlation or even a sympathy 'tween these two concepts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 26, 2013 by Gromnir

[Gfted1]

Thank god Gromnir came back.

[mcmanusaur]

will respond to one point only

 

"which by the way tends toward more realism and complexity, at least in my view"

 

am thinking you is going down a highly suspect path. is many who will argue that video game media has significant reduced likelihood of complexity, at least in recent years. for hardcore crpg fans, "console" is ineherent including a quality o' "dumbed down." one word: fallout. compare 1997 fallout to fallout 3 and then try to convince folks at nma that you is right. although resources is not shared such that increase graphics results in less resources for mechanics realization, it frequent seems that current emphasis is 'pon making visually appealing 'stead o' making deep or complex. a text-based game, on the other hand, would have no such limitations as graphics is a non-factor. etc. regardless, while it is true that better computers increases POTENTIAL complexity, the reality has not supported the actualization thus far.

 

furthermore, we would caution against coupling realism and complexity. without even discussing we thinks it should be clear that there is no direct correlation or even a sympathy 'tween these two concepts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well, I never said anything either way about whether current trends in video games are moving closer to or farther away from the medium's full potential. I only stated that I believe cRPG's have a deeper capacity for realism and complexity than PnP RPG's. Most straightforward, this is simply by virtue of computing power, but there are some aspects- emergent narrative, for example- in regards to which we will hopefully learn how to utilize that power more effectively and efficiently.

 

Also, when you try thinking of reality as the most complicated simulation we will ever experience (nothing is merely abstracted and everything factors in a la Butterfly Effect), I think you'll realize that realism and complexity are definitely related. Complexity doesn't always lend itself to realism, but a realistic simulation without some baseline level of complexity is practically unfathomable. There might not be a causal relationship (or perhaps even a correlational relationship) between the two, but "complexity" as a variable moderates the potential for realism.

Edited August 26, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Is Gromnir supposed to have DID?

[mcmanusaur]

Is Gromnir supposed to have DID?

 

To me personally, it comes off as more like the royal "we", given how consistent his posting style is.

[PrimeJunta]

Since someone brought up Star Wars, George Lucas actually did a metric buckton of research before writing the script. Specifically, research into mythology, especially through the writings of Joseph Campbell. In my opinion Star Wars owes much of its staying power precisely to those mythological roots.

 

The blasters and lightsabers and spaceships and rancors and hutts are superficial; the story would work just as well if it had bows and swords and warhorses and dragons and trolls. (In fact, one Christopher Paolini wrote a pretty successful fantasy book where he transposed the Star Wars episode IV story into a traditional pseudo-medieval fantasy setting.)

[Gromnir]

 

will respond to one point only

 

"which by the way tends toward more realism and complexity, at least in my view"

 

am thinking you is going down a highly suspect path. is many who will argue that video game media has significant reduced likelihood of complexity, at least in recent years. for hardcore crpg fans, "console" is ineherent including a quality o' "dumbed down." one word: fallout. compare 1997 fallout to fallout 3 and then try to convince folks at nma that you is right. although resources is not shared such that increase graphics results in less resources for mechanics realization, it frequent seems that current emphasis is 'pon making visually appealing 'stead o' making deep or complex. a text-based game, on the other hand, would have no such limitations as graphics is a non-factor. etc. regardless, while it is true that better computers increases POTENTIAL complexity, the reality has not supported the actualization thus far.

 

furthermore, we would caution against coupling realism and complexity. without even discussing we thinks it should be clear that there is no direct correlation or even a sympathy 'tween these two concepts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well, I never said anything either way about whether current trends in video games are moving closer to or farther away from the medium's full potential. I only stated that I believe cRPG's have a deeper capacity for realism and complexity than PnP RPG's. Most straightforward, this is simply by virtue of computing power, but there are some aspects- emergent narrative, for example- in regards to which we will hopefully learn how to utilize that power more effectively and efficiently.

 

Also, when you try thinking of reality as the most complicated simulation we will ever experience (nothing is merely abstracted and everything factors in a la Butterfly Effect), I think you'll realize that realism and complexity are definitely related. Complexity doesn't always lend itself to realism, but a realistic simulation without some baseline level of complexity is practically unfathomable. There might not be a causal relationship (or perhaps even a correlational relationship) between the two, but "complexity" as a variable moderates the potential for realism.

 

 

shoulda posted full quote. am seeing where we misread you

 

"The thought that- for the sake of being "fun"- cRPG's should be less realistic than PnP RPG's just makes me cringe. In fact, early cRPG's (including the Infinity Engine games at that, in my humble opinion) suffer from playing too much like graphical tabletop RPG's, rather than taking full advantage of the video game medium (which by the way tends toward more realism and complexity, at least in my view)."

 

so, no, we complete disagree with you. 1) we dont think ie games played much like actual pnp session at all, and 2) that last thing we want is genuine realism in our crpgs, whether pcs is capable of it or not. pnp sessions is far more 'bout interactions tween the participants than they is about rules, which is why d&d has always had Rule 0.  take out the peoples, and you necessarily gotta streamline some stuff to makes games palatable--the lastest thing we want a crpg developer to be shooting for is realism. shooters? sure, but not crpg.

 

*shrug*

 

and no, reality and complexity got no sympathy. a game based on purely constructed and fantastical can be just as complex as any realism engine.  in fact, from a crpg gaming pov, a true realistic simulator would most likely be less complex. the behind the scenes physics is not the kinda complexity anybody is looking for, and whatever capacity for such physics can be put into a fantastic world with complete made up physics anyways. why one would wish to do, we dont know. am knowing how this ain't clear, but consider combat.  realistic combat is like hobbes state of nature in that it is "poor, nasty, brutish and short."  realistic combats would also not require multiple menus of fancy powers and abilities. actual, while there is Agrippa kinda stuff describing uses o' sword and some other very small handful o' weapons, there really weren't no "schools" o' training for stuff like axes and maces and hammers. 

 

...

 

am betting we still has a meeting of minds.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 26, 2013 by Gromnir

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Also, some things that Josh Sawyer likes in a pnp game may not translate into a crpg, despite wanting to put it into the game. While it might be more realistic, some things just aren't fun in a crpg. We've seen that with item durability being taken out. And it really comes down to is the game fun to play? Yes/No.

 

The thought that- for the sake of being "fun"- cRPG's should be less realistic than PnP RPG's just makes me cringe. In fact, early cRPG's (including the Infinity Engine games at that, in my humble opinion) suffer from playing too much like graphical tabletop RPG's, rather than taking full advantage of the video game medium (which by the way tends toward more realism and complexity, at least in my view). I realize that you're probably just trying to make a general point about how different media vary (that I am agreeing with), but I'd say it's usually the less realistic and heavily-abstracted elements of PnP RPG's that tend to require re-working for cRPG's.

 

 

So you would rather have more realism in P:E like item durability even though they're not in any IE game? Having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more. I'd rather a balance and lean more to fun than frustration. It seems you would go the other way just for realism.

 

What would sell more, get more players to play the game and have replay value?

 

- A game that tones down on the realism but is fun to play.

- A realistic game that isn't fun to play.

[Rostere]

I'm with Josh 100% on this one. But of course historical/physical/other real-world knowledge does not matter much if the audience does not know anything. A more believable (or really, internally consistent) setting is always to prefer, but the benefits get increasingly smaller as you approach 100% internal logical inconsistency.

 

Just ignore Gromnir, he's tried to use as an argument both that Star Wars apparently sells and that "William Faulkner might be the greatest American author". He's obviously a troll.

[mstark]

I believe you are oversimplifying his stance; from what I decipher from Gromnir's posts, he feels that Mr. Sawyer attempts to impart too much reality into his fantasy world development, to the point where the infinitesimal details of realism can absorb creative resources which could have been better served being utilized in other areas.  Do not let your anger at his style of posting, baiting as it may be, blind you to the fact that he does carry some knowledge and a valid point of view into this discussion.

It's more like my limited intelligence can't cope with the butchered English, I simply don't bother trying to decipher it, especially when all I expect to find is straw man arguments against mote points.

 

In other words, I just don't have the time to bother with posting counter arguments against someone who so blatantly doesn't believe in anything I believe in. There frankly isn't even anywhere to get started—there are no valid arguments to counter.

 

I read one post of his, saw through it, and simply didn't bother. I also wouldn't be surprised if Felonious is a "clever" secondary (or tenth) account of Gromnir's. It's exactly what I would do if I was attempting the same.

Edited August 27, 2013 by mstark

[Hiro Protagonist II]

You must be new to the internet. Welcome.

[Gromnir]

*chuckle*

 

this thread has become most amusing. 

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lephys]

*chuckle*

 

this thread has become most amusing. 

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

In the same way that a lumber mill becomes most amusing once set ablaze. Good times, I guess.

[Sargallath Abraxium]

...hehehe...good ta see yer makin' new friends, lad...hehehe...

 

 

 

...hehehe...I sees the fishin' be good, anyways...hehehe...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[Gromnir]

josh's particular use o' the "write what you know" aphorism virtual compelled us to respond. likewise, josh's defenders seemed to be under a compulsion o' sorts (*snicker*) and we obliged. 'pon reflection, we is quite thankful o' the participation. hardly amounts to us trolling. although these boards has gone kinda... soft. seems that criticism o' developers results in an antibody kinda response. Destroy the irritant at all costs! silly.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[mcmanusaur]

And the straw man argument of the year award goes to... never mind, I can't choose.

 

so, no, we complete disagree with you. 1) we dont think ie games played much like actual pnp session at all, and 2) that last thing we want is genuine realism in our crpgs, whether pcs is capable of it or not. pnp sessions is far more 'bout interactions tween the participants than they is about rules, which is why d&d has always had Rule 0.  take out the peoples, and you necessarily gotta streamline some stuff to makes games palatable--the lastest thing we want a crpg developer to be shooting for is realism. shooters? sure, but not crpg.

 

*shrug*

 

and no, reality and complexity got no sympathy. a game based on purely constructed and fantastical can be just as complex as any realism engine.  in fact, from a crpg gaming pov, a true realistic simulator would most likely be less complex. the behind the scenes physics is not the kinda complexity anybody is looking for, and whatever capacity for such physics can be put into a fantastic world with complete made up physics anyways. why one would wish to do, we dont know. am knowing how this ain't clear, but consider combat.  realistic combat is like hobbes state of nature in that it is "poor, nasty, brutish and short."  realistic combats would also not require multiple menus of fancy powers and abilities. actual, while there is Agrippa kinda stuff describing uses o' sword and some other very small handful o' weapons, there really weren't no "schools" o' training for stuff like axes and maces and hammers. 

 

...

 

am betting we still has a meeting of minds.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Obviously playing a PnP game and playing a video game are fundamentally different experiences, but the point is that Infinity Engine games (and other games that utilize DnD-based rulesets, which were of course first intended for PnP) are about as similar to PnP games as cRPG's get. Simply put, cRPG's can do a lot better than borrowing DnD (and inheriting its reliance on abstraction over simulation) in my opinion, and the novel ruleset is one of the things that most interests me about PE. However, I realize now that I'm veering dangerously toward blaspheming what many on this forum hold most dear, so I'll tread carefully.

 

You are right to identify people as the missing element of cRPG's, but this is not a justification for abandoning realism. You can look at it one of two ways; either adding more realism via more complex simulation exacerbates the lack of human decision-making, or doing so better approximates human decision-making. Maybe the latter requires one to be somewhat more imaginative, but I think it's preferable to condemning cRPG's as inferior to PnP RPG's altogether, towards which the anti-realism contingent seems to lean.

 

Alright, please give me an example of your "game based on purely constructed and fantastical". I promise you that I will be identify many ways in which reality is the basis of that game and its complexity. You are correct about combat, and it happens to be an aspect (however ubiquitous) of RPGs that I'm actually not to keen on. However, there are plenty of people who enjoy boxing and other combat sports, and I'd suspect that number would be even higher if people could obtain the experience without any of its drawbacks (such as black eyes and broken noses).

 

Obviously this isn't something relevant to the near future, but I think that there could be a lot of people that enjoy learning the nuances of a combat system that is unforgiving as long as it is also unbiased. At the very least, I don't think there's much justification for dismissing that potential when we haven't even experienced it yet, and I also don't think it has to be all-or-nothing when it comes to realism.

 

 

 

Also, some things that Josh Sawyer likes in a pnp game may not translate into a crpg, despite wanting to put it into the game. While it might be more realistic, some things just aren't fun in a crpg. We've seen that with item durability being taken out. And it really comes down to is the game fun to play? Yes/No.

 

The thought that- for the sake of being "fun"- cRPG's should be less realistic than PnP RPG's just makes me cringe. In fact, early cRPG's (including the Infinity Engine games at that, in my humble opinion) suffer from playing too much like graphical tabletop RPG's, rather than taking full advantage of the video game medium (which by the way tends toward more realism and complexity, at least in my view). I realize that you're probably just trying to make a general point about how different media vary (that I am agreeing with), but I'd say it's usually the less realistic and heavily-abstracted elements of PnP RPG's that tend to require re-working for cRPG's.

 

 

So you would rather have more realism in P:E like item durability even though they're not in any IE game? Having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more. I'd rather a balance and lean more to fun than frustration. It seems you would go the other way just for realism.

 

What would sell more, get more players to play the game and have replay value?

 

- A game that tones down on the realism but is fun to play.

- A realistic game that isn't fun to play.

 

For me the reason that something like item durability is never any fun is because it's so abstracted (to the point that in its usual manifestation it really doesn't add anything to realism) and limiting (other related processes, such as item repair, aren't simulated to an interesting degree). So I'd actually argue that the item durability mechanic as we know it is exactly the kind of hyper-abstracted element that belongs in the metaphorical consciousness of obsolete technology. Or exactly the kind of thing that characterizes the overall design philosophy of games

 

We really need to get away from this idea of "realism for realism's sake"; in fact, this is one of the most common rhetorical tricks that I see those with an agenda against realism use. In fact, pretty much no one has ever asked for realism merely for the sake of itself, unless they are addressing the entirely separate market of "serious" games. Rather, for many gamers realism contributes to many aspects of the experience, including the vague "fun" that you so assuredly contrast with realism in the name of some objectively definable experience. Balance is just as proximal of a concern as realism, and there are many reasons one could articulate for wanting either other than their respective self-evident value.

 

This is almost as much of cliche as the points I'm arguing against, but arguably reality as a system is perfectly "balanced". It just so happens that the scope of the "simulation" in reality is so wide that we tend to find ourselves leaving out certain variables when we make mental comparisons and contrasts. Similarly, many games that try to be realistic often suffer from leaving certain key variables out of their simulation (which results in imbalance), but in these instances the games' inadvertent departure from reality represents the problem. In fact, imbalance in games can generally be attributed to departure from reality (in the form of omitting variables from the game's simulation) rather than adherence to reality.

 

And let me respond to your false dichotomy with one of my own:

Which would sell more, a game that is both realistic and fun to play, or a game that is neither realistic nor enjoyable?

(but don't bother answering as it's not a real question)

Edited August 27, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[mcmanusaur]

... And I forgot to finish one of my sentences, but didn't notice until one minute after the hour-long editing period expired...

[Gromnir]

am honestly not understanding what you is trying to say at this point.  "

 

"but the point is that Infinity Engine games (and other games that utilize DnD-based rulesets, which were of course first intended for PnP) are about as similar to PnP games as cRPG's get."

 

am not picking nits. seriously. am utter confused. earlier you is talking 'bout capacity o' computers to provide more realism and complexity, but you seems to be fixating on d&d rules and mechanics in games. is kinda a disconnect. tabletop rpgs is bounded by nothing save player imagination. complexity and realism o' a computer game is, in this period o' time, functionally bounded by what graphics will allow, and practically bounded by belief of developers that too much complexity is discouraging, and too much reality is boring. all of which gots nothing to do with d&d per se. sure, neverwinter nights mp had functionality that made it approach pnp and had a graphic component, but the old text-based mp rpgs is gonna be far closer to pnp and they not necessarily is weeded to d&d. 

 

am also kinda confused by your simple dismissal o' combat while actual observing the ubiquitous nature o' the element in crpgs, and am not sure what you is getting at with the following: "However, there are plenty of people who enjoy boxing and other combat sports, and I'd suspect that number would be even higher if people could obtain the experience without any of its drawbacks (such as black eyes and broken noses)." is the suggestion that a CRPG boxing simulation would be appealing to boxing aficionados and would somehow reaches the level o' superior complexity you yearn for in a game?  in a fighting game, skills is left up to the player, so you got the player mix the 4 basic punches how he chooses, and allows 'em to do own footwork. a crpg is gonna necessarily takes some o' the boxing away from player and replace it with player choosing abilities or skills or whatever... then watching as avatar boxes.  by making boxing a crpg activity you is pretty much reducing complexity from reality.  how you ADD complexity w/o reducing reality? give a vast menu o'  super-power skills and abilities that each has counters and defenses?  'course not. that is what current fantasy and sci-fi games does, and while it would increase complexity as far as rules makers is wishing to take, it sure decreases reality, don't it? 

 

as for a theoretical game using complete fantastic elements. okie dokie, you is a quasi conscious bubble o' gas "living" in red spot o' jupiter.  goal is to grok. does this by "exploring" a complete alien environment with no discernible up or down and including a few o' those additional, albeit small dimensions beyond those we humans is familiar. enjoy. sure, we gotta have some frame-o-reference so that us persons o' matter can comprehend such an abstract game, but setting and challenges can be complete fantastic and only the most obtuse expert o' jovian environments is gonna get twisted 'cause game doesn't match reality. too abstract? fine, make a game based on cartoon logic and physics. is a new mmo that is looking like it is going more cartoon than realism (wildstar) and it seems to be much anticipated. is distancing itself from reality and gaining fans before it is even released. 

 

"I also don't think it has to be all-or-nothing when it comes to realism."

 

irony. am reviewing the first sentence o' your post. and am struck by how last sentence directed at us is so full o' irony.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps  might as well simplify as this is getting pretty far-flung. am disagreeing with you 'bout capacity o' computers to do complex and real better. am also not getting the d&d stuff. that being said, from time before Gromnir has posted, some folks has asked for greater realism. nevertheless, developers o' crpgs has avoided realism that is commonplace in pnp rpgs... stuff that once were common in crpgs. as developers capacity to do more has expanded exponentially, many aspects o' realism has been abandoned. such is not coincidence. nevertheless, there will always be peoples who want more realism, and that ain't necessarily bad. regardless observing that peoples claims that "cRPG's should be less realistic than PnP RPG's just makes me cringe" is unfortunately puting you at odds wit decades worth o' crpg development. 

 

additionally, am gonna reiterate that complexity and realism ain't got no direct correlation or even sympathy, particular in a crpg. we already noted how realistic combat is not gonna be more complex in a crpg. similarly, while magic is usually linked to combat in crpgs, the magic system itself may be as complex as the developer cares to make it, and the realism o' such magic can approach nil. should magic be internally coherent? will many players demand that a magic system follow its own game logic? of course. that is not same as being realistic.  

 

sadly, am just not certain that wecan find points o' agreement as we are disagreeing fundamentals

Edited August 27, 2013 by Gromnir

[mcmanusaur]

am honestly not understanding what you is trying to say at this point.  "

 

"but the point is that Infinity Engine games (and other games that utilize DnD-based rulesets, which were of course first intended for PnP) are about as similar to PnP games as cRPG's get."

 

am not picking nits. seriously. am utter confused. earlier you is talking 'bout capacity o' computers to provide more realism and complexity, but you seems to be fixating on d&d rules and mechanics in games. is kinda a disconnect. tabletop rpgs is bounded by nothing save player imagination. complexity and realism o' a computer game is, in this period o' time, functionally bounded by what graphics will allow, and practically bounded by belief of developers that too much complexity is discouraging, and too much reality is boring. all of which gots nothing to do with d&d per se. sure, neverwinter nights mp had functionality that made it approach pnp and had a graphic component, but the old text-based mp rpgs is gonna be far closer to pnp and they not necessarily is weeded to d&d. 

 

am also kinda confused by your simple dismissal o' combat while actual observing the ubiquitous nature o' the element in crpgs, and am not sure what you is getting at with the following: "However, there are plenty of people who enjoy boxing and other combat sports, and I'd suspect that number would be even higher if people could obtain the experience without any of its drawbacks (such as black eyes and broken noses)." is the suggestion that a CRPG boxing simulation would be appealing to boxing aficionados and would somehow reaches the level o' superior complexity you yearn for in a game?  in a fighting game, skills is left up to the player, so you got the player mix the 4 basic punches how he chooses, and allows 'em to do own footwork. a crpg is gonna necessarily takes some o' the boxing away from player and replace it with player choosing abilities or skills or whatever... then watching as avatar boxes.  by making boxing a crpg activity you is pretty much reducing complexity from reality.  how you ADD complexity w/o reducing reality? give a vast menu o'  super-power skills and abilities that each has counters and defenses?  'course not. that is what current fantasy and sci-fi games does, and while it would increase complexity as far as rules makers is wishing to take, it sure decreases reality, don't it? 

 

as for a theoretical game using complete fantastic elements. okie dokie, you is a quasi conscious bubble o' gas "living" in red spot o' jupiter.  goal is to grok. does this by "exploring" a complete alien environment with no discernible up or down and including a few o' those additional, albeit small dimensions beyond those we humans is familiar. enjoy. sure, we gotta have some frame-o-reference so that us persons o' matter can comprehend such an abstract game, but setting and challenges can be complete fantastic and only the most obtuse expert o' jovian environments is gonna get twisted 'cause game doesn't match reality. too abstract? fine, make a game based on cartoon logic and physics. is a new mmo that is looking like it is going more cartoon than realism (wildstar) and it seems to be much anticipated. is distancing itself from reality and gaining fans before it is even released. 

 

"I also don't think it has to be all-or-nothing when it comes to realism."

 

irony. am reviewing the first sentence o' your post. and am struck by how last sentence directed at us is so full o' irony.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps  might as well simplify as this is getting pretty far-flung. am disagreeing with you 'bout capacity o' computers to do complex and real better. am also not getting the d&d stuff. that being said, from time before Gromnir has posted, some folks has asked for greater realism. nevertheless, developers o' crpgs has avoided realism that is commonplace in pnp rpgs... stuff that once were common in crpgs. as developers capacity to do more has expanded exponentially, many aspects o' realism has been abandoned. such is not coincidence. nevertheless, there will always be peoples who want more realism, and that ain't necessarily bad. regardless observing that peoples claims that "cRPG's should be less realistic than PnP RPG's just makes me cringe" is unfortunately puting you at odds wit decades worth o' crpg development. 

 

additionally, am gonna reiterate that complexity and realism ain't got no direct correlation or even sympathy, particular in a crpg. we already noted how realistic combat is not gonna be more complex in a crpg. similarly, while magic is usually linked to combat in crpgs, the magic system itself may be as complex as the developer cares to make it, and the realism o' such magic can approach nil. should magic be internally coherent? will many players demand that a magic system follow its own game logic? of course. that is not same as being realistic.  

 

sadly, am just not certain that wecan find points o' agreement as we are disagreeing fundamentals

 

The computing power of a system dictates how many rules it can handle simultaneously, and the main reason that RPG rulesets like DnD were designed to be heavily based upon simplistic abstractions is because that's what fits the medium's resources. But now that we've moved on to a different medium we can re-evaluate the reliance on abstractions over simulation in RPG's. However, somewhere along the way the conventional approaches were fetishized, and maybe we've even fooled ourselves into thinking there was some other reason why DnD is so simple computationally. Hopefully that ties all the ideas together for you.

 

I'm not going to pretend to have the authority to dismiss the supposed "beliefs of developers", if they are in fact as you present them, but I'm just saying what I think.

 

I don't dismiss combat as something that RPG's should include; I simply mention that it's not the most enjoyable aspect of the experience for me, and I think I'm perfectly within my license there. I mean to get at the fact that while you are correct that ostensibly in real life combat is hardly fun, that doesn't mean that combat in a realistic virtual environment can't be fun (so long as the pain and trauma effects simulated on the character and not the player!). Yes, it's a very different animal from the drawn-out, abstraction-heavy game (which I happen to not find very fun anyway) that most RPG players are familiar with, but it might be fun regardless. I could honestly see there being a significant demographic of consumers that would enjoy the "perfect combat simulation", and that should apply to other aspects of gameplay as well. But yes, it seems that you view abstracted mechanics as something necessary to the genre, which is something that I would heavily disagree with.

 

Well, allow me to amend my request: an RPG with purely fantastical elements. At any rate, the overall point here is that we tend to call games "realistic" or "unrealistic" based on how they handle one or two features when it reality both of those categories share a common base in reality for the most part. Cartoon physics are often an exaggeration of real physics, and the same goes for cartoony graphics, while cartoon characters tend to share the same motivations as real people. So I'd not call that purely fantastical.

 

I'm eager for examples, rather than hearing you paraphrase "cRPG developers' opinions" and "decades worth of cRPG development" (with all due respect), if you would oblige me.

 

I did mention that there were aspects in which artificial intelligence has yet to be brought up to human standards (such as emergent narrative), but the potential is there. You were incorrect to note that realistically simulated combat is less complex than heavily abstracted combat. It lasts a shorter time, that much I agreed with. But there's a whole lot of kinetics, footwork, technique, and mental processes like anticipation involved as well, which is never acknowledged by abstraction-reliant combat models. Realism is simply a different kind of complexity than heavy abstraction, just as it can be a different kind of fun.

 

Even magic is often based in reality, whether it be fire spells being super effective against ice trolls or other similar aspects.

 

TL;DR- One of the main reasons that RPG rulesets use heavy abstraction instead of more realistic simulation is because of the limits of another medium, which don't apply to video games. We seemed to have convinced ourselves into thinking otherwise, but hopefully the tendency to cling to conventions won't cloud our vision of progress.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

And the straw man argument of the year award goes to... never mind, I can't choose.

 

Yourself? Sounds like it from your long winded and straw man argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We really need to get away from this idea of "realism for realism's sake"; in fact, this is one of the most common rhetorical tricks that I see those with an agenda against realism use.  

 

So I have an agenda and using rhetorical tricks? That's a classic case of misrepresentation and the usual straw man tactics of people who can't debate the issue.

 

Keep up the straw man tactics and long winded posts with no substance mcmanusaur.

[Felonious]

 

I believe you are oversimplifying his stance; from what I decipher from Gromnir's posts, he feels that Mr. Sawyer attempts to impart too much reality into his fantasy world development, to the point where the infinitesimal details of realism can absorb creative resources which could have been better served being utilized in other areas.  Do not let your anger at his style of posting, baiting as it may be, blind you to the fact that he does carry some knowledge and a valid point of view into this discussion.

It's more like my limited intelligence can't cope with the butchered English, I simply don't bother trying to decipher it, especially when all I expect to find is straw man arguments against mote points.

 

In other words, I just don't have the time to bother with posting counter arguments against someone who so blatantly doesn't believe in anything I believe in. There frankly isn't even anywhere to get started—there are no valid arguments to counter.

 

I read one post of his, saw through it, and simply didn't bother. I also wouldn't be surprised if Felonious is a "clever" secondary (or tenth) account of Gromnir's. It's exactly what I would do if I was attempting the same.

 

While I can assure you that I am, in fact, not a Gromnir alternate account and am more than capable of formulation and iteration of my own thoughts and opinions, I do share his opinion that too much time and resources devoted to the recreation of realism in a fantasy setting can cause other areas in such a setting to suffer due to said resources not being allocated to greater areas of need.  Why does agreeing with him seemingly bother you people soo much?  Ignore his posts if you do not wish to deal with him, instead of continuing to feed him more ammunition. 

[Gfted1]

I lol every time I see someone call Gromnir a troll or try to assault his posting style, it just means you cant match him intellectually and have resorted to attacks. Anyway, as always, lets keep the thread discussion about the topic and not the poster.

[JFSOCC]

and I also don't think it has to be all-or-nothing when it comes to realism.

/thread.

 

Nobody is arguing for a hyper-realistic simulation game.

Some in this thread believe Josh Sawyer is going overboard with the realism, some, myself included, do not.

 

I agree with Mcmanusaur that realism is not the opposite of fun, it can be, at times, in which case I don't think I'd opt for realism.

Or rather, the game doesn't always have to be fun, but it has to be engaging. I believe that research of your subject will allow game designers to make a more engaging game.

 

En verder wil ik er geen woorden meer over vuil maken.

[Felonious]

I agree with Mcmanusaur that realism is not the opposite of fun, it can be, at times, in which case I don't think I'd opt for realism.

Or rather, the game doesn't always have to be fun, but it has to be engaging. I believe that research of your subject will allow game designers to make a more engaging game.

Not to nit-pick, but I am curious as to your opinion on how a game could accomplish retaining the ability to be engaging without being fun; if said game isn't enjoyable, are you still going to play it?