Editorial Realism vs. What Designers Care About

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Tags: Obsidian Entertainment

<p>..., Verisimilitude, and the Responsibility of Expectations. Obsidian's Nathaniel Chapman <a href="http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?s=b4b7fdfa42d477ee8ac9975c2f6efbf2&amp;automodule=blog&amp;blogid=5&amp;showentry=139" target="_blank">ponders the issue</a>.<a href="http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?automodule=blog&amp;blogid=5&amp;showentry=139" target="_blank"></a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Something that seems to frequently come up when discussing the design of a game system is whether or not some aspect of that system adheres to reality. Or, more precisely, whether the outcomes of that system accurately simulate the results that the person making the argument expects, based on their particular interpretation of reality. <br /><br />Generally, these arguments come from players, or from non-designers, or less experienced designers, and will take the form of, "But XXXX isn't realistic!" or "Realistically, YYYY should happen instead". And, frequently, experienced game designers will turn around and say "Who cares?" and merrily go on their way designing an "unrealistic" system.<br /><br />I wanted to give a quick explanation of why this is, explain what role I see realism as having in game design, and then provide a bit of a defense of "realism" as it relates to something I call the "responsibility of expectations" that is placed on any game design.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Spotted at: <a href="http://www.rpgwatch.com/#15627">RPGWatch</a></p>

 

[Archibald]

As a very basic example, take armor in Fallout: New Vegas. Wearing Light Armor has strengths (you move faster) and weaknesses (you absorb less damage). Wearing heavy armor has the opposite effects. Heavy armor does not dominate Light Armor, even though it performs better at its core functionality, because there are cases in which moving faster is more important than absorbing damage.

I admit that i don`t know shit but doesn`t his example show how realism and game design can work together?

For a more complex example, because the game uses subtractive DT, low DAM weapons are disproportionately affected by DT. So, for instance, if a creature has 5 DT, going from a 6 DAM weapon to a 7 DAM weapon doubles your damage (your actual damage goes from 1 to 2). Whereas, if that same creature had 0 DT, going from a 6 to a 7 DAM weapon is only a 1/6 increase. This is an example of how you can encourage the player to make "smart plays" - when fighting an enemy in light or no armor, you are encouraged to use your highest DPS weapon regardless of its DAM. Whereas, when fighting an enemy in heavy armor, you want to select a weapon with enough DAM to significantly overcome its DT while still having enough DPS to deal substantial damage over time. When combined with the other properties of weapons (range, rate of fire, spread, etc.) you end up with an interesting matrix of choices in which players are encouraged to find the optimal weapon for any given situation. No weapon is dominant, players can select from a group of weapons they like based on their own personal playstyle, and there are opportunities for players to maximize their effectiveness through smart play.

Same? As far as i know nobody executes prisoners with rocket launchers in real life too.

The problem with realism is that, in reality, there are strongly dominant options. Catch 22's exist. I can't imagine ever wanting to bring a knife to a gunfight. If I was going to be venturing into the Mojave wasteland, you bet your ass I'd want to only wear the heaviest power armor I could find and only use the biggest gun I had... plus I wouldn't have an invisible backpack full of other weapons I get to choose to optimize my damage in other situations.

Is he retarded?

As two examples, I'll use Civilization and Power Armor. First - in Civilization, one of the most common complaints has been the situation where 1000 spearman defeats a tank. It seems ridiculous that something like that would even be possible. Yet, in the game rules, it is clearly an outcome that is possible, and tailoring the rules to avoid that outcome could have deleterious effects on the actual gameplay, in which case it may not be worth it. In fact, allowing lower-tech units beat higher-tech units helps avoid over-rewarding players that fast-tech and start off isolated - if tech was as dominating in Civ as it is in the real world, the game would not be much fun, even though it would be more realistic.

Or you know they could make a decent AI which wouldn`t be stuck with spearman when everyone is rolling with fucking tanks.

 

[Nickless]

But... Couldn't a thousand spearmen beat a tank in real life?

 

[SoupNazi]

Banal, shit, boring blog post. There wasn't even anything about it interesting - hell it wasn't even stupid enough to be entertaining. How did it make the front page of RPGWatch and consequently the most prestigious RPG webzine on the internet is beyond me.

 

[ChristofferC]

Realism is boring but resemblance to reality is engaging. Nobody wants to play a war game with blue blocks and red circles or a trading game with spreadsheets.

 

[zeitgeist]

But... Couldn't a thousand spearmen beat a tank in real life?

I don't see why one couldn't, in perfect circumstances. The game is just adding a layer of abstraction to the complex battle in question, it's not like the tank and the spearman are actually duking it out in a gentleman's duel.

 

[deuxhero]

But... Couldn't a thousand spearmen beat a tank in real life?

If by no other method than having more bodies than the tank has bullets at minimum, though taking advantage of the fact that the tank can only fire in one direction and flanking it so the other guys can get on it from behind and kill the guys inside with their spears would be the better choice.

 

[Turisas]

If by no other method than having more bodies than the tank has bullets at minimum, though taking advantage of the fact that the tank can only fire in one direction and flanking it so the other guys can get on it from behind and kill the guys inside with their spears would be the better choice.

More like the tank would kill a few dozen and rest would run in terror as the fearsome metal beast destroys everything in its path. You can't assume a modern level of knowledge from some archaic spearmen so they would have no idea how to attack a tank.

The power balance between the units in Civ games was always whacked; mods do it much better (ie., older units have virtually no chances against newer ones. In my last game I conquered Ethiopia, who were still with spearmen and the like, with a handful of infantry units. They must've had 50+ total units in defense and I annihilated them )

 

[snoek]

Who even writes these articles? what a bunch of boring yadda, yadda

 

[acolyte]

Nice post overall. What did you guys expect, a revelation? Those come far and few between.

it's important that you respect the fantasy in your game and not violate it through the game mechanics.

hear hear

 

[StrangeCase]

There aren't really any KKKredits to be squeezed out of this article. It's kind of embarrassing to watch people try.

 

[bhlaab]

As a very basic example, take armor in Fallout: New Vegas. Wearing Light Armor has strengths (you move faster) and weaknesses (you absorb less damage). Wearing heavy armor has the opposite effects. Heavy armor does not dominate Light Armor, even though it performs better at its core functionality, because there are cases in which moving faster is more important than absorbing damage.

I admit that i don`t know shit but doesn`t his example show how realism and game design can work together?

Uh nnnnno? Because if you get shot in real life it doesn't plink down your HP value os of course you'd want the titanium power suit over the leather vest.

 

[Archibald]

Light armor != leather armor.

 

[denizsi]

His armor example is pretty fucking retarded. Since we already know what the core game ie. Fallout 3 is like and that FNV is unlikely to deviate from that core to the degree of invalidating the "popular" TES-trace exploits like gaining absolute domination by maxing out a few stats and going for the best equipment without an alternative, the article just shows how out of touch with reality an average Obsidianite is regarding their own designs.

Likewise with tank vs. spearmen. I never found shit like that "entertaining" or balancing and on the contrary.

 

[MadnessOfTheKwa]

And this is where RPGs turned to shit. The minute the so called game designer started spouting inane nonsense and the people who actually did the work became little cogs in the machine with no say in the process.

 

[PorkaMorka]

I don't understand.

The tradeoff between speed/agility and armor protection isn't just something made up by game designers.

That trade off is really real.

That's why this dork :

Isn't wearing a gorget, a visor, pauldrons, vambraces, greaves, sollerets, gauntlets or even a damn codpiece.

He pretty much just has a helmet and a cuirass, although I believe that a lot of guys go for something a bit longer nowadays, with a groin protector.

It's not unrealistic for lighter armor to be less encumbering than heavier armor...

So what is the point of that example?

Also it's not hard for defending spearmen to kill armor, IRL, they just struggle with 70 ton "Modern Armor".

 

[Cassidy]

Realism and Quality vs. Profit would be a much more direct and fitting tittle.

 

[Ruprekt]

My pet peeve is population growth in space 4x games. You have turns taking weeks or months during which populations grow by billions.

It's not a big deal in civ because turns represent years or decades, and in fantasy 4x you can imagine founding a city means you draw in population from the countryside (that's kind of hard in the voice of space).

 

[Lord Rocket]

Porka Morka: Entirely different requirements dude. First of all, plate armour is far lighter than most people seem to think, and since it was generally custom made for the wearer it was perfectly possible to do shit like cartwheelsand that in it. The main reason is totally replaced chainmail is the fact it encumbered far less (for one thing plate armour's weight isn't entirely carried on the shoulders) while retaining flexibility AND protecting just as well.
Secondly, your foot soldier there would probably wear something far better if he could afford it. It's disingenuous to compare olde timey knights with your average 124235th platoon goon since a knight was part of a warrior elite in charge of supplying his own weapons and armour. Compare the foot soldier with this character here:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EenKCVBzXjI/S22Q6k5gpWI/AAAAAAAACqM/ZiVHA-eAmZo/s1600-h/IMG_5554.JPG

and you've got something a little more accurate. Our friend here isn't wearing his padded jacket because he feels mobility is more vital than sheer protection. Well actually he's wearing it because he wants to show off his handiwork but imagine he's an actual guy drafted into a levy and you'll see what I mean.
Thirdly, modern armour is bulky. It needs to be in order to disperse energy - olde time armour only needed to deflect blows. That's why it's generally quite nicely polished and has rounded off corners and things, and why weapons technology eventually became a matter of applying as much force as possible in a small area (see: warhammers), because that was harder to turn away. And obviously it increased penetration.
Lastly, see here.

 

[Ruprekt]

your foot soldier there would probably wear something far better if he could afford it

like what?

are mercenaries in iraq thunking around dressed like space marines or sumfin?

 

[MadnessOfTheKwa]

I don't understand.

The tradeoff between speed/agility and armor protection isn't just something made up by game designers.

That trade off is really real.

That's why this dork :

Isn't wearing a gorget, a visor, pauldrons, vambraces, greaves, sollerets, gauntlets or even a damn codpiece.

He pretty much just has a helmet and a cuirass, although I believe that a lot of guys go for something a bit longer nowadays, with a groin protector.

It's not unrealistic for lighter armor to be less encumbering than heavier armor...

So what is the point of that example?

Also it's not hard for defending spearmen to kill armor, IRL, they just struggle with 70 ton "Modern Armor".

The comment is on the fact we listen to what this idiot has to say in the first place. The game designers of today are all the same idiots from the mod communities of yesterday who go hey guys I gots a cool idea with BLAH BLAH BLAH RETARD SHIT.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Porka Morka: Entirely different requirements dude. First of all, plate armour is far lighter than most people seem to think, and since it was generally custom made for the wearer it was perfectly possible to do shit like cartwheelsand that in it. The main reason is totally replaced chainmail is the fact it encumbered far less (for one thing plate armour's weight isn't entirely carried on the shoulders) while retaining flexibility AND protecting just as well.

That's all true,and the point about plate vs chain is well taken, the classic D&D based conceptions of armor encumbrance are almost totally wrong, but a full suit of armor still significantly encumbered and slowed you down.

That's why armored cavalry started discarding pieces as firearms became more prevalent, until they ended up with the classic cuirassier (wearing just a plate cuiriass and possibly a helmet) that hung around until WW1.

The first cuirassiers did not appear very different from the fully armoured Late Medieval man-at-arms. They wore three-quarters armour that covered the entire upper body as well as the front half of the legs down to the knee. The head was protected by a close helm, burgonet or lobster tail pot helmet, usually worn with a gorget for the neck. The torso was protected by a breast and back plate, sometimes reinforced by a 'placate'. The arms and shoulders were fully armoured with pauldrons, rerebraces, elbow couters and vambraces. Armoured gauntlets were often abandoned, particularly for the right hand, as they interfered with the loading of pistols. Long tassets, instead of a combination of short tassets with cuisses, protected the front of the thighs and knees, Riding boots were substituted for lower leg armour (greaves and sabatons)

..

By the mid 17th century the fully armoured cuirassier was becoming increasingly anachronistic. The cuirassier lost his limb armour and entered the 18th century with just the breast and backplate.

...

The Austrian cuirassiers attempted to trade protection for mobility by wearing only the half-cuirass (without back plate) and helmet.

Secondly, your foot soldier there would probably wear something far better if he could afford it. It's disingenuous to compare olde timey knights with your average 124235th platoon goon since a knight was part of a warrior elite in charge of supplying his own weapons and armour.

Eh, not really. Nobody is really wearing anything heavier than a vest, trauma plate, groin protector and helmet (with the rare exception of some stuff that is only used for SWAT style "entry" or bomb disposal).

The elite units where money is no object aren't significantly more heavily armored than the regular line units, because while heavier armor exists, it just slows you down too much for use outside of rare "entry" situations.

A trade off between armor and speed is very much realistic, not strictly limited to game design. Although realistically, some pieces would be strictly inferior to others, being both less protective and more encumbering, which may make for less interesting gameplay

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

But... Couldn't a thousand spearmen beat a tank in real life?

Highly unlikely. The main gun on an M1A1 Abrams can range out to about 4000m. The .50 caliber machine gun can range out to about half that, and the 2 7.62mm machine guns to about 1000m. In even vaguely open terrain, a tanks would destroy spearmen before they could ever get close enough to cast a missile. Should the spearmen get in close and swarm the tank, the crew would just need to button up and drive away. The spearmen's only hope would be to disable the tank and force the crew to ditch it, leading to a 4 pistols + 1 rifle versus 1000 spears confrontation. Still, to disable a tank would require munitions well in advance of a spear. It would just never happen to be honest.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

though taking advantage of the fact that the tank can only fire in one direction

Commander and loader machine guns are generally cupola mounted and would have no difficult swiveling to engage rear and flank attackers.

 

[PorkaMorka]

M1A1 is "Modern Armor" not "Armor".

Anyway, the standard scenario for spearmen to defeat tanks is a bunch of fortified spearmen sitting in a city.

1000 spearmen dug in close/urban terrain could easily destroy some WW2 style tanks, using molotov cocktails and various mechanical means to immobilize them.

It's not like the spearmen are much worse off than riflemen who weren't supplied with anti tank weapons in this regard...

Attacking with unsupported tanks into urban terrain is a nightmare for the tanks in terms of spotting.

Ethiopians in the 1930s famously defeated Italian tanks by rolling boulders on them to immobilize them, prying open the hatches and/or pouring gasoline on them and setting them alight.

But in a built up city you'd just need the gasoline.