PDA

View Full Version : System With the Most Realistic Character Creation



Tinydwarfman
2010-07-31, 05:08 PM
What system do you think has the most accurate character generation for real people? I'm inclined to say GURPS, but I've never played rolemaster, and heard that it's pretty good too.

This is not about general goodness, just what system is the best for approximating real people.

Prodan
2010-07-31, 05:11 PM
FATAL. HA! Bet you didn't expect that!

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-31, 05:12 PM
If normal people have orifices larger than their faces, then yes, I suppose FATAL is accurate.

Kurald Galain
2010-07-31, 05:14 PM
White Wolf.

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160819) is full of examples. That some people are said to overestimate their own abilities doesn't change the fact that the system in itself makes it easy to model humans in a versatile and realistic fashion.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-31, 05:19 PM
White Wolf.

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160819) is full of examples. That some people are said to overestimate their own abilities doesn't change the fact that the system in itself makes it easy to model humans in a versatile and realistic fashion.

I don't think so. The system is good for a game, but with only 5 levels of skills, and way too few of them, it's not nearly in depth enough for real life.

unimaginable
2010-07-31, 05:21 PM
Paranoia. Srsly.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-31, 05:26 PM
Paranoia. Srsly.

I've heard people mention it alot, but what is it?

Kurald Galain
2010-07-31, 05:28 PM
I've heard people mention it alot, but what is it?

The Computer Is Your Friend. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Paranoia)

oxybe
2010-07-31, 05:40 PM
define "realistic" character creation.

is a game with realistic character creation one that has dozens of knobs and fiddly bits to tweak or one that allows you to simply portray a character accurately, and if the second then are we talking about accurately portraying a "real" (as in IRL) person or a "real" (as in, a character that is native to the setting) person?

Jota
2010-07-31, 05:50 PM
I've been told Shadowrun, but that's purely hearsay.

Eldan
2010-07-31, 05:54 PM
Fate/Fudge?

SurlySeraph
2010-07-31, 06:01 PM
Twilight 2013. Lifepaths, stats that are broad enough and have a wide enough range to be useful, enough skillpoints to actually represent all of an actual person's skills, and good traits and flaws.

Crow
2010-07-31, 06:03 PM
3rd Edition shadowrun is pretty versatile and capable of modeling real people pretty well. It's definitly the best of the systems I have played in that respect.

I would love to see an example of that game where you can die in character creation. Not saying it's good for this thread, but it IS awesome.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-31, 06:05 PM
define "realistic" character creation.

is a game with realistic character creation one that has dozens of knobs and fiddly bits to tweak or one that allows you to simply portray a character accurately, and if the second then are we talking about accurately portraying a "real" (as in IRL) person or a "real" (as in, a character that is native to the setting) person?

A real person IRL. How well does the system portray you? I'm talking about not only skills and capabilities, but the accuracy of them. For instance, I think GURPS is one of the best at this because it has a huge list of skills, a realistic synergy between similar ones, advantages instead of some poorly defined stats, and even disadvantages. And there are no silly restrictions on how high a skill can be because of level either. Now, personally I find Character Creation in stuff like D&D and exalted a more fun process in and of itself, but I think GURPS is the most accurate and realistic system I've seen.

Arbane
2010-07-31, 06:36 PM
Old-school Traveller. What life gives you is largely random, you get too old before you know it, and you can get killed at any time!

I think "Realism" in RPGs isn't worth pursuing. "Verisimilitude" _might_ be.

SurlySeraph
2010-07-31, 06:44 PM
I would love to see an example of that game where you can die in character creation. Not saying it's good for this thread, but it IS awesome.

Traveler is the famous one. You *can* die in character creation in some other systems, but it's usually a lot less likely to happen than in Traveler. For example, in Twilight 2013 you can die in character creation, but unless you're trying to make a 100-year-old Delta Force operative it's extremely unlikely.

Vitruviansquid
2010-07-31, 07:13 PM
If I've learned anything from reading books and watching television, it's that many different people have many different understandings of what a "real" person is.

The question, as you've asked it, is impossible to answer.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-31, 07:23 PM
If I've learned anything from reading books and watching television, it's that many different people have many different understandings of what a "real" person is.

The question, as you've asked it, is impossible to answer.

:smallconfused: I'm not sure I understand. Take anyone you know. See how accurately you can stat them in your system.

Aroka
2010-07-31, 08:39 PM
What system do you think has the most accurate character generation for real people? I'm inclined to say GURPS, but I've never played rolemaster, and heard that it's pretty good too.

This is not about general goodness, just what system is the best for approximating real people.

The question is a bit vague - can you specify what you mean by "real people" ? Should they feel real? Have realistic abilities? Have realistic histories? Have realistic explanations for where their skills and abilities come from?

Do you mean real, as in of the real world, or do you mean sense of verisimilitude?

Without specifics, I say GURPS, Twilight 2013, Unisystem, Call of Cthulhu, and Cyberpunk 2020, in pretty much that order. And it's really close with GURPS and Twilight 2013 - I'd say GURPS only wins by dint of fiddly bits, and that's only if you value fiddly bits over having explanations for where you learned what you know, since TW2013 has a lifepath system. I love me some lifepath systems. (My Final Year is so going to be Urban Warfare. Damn the rads, I want 2+ equipment dice and Cognition-based skill points!)

Gralamin
2010-07-31, 08:47 PM
I've found that the Silhouette System, By Dream Pod 9, is actually pretty accurate. While it does have only 5 levels of skills, each of those skills have 5 levels of complexity as well. So if you have Pilot 3/1, You are really good at a propeller plane, but not very good at all at a jet plane.

Zeta Kai
2010-07-31, 11:33 PM
The Computer Is Your Friend. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Paranoia)

But TVtropes is not. I just spent two hours on that site because you mentioned it on another thread. You need to stop doing things like that. :smalltongue:

And, FTR, my WIP custom non-d20 game system will model anyone "realistically", from an infant human to the god of all creation, & anything in-between. It's that good.

Satyr
2010-08-01, 02:58 AM
I use creating really people as a sort of benchmarking for the potential of RPG systems due to the complexity and comparative low power of most people.

Well, Gurps is the best, as usual. Is that any surprise? Hero is probably similar in its options. Unisystem works well, as does the WoD (both original an ripp-of version). Unknown Armies should be mentioned, especially when it comes to the modeling of personalities and psychological stress. Awesome system by the way.

The Rose Dragon
2010-08-01, 03:25 AM
See my signature for my opinion.

Draz74
2010-08-01, 11:41 AM
What system do you think has the most accurate character generation for real people? I'm inclined to say GURPS, but I've never played rolemaster, and heard that it's pretty good too.

This is not about general goodness, just what system is the best for approximating real people.

LARP. :smallbiggrin:

Tinydwarfman
2010-08-01, 12:12 PM
LARP. :smallbiggrin:

Oh, touche. (if only I could make one of those little apostrophe e things)

Dogmantra
2010-08-01, 12:16 PM
(if only I could make one of those little apostrophe e things)

Here you go (http://copypastecharacter.com/)

ghost_warlock
2010-08-01, 12:37 PM
What, no vote for MouseGuard here? Or would that be Burning Wheel?

BobVosh
2010-08-01, 12:41 PM
But TVtropes is not. I just spent two hours on that site because you mentioned it on another thread. You need to stop doing things like that. :smalltongue:

TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife)

Hmm I'm going with MAID is the very most accurate system for representing people.

Glimbur
2010-08-01, 12:52 PM
Wuthering Heights (http://www.unseelie.org/rpg/wh/index.html). We are all troubled people with rage and despair held in check only by society's crushing grasp. We are plagued with problems that seem arbitrarily selected from a chart. Woe is me, for true happiness is forever out of reach.

erikun
2010-08-01, 12:53 PM
World of Darkness is one of my favorites, and I've had no problems portraying realistic people. Or at least, I haven't had trouble considering the characters created as realistic. The limit on five ranks in a skill doesn't seem that unreasonable to me, at least until you have someone who has five ranks in nearly everything (but any character system, taken to extremes, becomes unrealistic).

FUDGE/FATE is pretty good in its simplicity. The GM decides the appropriate stats, decides the level of difficulty, and the player is free to make their character as they see fit. It's also just as easy to make a non-realistic character, though.

Burning Wheel seems to fit what you are looking for. Character creation is dealt with by Lifepaths, where you follow the character through their life, and the skills they have available from the start are determined by the Lifepaths they take. Skills are leveled up through use, with higher rank skills requiring more challanging situations to gain levels.

arrowhen
2010-08-01, 01:37 PM
Systemless freeform. Your character can be as "realistic" as your writing skills allow.

If that doesn't count, then Risus. Seriously.

Satyr
2010-08-01, 03:55 PM
There are basically two approaches to this - on the one hand, you make character creation very concrete and have answers to all potential questions, fill out all gaps and create a very detailed and complex write-up; or you use a very difuse and general, perhaps even superficial so that the questions and gap do not occur in the first place.
It's probably a question of taste; I personally find the second approach to be a cop-out, but that's probably not the most recommendable position.


What, no vote for MouseGuard here?

Err, most people I know do not happen to be mice.

Jolly Steve
2010-08-01, 05:38 PM
If having a big list of options was sufficient for realism, then Marvel Superheroes would be a realistic RPG.

When your scale runs from pixies to giants, the difference between one human and another fades into insignificance.

Tinydwarfman
2010-08-01, 05:56 PM
If having a big list of options was sufficient for realism, then Marvel Superheroes would be a realistic RPG.

When your scale runs from pixies to giants, the difference between one human and another fades into insignificance.

Your point?

... Except when it doesn't. Like in many of the RPGs named here.

Jolly Steve
2010-08-01, 05:59 PM
Your point?

I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.


... Except when it doesn't. Like in many of the RPGs named here.

Hence, these systems are not realistic. Detailed, fun, and 'good' maybe, but not realistic.

JaronK
2010-08-01, 06:12 PM
Shadowrun 3 definitely allows for great fine tuning, and makes very realistic people. There's a nice guideline of what the abilities mean (3 is average for someone who does the specific thing regularly, for example) and it's easy to have a wide variety of skills without nerfing your character.

A|State is very realistic for its world... but you're playing a pauper on the street who can barely squeak by.

JaronK

fusilier
2010-08-01, 06:53 PM
Personally, I lean towards GURPS, but traveler has some stuff going for it too, although it was mostly random.

There was an old Doctor Who RPG called Timelord (some googling should turn it up). I've never actually played it but I have looked at the rules. The system is pretty simple. However, the fascinating thing about it was its character generation. Apparently the designers assumed that the players would want to play one of the Doctors or his companions, but if they didn't they included an appendix which allowed a player to stat himself out in the system. It involved things like arm-wrestling the GM to determine strength! I thought it was clever.

Tinydwarfman
2010-08-01, 07:32 PM
I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

Okaaaay.


Hence, these systems are not realistic. Detailed, fun, and 'good' maybe, but not realistic.

Your response, it does not make sense. Maybe my response was unclear. GURPS can build anything from ants to gods, but humans are still very different and distinct. It's the same with many generic systems.

WhiteHarness
2010-08-01, 08:49 PM
Another vote for GURPS.

...unless maybe you include that old effort of Gary Gygax's from the early '90s: Mythus/Dangerous Journeys. Not a great system, but very in-depth character generation mechanics.

Lhurgyof
2010-08-01, 10:19 PM
Hackmaster

Tyndmyr
2010-08-01, 10:34 PM
Well, in real life, character creation happens when a man and a woman love each other very much. Or the man just wants to get some, and tells the woman he loves her very mu...

Wait, what roleplaying system does this again?

Tinydwarfman
2010-08-01, 10:52 PM
Well, in real life, character creation happens when a man and a woman love each other very much. Or the man just wants to get some, and tells the woman he loves her very mu...

Wait, what roleplaying system does this again?

Sounds like you need to get the old d100000 out again.

Jolly Steve
2010-08-02, 01:19 AM
There was an old Doctor Who RPG called Timelord (some googling should turn it up). I've never actually played it but I have looked at the rules. The system is pretty simple. However, the fascinating thing about it was its character generation. Apparently the designers assumed that the players would want to play one of the Doctors or his companions, but if they didn't they included an appendix which allowed a player to stat himself out in the system. It involved things like arm-wrestling the GM to determine strength! I thought it was clever.

This was on geocities, but I saved a copy: http://www.apolitical.info/webgame/timelord.pdf

Jolly Steve
2010-08-02, 01:25 AM
GURPS can build anything from ants to gods, but humans are still very different and distinct. It's the same with many generic systems.

Therefore GURPS is not realistic.

You're using the word 'realistic' to mean 'characters are distinct', and that's not what 'realistic' means.

This might sound like a pedantic & prescriptive complaint. What does it matter if it's 'right' as long as everyone understands what's meant?

But the problem is that not everyone does understand what's meant. Some people use 'realistic' to mean something like 'characters die when hit with a sword'.

If there are two different definitions of the same word in the same group of people, then any productive conversation using that word becomes impossible, until you start looking at its definition.

Tinydwarfman
2010-08-02, 01:55 AM
Therefore GURPS is not realistic.

You're using the word 'realistic' to mean 'characters are distinct', and that's not what 'realistic' means.
Okay, you really need to start looking at the whole picture, because that's not what I'm saying at all.



This might sound like a pedantic & prescriptive complaint. What does it matter if it's 'right' as long as everyone understands what's meant?

But the problem is that not everyone does understand what's meant. Some people use 'realistic' to mean something like 'characters die when hit with a sword'.

If there are two different definitions of the same word in the same group of people, then any productive conversation using that word becomes impossible, until you start looking at its definition.

Okay then, if somehow this wasn't clear before, I'll clear it up now. Realistic means how well something models reality. Whether that means life-like injury or fatigue systems, or a very in-depth attribute/skill system, the point is finding the system that represents and can simulate real people the most accurately.

arrowhen
2010-08-02, 02:15 AM
Well, in real life, character creation happens when a man and a woman love each other very much. Or the man just wants to get some, and tells the woman he loves her very mu...

Wait, what roleplaying system does this again?

The kind of roleplaying system that starts out, "OK, you be the sexy librarian and I'll be the naughty schoolboy."

arrowhen
2010-08-02, 02:19 AM
Okay then, if somehow this wasn't clear before, I'll clear it up now. Realistic means how well something models reality. Whether that means life-like injury or fatigue systems, or a very in-depth attribute/skill system, the point is finding the system that represents and can simulate real people the most accurately.

Now you need to define "model", "represent", and "simulate".

Do numbers describe a person more or less accurately than a poem? Why?

The Rose Dragon
2010-08-02, 02:19 AM
The kind of roleplaying system that starts out, "OK, you be the sexy librarian and I'll be the naughty schoolboy."

...Hentacle?

Talkkno
2010-08-02, 02:25 AM
The kind of roleplaying system that starts out, "OK, you be the sexy librarian and I'll be the naughty schoolboy."

Maid RPG?.......

Psyx
2010-08-02, 02:39 AM
Millennium's End.

The main problem is though that it's not even remotely 'fair'. An older character with a high Intelligence, a lot of money money spent on college education, and various military and higher education training packages will have literally 50x or more the number of skill points of some 18 year old street punk.

Realistic isn't very balanced.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-02, 04:32 AM
*shrug* Life ain't fair.

Balance is inherently unrealistic.

Psyx
2010-08-02, 05:04 AM
It makes for a poor game, though. Being told that your character concept is ten times worse than someone else's from the get-go isn't encouraging.

Aroka
2010-08-02, 05:13 AM
Well, in real life, character creation happens when a man and a woman love each other very much. Or the man just wants to get some, and tells the woman he loves her very mu...

Wait, what roleplaying system does this again?

Both Pendragon and Artesia: Adventures in the Known World have rules for creating offspring. A:AKW literally has a rule available for determining whether conception takes place, and has rules for giving birth, and Pendragon has rules for children being born and surviving year-to-year to adulthood in the Winter Phase.

And yes, it definitely does matter in both systems - campaigns in Pendragon are supposed to run for decades. (I think the Grand Campaign is, what, 80 years?) A:AKW has gifts that let you improve your bloodline (which is no use to you, and only benefits your children), or be reborn in a child upon death. (A:AKW also has detailed rules for what happens after you die, right up to judgment and being sent to Heaven or Hell.)

Tyndmyr
2010-08-02, 05:16 AM
It makes for a poor game, though. Being told that your character concept is ten times worse than someone else's from the get-go isn't encouraging.

Agreed. "realism" isn't a very useful concept for most RPGs, imo.

Satyr
2010-08-02, 09:02 AM
It makes for a poor game, though. Being told that your character concept is ten times worse than someone else's from the get-go isn't encouraging.

Another reason why Gurps is awesome- it covers balance just as well as accuracy; yes, most "normal" people are not very powerful. However, if you try (e.g. with supernatural means), the 18-year old school drop-out and the highly decorated war veteran and university teacher will be about equal in power.


Both Pendragon and Artesia: Adventures in the Known World have rules for creating offspring. [...]
And yes, it definitely does matter in both systems - campaigns in Pendragon are supposed to run for decades. (I think the Grand Campaign is, what, 80 years?) A:AKW has gifts that let you improve your bloodline (which is no use to you, and only benefits your children), or be reborn in a child upon death.

So does Harnmaster, at least in the Gold Edition. With accurately gruesome rules for pregnancies (at least from a medieval perspective). I don't know if it is necessary, but it creates a certain feeling of authenticity and accuracy.


Agreed. "realism" isn't a very useful concept for most RPGs, imo.

This is one of the grandest and unfortunately common fallacies in modern RPG design. I cannot underline enough how bad this conclusion is.
A good game lives and dies with the suspension of disbelief of the players. However, suspension of disbelief tends to be finite and absolute; and when enough idiocies add up, the game suffers. Thus a more accurate and authentic set of rules allow for a greater margin of mess-ups in the storytelling department, which can be very helpful.
Capturing reality is actually quite difficult, but usually it boils to down how easy the whole suspension of disbelief becomes. Roleplaying games show certain similarities to telling a huge lie. If it is to be believed it must at least seem credible; if things become too outlandish or bizarre, the feeling of involvement gets lost.
In addition, reality is a very viable bottom line. It is the one compromise everybody has to agree to. Thus it basically acts as the primary orientation of events. In addition, it is (And yes, I know that reality and the perception of reality are two different things, and the perception part is the relevant one etc.) the basic assumption of any setting. If not stated anyway else, everybody will automatically and intuitively assume that any given event work the way they do in reality (and this is even necessary if you don't want to waste a lot of time, space and effort to explain the obvious). As frustration is often the result of unfulfilled expectations, it is not a good idea to involve any mechanisms which basically undermine these basic assumptions. Yes, genre conventions are another influence, but these do not exist in a vacuum and are in many cases also subject to expectations of the players; there are only very few if any games work without the baseline assumption of reality. Realism is a sub-category of verisimilitude, but it also the most influential one; I would boldly state that it is impossible to create a plausible story in a believable universe without referencing to real world concepts- most of the time the assumptions are so basic that they are not even recognized (case in point: gravity).

The next aspect is the simplest one: With reality as a base line, you can pretty much always just add Most fantasy settings and genres and related genres are defined by the aspect in which they differ from reality. Again, reality is a baseline and creates the necessary familiarity, but as pretty much any fictional setting is a derivation of reality, the additional elements or changes can then be implemented (which has the additional secondary effect of creating a feeling of an impact of the element in question). Additionally, it is a lot easier to create an "unrealistic" setting out of a "realistic one than vice versa, as it basically comes down to "Reality +some elements, - some other elements" and thus greatly increase the adaptability and flexibility of any given system (not to mention the verisimilitude).

And therefore, not being able to cover reality is a major drawback of any RPG and a fallacious approach in game design, no matter how common it is, at least for any games which take place in any setting which resembles reality (and the vast majority does). How you cover reality again is subject of various approaches - either through exact rules, or through the lack of these.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-02, 09:38 AM
@Satyr
I've never felt "realism" should be an aim of a system - after all, we typically play games where modeling reality is actually counterproductive!
In reality you can't cast spells, overclock your nervous system, or travel faster-than-light; trying to make a rules system that is both "realistic" and accomodates these concepts leaves you working at cross-purposes.

Secondly, the "reality" fo a game world is not the real world, but a fictional setting that complies with the tropes of the genre. It's very hard to do Heroic Fantasy if people are dying of gangrene all the time or coping with birth defects born of malnutrition. If you're going to be picking-and-choosing aspects of reality to incoroprate anyways, why not just start with whatever genre or style of gameplay you're looking for and shade it with references to comfortable physical laws we all know and love?

From the PDP School's perspective (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161758) a "realistic" character creation system is missing the point. Do you really need mechanics for generating offspring? How important is it to have a fully-comprehensive skill list - one where I can be good at swimming, bad at golf, but excellent at football - when you're only going to be doing a few of those things in-game? If you need numbers to accurately describe human beings, look at all the ways we test real people and ask yourself - how realistic are they?

At most, a system must be self-consistent: design paradigms that are said to apply to a given area of the game must apply to all aspects of that area; assumptions that form the backbone of a game's logic need to be adhered to.
That said, I recognize this thread is an exercise in entertainment; but if Satyr is going to post about realism in gaming, well I want in on that party :smallamused:

Satyr
2010-08-02, 10:27 AM
In reality you can't cast spells, overclock your nervous system, or travel faster-than-light; trying to make a rules system that is both "realistic" and accommodates these concepts leaves you working at cross-purposes.

Yes, these are genre conventions which are valid in addition to reality; it still comes down to "Reality +some elements, - some other elements".
In almost any cases, no matter what kind of fantastic, surreal or bizarre elements you involve, the basic assumption of players and gamemasters are always based on their previous experiences - or that said, their impression and perception of reality.
Any fantastic game works on the assumption "if not stated otherwise, it works as usual" -and as usual is again the general basis - reality.


If you're going to be picking-and-choosing aspects of reality to incorporate anyways, why not just start with whatever genre or style of gameplay you're looking for and shade it with references to comfortable physical laws we all know and love?

Why start from scratch and reinvent the wheel when you already have the ultimate compromise as a basic assumption and then base whatever I intend on this?


From the PDP School's perspective a "realistic" character creation system is missing the point. Do you really need mechanics for generating offspring?
From a certain point of view, any and all mechanisms are basically superfluous. Under the right circumstances and assumptions, you can handwave anything. Only because a certain element does not occur often in mainstream forms of RPG, it doesn't mean that the element is not needed; it only means that it works only in a niche. The whole offspring mechanism is of minor significance if you only play short adventures, or if the focus is directed somewhere completely different; however in a legacy style game where a campaign can include up to four or five generations of player characters (Pendragon is probably the prime example), it becomes significant.


How important is it to have a fully-comprehensive skill list - one where I can be good at swimming, bad at golf, but excellent at football - when you're only going to be doing a few of those things in-game?

Freedom of Choice? Selections like this tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies -if a player puts enough effort on one particular aspect, it is very likely that he or she will actively pursuit the inclusion of this aspect in the game. Besides, an ability doesn't need to be relevant for the solution of a plot to be relevant for the character and the layer's conceptualization of said character. Perhaps it will never matter that character A took an ayurveda specialization on the cooking skill, but as long as it helps the player to visualize the character and represent him in the game, the skill and its specialization have already fulfilled a purpose.


At most, a system must be self-consistent

At most? At least! The absolute minimum quality standard is that a game does not contradict itself and makes sense within the setting conventions, and intentions. Any game that does not fulfill this minimum requirement is predisposed to be utter garbage.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-02, 10:52 AM
At most? At least! The absolute minimum quality standard is that a game does not contradict itself and makes sense within the setting conventions, and intentions. Any game that does not fulfill this minimum requirement is predisposed to be utter garbage.
At most because attempting to layer "reality" atop such a system for reasons extrinsic to gameplay leads to unfortunate results.

Of course, it is also the least bound - it's a very narrow band :smalltongue:

Also: we do have an agreed baseline aside from reality - the tropes of the genre. "Heroic Fantasy" includes sufficient baseline assumptions to form the basis for any imagined reality; the same is true of other genres. I'd prefer to state it "by genre, unless stated otherwise."

To the rest of the post we have the basic PDP-BT split: I think a game needs to be designed as a game first; you say a game needs to be model reality first.

N.B. PDP & BT are schools of game design coined right in this here forum! If you have any questions regarding them, read my or Satyr's posts (respectively) :smallbiggrin:

Lapak
2010-08-02, 11:04 AM
Old-school Traveller. What life gives you is largely random, you get too old before you know it, and you can get killed at any time!

I think "Realism" in RPGs isn't worth pursuing. "Verisimilitude" _might_ be.Traveller gets many points on the 'real' scale not only for its randomness-within-the-human-scale-of-experience, but also the typical state of a new character. How many other character generation systems can saddle you with a mortgage at the start? "Not getting my ship repossessed" is a more 'realistic' motivation for adventuring for cash than most. :smallwink:

Tinydwarfman
2010-08-02, 11:14 AM
Now you need to define "model", "represent", and "simulate".

Do numbers describe a person more or less accurately than a poem? Why?
The word simulate at least, shouldn't need to be defined. I want the system that can be used to generate stats for any person, use that character through a couple of scenarios, and have the outcomes be as close to what would have actually happened as possible. You know, a simulation.

Because you can't take a poem and run it through a series of situations and compare it how the actual thing stood up.