wordwalker
Auror
In a lot of ways, realism is more to be consistent enough to build the rules for your drama.
That is, you show that A can't happen and C can't so the hero has to make B work. In theory, you can be as inaccurate or sparse as you like as long as the gaps of "but maybe A could-" and "B wouldn't-" aren't as large as the difference that makes B still look better than A, and there's enough dramatic energy that readers care about the difference they're being led to.
Of course using more realistic detail builds a tighter, more convincing statement about each of those, and of course it slows down the plot of moving from A to B-- depending on the readership, since some fans get more into the reasoning (tactics, economics, seamanship, ?) of really settling one point than moving along.
But I think what matters most is the balance: between all the A, B and Cs and the momentum we give different points, including recognizing when we aren't as interested in a detail and being sure that part has enough energy to skip on past it. And that means, the more precise you get in one place, it makes it a little harder to skip along at others-- at least a little harder, though we all do it as our pacing and preferences need.
That is, you show that A can't happen and C can't so the hero has to make B work. In theory, you can be as inaccurate or sparse as you like as long as the gaps of "but maybe A could-" and "B wouldn't-" aren't as large as the difference that makes B still look better than A, and there's enough dramatic energy that readers care about the difference they're being led to.
Of course using more realistic detail builds a tighter, more convincing statement about each of those, and of course it slows down the plot of moving from A to B-- depending on the readership, since some fans get more into the reasoning (tactics, economics, seamanship, ?) of really settling one point than moving along.
But I think what matters most is the balance: between all the A, B and Cs and the momentum we give different points, including recognizing when we aren't as interested in a detail and being sure that part has enough energy to skip on past it. And that means, the more precise you get in one place, it makes it a little harder to skip along at others-- at least a little harder, though we all do it as our pacing and preferences need.
Sage
I love realism in books, if for nothing else than recalling the very colorful life I've led. I guess that's why I'm more drawn to the gray scale characters and plotlines. I don't often write true goodness and true badness, but a mixture of flawed characters trying to do the right thing and self-driven characters who stop at nothing to see their own goals realized. Thanks chime for admitting you've frozen yourself in the name of research. I too have done experiments once in a while, if for nothing else than to see how I would react to certain things and therefore how my characters would. While a fully concocted world and magic and stuff can be very well done, I feel like there's an obvious element missing from a lot of beginning writers' work. You can see that they've never been to mountains by how they describe them or have never feared for their lives by how their characters react. I think too often people give stock responses to things and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when stories become too predictable. That's why I love a bit of weirdness once in a while, something unexpected or an observation that gets me thinking, "wow, this is something only a person who was really there would notice." I mentioned this before in my rant about The Kiterunner. In the first half of the novel, the author really drew me in. Painted a picture that fully immersed me in a realistic, convincing world. The whole second half was disillusioning and disappointing, as if written by a completely different person. It was like Dorothy went back to Kansas' black-and-whiteness, turned off the magic and just closed her eyes. 
