If it's not real then why call for "realism"?

[nightwyrm]

I think that whether someone finds a particular situation to be unrealistic depends heavily on his or her knowledge base. As someone with a M.Sc. in biology, I find most of the MM to be rediculous. Someone else who has a Ph.D. in literature might not. Yet, I'll still put dragons and griffons and giant bugs into my games coz they're cool and interesting.

What gets me annoyed, however, is people who insists that their knowledge of reality not be handwaved by "it's magic" or "just coz it's cool", but expects me to ignore my biological knowledge and accept that dragons could exist in a game world "just coz they're magic". Why the heck does biology gets the "it's magic" shaft while everything else must adhere to the real world (gamers with biology degrees unite and demand equal treatment ).

But at the end of the day, when I go to be entertained, the only thing that matters is fun. The Anakin vs Obi-wan fight in RotS is pretty much impossible, but the lightsaber fight is so cool that I can ignore that they're essentially surfing on lava.

[Majoru Oakheart]

Originally Posted by Nai_Calus

And a question must be asked: What about fighting on a narrow catwalk over a flow of lava is so much cooler than, say, fighting on a narrow bridge over a roaring, swollen river filled with jagged rocks, rapids and whirlpools? Either way if you go off the side you're going to be in a world of hurt and trouble and probably dead. But the river is a lot more believable as a setting for characters who are not quite utterly heat-resistant badasses.

For me it has to do with the fact that it is SO unrealistic plus the danger level. If there is a river with jagged rocks, there's a chance I'll survive. Most D&D adventures I've played tend to have jagged rocks and fast moving rivers doing 2d6 damage per round or something while in it. I'm likely to be able to survive for a long time. Plus, I've grown up on over the top action movies. People in movies survive long falls into fast moving rivers with jagged rocks all the time.

On the other hand, lava is deadly. I expect to die nearly instantly when I fall into it. Plus, I don't see lava all the time. In fact, I've never seen lava in person. I've seen fast moving rivers before. With jagged rocks even. But I've never been above a river of lava, fighting for my life. Of course, that's because it's impossible in real life. Which is exactly why I like it in my games. The further away from real life they are the better.

[Celebrim]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw2

Why do you expect things to act like reality, or act consistently, when they aren't real?

Because the contrary would create an unplayable mess.

Let's imagine the situation.

DM: The first orc swings its axe and misses. Now you can attack, roll a d20.
PC: *clatter* I roll a 17... does that hit?
DM: The axe transforms in to a flamingo. The ice cream sundae bounces away. Your turn again, roll 3d6 to attack.
PC: Umm...I stab at the other orc with my flamingo... *clatter* a seven?
DM: A palpable hit. Nose hairs go flying everywhere, and a the pansies begin singing Handel's Messiah.
PC: Err..ok. So is the orc dead or not?
DM: Ooops. As you begin to check, you collapse through the floor, resulting in a mobius space time distortion. Roll a saving throw vs. zany or your spleen will get a free paid vacation to Maui.
PC: Ummm.. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but saving throws are with a d20 right?
DM: No, with d6's on odd numbered whims on Thursday.

I can understand it if people just want to play in that kind of world, but I don't understand it when the tone is one of expectation that that's how things should always work.

I think that even for those that protest otherwise, there is an assumption of consistancy and an expectation of a certain degree of conformity. Players generally expect that for a given proposition, the range of outcomes is somewhat predictable. If the range of outcomes for a given proposition is not predictable, then players might as well act completely randomly because the outcome of random actions will be fundamentally no different than taking planned actions. For a player, if there isn't any sort of expectation about how things will work, then they are fully at the whim of the DM. If there is an expectation about how things will work, then they are still fully at the whim of the DM but at least they have some reasonable expectation about what those whims might be. Furthermore, if something really outside their expectations happens, if the world generally conforms to understandable rules, then that surprising event can generally be lumped into a class of somewhat understandable phenomenom like - 'The wall was an illusion.'

Now there is no reason at all that the game world rules and physics need to conform to real world physics, but there are some pretty strong reasons why both DMs and players might prefer that they do. For one thing, if they do, then everyone at the table has a preexisting shared model of reality that they can draw on to predict outcomes and communicate ideas. For example, players generally understand upon seeing an elephant that they can't pick it up, unless they look at there character sheet and see some special exemption like, 'Elephant tosser.' Thus, in almost all cases, the exemptions where reality doesn't apply are much easier to track of than the cases where 'it works just like reality'.

The truth of the matter is that I've never played at a game table (with the dozens of groups I've gamed with), where there wasn't an expectation that 99% of things would conform to reality. Thus, players knew that fire was hot unless something explicitly informed them of the exception. Players knew that horses ate grass and oats, that they couldn't walk through a stone wall without a special exemption, that they could grasp things in about arms reach, that they could talk to each other at a distance of about 30' and be heard but that they might have to raise their voices slightly to do so, that they would get thirsty in a desert and that water could be used to quench this thirst, but that salt water wouldn't be useful in this regard, that infants are unlikely to be able to respond or help themselves, that grass is usually green, that a candle can be lit for light, and so on and so forth. We could sit here and list literally millions of facts that players at the table agreed upon without ever mentioning that they agreed to them or even ever questioning why they should agree to them given that the world 'wasn't real'.

To be honest, I think the whole question is meaningless. Every group is going to rely on a vast body of known facts to create player propositions like, "I try to open the door.", and DM responses like, "The door is locked/stuck/trapped/has no handle/is an illusion/etc." Without them, communication is impossible. Whenever I see complaints about 'versimlitude' and 'realism' come up, my immediate assumption is that this is a proxy argument of some sort where the player has a very specific complaint or set of complaints but rather than addressing those specific complaints, the player tries to generalize the problem to obscure what is actually being discussed.

I should also say that I really get annoyed by red herrings like, "Why do you worry about realism if you are playing a game where people can sling fire with their minds?" In the context of the game, there isn't anything unrealistic at all about people conjuring and slinging fire with their minds. In fact, all this fire conjuring and slinging happens in very specific and very predictable ways, and are usually explained with great detail. A group of players who see a robed figure lift his hands, do a bit of a dance, and shout, "Ahar nash inceratae" or some other rubbish, aren't going to be the least surprised when a bead of fire leaps from his finger tips and exlodes into a ball of flame. They will probably be a bit suprised though if they hit the figure with a battleaxe and they find themselves standing in Central Park Station holding a poodle. Now, in the context of a fantasy game, the latter isn't impossible, but if it happens the players will probably want to grasp how and why this extraordinary event occurred, whereas in the case of the bead of fire exploding into a 40' diameter ball of flame they'll probably not even see it as extraordinary at all but rather entirely mundane.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by nightwyrm

But at the end of the day, when I go to be entertained, the only thing that matters is fun. The Anakin vs Obi-wan fight in RotS is pretty much impossible, but the lightsaber fight is so cool that I can ignore that they're essentially surfing on lava.

Actually, those platforms are magnetically shielded, and later on, Anakin does burst into flame just from being near lava. So that particular example is, more or less, "realistic."

[nightwyrm]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Actually, those platforms are magnetically shielded, and later on, Anakin does burst into flame just from being near lava. So that particular example is, more or less, "realistic."

right....that's some serious fanwank.

And just coz we're on this subject: Convection Schmonvection

[Majoru Oakheart]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Actually, those platforms are magnetically shielded, and later on, Anakin does burst into flame just from being near lava. So that particular example is, more or less, "realistic."

Meh, it looks like they are standing about 10-20 feet away from the lava and are perfectly fine. Anakin only bursts into flame when he gets within about 2 feet of the lava itself. Obi-wan even walks pretty darn close to the edge to look down at the flaming Anakin and he's completely fine. Maybe they were using some Jedi fire retardant trick, but I doubt it.

Plus, one of them was standing on a droid's head. He might have had magnetic shielding, but I doubt it was big enough to cover an entire person standing on it.

It's just a flimsy excuse to have a battle over lava.

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart

It's just a flimsy excuse to have a battle over lava.

[fanboy] I know, wasn't it great! [/fanboy]

[PrecociousApprentice]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

Whenever I see complaints about 'versimlitude' and 'realism' come up, my immediate assumption is that this is a proxy argument of some sort where the player has a very specific complaint or set of complaints but rather than addressing those specific complaints, the player tries to generalize the problem to obscure what is actually being discussed.

This basically sums up my feeling about this entire debate. They might not even know that they are obscuring the conversation. Clear communication about what you really feel or mean about a subject is a skill, and many (if not most) people do not posess this skill.

The closer a game sticks to "reality", whatever that is, the easier it is to make assumptions, as long as your assumptions will be consistent with "reality". No level of "unreality" can ruin a game, given the right context within the game.

Many people have very "unreal" notions about "reality". This causes many arguments because we don't all have the same idea of what is real, and those ideas are really meaningless without context. The problem only comes up when people are not mature enough to communicate their way through it and come to a compromise.

To echo the comment above about biology, I am a former paramedic/firefighter and current medical student. Most of you wouldn't believe what is medically "realistic".

[Majoru Oakheart]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

[fanboy] I know, wasn't it great! [/fanboy]

Hey, I'm right there with you. It was awesome. Which I think, was my point.

[Majoru Oakheart]

Originally Posted by PrecociousApprentice

Many people have very "unreal" notions about "reality". This causes many arguments because we don't all have the same idea of what is real, and those ideas are really meaningless without context. The problem only comes up when people are not mature enough to communicate their way through it and come to a compromise.

Which actually brings up another point. This is exactly what used to cause huge problems in my 2e games. When there isn't rules for something in the game, you default back to "realism". 2e being a more rules light game than 3e or 4e, there was more times we had to fall back on realism. And since everyone has a different view on what is "realistic", it used to cause a lot of arguments.

I remember on arguments on things like "How far can a person jump?", "How difficult is it to jump on someone's head from 20 feet up?", "How hard is it to pin an Ogre?", and many others. You'd be surprised exactly HOW different people's views on what is OBVIOUSLY realistic is.

[Andor]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

Because the contrary would create an unplayable mess.

Exp given, for great justice.

[prosfilaes]

Originally Posted by Rechan

Using the running example of the Lava/Volcano... if there's lava in the room, shouldn't you ask the DM what the rules are? Or, if the plot seems to be directing you to a Volcano where a Dragon lives in the heart of it... then either the DM is assuming you are going to go in, or he's going to assume that you aren't.

Wouldn't checking be advisable?

When should you check, and how do you keep that from slowing down the game? If the DM says "it's snowing outside", is that really a request to stop the game until we have the complete rules of cold weather and its dangers to characters explained? I don't know that you can expect everyone to be on the same page about lava whether or not you declare that you're being realistic, but that doesn't stop it from being a mood-kill when you go

The Wizard bows to you mockingly: "You will not escape out of here alive." He then drops iron plates in the wall and lava starts flowing out to cover the flow. "There is no power greater than..." Wait, let's go over the lava rules real quick so that everyone knows how they work.

And that's not necessarily realism, though realism will cut down on a lot of the questions. I'm not sure I want to stress about what type of protection my paladin's armor gives him against the cold, though.

[PrecociousApprentice]

Actually, I have no problem telling players the game implications for the elements I put in my world. Your example of a stop in the middle of a description is rediculous, but after that would be fine. I actually regularly tweak rules at the table to fit the scene better, and I tell the players about it when it comes into play. I just did that the other night to simplify the cover rules in 4e for a battle we had. We did not use the rules from the PHB, but I think that my shortcut fit the intention really well, and it allowed us to play faster and fit our scenario better. Communication makes games better. Don't make people guess.

Actually, that is the heart of it right there. Communicate with players. Don't leave things for them to assume. When you inevitably run into a problem because communication has not been perfect, talk it out and come to a compromise. This has made all of my games better. I bet there are quite a number of cries of "This is not real enough!" that are really just a failure to communicate. Obviously not all, but I would guess a fair number amount to inadequate communication or inability to compromise.

[PrecociousApprentice]

Actually, I have no problem telling players the game implications for the elements I put in my world. Your example of a stop in the middle of a description is rediculous, but after that would be fine. I actually regularly tweak rules at the table to fit the scene better, and I tell the players about it when it comes into play. I just did that the other night to simplify the cover rules in 4e for a battle we had. We did not use the rules from the PHB, but I think that my shortcut fit the intention really well, and it allowed us to play faster and fit our scenario better. Communication makes games better. Don't make people guess.

Actually, that is the heart of it right there. Communicate with players. Don't leave things for them to assume. When you inevitably run into a problem because communication has not been perfect, talk it out and come to a compromise. This has made all of my games better. I bet there are quite a number of cries of "This is not real enough!" that are really just a failure to communicate. Obviously not all, but I would guess a fair number amount to inadequate communication or inability to compromise.

[Majoru Oakheart]

Originally Posted by PrecociousApprentice

Actually, I have no problem telling players the game implications for the elements I put in my world. Your example of a stop in the middle of a description is rediculous, but after that would be fine. I actually regularly tweak rules at the table to fit the scene better, and I tell the players about it when it comes into play.

Yeah, I do this all the time. My battles pretty much start with:

"You see a bunch of Orcs on the road in front of you. They snarl menacingly at ready their weapons. They don't look friendly. Roll for initiative."

*write down the init*

"Alright, this is the situation. This is water over here. It doesn't look deep, walking through it will be hindering terrain. These are big rocks, they provide cover. It takes 2 squares of movement to get on them or you can jump up with an Athletics check. These are trees. The truck of the tree is blocking terrain, the leaves and undergrowth are hindering terrain but provide cover when standing in them.

Any questions? No. Good, the beginning of initiative is..."

[PrecociousApprentice]

Exactly MO, and if there is someone that doesn't like how I set things up, they can object, and we handle it throught communication. If it looks like it is not going to get resolved quickly, I ask that the players just go with a decent compromise this time, and we will settle it outside of game time. Keep play flowing, allow dissent, and communicate about everything.

[Imban]

Originally Posted by PrecociousApprentice

Not only does the level of verisimilitude necessary differ between people in an audience, but it differs for each element of the fantasy world for each person. Some might be fine with the non-deadly lava and have serious problems with recovering wounds in one night but not have problems with three nights, etc... Verisimilitude is relative to genre, world, world element, audience, and likely more. It is almost silly to say that any level of verisimilitude is necessary. When we insist this, it implies that verisimilitude is on a single axis, and you can travel down this single axis in either direction, more or less believable, and that this axis is objective. The reality is that there are infinite verisimilitude axes, and no axis can be difined as objective.

It's pretty hard to say what people's preferences for things are, yes, since they differ for everyone, but your bolded line is dangerously wrong - it sounds an awful lot like "No level of verisimilitude is necessary" as opposed to "no single level of verisimilitude is necessary", and while I'd argue the latter is wrong too (because enough consistency to stop people from giant frogging locked doors is probably necessary to everyone), the former is basically the Perfect solution fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in action: I might strictly prefer games where all damage is actually greivous physical (or "life force") wounds inflicted upon a character, while Nabmi might strictly prefer games where no injury incompatible with life (for example, skinny-dipping in magma, repeated greataxe blows to the forehead, etc.) is possibly survivable. Our preferences for levels of verisimilitude ("Healing spells heal being demoralized? People can be fatally demoralized or mind-boggled? What?" and "People can survive third-degree burns to 100% of their body? What?") are clearly incompatible, but you seem to be advocating game designers realize this and... write a game that satisfies neither of us because it can't possibly satisfy us both.

Which is fine, if what you're actually saying is "I have very low verisimilitude preferences and want game designers to write games that satisfy me.", but that doesn't occupy a more privileged position than any other.

[PrecociousApprentice]

I am actually not saying anything about my preferred level of "realism" in any perticular game, much less ALL games.

I am saying that "realism" is very much context dependent. We can't even all agree on what is "real" in the real world. Check into any religion debate. "Realism" is something that is dependent on genre, theme, tone, as well as group and individual tastes, and is basically set for each element in the game. This only happens as a process, and requires communication to create the "necessary" amount of "realism". Complaining about whether a certain game is "realistic" enough means nothing without all of this context.

The complaints about insufficient "realism" typically happen over a specific event in game. They are often a reaction to the DM not having the same assumptions about what "real" is in a fantasy game as they do. The ones that don't fit this mold are typically people who hate a specific game and just want to bash it and it's adherents, and usually takes the tone of "Your unrealistic games are inferior to mine!" The only rebuttal to the second is "Quit playing this system and quit insulting me." The rebuttal to the second is "Your objections are meaningless without the context to give them meaning. Your problems probably exist as a result of insuficient or failed communication."

I am not trying to point out that there is no solution. I am not trying to point out that there is a perfect solution. I am pointing out where all of these debates go wrong. They go wrong because any complaint about the percieved lack of "realism" in any particular game should be structured in the form of "This particular game is not realistic enough..." with a long string of qualifiers, the most important of which will be "...for me in this context." Anything less really has no meaning.

[BryonD]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw2

Why do you expect things to act like reality, or act consistently, when they aren't real?

If things need not act with any consistency because they are not real, then why spend any money on rulebooks? Seriously.

I haven't read a single post in this thread beyond the first. I'd imagine I'm retreading. But, just speaking for myself, the reason I expect things to act consistently is because it has been demonstrated that it can be achieved and having that in place adds leaps and bounds of quality to the satisfaction and enjoyment of the gaming experience.

[howandwhy99]

Perusing some of these responses, I tihnk the OP has received a definite answer. A roleplaying game, at least a traditional roleplaying game, needs to have a coherent world and inhabitants or the game is unplayable. The game, again for traditional RPGs, has been about creating and enacting strategies and tactics within a fictional world. The degree to which the game world is or isn't predictable is the degree to which the players can or cannot strategize within it. No plans or preparations can really be made in relation to an incoherent (or worse, inexistent) world. This is why we have adventure modules. And campaign worlds. And book after book of detailed characters and items and places and more. It is to define an understandable world for the players to discover.

I'm not going to get into the specifics defining between realism, verisimilitude, and fantasy realities. But a game world that cannot be understood by its' players definitively cannot be successfully roleplayed within.