General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Sure. When it's plausible and sensible. Epic-level character with fire resistance out the arse? Hell, lower-level character with fire resistance? Adventuring on the Paraelemental Plane of Magma where you've prepared for, well, running around a bunch of sodding lava? Sure.
Random mountain interior designed to be a test for warriors? Uhh... Level 9 Bard 4/Swashbuckler 5 wearing the standard Studded Leather armor a L1 character would have, whose only magical item was a cold iron longsword which was presumably the stock +1, who doesn't have resistance to anything? Umm... Nope. Not plausible at all.
Some concepts in some situations are simply so patently ludicrous that they simply cannot be handwaved.
This particular puzzle was a glorious example of really bad design. Room slowly flooding with lava due to cannons shooting holes in the wall. This was something that had supposedly been used before by the local population for testing warriors. Uh... Right. They reset it how? How are they planning to reset it after this? Why can't I jump on the cannons? Are they greased? 1 inch wide? They're not really cannons if they are now are they, more like guns. I've got a +10 Balance mod and a +9 Jump mod, I like my odds. I've got 83 HP, why can't I jump through that wall of fire and just soak up some fire damage? I'll use some cure spells on myself later. What, you mean later on in the puzzle after I've solved it much to your chagrin by accident I have to convince this NPC with me to jump through a wall... Of the same kind of fire? That he takes no damage from? What the hell was stopping me then? And this is on top of, yeah, magic antireality lava that does no damage until you're in it. (And no, it wasn't actually magic lava) Nevermind that a wall of stone thin enough to be shot through by a cannon likely wouldn't hold back molten magma very well...
Yes, yes, complaining about realism or the lack thereof in D&D is pointless/etc, but some things are just too much. Selectively hot lava. Any dragon living in a cave with tunnels smaller than it is. Some things just plain are stupid.
Quote:
I'm not going to complain about realism in D&D specifically. I am going to ask, however:
Why do you believe that a fictional world will work as you expect it to work rather than possibly having rules that allow it to operate in ways antithetical to your perceptions?
I'm posing the above question to everyone who cares to read.
It's just something that I don't get when I read about "realism" OR "versimilitude":
Why do you expect things to act like reality, or act consistently, when they aren't real?
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 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.
It depends on the game you're playing. If you're playing Toon with cartoon physics, that's one thing. Most games are something else, though.
Think of it this way: Pretty much all tabletop RPGs, contrasted with computer RPGs, are different from actual reality by exception. In other words, we expect the games to obey normal physical laws except for places where the game changes them for the purposes of the game. In fact, we functionally have to have those expectations. There's no physics engine constructed by the rules from the ground up. If there were, they'd be impossible for a human referee to implement. That's very different from computer games which do build physics engines, in effect, to determine how the sprites/avatars/what-have-you move and interact with their environment. That all has to be built.
Because of this, when tabletop gaming, we have to use our own knowledge of reality around us to determine what seems a reasonable thing to do, to estimate what may have a chance of success (necessary for playing with a sense of rationality), and to form a mental image of what's going on in a scene (again, another contrast with computer RPGs, which present a visual image).
This is why people want some form of realism or verisimilitude. Some sense of it with respect to possible actions in the game is necessary. Some need for it is more subjective, particularly in the way realism helps with forming a mental and consistent picture of how the world works around the characters. Some players simply demand more of that than others, but all pretty much demand some. They expect things to fall down rather than up, they expect things with more mass to weigh more, and so on.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
It's just something that I don't get when I read about "realism" OR "versimilitude":
Why do you expect things to act like reality, or act consistently, when they aren't real?
Well, within the game world there has to be consistency or the players cannot plan or even really know what is going on. One day their spells work like in the book, the next day every spell backfires, the next day gravity is reversed and the PCs fall into the sky when they leave the tavern, etc., etc.
__________________ Being a DM does not require that you check your brain at the door. Much to the chagrin of munchkins & powergamers.
I hate the common critique of fantasy adventures and settings that they are not realistic enough. At the same time, I totally understand. The critique is not about realism. It is about depth and plausibility.
A realistic setting does not have wizards, 20-pound battleaxes, or half-naked Amazon elves. Or giants, dragons, or beholders. Or anything fun, really.
A fantasy adventure has all those things, plus flying carpets, cloud castles, clockwork monkeys, and earth elementals of pure diamond. If you present these things in a serious, respectful, and coherent way, it wins over more fans than if they are munged together haphazardly.
__________________ Need an informed review of a product? No problem! Check out my RPGnow Staff Reviews!
I assume that when somebody uses the term "realism" in regards to an RPG, they are referring to one of two aspects:
1) playing in a game where everything is internally consistent and rational. The world works mostly just like ours, except there's magic, and all but medieval technology hasn't been invented yet. Every thing makes sense (if the player had all the facts/barring mysteries).
2) they are talking about a game being treated gritty, and less heroic. Where simulation rules for fatigue are applied, and a higher lethality from wounds.
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.
Simply put, for some people if it doesn't work realistically, then it breaks their suspension of disbelief.
The next question being, "Why would it be so important to that person's enjoyment?" To which the answer is, "Matter of that individual's taste."
Pretty much all tabletop RPGs, contrasted with computer RPGs, are different from actual reality by exception. In other words, we expect the games to obey normal physical laws except for places where the game changes them for the purposes of the game.
Very well said! Have some XP.
Also... the same can be said about the worlds described in most fantasy fiction; they mostly obey the same laws as the real world, except for the places where they don't in order to allow for the genre's conventions.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Many stories strive for internal consistency to permit greater suspension of disbelief, which allows for a pleasing sense of immersion from its audience. I agree that "realism" is a spectacularly poor word choice when describing a high fantasy world, when consistency and plausibility is what is actually meant.
Edit: in the example you cite, there's a different dynamic in play. Basically, the player seems to feel that the DM is altering the rules of the game arbitrarily, which makes all of the player's decision-making invalid and unfun for that player. If DnD is about choices and the DM's decisions make the world in which the player's choices invulnerable to player agency, then the player has a right to be upset. Games are defined by rules; theater need not be. The player signed up to play a game, not to be a DM's sock puppet. Unless the player was told ahead of time that the game would be like the one described, he's the victim of the DM's bad faith.
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
Last edited by roguerouge; 3rd April 2009 at 03:59 PM..
This is why people want some form of realism or verisimilitude. Some sense of it with respect to possible actions in the game is necessary. Some need for it is more subjective, particularly in the way realism helps with forming a mental and consistent picture of how the world works around the characters. Some players simply demand more of that than others, but all pretty much demand some. They expect things to fall down rather than up, they expect things with more mass to weigh more, and so on.
I think though that there's not any game out there where you fall up, not down, and larger things weigh less.
The following consists of "Realism in RPGs as far I have seen discussed, so YMMV".
I honestly think that most issues of "realism" stem from less realistic mechanics, as opposed to assumptions. How a fighter can kill 20 mooks/minions/whatnot without breaking a sweat.
The issue of "realism" as far as mechanics is concerned is... well, where's the line? Let's take, for instance, the flying carpet. How are you staying on? Shouldn't you have to roll to stay on, which increases in difficulty as your speed increases? How are you protecting yourself from wind chill? How about altitude? Or, getting hit by a Titan. If a giant hit you, it would be like having a tree dropped on you - you would be utterly destroyed because the giant is simply so large that the power behind his swing, and the weight of his weapon, would just pulverize you. It would be like you kicking a frog in the face.
There is a system out there, I have been told, that is so very convoluted and complex, but so very realistic that two men standing 10 feet apart, firing the same weapon at one another, can lead to one man taking next to no damage from a hit, and the other being killed, because the system takes into account so many different factors. But it takes just so long to compute, that it's unwieldy.
The issue of realism crops up when someone says, "THere's no way this rule would work." For instance, Critical fumbles. A critical fumble happens on a natural 1. But, statistically, a 1 happens every 20 rolls. So, if you have 100 men fighting, 20% are going to lose their swords or hurt themselves because they rolled a 1.
Or, when you take a rule, and expand it in terms of a realistic world, the rule breaks down. For instance, the old "Wall of Iron". A wizard can cast Wall of Iron and create a Wall of Iron that doesn't go away. He could then take that wall and melt it down and have a whole lot of iron. He could wreck the Iron economy just by casting a spell over and over. And, if you have more than one wizard, then...
Why do you expect things to act like reality, or act consistently, when they aren't real?
Whether something acts like reality is thoroughly separate for whether things act consistently.
Consistency is required for players to make decent decisions about character actions. Inconsistency means players cannot plan intelligently. I expect consistency unless the GM has specifically billed the world as being largely inconsistent.
As for being realistic - this is the most easily grasped form or consistency, for one thing. For another, it is a particular artistic style, and some folks like it. When they game, they expect to see things they like - that is part of the point of playing, after all.
Consider fiction - while some of it is highly unrealistic, a great deal of it is realistic. A lot of folks expect their non-genre fiction to be realistic and consistent, but he story's completely fake. Same with RPGs.
Last edited by Umbran; 3rd April 2009 at 05:08 PM..
Reason: bad sentence, no biscuit!
a) Touchstones. If a game has "humans", then they should act human. If a game has elves, they don't need to act like humans. Even then however, it helps to have humans that act human even if you want to focus on the elves, because it provides (part of) a framework, and it helps if elves are thriving, they don't act as if they have a racial death-wish.
b) Taking (a) further: Player-game world interaction. Players are very disconnected from the game world, and experience it only from the DM's descriptions, which are never universal, often mispoken and frequently either mis or un-heard. Having the game-world function in a genre-limited-realistic manner (and having the players knowing the genre) is immensely valuable: if the players have no idea how the world will react to their actions, they will be reduced to pixel-hunting.
c) Taking (b) further yet: Simulationism. A DM's time and descriptive capacity are both extremely limited. Two people can easily and legitimately disagree on how easy or likely a given situation is. It helps if the players can fill in the gaps and rules are provided that remove the 2-people 2-opinions problem. If crunch and fluff match, this is relatively easy. If they mismatch, it becomes hard or impossible.
Consistency is required for players to make decent decisions about character actions. Inconsistency means players cannot plan intelligently.
I agree with that.
Sometimes things sound like they don't make sense, even for a fantasy game, and that's usually painful to players when the only explanation is "magic explains!".
I like games where I can interact better with scenary (GURPS compared to D&D, for example) with some consistency. Where jumping from a building means death, not X damage. That doesn't mean D&D or any other system is wrong, they just fill the sense of consistency in different levels for different people.
__________________ And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
I generally assume that calls for realism in RPGs are covers for other, underlying sources of dissatisfaction. Usually a dislike of change. We tend to internalize the abstractions that are part of games we like, while not understanding how those abstractions might appear to an outsider. Then, when we play a game we don't like, we take on the role of the outsider and are highly critical.
I generally assume that calls for realism in RPGs are covers for other, underlying sources of dissatisfaction. Usually a dislike of change.
Trying to psychoanalyze your opponents in a debate rarely results in anything except anger and hurt feelings.
Quote:
We tend to internalize the abstractions that are part of games we like, while not understanding how those abstractions might appear to an outsider. Then, when we play a game we don't like, we take on the role of the outsider and are highly critical.
Because alternatively, we tend to like games that we like the abstractions involved in. You're here insisting that everyone in history who's said they hate hit point systems actually doesn't like them for the stated reason, but because of some gameplay reason that they either cannot state or refuse to.
I generally assume that calls for realism in RPGs are covers for other, underlying sources of dissatisfaction.
I don't think that's a safe assumption. It may be true in some cases, but I think most posters here are self-aware enough to know what they really want.
....
As for the OP, I will just second the above posters that there are two common uses of the word "realism",
1. Absent A Rule, Reality. Players expect that the D&D world will work like the real world unless there's a rule that says otherwise. So, lacking a rule on gravity, we assume that D&D gravity (on the world's surface) accelerates at 9.80665 m/s2. That's "realistic."
2. Once a Rule, Logic Follows. Players expect that the rules (both the written rules and the unwritten "realistic" rules that flow from "Absent a Rule, Reality" and also the "social rules" of a given game world) follow logically from one another. If it's logically required that "If A, Then B", it's realistic to expect B once A has been established.
By example, Spelljammer changed a lot of the rules of standard D&D, resetting what's "realistic", but once it's established that air pockets can become stale the PCs can would be within their rights to say that it's not "realistic" to build a Spelljammer ship with an open-flame galley but no way of refreshing the atmosphere - "I mean, who would do that? It doesn't make sense!". (Maybe not the best example, but I'm sure you get my point. There's no rule in the book forbidding open-flame galleys, but it would be stupid to use one on a ship built for long space voyages.)
__________________ I don't "tell stories" when I play D&D. I adventure. Afterward, when the gold is counted and the bodies piled high, we may tell stories about how it all went down. Or not.
When a thing seems real it will work, even if it won't.
When a thing seems unreal it will provoke doubt, even if it isn't.
When a person feels he is being duped then he is naturally suspicious, even if there ain't no real reason.
When a person feels everything is square then he will be trusting all around, even if nothing really is.
The fantasy to most folks is for things to be real when they ain't, but that's okay most of the time, cause that's the way it is supposed to be anyways. The reality though is that when things aren't as they should be, then nothing seems real, cause you've already noticed.
Now some folks are fine with one degree of one thing, and some with one degree of another.
But sooner or later it's all seen for what was intended.
Unless, of course, you just ain't really trying at not being truthful.
Or is it the other way around?
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
