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

Silvercat Moonpaw · Apr 3, 2009

Forked from: DMs: what have you learned from PLAYING that has made you a better DM?

Nai_Calus said:
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.

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.

billd91 · Apr 3, 2009

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:
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.

Kask · Apr 3, 2009

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:
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.

Alzrius · Apr 3, 2009

Wolfgang Baur addresses the idea of fantasy "realism" in his excellent book, the Kobold Guide to Game Design, Vol. 1: Adventures. To briefly snip a few lines:

Wolfgang Baur said:
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.

Janx · Apr 3, 2009

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.

Rechan · Apr 3, 2009

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:
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."

Mallus · Apr 3, 2009

billd91 said:
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.

Mallus · Apr 3, 2009

Kask said:
Well, within the game world there has to be consistency or the players cannot plan or even really know what is going on.

There has to be some consistency. A pretty small amount, actually, or D&D never would have made it out of the illogical glory of the AD&D era.

roguerouge · Apr 3, 2009

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.

Rechan · Apr 3, 2009

billd91 said:
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...

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

Silvercat Moonpaw

Adventurer

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

Kask

First Post

Alzrius

The EN World kitten

Janx

Hero

Rechan

Adventurer

Mallus

Legend

Mallus

Legend

roguerouge

First Post

Rechan

Adventurer

Similar Threads