innerdude
Legend
I've been ruminating for some time now on what I see as being a common misconception about FRPGs.
I've heard it said many times, "Talking about 'realism' in a game where there's elves and dwarves and gnomes and magic is stupid, because it's inherently unrealistic."
I disagree with this statement, and here's why:
In any fictional construct--film, novel, play, shared roleplaying experience--there is "realism," and then there's something else called "suspension of disbelief," "suspendable disbelief," "verisimilitude," or "believability."
"Realism," as I'm going to define it for the purposes of this argument, is an approximation, or sliding scale, of how closely the fictional world models the "real world."
In a work of fiction trying for absolute "realism," then every minute detail about what happens in that work of fiction must be constrained by what is solely possible within our own real, lived experience. An absolute "realist" piece of fiction will not even admit the possibility of fantasy/sci-fi/pulp action tropes, because they don't exist in our world.
On the other hand, "suspension of disbelief," "verisimilitude," or "believability," are NOT an approximation of "realism" (meaning it's not about modeling the real world), it's about internal consistency within the fictional construct's own set of constraints.
(For ease of use, I'm going to refer to this idea as "believability," but you can use "verisimilitude" or one of the others at your discretion.
Every fictional world creates a set of rules on which the actions within it are either possible or impossible based on its own set of internal mechanisms. These "rules," or "creative mechanisms," are wholly independent of realism. They can approximate realism, they can completely differ from realism, but they themselves are NOT the same thing as "realism."
Something can be utterly and totally "unrealistic," yet still be "believable," because all of the actions taken within the fictional world hold true to its own internal set of mechanisms. We accept fictional worlds with elves, dwarves, and gnomes, and magic because within the constraints of the fictional world, those things are that world's "realism."
So when someone starts talking about "realism" in an RPG, I think it's very important to ask them, "Are you talking about 'realism' as it relates to the 'real world,' or are you talking about 'realism' as it relates to the construct of the game world?" because these two concepts are completely different.
If the fictional world has chosen to model, or not model some of its own internal constructs after the "real world," the question isn't how "real" it is, but how consistent it is. If the fictional construct deviates from "the real world," there typically needs to be a reason/explanation for the deviation, and it usually needs to be applied consistently. If you want to say that elves are seven-foot, 300 pound giants in your world, that's fine, as long as there's a reason, and as long as it's consistent.
A great example of this being done poorly is Star Wars Episodes I, II, and III. One of the reasons they suck so bad (besides the horrific dialogue and acting) isn't because they lack "realism," it's because they lack believability. The actions, behaviors, motivations, and consequences of the actions of the heroes/protagonists aren't even consistent within their own constructed environment, let alone our "real world."
What I'm saying is that like good fiction novels, films, and plays, RPGs don't need to be realistic, but need to have a level of believability to the way their mechanics interact within the chosen fictional construct.
Having elves and dwarves is inherently "unrealistic"--but it doesn't mean it's not "believable" within a game world like Forgotten Realms or Golarion.
Saying, "Well, in my world all humans have magical abilities that makes it so when they throw a sword, it automatically comes back to them" isn't "realistic" OR "believable" in the Forgotten Realms, because it goes against the Realms' own internal constructions.
Why do comic book heroes often have backstories? Why do we need to see Peter Parker get bit by that spider in the movie? It's not because it's "realistic," but because it makes what Spider-Man is later capable of "believable."
I've heard it said many times, "Talking about 'realism' in a game where there's elves and dwarves and gnomes and magic is stupid, because it's inherently unrealistic."
I disagree with this statement, and here's why:
In any fictional construct--film, novel, play, shared roleplaying experience--there is "realism," and then there's something else called "suspension of disbelief," "suspendable disbelief," "verisimilitude," or "believability."
"Realism," as I'm going to define it for the purposes of this argument, is an approximation, or sliding scale, of how closely the fictional world models the "real world."
In a work of fiction trying for absolute "realism," then every minute detail about what happens in that work of fiction must be constrained by what is solely possible within our own real, lived experience. An absolute "realist" piece of fiction will not even admit the possibility of fantasy/sci-fi/pulp action tropes, because they don't exist in our world.
On the other hand, "suspension of disbelief," "verisimilitude," or "believability," are NOT an approximation of "realism" (meaning it's not about modeling the real world), it's about internal consistency within the fictional construct's own set of constraints.
(For ease of use, I'm going to refer to this idea as "believability," but you can use "verisimilitude" or one of the others at your discretion.
Every fictional world creates a set of rules on which the actions within it are either possible or impossible based on its own set of internal mechanisms. These "rules," or "creative mechanisms," are wholly independent of realism. They can approximate realism, they can completely differ from realism, but they themselves are NOT the same thing as "realism."
Something can be utterly and totally "unrealistic," yet still be "believable," because all of the actions taken within the fictional world hold true to its own internal set of mechanisms. We accept fictional worlds with elves, dwarves, and gnomes, and magic because within the constraints of the fictional world, those things are that world's "realism."
So when someone starts talking about "realism" in an RPG, I think it's very important to ask them, "Are you talking about 'realism' as it relates to the 'real world,' or are you talking about 'realism' as it relates to the construct of the game world?" because these two concepts are completely different.
If the fictional world has chosen to model, or not model some of its own internal constructs after the "real world," the question isn't how "real" it is, but how consistent it is. If the fictional construct deviates from "the real world," there typically needs to be a reason/explanation for the deviation, and it usually needs to be applied consistently. If you want to say that elves are seven-foot, 300 pound giants in your world, that's fine, as long as there's a reason, and as long as it's consistent.
A great example of this being done poorly is Star Wars Episodes I, II, and III. One of the reasons they suck so bad (besides the horrific dialogue and acting) isn't because they lack "realism," it's because they lack believability. The actions, behaviors, motivations, and consequences of the actions of the heroes/protagonists aren't even consistent within their own constructed environment, let alone our "real world."
What I'm saying is that like good fiction novels, films, and plays, RPGs don't need to be realistic, but need to have a level of believability to the way their mechanics interact within the chosen fictional construct.
Having elves and dwarves is inherently "unrealistic"--but it doesn't mean it's not "believable" within a game world like Forgotten Realms or Golarion.
Saying, "Well, in my world all humans have magical abilities that makes it so when they throw a sword, it automatically comes back to them" isn't "realistic" OR "believable" in the Forgotten Realms, because it goes against the Realms' own internal constructions.
Why do comic book heroes often have backstories? Why do we need to see Peter Parker get bit by that spider in the movie? It's not because it's "realistic," but because it makes what Spider-Man is later capable of "believable."
Last edited:
