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

[Umbran]

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.

 

[Rechan]

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.

Or world-specific differences.

Hollow worlds, worlds which are more like a cylinder, worlds which rest on the backs of four elephants...

For instance, Spelljammer took everything known about space, and took a very big eraser to it, before scribbling over it with stuff.

 

[Kraydak]

There are a few reasons to call for "realism":

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.

 

[avin]

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.

 

[Cadfan]

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.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Plausibility, maturity and consistency are much better terms used to describe what some gamers deem as "realistic" games.

 

[Imban]

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.

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.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.)

 

[Jack7]

That reminds me of an old story:

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?

And that's about all I got to say about that...

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Okay, thanks for the responses so far. They help, in a way.