The Difference Between Realism vs. Believability

[Doug McCrae]

I think nerds tend to overestimate the value of consistency.

 

[Mallus]

I think nerds tend to overestimate the value of consistency.

Bingo. Sometimes, in these discussions, I get the feeling like I'm reading literary criticism written by engineers.

Which, come to think of it, is probably what I'm reading.

It's all very system-oriented, and not at all like conversations about believability I've had w/non-nerds.

 

[NoWayJose]

I think nerds tend to overestimate the value of consistency.

I think nerds tend to overestimate the value of crying out 'nerd!'

 

[UngainlyTitan]

You need look no further than the concept of "hit points" to find your proof, I'd argue.

Oh no! I have had that argument here and saying I won is a bit like saying the Brits won the Somme.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Bingo. Sometimes, in these discussions, I get the feeling like I'm reading literary criticism written by engineers.

...

Well, you are mostly.

 

[lutecius]

I think nerds tend to overestimate the value of consistency.

yeah, the "you're thinking too hard about fantasy" line makes lots of sense on a d&d forum, too. it's also a great contribution to the discussion

 

[Barastrondo]

yeah, the "you're thinking too hard about fantasy" line makes lots of sense on a d&d forum, too. it's also a great contribution to the discussion

Personally, I don't agree with the premise that "it is impossible to overthink fantasy." At some point the valuable stuff you are recovering is perhaps not worth all the valuable stuff you have discarded to get there.That said, the point at which it becomes "thinking too hard" is really, really difficult to pin down, and varies by person.

One of the things about fantasy is that it's built on a foundation of myth, and myth's power doesn't have to do with plausibility or laws of physics. I think there are actually two metrics of "believability": there's the pseudoscientific version in which you try to explain how a medusa's gaze works with Newtonian physics, and there's the mythic version where the gut check is "Does this sound like a logical extrapolation of a mythical or literary precedent?" These two things clash all the time. Hell, in some cases trying to build a giant that works scientifically can lose your audience because they don't think a giant that works with the square/cube law is appropriate to the Jack stories and Norse myths they've got in mind. If your audience is bored with your giants, have you overthought them? Opinions vary, but I would probably side with "yes". Find a different audience and maybe the answer will be "no."

 

[innerdude]

Bingo. Sometimes, in these discussions, I get the feeling like I'm reading literary criticism written by engineers.

Which, come to think of it, is probably what I'm reading.

It's all very system-oriented, and not at all like conversations about believability I've had w/non-nerds.

LOL, well sometimes that's true--in my case especially.

I brought this topic up, because I feel as gamers we repeatedly discuss some topics, like rules heavy vs. rules light, or DM as adjudicator vs. DM as creator.

And I think that defining "realism" and "believability" creates a framework around which to discuss those other things.

For example, one of the great benefits of a "rules light" system is that it lets the GM interpret rules and outcomes according to what they see as being internally consistent with their vision. If swinging from the chandelier and drop kicking a foe feels internally consistent ("believable") witihin the GM's game world, they let you do it, with whatever resolution mechanic they feel is appropriate. To me, this more closely approximates "fun," if both the players and GM are on the same page about what the acceptable limits of "believability" are.

But the World's Most Popular RPG has consistently moved towards a rules-heavy interpretation--even 4e, with its simplified skills and character paths is very rules heavy. Interpreting a laundry list of powers relative to each other, and then choosing them to synergize with your own character's powers as well as your group's takes some serious rules mastery.

And I think there's a correlation between how a rules system is designed and how much freedom the GM has to broadly interpret both "realism" and "believability." For a GM who wants to maintain a high level of "realism," then having rules that create a high approximation of "real world" elements is important to them, because it helps them with what the see as being an intrinsic part of adjudication. For them, "realism" is an outcome they desire, because they feel it adds to what they're doing.

Some GMs aren't concerned at all about "realism" at all; they just want "believability." For them, the question is about how far outside "realism" can they deviate before "believability" suffers.

More and more I think that giving a GM more freedom enhances "believability" a great deal, even though it often sacrifices "realism"---but I don't think this is a bad thing.

I also think there's another interesting thread that could be made comparing an adherence to balance vs. believability, because there's some definite trade offs between them.

 

[NoWayJose]

yeah, the "you're thinking too hard about fantasy" line makes lots of sense on a d&d forum, too. it's also a great contribution to the discussion

I just find the 'nerd' label belittling and I think there are better alternatives, like "You're thinking too hard". On the other hard, I don't think the "nerds" (I put it in quotation marks, so that's OK) are thinking too hard in this case. Anyone who reads or watches fantasy can have strong feelings about versimilitude, but only the "nerds" (again, quotation marks) spend extra time voicing their opinions about it on Enworld.

Furthermore, it is wise and prudent for posts like the OP to be written in such an anal retentive manner. Otherwise, THEY (ie., Those Who Nitpick) will come out from dark places to attack you on semantics and derail you with devil's details. Thus the long carefully written expositions. The "nitpickers" have effectively forced the "nerds" into thinking too hard, which leads to accusations of "nerd" and "you're thinking too hard". This, of course, is totally unfair.

 

[Mallus]

Well, you are mostly.

I suspected as much!

LOL, well sometimes that's true--in my case especially.

Note I'm not knocking literary criticism written by engineers... it can't be any worse than the stuff the French come up with.

And I think that defining "realism" and "believability" creates a framework around which to discuss those other things.

It can, but it's a tough topic. There can be quite a lot of disagreement over what's really real, let alone what's believable, plausible, and/or seemingly real in the context of a fantasy role-playing game. But it is a interesting subject, no matter how often it comes up.

Let me ask you this. Does realism come from the rules? To what extent do, or even should, the game mechanics create the a believable game world?

(personally, I think a game's level of realism/believability is determined primarily by things outside the rules)