D&D General The Importance of Verisimilitude (or "Why you don't need realism to keep it real")

[Micah Sweet]

Alternatively: An elegantly-worded attack on someone's attempt to present their preferences as absolute necessities.

Because that's exactly what it is. "I can't believe this, therefore no one should get to play this."

I don't recall anyone saying "no one should get to play" anyone.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The thing is I used to like what you claim to like. And even for what you claim to like D&D is and has always been a terrible game for doing it.

Back in the 90s there were basically no decent narrativist games. And largely because of it I was in the sim camp. I liked what you claim to like. This included GURPS and WFRP. It did not include the clearly and obviously artificial D&D with its video game healing, its complete lack of meaningful injury rules, its caster supremacy, its caste-based impermeable "class" system, and more.

And this is why I take exception at what you claim to like. I'd be perfectly fine if you liked D&D for what it was good at. But it has always, in every edition been the clarinetist of simulation RPGs, simultaneously sucking and blowing.

When I play modern or even old school D&D it's because it sucks like a hoover as a sim. And hoovers are useful. But asking for a hoover that sucks less and blows more is weird - especially when my sim RPGs are all metaphorically power tools, not hoovers.

I own more GURPS books than D&D books, and GURPs is hardcore sim. The game I've spent the third most on (after D&D and GURPS) is WFRP - again perfectly in line with what you claim to want, complete with injury rules, poor healing, and in control casters. I've moved away from them in my own gaming due to better narrative games and better computer games handling the sim side (but not enough that I haven't written and playtested my own WFRP retroclone on the 5e engine) but that doesn't mean I no longer see the appeal. I just refuse to accept a clarinetist as being a sim game on the grounds it sucks less and blows more than a hoover.

If anyone said stuff like that about narrative games around here, they would be reported.

 

[Umbran]

Then isn't this the best argument I could possibly provide for why there should be a Warlord?

Mod Note:
This thread is not about warlords.
I have already warned someone in this thread to keep things on topic.
So, you're done in this conversation.

Folks, you may grind your personal axes - but there are other threads for that. Do it in those threads. Thanks.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If anyone said stuff like that ...

While I cannot see what you are responding to (assuming you are responding), as a general rule if someone is beyond the pale, the best options are to report them, block them, or not engage with them.

 

[Remathilis]

While I cannot see what you are responding to (assuming you are responding), as a general rule if someone is beyond the pale, the best options are to report them, block them, or not engage with them.

Spoiler: he was responding to someone.

 

[Alzrius]

Benders are clearly powerful individuals who can do impressive things impossible for non-benders.

There are still extremely important non-bending characters throughout AtLA. Sokka, Ty Lee, Mai, Suki, Piandao, the Mechanist, etc. Characters who have special (but perfectly mundane in-setting) skills, training, resources. And in a world where spirits are very real and the supernatural is but a breath away, even mundane acts can have effects beyond what is possible IRL. And yes, there is a TTRPG for AtLA, so this isn't just a narrative to game comparison.

The problem with referencing the importance/contributions of non-powered individuals, insofar as it comes to them existing alongside powered individuals in narrative media, is that you'll continually run up against the same issue: the narrative has been deliberately constructed in such a way that it essentially goes out of its way to justify their presence. It's how you put Batman on equal footing with Superman (to use a perennial example where this sort of thing comes up).

That's a lot harder to do in games that aren't built to support narrativism from the ground up, i.e. there are a lot of meta-mechanics that players can use but which don't necessarily correspond to any sort of action taken on the part of their PC. Where verisimilitude is a primary concern, the differences between what powered characters and non-powered characters can do quickly becomes rather stark, which is why we keep having so many threads about how to square that circle.

Now, you can still have such a paradigm under a more "gamist" paradigm as well, because in those types of games the differences between powered and non-powered largely become moot. Fourth Edition was a great example of this, where the nature and differences between power sources made little practical difference in the course of play; a warlord could restore hit points by yelling at someone just as much as a cleric could by casting a healing spell. But that breaks fairly hard from verisimilitude, which is why a lot of people had a problem with that in the context of D&D (which has always had a large amount of verisimilitude in its presentation, though it's varied between editions, and has always had areas where it compromised in that aspect).

Hence, this whole thing becomes rather circular. Verisimilitude requires limiting certain things and being completely hands-off with others, but the decision about what to be hands-off with is either totally capricious and arbitrary, or knowingly and intentionally biased. The "veri-" to which there is "similitude" is a choice, not a requirement.

The salient principle to keep in mind is that verisimilitude's central principle is building an in-character understanding of how and why the game world works in the way that it does. Once you've established those principles, everything is extrapolated out from there (including exceptions to the rules, once you've defined why they're exceptions). In that regard, nothing is capricious or arbitrary, short of what rules you've set up to begin with.

In that regard, a verisimilitudinous model is "arbitrary" only in that those rules had to be established in the first place, but that's no more "arbitrary" than someone designing a gamist set of rules ("the pawn can only move one square ahead...except on its first move; then it can move two" is an arbitrary decision) or really any other set of rules which govern a game. Sam Kass made the arbitrary decision that rock-paper-scissors was too limited, so he came up with rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock, arbitrarily stopping at five choices instead of three. Why not seven? Or nine? Because arbitrariness!

Likewise, the fact that certain things are limited and others aren't available isn't anything particularly unique to a verisimilitude-based model either. All games have those, and all are enforced under a model called "the rules." Obviously, rules can be modified to the satisfaction of the people involved in a given instance of play, but that's not really here nor there. The point of this thread is to look at the virtues and advantages of a set of rules based on in-character design principles, as those allow players to intuit how the world works from their character's perspective, and so allow for a more immersive (and, by extension, more fun) experience of play.

Folks who like the things volunteered to get the short end of the stick aren't exactly keen on that. Being told, "oh, but you see, giving those things short shrift is actually necessary for the good of the game!" when we can clearly see that it is simply a choice, in support of a very specific and narrow set of preferences.

Again, this isn't really an issue with verisimilitude; all games necessarily make certain choices about what is and is not allowed. You can't have you queen skip over pieces in chess, and people who'd prefer to can see that it's simply a choice not to allow that, a choice in supprt of a very specific and narrow set of preferences. To say "I don't care for the set of ideas that this model is built around" isn't to levy any sort of charge against verisimilitude in particular. At best, it's simply saying "this type of game isn't for me," which is fine, but it's not pointing out any kind of weakness or drawback unique to that mode of engagement.

"Verisimilitude" is simply a more subtle, wily version of "realistic." As soon as you start pushing on the specifics, its true colors are revealed: only sanctioned breaks from reality are permitted, and all other things must conform, not simply to IRL physics (which are quite a bit more flexible than many realize...), but to the rather stunted subset thereof which is held in popular opinion ("pop physics"?) as physically real and consistent. Actual physical feats real Olympic gymnasts, archers, and swimmers achieve are usually impossible or effectively so under this stunted subset of our physical reality, to say nothing of mundane-but-epic feats fantastical characters should have within reach.

I'll refer you back to the OP, where I noted that "realism" in the context of TTRPGs is typically used as a shorthand for "how things function in the real world." Now, as I likewise said, the problem is that it's very often also used as an attempt to discuss the easily-intuited-but-difficult-to-articulate idea of internal logic and/or self-consistency. In that regard, talking about "realism" is something that I think invites misunderstandings and lack of clarity in what's already an area fraught with a lack of common terms and definitions for things that a lot of us can clearly pick up on but have trouble talking about, especially when there are differing shades of understanding and nuance. To that end, there's nothing "subtle" or "wily" about verisimilitude, except that it attempts to more accurately reflect the difference between "realism as how the real world works" and "'realism' as how the game world works."

I very much appreciate that folks want to feel that a world is grounded, sensible, predictable. A place explored less through map and word, and more through action and consequence. That is why I included "Groundedness & Simulation" as one of the four game-(design-)purposes" in my possibly-incomplete taxonomy. But I find "verisimilitude" goes quite far past "I want a world that is grounded, sensible, and predictable." Coupled with various rather pointed preferences and the advocacy for certain design trends (which, notably, were not true of classic editions; loot in early editions specifically favored Fighter characters over other classes!), it amounts to a shell game of the problems of "realism." Advocates have recognized that "realism" is a problematic term, so many of them have cordoned off the problematic parts and just don't speak them out loud...until pressed.

One thing to make clear here is that "groundedness" (and related terms such as "sensible" and "predictable"), which is one of the primary benefits of a verisimilitudinous model, is not the antithesis of either "supernatural" or "transmundane." Quite the contrary! One of the things to keep in mind is that discovering how the game world operates is quite often one of the primary goals of engaging with games designed around that principle, and as a natural extension to that, trying to figure out how to reconcile seemingly-contradictory things (if and when they happen) is one of the major areas of engagement. We see things like this quite often in narrative media, often when the protagonist(s) encounter some new villain with special powers, and there's some exclamation of "(s)he can use two different forms of magic at once?!" or "they can cast spells without an incantation?!" or "they can resist that irresistible attack?!" etc. What typically follows is an investigation into the how/why of it, followed by either a countermeasure or the heroes realizing that their existing knowledge was wrong/incomplete and training up their powers accordingly. It's verisimilitude that gets them there.

You can have a world that is fully self-consistent, and where explicitly-flagged "magic" is not the only way to exceed the bounds of what should be physically possible. The supernatural and transmundane are vast. They contain multitudes.

Which makes you sound like an advocate of verisimilitude yourself.

 

[pemerton]

The thing is I used to like what you claim to like. And even for what you claim to like D&D is and has always been a terrible game for doing it.

Back in the 90s there were basically no decent narrativist games. And largely because of it I was in the sim camp. I liked what you claim to like. This included GURPS and WFRP. It did not include the clearly and obviously artificial D&D with its video game healing, its complete lack of meaningful injury rules, its caster supremacy, its caste-based impermeable "class" system, and more.

And this is why I take exception at what you claim to like. I'd be perfectly fine if you liked D&D for what it was good at. But it has always, in every edition been the clarinetist of simulation RPGs, simultaneously sucking and blowing.

This. I GMed 1000s of hours of Rolemaster over 19 years. In the same period I played RQ and allied games (especially at conventions).

It was obvious in the first session of RM that I played (which was on a Friday evening - the next week I went to Mind Games and bought the boxed set) that it absolutely blew D&D out of the water in terms of sim/verisimilitude, overcoming the problems with classes, hit points and saving throws, XP for gold, etc.

I find it impossible to take D&D seriously as a simulationist, model-the-world RPG.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's a lot harder to do in games that aren't built to support narrativism from the ground up, i.e. there are a lot of meta-mechanics that players can use but which don't necessarily correspond to any sort of action taken on the part of their PC. Where verisimilitude is a primary concern, the differences between what powered characters and non-powered characters can do quickly becomes rather stark, which is why we keep having so many threads about how to square that circle.

It honestly isn't. D&D however point blank refuses to do any of the measures that would work for both balance and versimilitude.

• You can make magic dangerous and having drawbacks as in Call of Cthulhu or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Spellcasters have a chance of melting their own minds or summoning uncontrolled monsters. So even casters don't want to cast spells.
• You can give magic limitations such as not being able to affect cold iron - so a fighter with an iron sword could just cut through a wizard's spells and defences and one shot them while someone in plate armour is more or less magic immune.
• You can make magic slow and ritualistic so when the rubber meets the road people draw swords because they don't have time to start to draw the ritual circles
• You can make magic limited in power - with a level cap. Or even a level cap beyond which being a muggle doesn't make sense
• You can make magic permeate the world - and the more magic permeates the body (and thus increases hit points and physical capabilities) the less you can use magic to cast spells.

The problem isn't one of versimilitude; no one has problems with the versimilitude of e.g. Call of Cthulu's way of balancing casters with non-casters. The problem is that there is a faction of people for which magic must be utterly reliable, wizards must be capable of casting Wish and having almost no drawbacks - and fighters must be muggles, utterly magically crippled in a world run by spellcasters.

This has nothing to do with versimilitude. It has everything to do with people wanting incoherent and unbalanced worldbuilding that makes casters able to lord it over non-casters and simply point blank refusing any method of balance - all while ignoring the elephant in the room that is hit points.

Fourth Edition was a great example of this, where the nature and differences between power sources made little practical difference in the course of play; a warlord could restore hit points by yelling at someone just as much as a cleric could by casting a healing spell.

This simply isn't true. A warlord could get someone to dig deep into their own reserves and spend a healing surge just as well as a Cleric could pray with someone and get them onto their feet with an amplified placebo effect. But healing, actual healing that wasn't just digging deep, required either the magic to provide the healing surges or for the caster to spend them. And guess what? Clerics and paladins could both do this with the right abilities but warlords had no in-class abilities that did this.

The salient principle to keep in mind is that verisimilitude's central principle is building an in-character understanding of how and why the game world works in the way that it does. Once you've established those principles, everything is extrapolated out from there (including exceptions to the rules, once you've defined why they're exceptions). In that regard, nothing is capricious or arbitrary, short of what rules you've set up to begin with.

And the salient principles to keep in mind are

• Hit points shatter versimilitude. I believe that what you call versimilitude was what Gygax called realism and explicitly said "I have personally come to suspect that this banner is the refuge of scoundrels; whether the last or first refuge is immaterial. ...As a game must first and foremost be fun, it needs no claim to “realism” to justify its existence." Yet for some reason people want a game of hit points, hard coded classes, and hard coded levels to be "realistic".
• People want the wizard able to do almost anything except heal and the fighter to be a muggle - yet both of them to be officially the same level
• Even after fifteen years people will spread false information about 4e.

So let's go back to the definition of versimilitude from the OP

Dictionary.com's primary definition of the word verisimilitude is "the appearance or semblance of truth; genuineness; authenticity." Within the context of a tabletop RPG, however, we are (as gamers so often do) redefining the word slightly to refer to a world that "makes sense," often despite its fantastical elements (and quite often in spite of its gamisms, such as hit points).

The idea that a 17th level muggle is equivalent to a wizard who can true polymorph permanently into an adult red dragon and cast Wish to me utterly shatters any semblance of truth, genuineness, or authenticity that the game system provides. Barely restricted magic that is as reliable as technology alongside muggles isn't a problem - as long as you go the Ars Magica route and don't pretend they are equal. When you are pretending that they are equivalent you have lost any appearance of truth, genuineness, or authenticity in your game system.

D&D is and has always been an ultra-gamist game with classes, hit points, levels, and pseudo-Vancian casting. And it feels ridiculous to me to guzzle all this inherent artifice down other than in an Order of the Stick style world and claim that in a world of artificial levels and classes what would break your versimilitude is for a couple of the classes to be as magical as everyone else but in a different way when they are supposedly of the same level.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Now, you can still have such a paradigm under a more "gamist" paradigm as well, because in those types of games the differences between powered and non-powered largely become moot. Fourth Edition was a great example of this, where the nature and differences between power sources made little practical difference in the course of play; a warlord could restore hit points by yelling at someone just as much as a cleric could by casting a healing spell. But that breaks fairly hard from verisimilitude, which is why a lot of people had a problem with that in the context of D&D (which has always had a large amount of verisimilitude in its presentation, though it's varied between editions, and has always had areas where it compromised in that aspect).

You can have entirely functional non-magical healing, since hit points are not meat points.

 

[pemerton]

@Neonchameleon @Alzrius

Torchbearer is a RPG that is D&D-adjacent in its tropes and PC concepts. And it's non-magical PCs are just that: non-magical. At least in my experience, they are not overshadowed by spell-casters because casters do not have reliable access to lots of magic. The Elven Dreamwalker in our game has cast two spells in over a dozen sessions. Most of the contributions that she makes are in relation to her Lore Mastery, Scholarship and Healing.

I'm not suggesting that D&D should be designed in a similar fashion. But the fact that it's not is a design decision that reflects player preferences around PC build rules and how these interface with action resolution (eg keeping combat separate from the skill system, and treating skills like jumping or climbing differently from skills like reading and knowing things), and also around PC flavour (wanting their MUs to be casting most of the time). D&D's distinctive approach to the MU/wizard vs fighter/warrior design is not any sort of concession to, or demand imposed by, verisimilitude.