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

[Andor]

Because the contrary would create an unplayable mess.

Exp given, for great justice.

 

[prosfilaes]

Using the running example of the Lava/Volcano... if there's lava in the room, shouldn't you ask the DM what the rules are? Or, if the plot seems to be directing you to a Volcano where a Dragon lives in the heart of it... then either the DM is assuming you are going to go in, or he's going to assume that you aren't.

Wouldn't checking be advisable?

When should you check, and how do you keep that from slowing down the game? If the DM says "it's snowing outside", is that really a request to stop the game until we have the complete rules of cold weather and its dangers to characters explained? I don't know that you can expect everyone to be on the same page about lava whether or not you declare that you're being realistic, but that doesn't stop it from being a mood-kill when you go

The Wizard bows to you mockingly: "You will not escape out of here alive." He then drops iron plates in the wall and lava starts flowing out to cover the flow. "There is no power greater than..." Wait, let's go over the lava rules real quick so that everyone knows how they work.

And that's not necessarily realism, though realism will cut down on a lot of the questions. I'm not sure I want to stress about what type of protection my paladin's armor gives him against the cold, though.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Actually, I have no problem telling players the game implications for the elements I put in my world. Your example of a stop in the middle of a description is rediculous, but after that would be fine. I actually regularly tweak rules at the table to fit the scene better, and I tell the players about it when it comes into play. I just did that the other night to simplify the cover rules in 4e for a battle we had. We did not use the rules from the PHB, but I think that my shortcut fit the intention really well, and it allowed us to play faster and fit our scenario better. Communication makes games better. Don't make people guess.

Actually, that is the heart of it right there. Communicate with players. Don't leave things for them to assume. When you inevitably run into a problem because communication has not been perfect, talk it out and come to a compromise. This has made all of my games better. I bet there are quite a number of cries of "This is not real enough!" that are really just a failure to communicate. Obviously not all, but I would guess a fair number amount to inadequate communication or inability to compromise.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Actually, I have no problem telling players the game implications for the elements I put in my world. Your example of a stop in the middle of a description is rediculous, but after that would be fine. I actually regularly tweak rules at the table to fit the scene better, and I tell the players about it when it comes into play. I just did that the other night to simplify the cover rules in 4e for a battle we had. We did not use the rules from the PHB, but I think that my shortcut fit the intention really well, and it allowed us to play faster and fit our scenario better. Communication makes games better. Don't make people guess.

Actually, that is the heart of it right there. Communicate with players. Don't leave things for them to assume. When you inevitably run into a problem because communication has not been perfect, talk it out and come to a compromise. This has made all of my games better. I bet there are quite a number of cries of "This is not real enough!" that are really just a failure to communicate. Obviously not all, but I would guess a fair number amount to inadequate communication or inability to compromise.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Actually, I have no problem telling players the game implications for the elements I put in my world. Your example of a stop in the middle of a description is rediculous, but after that would be fine. I actually regularly tweak rules at the table to fit the scene better, and I tell the players about it when it comes into play.

Yeah, I do this all the time. My battles pretty much start with:

"You see a bunch of Orcs on the road in front of you. They snarl menacingly at ready their weapons. They don't look friendly. Roll for initiative."

*write down the init*

"Alright, this is the situation. This is water over here. It doesn't look deep, walking through it will be hindering terrain. These are big rocks, they provide cover. It takes 2 squares of movement to get on them or you can jump up with an Athletics check. These are trees. The truck of the tree is blocking terrain, the leaves and undergrowth are hindering terrain but provide cover when standing in them.

Any questions? No. Good, the beginning of initiative is..."

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Exactly MO, and if there is someone that doesn't like how I set things up, they can object, and we handle it throught communication. If it looks like it is not going to get resolved quickly, I ask that the players just go with a decent compromise this time, and we will settle it outside of game time. Keep play flowing, allow dissent, and communicate about everything.

 

[Imban]

Not only does the level of verisimilitude necessary differ between people in an audience, but it differs for each element of the fantasy world for each person. Some might be fine with the non-deadly lava and have serious problems with recovering wounds in one night but not have problems with three nights, etc... Verisimilitude is relative to genre, world, world element, audience, and likely more. It is almost silly to say that any level of verisimilitude is necessary. When we insist this, it implies that verisimilitude is on a single axis, and you can travel down this single axis in either direction, more or less believable, and that this axis is objective. The reality is that there are infinite verisimilitude axes, and no axis can be difined as objective.

It's pretty hard to say what people's preferences for things are, yes, since they differ for everyone, but your bolded line is dangerously wrong - it sounds an awful lot like "No level of verisimilitude is necessary" as opposed to "no single level of verisimilitude is necessary", and while I'd argue the latter is wrong too (because enough consistency to stop people from giant frogging locked doors is probably necessary to everyone), the former is basically the Perfect solution fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in action: I might strictly prefer games where all damage is actually greivous physical (or "life force") wounds inflicted upon a character, while Nabmi might strictly prefer games where no injury incompatible with life (for example, skinny-dipping in magma, repeated greataxe blows to the forehead, etc.) is possibly survivable. Our preferences for levels of verisimilitude ("Healing spells heal being demoralized? People can be fatally demoralized or mind-boggled? What?" and "People can survive third-degree burns to 100% of their body? What?") are clearly incompatible, but you seem to be advocating game designers realize this and... write a game that satisfies neither of us because it can't possibly satisfy us both.

Which is fine, if what you're actually saying is "I have very low verisimilitude preferences and want game designers to write games that satisfy me.", but that doesn't occupy a more privileged position than any other.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

I am actually not saying anything about my preferred level of "realism" in any perticular game, much less ALL games.

I am saying that "realism" is very much context dependent. We can't even all agree on what is "real" in the real world. Check into any religion debate. "Realism" is something that is dependent on genre, theme, tone, as well as group and individual tastes, and is basically set for each element in the game. This only happens as a process, and requires communication to create the "necessary" amount of "realism". Complaining about whether a certain game is "realistic" enough means nothing without all of this context.

The complaints about insufficient "realism" typically happen over a specific event in game. They are often a reaction to the DM not having the same assumptions about what "real" is in a fantasy game as they do. The ones that don't fit this mold are typically people who hate a specific game and just want to bash it and it's adherents, and usually takes the tone of "Your unrealistic games are inferior to mine!" The only rebuttal to the second is "Quit playing this system and quit insulting me." The rebuttal to the second is "Your objections are meaningless without the context to give them meaning. Your problems probably exist as a result of insuficient or failed communication."

I am not trying to point out that there is no solution. I am not trying to point out that there is a perfect solution. I am pointing out where all of these debates go wrong. They go wrong because any complaint about the percieved lack of "realism" in any particular game should be structured in the form of "This particular game is not realistic enough..." with a long string of qualifiers, the most important of which will be "...for me in this context." Anything less really has no meaning.

 

[BryonD]

Why do you expect things to act like reality, or act consistently, when they aren't real?

If things need not act with any consistency because they are not real, then why spend any money on rulebooks? Seriously.

I haven't read a single post in this thread beyond the first. I'd imagine I'm retreading. But, just speaking for myself, the reason I expect things to act consistently is because it has been demonstrated that it can be achieved and having that in place adds leaps and bounds of quality to the satisfaction and enjoyment of the gaming experience.

 

[howandwhy99]

Perusing some of these responses, I tihnk the OP has received a definite answer. A roleplaying game, at least a traditional roleplaying game, needs to have a coherent world and inhabitants or the game is unplayable. The game, again for traditional RPGs, has been about creating and enacting strategies and tactics within a fictional world. The degree to which the game world is or isn't predictable is the degree to which the players can or cannot strategize within it. No plans or preparations can really be made in relation to an incoherent (or worse, inexistent) world. This is why we have adventure modules. And campaign worlds. And book after book of detailed characters and items and places and more. It is to define an understandable world for the players to discover.

I'm not going to get into the specifics defining between realism, verisimilitude, and fantasy realities. But a game world that cannot be understood by its' players definitively cannot be successfully roleplayed within.