This sounds a wee bit paranoid.
Sometimes the people disagreeing with you are simply disagreeing with you, THEY'RE not always out to confound...
The Difference Between Realism vs. Believability
Sometimes the people disagreeing with you are simply disagreeing with you, THEY'RE not always out to confound...
Funny. Right on time, regular as clockwork. Thanks for the case-in-point. Shall we get back on-topic or do you want to continue nitpicking the semantics of my tongue-in-cheek comment?
That's what I try for...
Note my tongue is usually jammed firmly in cheek whilst posting, but I do attempt to work a little content in w/the humor.
Sure, let's talk on-topic. I just asked this question: does realism come from the rules? To what extent do, or even should, the game mechanics (ie formal system) create a believable game world?
renau1g
First Post
it's also a great contribution to the discussion
Probably as valuable as this post
I find 4e leans towards the less believable based on the Martial power source (as Firelance pointed out) and Healing Surges, which someone can just use after a 5 minute breather. I like the mechanics, but I do have to try a bit harder to look past the you were almost dying a minute ago, but now you're all good (going from say 1 hp to full after a short rest).
20 years ago I would have said yes, now I say no. I would go as far as to say that a strictly believable world is not necessary if you buy into its story.
Now, to explain that comment. The D&D default world and for that matter the Forgotten Realms is not to me the least bit believable. Too many top level predators, to many sentient and mutually antagonistic species and so forth.
Really smart gold hoarding dragons would become bankers and international fianciers. Convert all that gold in to fiat money and keep the metal for themselves.
Now I'll happly game there becase in any given campaign I am actually intersted in what the DM and the players come up with in the game and the setting is essentially a painted backdrop for the more intimate campaign activity.
Its not just D&D, I can drive some very large holes in Tolkien also but it does not stop me enjoying the story.
Sometimes it does annoy me, like the Honor Harrington story I read where some of the limitations the author placed on the naval action to get the Hormblower in Space feel really ticked me off.
So in my opinion rules create balanced characters and an action resolution system so that the DM can predict the encounter/challange difficulty. In that, a reasonable/easy - OMG what is happening now scenario can be prepared by me (when wearing my DM hat) without too much trouble or work.
As a player I do like to be able to do something interesting with my character and I do like tactically interesting combat.
Believibility is created by the DM and players in game. It can be helped by module writers to pick monsters on a theme rather than a zoo of creatures that have no business being in the same are together hanging about waiting for the PCs to kill them.
That sounds a wee bit alarming. You should have a doctor look at it.
...OR...
I like embedding humor too but only if the larger context is useful to the discussion at hand. Discussions of versimilitude are so complicated and contentious, that anyone who derails such threads with tangential humor should be shot. [Clue: This is a test. There are at least 3 examples of sarcasm and 1 example of complete uttery hypocrisy in this post that should NOT be taken seriously. Do NOT respond to these literary devices literally; but rather try to comprehend the underlying meaning and larger context]
Well, for starters, I disagree with your opinion that "a game's level of realism/believability is determined primarily by things outside the rules". Or more specifically, I disagree with the possible implication that
unbelievable rules + believable fluff = believable in-game play.
I'd love to provide specifics, but I have to sleep soon (being honest, humor over).
I also suspect that the composition of the group matters a lot. A group of martial artists will have dufferent issues than a group of people who sail on weekends. Both will likely be a lot more exacting about things that relate to their area of expertise.
As a fan of 'realism' in RPGs, I found this discussion fascinating and well thought out.
For myself, I see no real difference between the two words; they are synonymous. However, in my experience when people talk about realism in RPGs they are talking primarily about game mechanics and, for lack of a better word, storyline. Often these are chaotic, hack and slash types who want to be able to do anything and look for anyway they can to get around the rules.
For example of game mechanics, I have a scout with a high Tumble so he can Skirmish w/o taking AoO's. This may be realistic, even believable when facing a small group of low level fighters but it is unrealistic when it comes to facing a band of high level monsters. As such, I convinced my DM we needed to readjust the rule.
For storyline, I offer the following situations.
I put the party in a world where the local pasha had total power. One player, an anti-authoritarian insulted the pasha to the point that the PC was thrown in the salt mines for 10 years (essentially player death). That is realism and my rule #1: YOU are responsible for your own actions.
In another world, at 1st level I offered the party a series of possible adventures. One was the Seven Samurai style defense of a town against a soon arriving band of Orcs. The other hinted at treasure. The party did the treasure adventure and when they got around to the town they found it burned to the ground! That is realism.
For myself, I see no real difference between the two words; they are synonymous. However, in my experience when people talk about realism in RPGs they are talking primarily about game mechanics and, for lack of a better word, storyline. Often these are chaotic, hack and slash types who want to be able to do anything and look for anyway they can to get around the rules.
For example of game mechanics, I have a scout with a high Tumble so he can Skirmish w/o taking AoO's. This may be realistic, even believable when facing a small group of low level fighters but it is unrealistic when it comes to facing a band of high level monsters. As such, I convinced my DM we needed to readjust the rule.
For storyline, I offer the following situations.
I put the party in a world where the local pasha had total power. One player, an anti-authoritarian insulted the pasha to the point that the PC was thrown in the salt mines for 10 years (essentially player death). That is realism and my rule #1: YOU are responsible for your own actions.
In another world, at 1st level I offered the party a series of possible adventures. One was the Seven Samurai style defense of a town against a soon arriving band of Orcs. The other hinted at treasure. The party did the treasure adventure and when they got around to the town they found it burned to the ground! That is realism.
I'd add one think to the topic of believability.
There are two kinds of believability, two ways in which it can be achieved. They come from two different ways in which we may perceive and analyze a fictional world: as a world, ruled by its internal laws, and as a work of fiction, ruled by laws of art. They are not opposites, and they are, in some cases, very similar - but they can also be extremely different.
An setting may be believable in a "scientific" sense. That does not mean it follows real world's science, but that it consistently follows its own laws, laws that can be discovered by someone who lives there. The laws may be strange, but they are there and they work. Books by Brandon Sanderson and Jacek Dukaj are great examples here. It's hard, if possible, to "overthink" such setting. A lot of fun comes from figuring out how it works and (in RPG) exploiting it. In this kind of logic, when one asks "If a portable hole placed in a bag of holding explodes, may I use it to make a bomb?" is "Definitely yes.".
A setting may also be ruled by laws of its genre; laws that treat it as a work of art. Indiana Jones, Star Wars or Pirates of Caribbean have very little "scientific" consistency, but are fun anyway. We don't ask how is something possible, or why a character acts as he does. We ask what is appropriate, interesting and fun in this kind of story. Trying to apply scientific analysis to this kind of setting is an exercise in futility. Applying literary analysis, on other hand, works. In this kind of logic, an answer to "Why can't I trip an opponent more than once an encounter?" is "Because it would be boring if you did it all the time.".
It is possible to "internalize" a genre, by explaining and rationalizing the tropes in-setting. This gives a game the "scientific" believability without losing genre coherence, thus allowing for more kinds of exploration. Exalted and Earthdawn are both examples of such approach.
Many problems we encounter in RPGs come from confusing this kinds of settings and kinds of believability, by game designers or by players. If a game is written with genre consistency, but presented as if it had scientific consistency, it leads to frustration and abuses. That's a problem that plagues most editions of D&D. A game that has scientific consistency and is treated as if it had genre consistency won't create interesting story, as it won't guide the play as the players expect it to.
There is no direct relation between the type of consistency and the game being rules-light or rules-heavy. Rules-heavy "scientific" games have rules that may be treated as (an approximation of) their "laws of physics". Rules-heavy "genre" games have strong metagame rules that enforce appropriate tropes. Rules-light games make sure that players know how the world works (in "scientific" ones) or how the genre works (in genre games) and use this knowledge in making their decisions and rulings.
There are two kinds of believability, two ways in which it can be achieved. They come from two different ways in which we may perceive and analyze a fictional world: as a world, ruled by its internal laws, and as a work of fiction, ruled by laws of art. They are not opposites, and they are, in some cases, very similar - but they can also be extremely different.
An setting may be believable in a "scientific" sense. That does not mean it follows real world's science, but that it consistently follows its own laws, laws that can be discovered by someone who lives there. The laws may be strange, but they are there and they work. Books by Brandon Sanderson and Jacek Dukaj are great examples here. It's hard, if possible, to "overthink" such setting. A lot of fun comes from figuring out how it works and (in RPG) exploiting it. In this kind of logic, when one asks "If a portable hole placed in a bag of holding explodes, may I use it to make a bomb?" is "Definitely yes.".
A setting may also be ruled by laws of its genre; laws that treat it as a work of art. Indiana Jones, Star Wars or Pirates of Caribbean have very little "scientific" consistency, but are fun anyway. We don't ask how is something possible, or why a character acts as he does. We ask what is appropriate, interesting and fun in this kind of story. Trying to apply scientific analysis to this kind of setting is an exercise in futility. Applying literary analysis, on other hand, works. In this kind of logic, an answer to "Why can't I trip an opponent more than once an encounter?" is "Because it would be boring if you did it all the time.".
It is possible to "internalize" a genre, by explaining and rationalizing the tropes in-setting. This gives a game the "scientific" believability without losing genre coherence, thus allowing for more kinds of exploration. Exalted and Earthdawn are both examples of such approach.
Many problems we encounter in RPGs come from confusing this kinds of settings and kinds of believability, by game designers or by players. If a game is written with genre consistency, but presented as if it had scientific consistency, it leads to frustration and abuses. That's a problem that plagues most editions of D&D. A game that has scientific consistency and is treated as if it had genre consistency won't create interesting story, as it won't guide the play as the players expect it to.
There is no direct relation between the type of consistency and the game being rules-light or rules-heavy. Rules-heavy "scientific" games have rules that may be treated as (an approximation of) their "laws of physics". Rules-heavy "genre" games have strong metagame rules that enforce appropriate tropes. Rules-light games make sure that players know how the world works (in "scientific" ones) or how the genre works (in genre games) and use this knowledge in making their decisions and rulings.
FireLance
Legend
And then there are worlds, such as Terry Pratchett's Discworld, where Narrative Causality is a natural law, and last, desperate, million to one chances come up nine times out of ten.
Similar Threads
