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

[Aus_Snow]

Fantasy, in the common vernacular, of a daydream or desire that is not reality.

Here are some definitions. Not the best source, granted, but it'll do.

Now, 'the common vernacular' might be at odds with that as dramatically as you claim. But I doubt it.

The key: it's not real, not just in the sense of "not actually happening", but also not real in the sense of expectations, logistics, repercussions or probability. It's just "Nice to think about", because you're not bothering with thinking about anything but the good parts.

Yes, yes. No need to point out 'the key' like that. Eesh. I do understand where *you* are coming from. But I disagree that your definition (representing, according to you, 'the truest sense' of the word) is all you claim it to be.

Anyway, it just seemed like an odd thing to go saying. No biggie, really.

 

[jdrakeh]

Verisimilitude is a word used to refer to a "grounding reality" in fictional works, otherwise referred to as "consistency" in said works by many posters in this thread. It is commonly thought that a fantasy game (or any other work of written fiction) must facilitate the reader's player's willingness to suspend his or her disbelief in order to appeal to a wide audience.* Specifically, it is felt that such games must justify the existence of fantastic elements.

In order to promote this willing suspension of disbelief, a fantasy game must have some credibility. The easiest way to achieve such credibility is by way of verisimilitude — by implementing a consistent, grounding, reality to which fantatic elements prove the exception. Frex, settings like Birthright, Greyhawk, and FR achieve this through the implementation of a grounding reality modeled on Medieval Europe.

I think Wikipedia (remarkably) manages to explain it best by saying that anything physically possible in the worldview of the reader's experience (or, in this case, the player's experience) is defined as credible. Thus, the reader can glean truth even in fiction because it reflects the realistic aspects of their own existence. As that explanation suggests, what is or is not the right amount of verisimilitude depends upon the indivdiual to whom the question is put.

Some people simply desire more or less reflection in that regard, depending upon why they pursue RPGs and what the conditions of their personal existence are. There is no 'correct' level of verisimiltude. It's a matter of personal preference. Like salt on food. Some people want a lot of verisimilitude in their fantasy, while some people want very little.

*This is an important distinction because fiction does exist (as do games) that ignore this philosophy, though they tend to appeal to a comparatively small audience. It's the difference between being D&D and being Mechanical Dream or Noumenon.

 

[Rechan]

Here are some definitions.

...

Yes, yes. No need to point out 'the key' like that. Eesh. I do understand where *you* are coming from. But I disagree that your definition (representing, according to you, 'the truest sense' of the word) is all you claim it to be.

Ah, semantics.

See, I thought:

4. Psychology. an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream.

Was the definition of Fantasy.

I suppose, I should have said, "A different kind of fantasy (than the genre)".

 

[Aus_Snow]

Ah, semantics.

Weeeell, I'll get to that in just a second. . .

See I thought:

4. Psychology. an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream.

Was the definition of Fantasy.

It's a definition, yeah.

Semantics? No. Just not seeing clarification of any kind for something that struck me as unclear, and then seeking some. But thanks, I got that now.

 

[Rechan]

Some people simply desire more or less reflection in that regard, depending upon why they pursue RPGs and what the conditions of their personal existence are. There is no 'correct' level of verisimiltude. It's a matter of personal preference. Like salt on food. Some people want a lot of verisimilitude in their fantasy, while some people want very little.

For your post in general, but especially for this point above, I give you XP.

That's a great point; that verisimilitude for the most part exists in every work, but it's merely a matter of degree, and that degree is also matched in the degree of which a person seeks or accepts.

 

[Greg K]

Of course a man can't leap out of a burning building, land on his feet, do a cartwheel and unload a magazine of bullets into a dozen guys while being unharmed, and not pause a beat. But It was awesome, wasn't it?

No (of course, this is based on my own preference, ymmv).

 

[Rechan]

No.

How did that contribute at all to the discussion?

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

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.

As an addition, I think that Rechan's post about the definition of fantasy is highly congruent with the definition cited.

1. imagination, esp. when extravagant and unrestrained.

The idea that fantasy is imagination (really just a mental image of something not real) that is extravagent and unrestrained kind of makes the need for "reality" in fantasy a rediculous impossibility.

 

[jdrakeh]

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.

I agree that saying "verisimilitude is necessary" without providing specific context is almost silly. The thing is, I don't think anybody who contributed in an important manner to the concept has ever said that "verisimilitude is necessary" without providing a such context.

Plato and Aristotle proposed that in order for a piece of art to hold significance or persuasion for an audience, it must have a grounding reality. They didn't say "a grounding reality is necessary" without providing specific context. Likewise, Samuel Taylor Coleridge proposed that a work of fiction must facilitate the reader's willingness to suspend his or her disbelief in order to appeal to a wide audience.

As for your other assertion, saying that some level of verisimilitude is necessary for a specific condition to exist implies absolutely none of what you have suggested that it implies. Indeed, the assumed existence of multiple axes of verisimilitude (and other subjective criteria) is a key principle in modern media, especially when it comes to marketing. You may be more familiar with the concept of a "target audience" — one specific demographic (or axis) amongst many.

 

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, they were. And so they were boring to me.

I'm not sure if cinematics and realism have to be mutually exclusive, but I think if you try to use them both there's very little to work with.

Perhaps, but Alien, Blade Runner, the Thing etc. were among the most successful and famous films in the sci fi genre, I don't think by coincidence. So your reaction is not necessarily the norm - to the contrary


Maybe you should give an example of a film in the sci-fi or fantasy realm you thought was good?

Compared to what fantastic things exist in the non-real world the stuff I go through every do isn't worth thinking about.

No doubt, but you are making the all-too common mistake of confusing reality as it relates to an RPG (i.e. history, physics) with your reality (your job, your life). These are two very different things.

Again, it was for people just like you that I posted the ‘Dilbert in the Dungeon’ Thread.


http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/242110-history-mythology-art-rpgs.html

I don't think it should be dumbed-down either. But I view realism as dumbing it down because I know reality.

Based on your statements, I don’t think you have a clue. There are more wild and incredible stories in History than in all the RPG’s ever played times all the fantasy novels ever written to the power of every computer game ever coded.

I want something that I don't know, which in something speculative.

The set of things you don’t know may include many things that are speculative, but it also includes, trust me, a whole lot of real things amigo.

G.