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

Here's what I've been seeing missing from this whole talk of realism and player/dm assumptions:

People saying "Well I expect this to happen if I do this" well - what happened to asking instead of just acting without instead consulting? Do people not ask the DM if there are any differences of how his world works to the real world, or do these issues not come up until people just stumble into them?

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?

I think this is also just a difference between playing RPG's as a kid, or as a grownup. When I was first playing DnD at the age of 13 or 14, we really didn't care about details too much or know much about history or physics.

I'm 40 years old now and the people I play with are well read professionals who have traveled around the world, done tours in the military, lived in other countries etc., so at this point I want a different type of game. The world around me seems more consistent with the rules I understand, and I expect an RPG, a computer game, or a film I spend the limited amount of time and money I can devote to entertainment to not jar me out of immersion by being gratuitously illogical or internally inconsistent (without a good reason)

I think I was much more tolerant of that when I was young.

G
 

log in or register to remove this ad

*Nods, nods* Yeah that is why I made sure to mention the trust issue. Though I do think there is mechanical ramifications with this, in that with a shifting realism on different aspects of the world the mechanics put into place would also adjust.

Just you know throwing it out there as another debate point. Another point on the spectrum as it were.

No, it's a valid point, but it comes back to the idea of having some structure that you deviate from... based in realistic assumptions we normally have.

It's kind of like, if you know the rules of Grammar and punctuation, you can break the rules and get away with it (especially if you are James Joyce or Shakespeare). But if you are just muddled and can't tell that you are writing one run-on sentence or double negative after another, you come across as semi-literate. If you follow me.

G.
 

I think I was much more tolerant of that when I was young.

And thus the disconnect. Because I don't care if it's illogical, improbable, impossible, or whatever. If it's cool, or if you put enough effort/production into something, then there's a high likelihood of it being allowed.

Games like Spirit of the Century, which are high cinematic Pulp (people with jet packs or fighting on the wings of planes, or dispatching a squad of ninja without breaking a sweat), are great to me, and they run like this.

I come to an RPG to be entertained with my friends, not to over-think it.

And here I am, almost 30, with a degree in a (social) science, and well read. Everyone in my gaming group are 35 or up.

To go back to Spirit of the Century, the game's mechanics reinforce the feel. You can spend a Fate point to simply declare, "I have a lighter!" even though your character doesn't smoke, simply because it would be dramatically useful to have a lighter at that moment. Compare that to a game (or a GM) that expects you to have that lighter in your inventory, purchased and the GP subtracted from your total, well in advance. So there is no "learning curve", if you agree by how the game works.
 
Last edited:

No, it's a valid point, but it comes back to the idea of having some structure that you deviate from... based in realistic assumptions we normally have.

It's kind of like, if you know the rules of Grammar and punctuation, you can break the rules and get away with it (especially if you are James Joyce or Shakespeare). But if you are just muddled and can't tell that you are writing one run-on sentence or double negative after another, you come across as semi-literate. If you follow me.

G.
Well it depends, the baseline itself can alter on what is viewed as the "norm", in that gaming world. A game like Exalted will have a very different norm-view of lava then a game like WH. Essentially, my view is realism need not apply as long as the focus of the game, be it through themes, atmosphere, style, etc. works. If a game is one that a realistic view works then that is what be in place.

So thus with my shifting reality model, the baseline that is deviated from for different specific scenes is dependent on the baseline of that game's genre and style. Basically style and gameplay influences reality and mechanics not vice-versa.

Edit: To Rechan, I keep meaning to pick up SoTC but keep getting side-tracked (just like with me planning to pick of SR (though now waiting for anniversary book to come out)).
 
Last edited:

Realism, Consistency, Verisimilitude what they actually mean to someone seems to depend on the individual.

The real important thing of "consistency" to me seems to be that the player can make predictions on what happens, and if something happens, he would have the ability to figure out what happened.

And this can apply both to mechanics as it can apply to the "game world".

Spend an Action Point grants you an extra action. It does so consistently.
If that changed, the rules are either inconsistent, or you can figure out there is another rule at work you weren't aware before. But there is still a rule that describes this different outcome happening. (Maybe you took a feat to get a different ability, or it is a property of a monster/ally/environment).

If you do a favor for the Mayor, he will be thankful. If you meet him again, you expect him to still be thankful and have a positive attitude towards you.
If you later come back and he is not thankful, a consistent world means that that something changed his attitude. Maybe you figure out he is dominated, or someone claimed you had attacked his son unprovoked, or something like that. You can investigate and figure out what was different.


Lava being deadly or not being deadly is a question of realism. But it's not inconsistent if the lava is not deadly and you can fight in its vicinity It would become inconsistent if it suddenly turned deadly - unless other rules describe why it is so deadly now.


Verisimilitude seems to be about whether you can accept the world as it is described or you can't. The less closer the game world or its rule system seems to the real world, the less verisimilitude it has.
Maybe you just can't believe that the Mayor could get angry at you after all you did, and figuring out it was just some advisor's lie turning him against you doesn't feel right to you.
Maybe you find it perfectly acceptable that fighting over a pool of lava is okay. You might acknowledge it's probably harmful/deadly in the real world, but you can accept it because it makes an awesome scene.

It doesn't seem clear to me where anyones need for verisimilitude is "broken". It depends a lot on what preconceived notions you have about the game and what you find important elements and what not.
Sometimes it might be cruicial to "break" verisimilitude. If you want a action-laden game system, you really don't want a "realistic" rendition of injuries, wounds and infections.
 

Edit: To Rechan, I keep meaning to pick up SoTC but keep getting side-tracked (just like with me planning to pick of SR (though now waiting for anniversary book to come out)).
[sblock=Tangent]Honestly, I have never got a chance to play it, but I'm very familiar with the rules and I like them, conceptually.

Funnily enough, I was turned on to SotC because the same system is being used for the Dresden Files RPG. And the DFRPG is a different genre, and more realistic (even though it has magic and suchlike).

In fact, the DF treats magic as if it were real. I.e. magic has to behave in accordance with the laws of physics. If you try to create fire in a room with little oxygen, it's not going to work too well because fire needs air to burn. Now, I don't know where the system meets the book's narrative on that level of realism, but we'll just have to see.

Personally, I hope I don't have to compute the volume of a fireball cast in a smaller space and how far it's going to flow down a hallway like ye olde 2e fireball. :)[/sblock]
 


By pointing out that's not awesome to everyone. Whereas I am very curious why you trimmed the context and made it seem as if Greg K simply wrote "No." with a period and everything.

In all fairness to Rechan, he probably didn't trim it. I think that I had, originally, typed "No" and hit submit and realized that I had left off the qualifier and immediately went back to add it. Rechan probably responded before I finished making the change.

(I can't remember for sure. Yesterday was a bit of a blur as I had to take one of my friends from his work to Emergency Urgent Care.)
 
Last edited:

Indeed, some of us don't really find that sort of thing awesome in the context of something we're trying to take seriously.

Now, one of my favourite movies is The Fifth Element, which has a ton of utterly ridiculous stuff in it, which in the context of the movie is awesome. But it's not a serious movie, at all. It's more serious than, say, Spaceballs, but it's definitely not trying to be anything but what it is. In the movie, Leeloo's fight scenes are plausible, that Diva Plavalaguna can actually sing like that with the stones inside her presumably wreaking all sorts of havoc on her diaphragm if it's anywhere near where it is on humans is perfectly OK, etc. That's the genre they're going for there, comedic sci-fi. In the context of *that* I would possibly almost be willing to accept a fight five feet above lava. We've already established that this is That Kind Of World.

Now, D&D with the group I'm in tends to be more Serious Business. The campaign with the lava especially so, since the DM had a story he was beating into us whether we liked it or not. It was a serious campaign with serious elements, frequent and important NPC interaction, and a world that was apparently mostly low-magic and gritty. So to run into that, in that context, ugh. It's a serious campaign with a serious world, so a sudden cartoon element is massively jarring, plus it's one of my bugaboos at that, so it's very disconnecting and offputting and leaves me going 'well what the hell do I assume now'. Which is why I asked the DM what he was even allowing to be possible there instead of just assuming I could jump onto/through things. My assumptions about what is normal are suddenly useless, because suddenly the world has taken a turn for the non-normal.

In a campaign in a setting more like The Fifth Element, high magic and manliness and not taking it seriously, that I've been told in advance is this way and where similar stuff has happened? I'm still going to roll my eyes, but I'm not going to be utterly thrown out of things. I knew something like this was coming sooner or later when I joined.

Now even in a realistic setting with lava that works like real lava, I'm not saying you can't have your epic fight five feet above a rising column of lava - As long as it is *plausible*. The BBEG has his lair in an active volcano, or even on the Paraelemental Plane of Magma. He's a high-level wizard easily capable of protecting himself and creating items to protect himself and his minions there from the lava. Just the location itself is going to keep most people out. The PCs, though, are a resourceful, capable lot who have after much investigation and preparation been able to find his lair and how to get there, and been able to procure or produce items for themselves to use that will protect them. Thus protected, they may happily charge right into the heart of that volcano or the PEPoM and have an epic, awesome fight with him there. This *is* awesome, because there's a *reason* for it and it is the direct reflection of an accomplishment on the part of the PCs that they are able to have this crowning moment of awesome in which the rules of reality simply do not apply to them - Because they've been able to come into the ability to make it not apply. Lava is still generally deadly. It just isn't right now, for you, because you came prepared.

By the time you can, say, make that DC90 Balance check to stand on liquid, you're generally so soaked in magic items and possibly your own magical abilities that it stops throwing anyone for a loop. You know what's possible and what isn't, but your ability and your magic simply don't care anymore. At that point it's perfectly acceptable. I *expect* that in certain settings and levels of PC competence.

My original point that has been lost here that I was making in the other thread with the example of 'running around a half-full magma chamber' was "Don't use totally unbelievable obstacles." In the situation I was facing, the lava was totally unbelievable. In another situation with plenty of magic and preparation for just exactly that where lava is trivial? Sure. Bring it on.

But I don't believe in selective or even worse inconsistent application of reality just for the sake of 'cool' if that isn't what the tone of the campaign is *about*. There is plenty, plenty of opportunity in D&D for cool that doesn't necessitate things like selectively hot lava. Cool that makes the players feel great because their good thinking and ingenuity allowed them to spit on reality.

And a question must be asked: What about fighting on a narrow catwalk over a flow of lava is so much cooler than, say, fighting on a narrow bridge over a roaring, swollen river filled with jagged rocks, rapids and whirlpools? Either way if you go off the side you're going to be in a world of hurt and trouble and probably dead. But the river is a lot more believable as a setting for characters who are not quite utterly heat-resistant badasses.
 

But the other factor at work. If you take a low level of realism, you have the problem that people entering into a given game are going to be faced with an exponentially larger learning curve.

And? This doesn't have any bearing on what I stated. Some people like lots of verisimilitude. Some people prefer very little. Neither group of people is right or wrong.
 

Remove ads

Top