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

[Fallen Seraph]

It was hard to avoid sensing some contempt for the audience in both cases. Apparently, the film makers could not be bothered to educate themselves (even to a barely passable high-school level) on very basic matters -- because they assumed of the audience a deep-seated ignorance. The assumption might generally be correct, but taking that as an excuse for such laziness is insulting. It's like the things children of a certain age notice with distaste in works by authors who have the notion that stories for children should be childish.

I don't think it is the view that the audience has deep-seated ignorance, nor simply being lazy/not knowing. But more (especially with something like the Matrix) that reality if it gets in the way of telling a story (especially if it is core to the premise) then the story should win out over reality.

If the Wachowski Brothers had been that deeply concerned about reality (and I wouldn't be surprised if they had fairly good knowledge on academic knowledge) then the Matrix would simply not exist. What would one wish to have, everything stick to reality or have a fun/good story be told?

 

[Ariosto]

Again, there was simply no need for such stupidity that I could see. An at least slightly plausible explanation could have been offered -- or none at all. The idiotic rationale simply drew attention to itself that (for me) distracted from the story.

 

[fanboy2000]

Robert Anton Wilson is a god

More to the point, comic books and soap operas are both well established, recognizable Genres which evolved over the course of generations. So the particular quirks are pretty well understood by their fans.

I agree with you. The peculiarities of comic books are well known by their fans. I suspect that this is part of their charm, but no one in the comic book community wants to admit it.

That said, inconsistencies are not limited to juvenile literature and soaps. But you don't have to take my word for it...

Literary masterpieces are often written with astonishing carelessness of detail. Cervantes completely forgot that Sancho Panza’s ass had been stolen; with no word or explanation we find Sancho riding him again. Robinson Crusoe strips off his cloths, swims out to the wreckage of a ship, and a moment later we find him filling his pockets with biscuts from the ship’s bread room. Like the Baker Street Irregulars, who delight in inventing plausible explantions for Watson’s memory lapses, a group of Oz enthusiasts can spend many pleasant hours suggesting ways for harmonizing similar contradictions in the Royal History.

Going back to realism, I think a big part of the debate that is often missing is consensus. For a DM, realism is simply a matter what the players let him or her get away with. For a game designer, realism is a simply a matter of what his or her audience will let the designer get away with.

As a DM it's important to enforce the rule that happiness is mandatory. Voluntary compliance makes the rule easy to enforce so I make sure that my players think they are getting an acceptable amount of realism. A game designer would be well advised to take his or her audience into account when deciding on the amount of realism to include.

* first published in Fantasy and Science Fiction January/February 1955 and re-published in The Night is Large: Collected Essays 1938-1995

 

[fanboy2000]

More thoughts on realism

Has anyone thought about the lack of realism outside of science fiction and fantasy? Ask a criminal lawyer about Law & Order and you'll see what I mean. Or think about the layout of sitcom apartments, has anyone ever had an apartment with kind of layout? Doesn't anyone use the wall their TV is on?

And this isn't a new phenomena. Anyone ever seen a Shakespearian comedy? Twin bother and sister who look exactly alike? Fraternal twins simply don't work like that. Neither do identical twins.

While I'm at it, the Neo Classicism style popular during the Renaissance wasn't exactly realistic either.

While I'm on the subject of film, TV, and theater, I'd like to point out that actors are trained to act un-realistically. Every acting class I've taken has said an actor is supposed to find out what the character wants and base their performance on that. It's well established in psychology that people do not act in a manner consistent with what they want. But that's what actor's are trained to do. I wouldn't be surprised some actors/acting coaches actually thought humans behaved that way.

 

[Galloglaich]

I don't think it is the view that the audience has deep-seated ignorance, nor simply being lazy/not knowing. But more (especially with something like the Matrix) that reality if it gets in the way of telling a story (especially if it is core to the premise) then the story should win out over reality.

If the Wachowski Brothers had been that deeply concerned about reality (and I wouldn't be surprised if they had fairly good knowledge on academic knowledge) then the Matrix would simply not exist. What would one wish to have, everything stick to reality or have a fun/good story be told?

I must be missing something, because I thought the majority of the 'magical' scenes in the Matrix, at least in the first film (the one everybody liked), took place in a virtual reality. Therefore it was realistic. I think that is what a lot of people liked about it.

I really loved the original Matrix (Carrie Anne Moss, yum..), but I thought the series went downhill, and I thought the verisimilitude seemed to really unravel by the third film....



But this is completely beside the point. Nobody is arguing that you have to be a slave to realism or that you can't have Magic in your game. Nobody is even arguing that you have to use think about realism at all. We are describing why we think realism is important for our gaming and how we like to use it. I personally believe unless you have some intentional specific reason it works better to keep things realistic, partly because this makes the Magical elements stand out. (All desert and no dinner makes for a stomach ache.)


So in other words, if we want to make a game in which a guy can fly, or walk on lava to get back to the OP, of course there is nothing wrong with that. What we think is a drag is to drift unconsciously into a zone where physics more or less randomly works or doesn't work etc. for no particular reason other than inertia or laziness or the assumption that your audience is stupid... or just because thats the way it was done before and some people have gotten really comfortable with that.

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

Has anyone thought about the lack of realism outside of science fiction and fantasy? Ask a criminal lawyer about Law & Order and you'll see what I mean. Or think about the layout of sitcom apartments, has anyone ever had an apartment with kind of layout? Doesn't anyone use the wall their TV is on?

And this isn't a new phenomena. Anyone ever seen a Shakespearian comedy? Twin bother and sister who look exactly alike? Fraternal twins simply don't work like that. Neither do identical twins.

While I'm at it, the Neo Classicism style popular during the Renaissance wasn't exactly realistic either.

What you are talking about here are Genres. Within a given Genre the rules of the Genre supercede realism.

What we are arguing is that realism is good to fall back on unless you have a good reason, like being inside a Genre. This is particularly true for a Generalist game like DnD, which is ostensibly meant to be serious rather than comedic like Toon, say. Of course you can make up a new Genre, or base one on the assumed expectations of your audience, but then that makes it harder to engage people who have to learn it and buy into it. Quite a challenge for an RPG which is already a type of game which new people have some trouble buying into.

While I'm on the subject of film, TV, and theater, I'd like to point out that actors are trained to act un-realistically. Every acting class I've taken has said an actor is supposed to find out what the character wants and base their performance on that. It's well established in psychology that people do not act in a manner consistent with what they want. But that's what actor's are trained to do. I wouldn't be surprised some actors/acting coaches actually thought humans behaved that way.

Yes, and most TV shows and films are basically crap. The ones which stand out are often the ones which convey real characters and real situations, contrary to the expectations of the audience, or the ones which make up their own new reality intentionally.

But even within a Genre, realism can be useful.

Some audience really liked the old kind of John Wayne war movies where the "good guys" never died and the supporting characters got neat little wounds at dramatic moments, and then gave moving speeches before they passed away. This is a cliche that became a Genre of it's own, and many people were very, very comfortable with that, so comfortable that these films stayed in that particular groove for decades. But eventually the unrealistic elements got so predictable they had become really boring even for people who knew nothing about warfare, and those kind of War movies stopped making money.

Then a film like Saving Private Ryan comes along, and with a lot of expensive technical advice from historian Stephen Ambrose, added a touch of brutal realism in the D-Day landing scene which contributed to the film becomming wildly popular. Then Blackhawk Down showed the harsh reality of a gritty firefight in Somalia, and also gripped the audience (and made millions). Did these films have dramatic and frankly unrealistic elements? Of course! But by tapping into the reality of the nuanced (and often surprising) historical events they portrayed they were able to re-establish a foundation of verisimilitude which strengthened the Genre, and made the dramatic / unrealistic elements they did use stand out and seem more plausible.

G.

 

[pawsplay]

Meh, it looks like they are standing about 10-20 feet away from the lava and are perfectly fine. Anakin only bursts into flame when he gets within about 2 feet of the lava itself. Obi-wan even walks pretty darn close to the edge to look down at the flaming Anakin and he's completely fine. Maybe they were using some Jedi fire retardant trick, but I doubt it.

Plus, one of them was standing on a droid's head. He might have had magnetic shielding, but I doubt it was big enough to cover an entire person standing on it.

It's just a flimsy excuse to have a battle over lava.

There isn't enough information to even argue what should happen. I don't know what was shield, how much, how it works, etc. It's enough that we understand the equipment was magnetically sealed (consistent with what happens later when the protection is turned off during the final battle) and we know we can suspend some of our ordinary expectations about being near that much lava (and on a metallic planet, which usually means poison and radiation). If, by chance, someone missed that element, then the battle looks decidedly silly.

Knowing a dragon is a magical beast that breathes fire is sufficient. Everything else follows from that; any explanation need bend only in the direction of explaining why.

Explaining what, however, is an important matter; if a dragon gets killed and falls on someone, we would expect that to be catastrophic, even if we assume dragons are fairly light for their size. Similarly, if economics in a world look strange, we want to know why; "people are not like Earth people" is acceptable but changes the milieu significantly.

 

[Rechan]

I guess it kind of depends what kind of grasp of reality you have. What seems like a niggling detail to one person strikes another as complete derailment.

When I was eight, the idea of Superman flying around, picking up skyscrapers, wearing tights and a cape, and fooling his close associates by wearing glasses all seemed pretty reasonable. Schoolmates who argued about this or that superhero power struck me as petty and small minded.

But by the time I was thirteen or fourteen superheroes in general seemed pretty corny... today I couldn't follow a story about superman to save my life, let alone act one out as a serious participant, I would just get bored and my mind would wander after two seconds. It takes something a bit more grown up to catch my attention. I really don't think I'm alone in this.

You know, I'm reading a whole lot of subtle condescending insult here.

You may not even realize it. But reading this, I see "Clearly, only people who are not mature can enjoy superheros, due to its implausibility. I just Can't enjoy them because I'm an ADULT". No, you didn't spell it out, but you point out that you felt Superman was reasonable at a young age, then at 13 it's corny, now you can't even pay attention to it.

Look at your first sentence: "it depends on what kind of grasp on reality you have." What exactly is "grasp of reality" supposed to mean besides how sane you are?

Or what you said earlier:

This is a good analogy, and there is another way to look at it. DC or Marvel Comic books and Soap operas may be highly enjoyable for certain demographics who never get tired of them, but usually the very young and the very old respectively... A lot of people (myself included) are too old for the former and not senile enough yet for the latter

So either the immature young, or the senile old, like these things? this article says the average age of the comic book reader is 19-20, according to "industry sources". Any time I am in a comic shop, those who are looking at comics (like my father) are in their 30s or 40s. Do you really think the majority of Soap Opera viewers are senile old folks, and not, say, house wives and people who work in doctors' offices where the TV is on?

Maybe I am wrong, to which I apologize, but the impression I get from your words is that you are implying those who like what does not interest you are somehow immature or mentally unstable.

 

[Ariosto]

Similarly, if economics in a world look strange, we want to know why.

Indeed.

Although you can try to sell copies of a ritual you know, doing so offers no financial gain ... You pay the full cost to create a scroll and can typically sell it for only half value.

Why? Has D&D Land been conquered by Communists? If you try to break even, or to make a profit, do Federal Trade Commission Balrogs show up? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Lanefan]

Why? Has D&D Land been conquered by Communists? If you try to break even, or to make a profit, do Federal Trade Commission Balrogs show up? Inquiring minds want to know!

The FTC Balrogs won't show up, but try this in my game and the DM Smackdown Agency sure will.

I *refuse* to DM a game revolving around profit-based economics. It's perhaps my biggest intentional back-turn on how the game-world's reality would normally function, but I despise econonics as a science in real life and if I can avoid it in my game, I will.

That, and my players in-character are greedy enough as it is.

Lanefan