The Difference Between Realism vs. Believability

[pemerton]

NoWayJose, thanks for the reply, and I'm glad you like the examples.

Same with the belief trope in Planescape. It was there as a vague concept, it was supposed to be really important, but it never had a systemic significance for PCs. (That's what you were referring to, right?)

Not quite. I was referring to its signficance for the players.

I started another thread related to this a while ago - not long after The Plane Above came out - about the "Gloranthification of D&D". In Planescape, it's not just that the belief conceit doesn't itself incorporate the PCs. Rather, there's no expectation that the players are meant to respond to it or make use of it in playing the game. Whereas in The Plane Above, and its discussion of changing "mythic history", or in The Underdark and it's discussion of the relationship between Lolth and Tharizdun, it's pretty clear that this is not just about the PCs doing something, but about the players making choices like "Is it OK to kill Lolth, if this creates a risk of Tharizdun breaking free?" or "Should I go back in time and stop Bane killing Tuern in order to help me end this present-day tyranny, even though this runs the risk of having the gods lose the Dawn War?"

Without wanting to lapse too much back into caricature, I'd say that if you look at the second of these questions - going back into mythic history to kill Bane in the cause of liberation - and the most pressing issues that occur to you involves time-travel paradoxes - then you've got the sort of attitude towards the gameworld that I (and I think Doug and Mallus) are trying to move away from.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think you read a lot more in to that line than I intended, it happens a lot on the interwebs.
I did not intend to have people consider RoleMaster and Runequest as the same thing. I know they are not, played quite a bit of MERP and some RoleMaster back in the day. Even a little bit of Runequest.
However, My point was that its a spectrum not a polarity, and it is not the same for everyone.

 

[NoWayJose]

"Should I go back in time and stop Bane killing Tuern in order to help me end this present-day tyranny, even though this runs the risk of having the gods lose the Dawn War?"

Without wanting to lapse too much back into caricature, I'd say that if you look at the second of these questions - going back into mythic history to kill Bane in the cause of liberation - and the most pressing issues that occur to you involves time-travel paradoxes - then you've got the sort of attitude towards the gameworld that I (and I think Doug and Mallus) are trying to move away from.

Oh boy, first racism, then time travel.. I think that ever since Back to the Future, engineers and non-engineers alike know of time travel paradoxes. If a DM is desperate to introduce time travel into an adventure, he should be cognizant that someone might be think of that. The PCs are probably barely able to comprehend time travel, much less paradoxes, but how do the players know if the author of the module did or did not include a time travel paradox element? That kind of second guessing happens all the time. In terms of believability, the important thing is that the fantasy author takes a moment to consider all the plausibility baggage that comes with time travel, rather than blame the readers or players for knowing what they know from Back to the Future and being unsure of whether or not to apply that genre law.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

NoWayJose, thanks for the reply, and I'm glad you like the examples.

Not quite. I was referring to its signficance for the players.

snip

Without wanting to lapse too much back into caricature, I'd say that if you look at the second of these questions - going back into mythic history to kill Bane in the cause of liberation - and the most pressing issues that occur to you involves time-travel paradoxes - then you've got the sort of attitude towards the gameworld that I (and I think Doug and Mallus) are trying to move away from.

Don't know about Doug or Mallus but I have no problem with the time travel paradox as the primary concern. I have no difficulty with exploring a secondary creation on its own terms and not worring about its place in comtempory culture.
I do have issues with using an rpg engine action resolution system as a simulation engine or more specifically with getting pernickety about corner cases in one and not being so pernickety about the corner cases in the other when they are both pretty lousy simulations engines for any sort of belivable in world action, at least as I see it.

Now the funny thing is despite the fact that we are coming at this with very different concerns, i think that you and I (and Doug and Mallus) could game together quite happily more so that any of us could with those who are on the more "Once rule set to bind them all" side of the divide.

 

[lutecius]

That is your problem and the problem of others like you who share your prespective. It is not a problem to me, my players and others like me.
[...]
That all very well, different strokes for different folks but all it boils down to is that people will prefer different systems. So prefer Runequest or RoleMaster or D&D of a specific edition or vintage.

ok? of course it's a matter of preference.

I was just describing what I believe to be common believability issues and simulationist priorities as opposed to the marginal quibbles some posters seem to focus on.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

ok? of course it's a matter of preference.

I was just describing what I believe to be common believability issues and simulationist priorities as opposed to the marginal quibbles some posters seem to focus on.

Fair enough so, but many poster make the same point as if it is a universally defined truth.
As to the original comment:

I don't see a lot of that. I do see people expecting consistent rules, though. for example, some don't like having different builds for minions, regular monsters and PCs when they're supposed to be the same creature, story-wise.

I would point out that the existance of minion build is not evidence of an inconsistency in the rules, the rules are quite consistent (you are allowed build them) but that the rules are not simulationist.

By the way, I like minion rules, since I can now allow my players to one shot a guard without resorting to DM fiat. So for me they contribute to believability

 

[Scribble]

I don't see a lot of that. I do see people expecting consistent rules, though. for example, some don't like having different builds for minions, regular monsters and PCs when they're supposed to be the same creature, story-wise.

I'd say that kind of illustrates my point.

Some look at the rules to define a goblin. Others define the goblin then look at the rules to define an instance of the goblin.

For the second type, having multiple builds for the same creature isn't really an issue.

 

[NoWayJose]

By the way, I like minion rules, since I can now allow my players to one shot a guard without resorting to DM fiat. So for me they contribute to believability

How about this aspect of minion rules, how does this contribute to believability?

Stargazer's World » Blog Archive » Minions in D&D 4th Edition: Hit or Miss?

Generally I like the new rules for minions in D&D 4th Edition. They are several reasons why minions are fun: you can throw dozens of enemies at the players without killing them off instantly or being nothing more than a nuisance, there are no hitpoints for the DM to track. But there’s one rule that really bothers me: Minions never die when missed.

Huh? Some of you may now think “What’s the big deal?”. You know, there are quite a few powers in D&D 4th Edition that deal damage to enemies even when you rolled a miss. That’s especially handy when area effect powers are concerned. The problem is now that some of these powers are powerful enough to do some serious damage against normal monsters even when they miss but minions are completely unharmed. And in some cases this makes no frakking sense.

I had some discussion with my D&D 4th Edition DM about this and we agreed that the idea behind the rule was to make sure that you can’t kill all minions with a simple area effect spell, but I have to admit this rule really messes with immersion. It just feels wrong. But that’s a general problem I am having with 4th Edition combat: it works well as a game but most rules are totally detached from game reality

 

[UngainlyTitan]

How about this aspect of minion rules, how does this contribute to believability?

Personally I do not have a problem with it, you see for me the rules do not define the ingame reality. At least not in D&D, or most rpgs that I have played.
This is because if I consider the rules as the definition of the ingame reality then immesion breaks every time that rules produce a silly ingame result like the housecat slaying the level one mage or the thief getting the drop on the sentry and then needing 20 strokes of his dagger to kill him.
The rules are the levers that me and my players use to manipulate the in game reality.
Thus when a player uses Tide of Iron in game then the character has been granted an opportunity in the ingame reality to use such a manouver without over extending himself. The once per encounter aspect has no in the game reality meaning. It is purely a constraint on the player of the character for play balance purposes.
So in game there is no difference between a minion and an npc with full hit points except the minnion has no luck. When the pc get a solid shot on the minion he dies where as his non minion comrade has luck, perception and agility to avoid the killing blow.

Does that help you understand my prespective?

 

[NoWayJose]

Does that help you understand my prespective?

I'm not sure. I don't think so. The specific question I brought up was:

[area effects that] do some serious damage against normal monsters even when they miss but minions are completely unharmed. And in some cases this makes no frakking sense.

I don't understand how one could reconciliate the above specific situation with what you described:

When the pc get a solid shot on the minion he dies where as his non minion comrade has luck, perception and agility to avoid the killing blow.

Everyone on both sides of the divide have been very articulate about the larger perspective and generalizations, but some have claimed that game rules do not affect believability which I vehmently disagree with, so when the topic of minion rules came up, I thought to jump on that one specific example, and take it from there.