On Behavioral Realism

[Reynard]

Yeah. I've skipped around, so I haven't seen @Reynard say that he won't talk to his players like some here are saying. Talking to the players seems like the best first step to me.

As I noted in the original post, this whole thing started with a conversation with one of my players who agreed with me. So I started a thread to discuss some methods to encourage certain play behaviors. Much of that conversation has been along the lines of whether or not to use mechanical incentives to do so versus non mechanical incentives. While I have a preference against mechanical incentives, I haven't suggested such things were badwrongfun. Nor have I called my players or any theoretical players names or derided them. I have repeatedly noted that this was not a deal breaker. Somewhere along the line I feel like the tone of the discussion turned much more negative than it started.

Such is the way of threads. They usually move far more quickly than game sessions occur, and some people seem to get especially offended if their proposed solution is not immediately hailed as perfect. The fact is we have not played our regular game since I started this thread and even if I wanted to implement some particular poster's suggestions, I haven't been able to.

Again, I think overall the discussion has been productive and interesting and it has certainly given me much to consider. I just don't know how I got to be the unbending villain in all this.

 

[happyhermit]

In most games and sports you can say things like "Some players are better at this or that" or "In this game they did a really good job at this" and nobody bats an eye, because why would they. You can also say an actor/writer/director did an incredible job of realizing a character, or they didn't and people might disagree with you but you won't find mobs of them saying "That makes no sense, all realizations are equal".

Unique (AFAICT) to ttrpgs though, a large number of people for a variety of reasons will bend over backwards in an attempt to make all roleplaying "equal" in quality. So, no matter what a character does; actions that conflict with stated motives or previous charachterization, anachronisms, using knowlege the character couldn't have, exploiting fringe-case rules, it's all perfect roleplaying and no more "realistic" than a player that tries to consider all the factors and act in the way that character would actually act in that situation. I understand some of the motivations for why people think this way, though I obviously don't agree. I think we would be much better off admitting when some people do a good job at something, like we do in all other walks of life. It doesn't mean the people who don't do a great job at one particular thing can't already do it but don't care to and/or can't get better at it if they want to.

The entire "This type of play is inevitable because of the rules" makes no sense because we have millions of people using the same rules and having entirely different experiences. I have seen players sleeping out in the woods and players buying every luxury in town, both can make sense from an in character perspective and it's usually pretty clear when that's the case vs when the players are making the choice by largely ignoring the fictional world.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I just don't know how I got to be the unbending villain in all this.

I think it's because you keep doggedly insisting on calling "it behavioral realism" instead of "my aesthetic preference."

 

[Fenris-77]

I think it's because you keep doggedly insisting on calling "it behavioral realism" instead of "my aesthetic preference."

His aesthetic preference is for more behavioral realism. I'm not sure why people decided to pile on the term usage rather than answer the actual question at hand. Well, I do, internet, but still...

 

[Guest 6801328]

His aesthetic preference is for more behavioral realism. I'm not sure why people decided to pile on the term usage rather than answer the actual question at hand. Well, I do, internet, but still...

And a bunch of us presented evidence/arguments for why nearly any behavior is realistic (including not bathing and sleeping in the woods), and what he was really describing was really just common behavior, but not necessarily more realistic.

By his standard, "behavioral realism" would be severe emotional and psychological problems stemming from guilt for all the killing, and the horror of nearly being eaten by monsters on a regular basis. Because that would be the response of the vast majority of people. You know, the ones who like to bathe.

And yet he persisted.

 

[Guest 6801328]

People who get offended by his statements fail to understand that realism is a spectrum and not all or nothing. His statement about realism does not in fact make any dig at anyone or imply that their game and RP are inferior. It does imply that their game is different and that they want different things than he does, though.

It may be a spectrum but, let's face it, we're all on the far end of the spectrum where it's 99.999% unrealistic. We're arguing about that third decimal place.

And there are some denigrations that don't need to be explicitly stated, but are intrinsic to the claims.

Let's say I post, "Hey I want my games to be authentic heroic fantasy. How can I get more players to choose Paladin?" It sounds innocuous, but I am, by the nature of the argument, telling Lowkey that his fantasy is neither heroic nor authentic. Maybe the image I have in my head of heroic fantasy involves paladin-like action, but I'm taking my aesthetic preference and wrapping it in completely subjective claims.

 

[Fenris-77]

And a bunch of us presented evidence/arguments for why nearly any behavior is realistic (including not bathing and sleeping in the woods), and what he was really describing was really just common behavior, but not necessarily more realistic.

By his standard, "behavioral realism" would be severe emotional and psychological problems stemming from guilt for all the killing, and the horror of nearly being eaten by monsters on a regular basis. Because that would be the response of the vast majority of people. You know, the ones who like to bathe.

And yet he persisted.

I'm not suggesting that the behavior on either side isn't 'realistic'. However, as I pointed out more than once, behavior without consequence isn't realistic either. The players in question wanted to sleep rough to save coin for gear, which, on the surface, is fine, but they weren't doing so with any expectation of consequence. Without having to dip into trauma, or apply the term too widely (which was never something anyone actually wanted, other than as a rhetorical point), it's possible to just apply consequence and end up with more 'realism' baked into your 'behavior'. Stuff like the fancy tavern won't let you in because you look like a ragamuffin. There was no need to raise the stakes to trauma to prove a rhetorical point.

This has been a mountains out of molehills thread pretty much from the get go, and through no particular fault of @Reynard either, IMO anyway.

 

[Reynard]

And a bunch of us presented evidence/arguments for why nearly any behavior is realistic (including not bathing and sleeping in the woods), and what he was really describing was really just common behavior, but not necessarily more realistic.

By his standard, "behavioral realism" would be severe emotional and psychological problems stemming from guilt for all the killing, and the horror of nearly being eaten by monsters on a regular basis. Because that would be the response of the vast majority of people. You know, the ones who like to bathe.

And yet he persisted.

I defined a term at the beginning of the discussion and continued to use that term for clarity. Hell, I even used scare quotes a whole bunch to signify that it's just a term to express what I was talking about.

But we've reached the point in the thread where we are no longer talking about the subject so I'm going to bow out.

Thanks everyone that contributed productively.

 

[Maxperson]

It may be a spectrum but, let's face it, we're all on the far end of the spectrum where it's 99.999% unrealistic. We're arguing about that third decimal place.

It isn't even remotely close to being that unrealistic. Something that unrealistic would break our minds. We couldn't conceive of something so absurd.

D&D is actually more realistic than not. Humans have two arms, two legs, breath, eat, etc. Swords are edged, arrows are shot from bow. There is sky. Air. Trees. Gravity exists. And so on.

If I had to guess, I'd say it was probably somewhere between 60 and 70% and we are arguing about 1% or 2% difference. Er, discussing.

Let's say I post, "Hey I want my games to be authentic heroic fantasy. How can I get more players to choose Paladin?" It sounds innocuous, but I am, by the nature of the argument, telling Lowkey that his fantasy is neither heroic nor authentic.

That's not the same thing. We're talking about wanting MORE realism for our games, which doesn't in any way say anything positive or negative about your games. We can discuss our preferences without it being insulting to you.

Nobody here is saying that if we act more like people are supposed to act, that it makes our game like reality and therefore better than your game. You are inventing negative judgement and attributing it to us where there isn't any. That's not a Strawman, but it's probably some sort of fallacy.

 

[pemerton]

The problem could be solved if @Reynard would just say, "There are certain behaviors, such as the aforementioned inn/bathing one, that enhance the game experience for me. Does anybody have any suggestions for how I could encourage my players to engage in those behaviors?"

A lot of pepole have given those suggestsions. With reference to other systems that seem to readily generate the desired behaviours. And with discussions about how one might work around or overcome any possible obstacles D&D might place in the way.

As someone who's been participating in this thread for most of its duration, this is predominantly what I have seen discussed. The two basic lines of suggstion have been introudce systems to make it matter (carrots/sticks) and change your fiction to make it matter (which might also involve introducing systems to support and generate that fiction). To me those seem broad enough to basically cover the field of @darkbard and @chaochou's (2) above.

So yet another tabletop problem that could be solved if adults talked to other adults like adults?

And that would be those same two posters' (1) above. Ie focusing on the metagame (in @Ovinomancer's sense) or "social contract", rather than looking at the game itself as (2) does.

So is this thread basically done then?