D&D General The Importance of Verisimilitude (or "Why you don't need realism to keep it real")

[Oofta]

For me, verisimilitude comes down to being consistent within your established setting and expectations. One thing I really like about 5e is that it facilitates a number of approaches to this, so that my (relatively) low stakes campaign can work and feel believable, and so can someone else's epic.

And my biggest pet peeve in D&D, in the context of verisimilitude? Alignment. Real people don't have alignments. They are way more complicated.

The good thing is that alignment for all practical purposes is just an optional descriptor much like traits, bonds, etc.. I find alignment a useful starting point for monsters and NPC now and then but it doesn't dictate behavior just gives me a general idea of worldview if I want it. For players? Couldn't care less, thank goodness.

But that is one of the things about verisimilitude in D&D. Because it's a game, because it's primarily designed to be relatively easy and fast paced, most things are greatly simplified.

Things like HD where people are either alive and fully functional or not is just a game mechanism to make things simple. For me that doesn't have much to do with verisimilitude. It's not realistic any more than alignment. It's just boiling something complicated down to something simple.

Verisimilitude has more to do with the worlds we build and the stories that emerge. We have that sense of verisimilitude when the resulting stories and actions emulate the target genre.

That to me is what is important, thefeel and visuals evoked by the game in our collective imagination, not the mechanical aspects of the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So if you have 10 options and only four of them are worth taking, are you better off than if you only had four balanced options?

Worth taking is subjective, so yes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Benders are clearly powerful individuals who can do impressive things impossible for non-benders.

There are still extremely important non-bending characters throughout AtLA. Sokka, Ty Lee, Mai, Suki, Piandao, the Mechanist, etc. Characters who have special (but perfectly mundane in-setting) skills, training, resources. And in a world where spirits are very real and the supernatural is but a breath away, even mundane acts can have effects beyond what is possible IRL. And yes, there is a TTRPG for AtLA, so this isn't just a narrative to game comparison.

Hence, this whole thing becomes rather circular. Verisimilitude requires limiting certain things and being completely hands-off with others, but the decision about what to be hands-off with is either totally capricious and arbitrary, or knowingly and intentionally biased. The "veri-" to which there is "similitude" is a choice, not a requirement.

Folks who like the things volunteered to get the short end of the stick aren't exactly keen on that. Being told, "oh, but you see, giving those things short shrift is actually necessary for the good of the game!" when we can clearly see that it is simply a choice, in support of a very specific and narrow set of preferences.

"Verisimilitude" is simply a more subtle, wily version of "realistic." As soon as you start pushing on the specifics, its true colors are revealed: only sanctioned breaks from reality are permitted, and all other things must conform, not simply to IRL physics (which are quite a bit more flexible than many realize...), but to the rather stunted subset thereof which is held in popular opinion ("pop physics"?) as physically real and consistent. Actual physical feats real Olympic gymnasts, archers, and swimmers achieve are usually impossible or effectively so under this stunted subset of our physical reality, to say nothing of mundane-but-epic feats fantastical characters should have within reach.

I very much appreciate that folks want to feel that a world is grounded, sensible, predictable. A place explored less through map and word, and more through action and consequence. That is why I included "Groundedness & Simulation" as one of the four game-(design-)purposes" in my possibly-incomplete taxonomy. But I find "verisimilitude" goes quite far past "I want a world that is grounded, sensible, and predictable." Coupled with various rather pointed preferences and the advocacy for certain design trends (which, notably, were not true of classic editions; loot in early editions specifically favored Fighter characters over other classes!), it amounts to a shell game of the problems of "realism." Advocates have recognized that "realism" is a problematic term, so many of them have cordoned off the problematic parts and just don't speak them out loud...until pressed.

You can have a world that is fully self-consistent, and where explicitly-flagged "magic" is not the only way to exceed the bounds of what should be physically possible. The supernatural and transmundane are vast. They contain multitudes.

The game in question for Avatar is very narrative in design, so actually it is just a narrative to game comparison. Show me an Avatar world game with a traditional playstyle and we'll talk.

 

[Pedantic]

Benders are clearly powerful individuals who can do impressive things impossible for non-benders.

There are still extremely important non-bending characters throughout AtLA. Sokka, Ty Lee, Mai, Suki, Piandao, the Mechanist, etc. Characters who have special (but perfectly mundane in-setting) skills, training, resources. And in a world where spirits are very real and the supernatural is but a breath away, even mundane acts can have effects beyond what is possible IRL. And yes, there is a TTRPG for AtLA, so this isn't just a narrative to game comparison.

Hence, this whole thing becomes rather circular. Verisimilitude requires limiting certain things and being completely hands-off with others, but the decision about what to be hands-off with is either totally capricious and arbitrary, or knowingly and intentionally biased. The "veri-" to which there is "similitude" is a choice, not a requirement.

Folks who like the things volunteered to get the short end of the stick aren't exactly keen on that. Being told, "oh, but you see, giving those things short shrift is actually necessary for the good of the game!" when we can clearly see that it is simply a choice, in support of a very specific and narrow set of preferences.

"Verisimilitude" is simply a more subtle, wily version of "realistic." As soon as you start pushing on the specifics, its true colors are revealed: only sanctioned breaks from reality are permitted, and all other things must conform, not simply to IRL physics (which are quite a bit more flexible than many realize...), but to the rather stunted subset thereof which is held in popular opinion ("pop physics"?) as physically real and consistent. Actual physical feats real Olympic gymnasts, archers, and swimmers achieve are usually impossible or effectively so under this stunted subset of our physical reality, to say nothing of mundane-but-epic feats fantastical characters should have within reach.

I very much appreciate that folks want to feel that a world is grounded, sensible, predictable. A place explored less through map and word, and more through action and consequence. That is why I included "Groundedness & Simulation" as one of the four game-(design-)purposes" in my possibly-incomplete taxonomy. But I find "verisimilitude" goes quite far past "I want a world that is grounded, sensible, and predictable." Coupled with various rather pointed preferences and the advocacy for certain design trends (which, notably, were not true of classic editions; loot in early editions specifically favored Fighter characters over other classes!), it amounts to a shell game of the problems of "realism." Advocates have recognized that "realism" is a problematic term, so many of them have cordoned off the problematic parts and just don't speak them out loud...until pressed.

You can have a world that is fully self-consistent, and where explicitly-flagged "magic" is not the only way to exceed the bounds of what should be physically possible. The supernatural and transmundane are vast. They contain multitudes.

I don't think getting your opponents to pick different words to describe their position in your realism->versimilitude->groundedness schema is victory. No one has changed their mind about what they want, they're just twisting their language to whatever they think best express it and they can get away with.

Plus the supernatural/transmundane difference you call out is just more of the same. A magic->supernatural->exceptional treadmill isn't going to serve the fighter any better. The keeper who think figure means normal will continue to object to it doing anything behind that point, and continue to be the same people either unswayed by arguments about balance, or unable to conceive of the actual utility provided by casters.

If you interrogate what these conceptions of mundane classes are, instead of complaining about each edge case (looking at you hit points), it's not actually that hard to get to series of design goals that let you have a melee combatant class whole satisfying them.

I just don't think "having a fighter class" actually is an important design goal comparatively. We've explored every way to get there: embrace narrative mechanics, place sharp limits on your explicitly supernatural character's utility, or abandon interclass balance. If you can't stomach one of those as a design constraint you can't have a fighter, and we continue to circle from one of those to the next while the fighter abides. I'd like to get off the ride, but most everyone seems to prefer to pick one of those to champion instead.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I just don't think "having a fighter class" actually is an important design goal comparatively.

Well, it has remained the most popular class throughout. Even tho it's been basic, build-complex, play-complex, and basic again; blah, OP DPR, Tier 5, balanced, and DPR again.

It seems like the design doesn't matter, so just phone something in?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I just don't think "having a fighter class" actually is an important design goal comparatively. We've explored every way to get there: embrace narrative mechanics, place sharp limits on your explicitly supernatural character's utility, or abandon interclass balance. If you can't stomach one of those as a design constraint you can't have a fighter, and we continue to circle from one of those to the next while the fighter abides. I'd like to get off the ride, but most everyone seems to prefer to pick one of those to champion instead.

I'm aware it's not a big deal to you. It is a big deal to a LOT of people. I aim for more practical solutions, rather than idealized ones, because idealized ones have consistently failed to appear/function.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, it has remained the most popular class throughout. Even tho it's been basic, build-complex, play-complex, and basic again; blah, OP DPR, Tier 5, balanced, and DPR again.

It seems like the design doesn't matter, so just phone something in?

Design does matter, but it is not exclusively determinative. Which is something I've been arguing for years.

Better design is liked better. Worse design is tolerated. It takes truly, unequivocally despicable design to drive people away. You see this all the time in video gaming. Fighters are popular conceptually; they always have been, they always will be. Coffee is popular, always has been, always will be, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as a bad cup of joe. Just that people are willing to tolerate pretty low-quality coffee to get their fix. And, again, I am NOT saying that any specific thing is bad. What I am saying is, there's clearly some problems because we keep circling round and round the same issues over and over and over again, so clearly things can be better than they are.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Benders are clearly powerful individuals who can do impressive things impossible for non-benders.

There are still extremely important non-bending characters throughout AtLA. Sokka, Ty Lee, Mai, Suki, Piandao, the Mechanist, etc. Characters who have special (but perfectly mundane in-setting) skills, training, resources. And in a world where spirits are very real and the supernatural is but a breath away, even mundane acts can have effects beyond what is possible IRL. And yes, there is a TTRPG for AtLA, so this isn't just a narrative to game comparison.

Hence, this whole thing becomes rather circular. Verisimilitude requires limiting certain things and being completely hands-off with others, but the decision about what to be hands-off with is either totally capricious and arbitrary, or knowingly and intentionally biased. The "veri-" to which there is "similitude" is a choice, not a requirement.

Folks who like the things volunteered to get the short end of the stick aren't exactly keen on that. Being told, "oh, but you see, giving those things short shrift is actually necessary for the good of the game!" when we can clearly see that it is simply a choice, in support of a very specific and narrow set of preferences.

"Verisimilitude" is simply a more subtle, wily version of "realistic." As soon as you start pushing on the specifics, its true colors are revealed: only sanctioned breaks from reality are permitted, and all other things must conform, not simply to IRL physics (which are quite a bit more flexible than many realize...), but to the rather stunted subset thereof which is held in popular opinion ("pop physics"?) as physically real and consistent. Actual physical feats real Olympic gymnasts, archers, and swimmers achieve are usually impossible or effectively so under this stunted subset of our physical reality, to say nothing of mundane-but-epic feats fantastical characters should have within reach.

I very much appreciate that folks want to feel that a world is grounded, sensible, predictable. A place explored less through map and word, and more through action and consequence. That is why I included "Groundedness & Simulation" as one of the four game-(design-)purposes" in my possibly-incomplete taxonomy. But I find "verisimilitude" goes quite far past "I want a world that is grounded, sensible, and predictable." Coupled with various rather pointed preferences and the advocacy for certain design trends (which, notably, were not true of classic editions; loot in early editions specifically favored Fighter characters over other classes!), it amounts to a shell game of the problems of "realism." Advocates have recognized that "realism" is a problematic term, so many of them have cordoned off the problematic parts and just don't speak them out loud...until pressed.

You can have a world that is fully self-consistent, and where explicitly-flagged "magic" is not the only way to exceed the bounds of what should be physically possible. The supernatural and transmundane are vast. They contain multitudes.

What an elegantly worded attack on the preferences of others this is.

 

[Lanefan]

So if you have 10 options and only four of them are worth taking, are you better off than if you only had four balanced options?

Yes, in that someone might still be able to make something out of one or more of the other six.

It also depends on the scale of imbalance. If on a 100-point scale the four good ones are 100 and the next four range between 90 and 95, you've got eight worth keeping, while perhaps dropping the two that are 30 and 25 respectively.

And, this assumes the four 100s are still meaningfully and functionally different, given that the easiest way to balance something with something else is to make them functionally the same. And if they've been balanced that way you don't have four options any more; you only have one, painted in four different colours.

 

[Lanefan]

I just don't think "having a fighter class" actually is an important design goal comparatively. We've explored every way to get there: embrace narrative mechanics, place sharp limits on your explicitly supernatural character's utility, or abandon interclass balance. If you can't stomach one of those as a design constraint you can't have a fighter, and we continue to circle from one of those to the next while the fighter abides. I'd like to get off the ride, but most everyone seems to prefer to pick one of those to champion instead.

I think Fighter (or Warrior, or Knight, or whatever else it's being called at the time) is perhaps the most important class or archetype to keep; and further, is probably the baseline from which all other class design should begin.

Now maybe if one wants PC-playable spellcasters then interclass balance does have to take a hit, but I don't think that hit needs to be nearly as big as some would make it. Make Warriors be the reliable always-on low-risk classes and make spellcasters be the high-risk (i.e. unreliable) but high-reward limited-use classes, and you're well on the way to a playable system. Allow casters to become low-risk and-or always-on, however, and that balance goes bye-bye; and the WotC-era editions have proven this well.