Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Galloglaich" data-source="post: 4490469" data-attributes="member: 77019">I think what you are talking about is verisimilitude, which is not the same thing as realism. It's more a kind of internal consistency. Thats what you really want in either a story or a game. The problem with the general inflation of fantastic elements making dinner into "all sugar, no meat" is tied to another problem, of increasingly derivitive fantastic notions which have no internal consistency. I try to explain this with cartoons sometimes. If you are old enough you may remember three of my favorites: Johnny Quest, Bullwinkle and Buggs Bunny. Johnny Quest was the archetypal 'realistic' action / sci fi cartoon, Bullwinkle and Buggs Bunny were purely fantastic and satirical. To me both types had excellent verisimilitude. While Johnny Quest was more realistic than the other two, it regularly introduced fantastic elements, but which were logically integrated into the marginally plausible world they had created, which had it's own logical consistency and a certain satisfying verisimilitude. like Call of Cthulhu or something like that.  Buggs Bunny or Bullwinkle on the other hand are utterly fantastic. The physics, the talking animals, the very appearance of the world is just wacky. And yet it also has a certain verisimilitude. It has it's own internal logic, you know when Yosemite Sam blows up a keg of gunpowder he is only going to end up with a black face and and blown up hat, not ruptured internal organs. And we are fine with that, in fact it's what makes it fun, one of the most delightful cartoons ever made IMO. I would liken these cartoons to a game like Paranoia or Kobolds Ate my baby, which is over the top silly but tons of fun. Their sense of humor and satirical dialogue was reflective of real life people, politics, events, etc. The con artistry and hucksterism of foghorn leghorn, the lechery of pepe le pew, are themes we can recognize from life. Thats why we relate to them so much, thats why these particular cartoons stand up so well in terms of modern viewers (despite being made as far back as the 1940s) and older (adult) viewers. Contrast this with the lesser imitators of some of the originals, derivitive and formulaic (some of the later Hana Barbara stuff ... anybody remember <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein,_Jr._and_The_Impossibles" target="_blank">Frankenstein, Jr. and The Impossibles</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shazzan" target="_blank">Shazzan</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdman_and_the_Galaxy_Trio" target="_blank">Birdman and the Galaxy Trio</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_Dick_and_the_Mighty_Mightor" target="_blank">Moby Dick and the Mighty Mightor</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Samson_and_Goliath" target="_blank">Young Samson and Goliath</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Herculoids" target="_blank">The Herculoids</a> or etc.).  That I think is kind of analagous to what has happened with some RPGs. G.</blockquote>

Verification