D&D 4E How does 4E hold up on verisimilitude?

[KarinsDad]

Rant Disclaimer: The following is not intended to offend anyone, nor is it directed to anyone in particular.

[rant] Yes. It's a very lame term for this game that became a fad because some gamer guys thought it was cool to use a word that is not often seen in popular usage. It's the same reason some folks use too many acronyms around here.

And the louder and more often they claim it's a word that fits perfectly, the more I roll my eyes that it can't fit perfectly if they have to continually justify and explain and debate it's usage and definition. Just using the definition in plain language rather than the word would actually communicate their message better. But, I am not positive that communication is the actual goal.[/rant]

So, ranting at them somehow makes their opinions on the topic invalid? Is discussing the semantics of the word that they appropriately use a form of valid debate? Or is it the fact that they are forced to explain what the word means to a bunch of people who do not understand the difference between the words "realism" and "believability"? Or are you bothered by the fact that a little used term is starting to become a RPG community term used more often?

Or are you just ticked that their POV is just as valid as yours?

 

[Voss]

The problem I see with future supplements is they pretty much have to adhere to the formula or the material in the first book gets entirely left behind. Anything that is significantly better is going to break the game and be a no-brainer choice. As it is, there is a clear distinction between powers that allow you to stun-lock solo monsters while you grind down the absurd pile of hit points, and powers that... don't.

As it is, interesting concepts like summons and illusions are going to be almost impossible to plug in, because they'll shatter the playing field or they'll require you to forfeit your standard action while your monster does level appropriate things in your stead. Neither is particularly interesting.

 

[mmadsen]

It's a very lame term for this game that became a fad because some gamer guys thought it was cool to use a word that is not often seen in popular usage. It's the same reason some folks use too many acronyms around here.

I hardly think verisimilitude became a fad because it was cool. People started using verisimilitude for the simple reason that when they said realism someone would always quip, "How can you be concerned about realism in a game with wizards and dragons?"

Verisimilitude is not a word most of us use in everyday conversation, but it is the correct word, and, more importantly, it sidesteps that facile counterargument.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think this is as absolutely true as you'd like it to be. If the mechanics were invisible, it would be. But they're not. The players are aware of them, and they can affect the suspension of disbelief.

I find suspension of disbelief is not often an issue of conveying the appearance of truth. If a blood scene in a horror movie looks real, but you know how makeup is applied and thus it impacts your suspension of disbelief, that's not a failing of the movie but of your own ability to but aside the mechanics. Once you get in the habit of not dwelling on mechanics, but on the scene itself, I find most players do not have this issue. But like many things, it is a habit (or, a skill) that needs to be developed. When I first saw a "making of" documentary about a movie I liked, it initially harmed by ability to suspend disbelief when I saw the movie again. But with practice, I got over it.

Whilst I have some sympathy for what you're suggesting, and sometimes it's even true, I think this is argument that gets weaker every single time someone uses it, because the very fact that it's having to be endlessly repeated suggests that it's NOT the imaginations of the players that are at fault, but the judgement of the designers, or their way of putting things.

It's a new game, and takes a new period of adjustment before you can establish the habits you need to establish to make the scene flow in a relatively believable manner. Just because you are hearing this same theme repeated a lot these days doesn't tend to indicate it's a problem inherent in the new game. Indeed, the fact that you are hearing this same theme repeated often might well tend to indicate it's true - that players are not taking the time to think through how a new type of scene can play out in a relatively believable manner, but are relying on tropes and habits established by a prior editions and trying to fit those older scenes into the new game.

Ultimately, you cannot always blame the audience for failing to "imagine hard enough".

You use that phrase in quotes as if I said it. I didn't say it. It's not a matter of thinking hard enough, it's a matter of not really approaching the issue much at all and depending on old scene and scene construction tools from prior editions of the game.

If you go in assuming, for example, that hit points work pretty much the same way they did in the prior edition of the game, then you will naturally have some problems with imagining the scene that plays out where your hit points suddenly come back. You have to actually reach the point where you question your assumption that hit points represent the same kind of thing they did in that prior edition. Once you question that assumption, you find it to be false, and it becomes a relatively easy imaginative task to come up with the new type of scene to describe how hit points function.

4E is strong in many regards, but I don't think many people would put versimiltude as one it's primary strengths, would you?

I wouldn't use the word to begin with (see above post on that topic). But going with what I think you mean by it, I put this version of the game right around the last version of the game (give or take a bit) for it's ability to convey a sense of truth. I don't know if it's a primary strength, but I don't view it as a particular weakness either.

 

[mmadsen]

I find suspension of disbelief is not often an issue of conveying the appearance of truth. If a blood scene in a horror movie looks real, but you know how makeup is applied and thus it impacts your suspension of disbelief, that's not a failing of the movie but of your own ability to [put] aside the mechanics. Once you get in the habit of not dwelling on mechanics, but on the scene itself, I find most players do not have this issue.

I believe you're ignoring the fact that the players aren't casually observing the end results of the mechanics, like an audience viewing realistic blood without knowing it's fake, but are actively interacting with the mechanics and making decisions based on them. In your metaphor, they can taste that the blood is corn syrup, they know it washes off with soap and warm water, etc.

 

[Mistwell]

So, ranting at them somehow makes their opinions on the topic invalid?

No. Which is why at no point did you find anything in my post that said or implied that their opinion on the topic was invalid.


Can you please tell me what I said that resulted in you inferring that?

Is discussing the semantics of the word that they appropriately use a form of valid debate?

It's not semantics, and yes. I am complaining that it is a form of elitism, not semantics. It doesn't matter if you use, as a hypothetical example, an ancient Sanskrit word properly, if you are attempting to communicate a concept and failing to communicate. And my point is that the repeated use of the term is not fostering communication, but it is fostering elitism and a sense of exclusion for newcomers, which I find to be a bad thing.

Or is it the fact that they are forced to explain what the word means to a bunch of people who do not understand the difference between the words "realism" and "believability"?

They are not forced to do it. People choose to use a word that by now they know is not working well to communicate the concept they wish to communicate. If they continue to choose to use the word anyway, then they should expect people might not understand, and hence they might want to explain the definition again. All of that could be avoided if they simply used the definition itself, rather than the word. Using the word might in theory save time, but in practice having to explain it over and over again is causing much more of a time waster than simply using the definition itself rather than the word.

Or are you bothered by the fact that a little used term is starting to become a RPG community term used more often?

I am bothered by the fact that the motive to use it is, from my perspective, a form of elitism that serves to make newcomers feel excluded from the hobby. Because if the intent were to communicate, people would have always used the definition rather than the word. I think the intent was not to communicate - or rather not to communicate about that word - but was instead to send a message that the writer is superior in some way because they used a word that most people don't know. You see this often in, for example, academia.

Or are you just ticked that their POV is just as valid as yours?

I'm not sure what this has to do with point of view or validity - but hey, thanks for using another unnecessary acronym. It helps me convey my message, which is my goal.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I am bothered by the fact that the motive to use it is, from my perspective, a form of elitism that serves to make newcomers feel excluded from the hobby. Because if the intent were to communicate, people would have always used the definition rather than the word. I think the intent was not to communicate - or rather not to communicate about that word - but was instead to send a message that the writer is superior in some way because they used a word that most people don't know. You see this often in, for example, academia.

Define perspective, because someone out there might not know it, and to use it is elitist.

Define elitism.

Define academia.

I'm sorry that people use slightly more obscure words to explain things, but as has been pointed out, the use of the term "versimilitude" arose because of people bringing the strawman of "there are dragons!" whenever the word "realism" was used.

It's not an attempt to drive out those who are less experienced with the game, or less able with the English language, or to say "I'm better than you." It's to get the people who like to throw strawmen without actually reading arguments to stop and think.

 

[Mistwell]

I believe you're ignoring the fact that the players aren't casually observing the end results of the mechanics, like an audience viewing realistic blood without knowing it's fake, but are actively interacting with the mechanics and making decisions based on them. In your metaphor, they can taste that the blood is corn syrup, they know it washes off with soap and warm water, etc.

That's a good point. Some of the mechanics are actively used by the players, and that serves as a more continual reminder that the mechanics exist. And yet, that's something present in other role playing games, and with time players tend to get over it and find a way to separate the mechanics from the scene. It just takes practice, and we have not had the time to establish that habit with this game yet since the game is so new. The mechanics are more noticeable because they are different than what we were used to, not because they actually interfere more with the scene. Once they become the norm in our mind, they will fade from the scene much like older versions of the rules tended to fade from the scene.

 

[Keltheos]

I am bothered by the fact that the motive to use it is, from my perspective, a form of elitism that serves to make newcomers feel excluded from the hobby. Because if the intent were to communicate, people would have always used the definition rather than the word. I think the intent was not to communicate - or rather not to communicate about that word - but was instead to send a message that the writer is superior in some way because they used a word that most people don't know. You see this often in, for example, academia.

I'm a newcomer to these forums and any in-depth d20 post-conversations in general (having recently found the EN forums because Wizards are so ass-slow), but am not a newcomer to RP gaming. And I very much do know what the word means and in reading several threads on these boards I feel exactly like Mistwell describes above.

There's a level of elitism thrown about by RPG'ers that rivals the hubris reserved for academists who need a dose of reality. I could point to several threads on the first 2 pages of even this forum as examples (whether the OP or within the threads themselves) that would turn off any reader who is not sufficiently immersed in the wildly speculative metagame that is 'make or break 4e with my posts'. It's been out for, what, a week now and already there's threads about how the math works/doesn't work, how this class or that class is great/worthless and all of this without anyone spending enough hours actually PLAYING the game to know if their suspicions/models/estimations will bear out.

I'd be very impressed to meet a group who has played from 1st to 30th level since getting the books on 6/6/08.

Anyway, I'll treat these forums like every other. The first page or 2 of a topic of interest are usually informative, after that it's junk mail and flame bait.

 

[Obryn]

Anyway, I'll treat these forums like every other. The first page or 2 of a topic of interest are usually informative, after that it's junk mail and flame bait.

You make me proud.

Please, when you find some time, do visit circvsmaximvs and make an account so I can properly rep you for having a sense of perspective.

-O