If it's not real then why call for "realism"?

[fanboy2000]

Where a bookstore shelves an item depends less upon the technical genre classification, and somewhat more on where folks expect they'll find the work.

Stop that. Isn't there a rule here about being logical?

 

[Hussar]

And, let's not forget, being consigned to the SF section is death for any mainstream author. There's a reason Margaret Atwood absolutely refuses to place her work within SF circles.

The SF ghetto is not where mainstream authors and publishers choose to be.

Thinking about this a bit more, and looking at three of the authors in Galloglaich's post - Vance, Moorcock and Lovecraft, about the only part of fantasy that isn't covered is Epic fantasy, a la Tolkien. And I don't think anyone would seriously try to exclude Tolkien from the genre. I mean, if you made a Venn diagram of all the fantasy (and SF) tropes contained in Vance, Moorcock and Lovecraft, what isn't covered by at least one of the three?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

To comment on the original topic:

The problem with "realism" is that often times the complaint is about something realistic.

The problem with verisimilitude is that it is so subject to personal belief. Like, ok, firearms breaks your verisimilitude because you think the entire world would immidiately revolutionize, but you have no problems with castles in a setting with flying monsters, standing armies in a medieval setting, organized warfare in a setting with cloudkill, or pre-ren era economics and mercantalism in a setting with easy access to trade and mass transportation?

The real problem behind "verisimilitude" and "realism" and "belief" is that so often it breaks down into "The non-caster did something."

There was a rather lengthy thread on the Paizo forums where someone had expressed disgust that a fighter could fall down tall cliff and live. Never mind that this happens in real life, their problem was "Well a wizard can use magic to survive."

People have created this weird and synthetic gap between magic and fantasy. This is not a magical roleplaying game. It is a fantasy roleplaying game. Characters should be fantastic, not magical. A character can be awesome, mythological, and fantastic without ever casting a single Magic Missile.

This isn't even an old school vs new school thing. it's just that the new school follows what the game was always meant to be. WHen you crack open that 2e PHB, the examples for fighters are not militia or simple man with a sword. Beowulf, Perseus, Sigfried, Hercules - these are not characters who had to run back to their wizard before doing things, these were heroes that performed supernatural and incredible feats.

Let me express this edict now: when the rule of cool/mythology and verisimilitude clash, the former should always win.

 

[Doug McCrae]

People have created this weird and synthetic gap between magic and fantasy.

That's an extremely interesting point. You're right, I think that's how most people view the world the rpg, typically D&D, is set in. Whatever is not magic obeys the laws of physics of our world. This becomes extremely problematic for game balance if some PCs are magical, therefore not bound by these laws, and some are.

Magic gives the GM a get out of jail free card to do whatever is necessary to have his plots work. Something doesn't make sense? Just add magic. Magic can do anything.

So you get worlds where the 'adventure areas' are very different from the world of towns and cities and farmland and so forth - the 'normal world'. The adventure zones are full of magic, as are the PCs themselves. The normal world otoh works the way it does in our world's past, more or less.

 

[howandwhy99]

It's the reality puzzle of the game. Think about Pac-Man. It had walled mazes the player navigated around screen to evade or kill the ghosts. Why couldn't he just past through the walls? Or pass through in only certain spots? Or only at certain times? Why do we think we can or cannot do this in the real world? I think it's about expectations. There are no walls there. It's all pixels on a screen. But the game was a craze because people could predict how to evade the ghosts as if those wall-looking pixels were walls.

That's verisimilitude. It's using the words of the DM or the pixels on screen to relay a common understanding between designer and player. 2-dimensionality in this case.

You get the same effect when you learn how far your avatar can fall before dying or how long it can stay under water before drowning. There is no avatar, gravity, falling, water, suffocation, etc., going on. Of course. Gamers aren't that stupid. But they recognize the similarity and adjust their expectations accordingly. The closer that simulated reality is to common understanding of reality, the more accessible the game.

Think of the old Mario Bros. where a few of the ground pits would fall into secret areas, while the vast majority did not. That's bad game design IMO. If you set that expectation upon the players, then they will either methodically jump in every pit to "clear the level" or quit playing the game out of frustration.

I think the call for realism is simply a desire for internal logic within a game. Meaning some constant logic pattern discernible by the players. It is precisely this element, which makes those games so damned addictive. And what made D&D similarly so.

Back when it was a reality puzzle game. When memory mattered.

 

[prosfilaes]

There was a rather lengthy thread on the Paizo forums where someone had expressed disgust that a fighter could fall down tall cliff and live. Never mind that this happens in real life,

It happens in rare occasions in real life. But very rarely, and people never walk away from it. To pick one sample, with medical teams on hand, not a single person out of some 200 survived a jump from the WTC. The complaint is generally that a high-level fighter can jump from a building and suffer zero risk that they won't be able to walk away from it.

when the rule of cool/mythology and verisimilitude clash, the former should always win.

Jumping off a cliff is only cool if it's risky or at least awesome. Jumping off a cliff because it's the quickest way down and 20d6 damage doesn't matter any more is silly, not cool. All the mythological characters have explanations; Hercules was the son of Zeus, Achilles was dipped by the heel, Perseus was not only the son of a god, he always had tailored magical items given to him by the gods. Why is it so hard to ask for some explanation why a mortal can suddenly after a few levels survive a 100 ft fall?

I think that's a great rule--for Primetime Adventures. But D&D is a different game, which is less dependent on storytelling and more on tactical challenges. If a cliff is put in front of the characters as a challenge, they should solve it with the tools at hand, and if the rules match some sort of verisimilitude, it'll let players think in character instead of thinking of it solely as a rules puzzle.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

It happens in rare occasions in real life. But very rarely, and people never walk away from it.

Wrong. A friend of my dad's was a paratrooper in WW2. His chute failed and he plummeted thousands of feet and landed flat of his back in a farmer's field. He got up and walked several miles to the nearest unit. His back was broken and he spent several months recuperating, but he DID walk away. You can say he got extremely lucky, but that's the point. Heroes get lucky all the time.

EdiT: He also had the coolest name EVER: Buck Austin.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It happens in rare occasions in real life. But very rarely, and people never walk away from it. To pick one sample, with medical teams on hand, not a single person out of some 200 survived a jump from the WTC. The complaint is generally that a high-level fighter can jump from a building and suffer zero risk that they won't be able to walk away from it.

Nope. Oh, certainly, it's rare, but people do walk away from it. Yes, it's the extraordinary for it to happen, but adventurers are extraordinary people.

All the mythological characters have explanations; Hercules was the son of Zeus, Achilles was dipped by the heel, Perseus was not only the son of a god, he always had tailored magical items given to him by the gods. Why is it so hard to ask for some explanation why a mortal can suddenly after a few levels survive a 100 ft fall?

What about Sir Roland? Beowulf? Everyone involved in the Three Kingdoms?

There isn't a problem here that you're seeing.

The difference is the source of heroism. Previously, it was generally accepted that the gods ruled all. The supernatural and the natural had a clear separation, which is why in so many ancient religions, visions and possession was such a big deal - it allowed the mortal man to understand the supernatural. Mankind did not control his own destiny. Therefore, heroes had to be related to divinity - it's what allowed them to alter the world.

As time went on, the idea of self determinism grew far more popular, and romanticism of a "past age of magic" grew. So you had modern pulp characters who could do the impossible but had their powers from some mystical rite they underwent, or from ancient practices they followed.

Later, self determinism reached full popularity and the elements of the supernatural were more frowned on. You had characters who represented The Best Detective, The Toughest Cop, and other similar archtypes. These are characters who still did the extraordinary, but they did it because of extreme training, or from esoteric understanding of science and natural laws. Batman is a normal man who, even without his gadgets, can do the extraordinary. James Bond has a vague supernatural luck that allows him to do things no other man can.

So, the heroism hasn't changed, but their roots have.

And really, how are wizards exempt from this? Name a normal, mortal human wizard that wasn't D&D related. Name one. Merlin was of supernatural heritage, Gandalf was an angel, and the original wise bearded wizard was the god Odin. None of those are normal human beings who just took on apprenticehood at ye old local wizard tower. That is what is perhaps the most darkly humorous part of this entire argument - a mortal warrior who does the extraordinary is entirely in line with medieval fantasy, but a mortal wizard? That's a D&D-ism only.

 

[fanboy2000]

And really, how are wizards exempt from this? Name a normal, mortal human wizard that wasn't D&D related. Name one. Merlin was of supernatural heritage, Gandalf was an angel, and the original wise bearded wizard was the god Odin. None of those are normal human beings who just took on apprenticehood at ye old local wizard tower. That is what is perhaps the most darkly humorous part of this entire argument - a mortal warrior who does the extraordinary is entirely in line with medieval fantasy, but a mortal wizard? That's a D&D-ism only.

IIRC, the Grey Mouser from Liber's books knew some magic that he learned from training under an apprentice. Though, this might be considered D&D related because, while the stories pre-date D&D, they definitely seemed to have influenced it.

Note: this is just a nitpick. I agree with what you're saying.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

And really, how are wizards exempt from this? Name a normal, mortal human wizard that wasn't D&D related. Name one.

Harold Shea, Reed Chalmer, Mazirian, Ulan Dhor, Atlantes, the sorceror from Alladin, (can't remember his name), I'm sure there are dozens of others.