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

[Haltherrion]

Forked from: DMs: what have you learned from PLAYING that has made you a better DM?



I'm posing the above question to everyone who cares to read.

It's just something that I don't get when I read about "realism" OR "versimilitude":
Why do you expect things to act like reality, or act consistently, when they aren't real?

I can understand it if people just want to play in that kind of world, but I don't understand it when the tone is one of expectation that that's how things should always work.

FRP games like fantasy books and movies require a certain amount of suspension of disbelief but audiences still expect a certain amount of internal consistency. In general, for the latter cases, the smaller the amount of disbelief the better it works. Audiences will interprete the game, movie or novel within the mechanics of real-world + "established suspension of disbelief".

Games are somewhat different in pracitce in that they have a huge body of rules (generally) that defines the "disbelief" necessary to execute them but it is still the same principle. So if the rules call for high fire resistance and it is well integrated into the rest of the system, most folks won't complain.

But in all genres if the author/ref/screenwriter keeps changing the required suspension of disbelief, the audience gets annoyed. The reference point keeps changing and they lose the context for enjoying the situation. What's the fun of battling Sauron if Gandalf at the end of the books pulls out a nuclear fireball?

Now, some people might quibble with the amount of suspension of disbelief required for a certain work but that's a personal preference issue. You might like James Bond movies, others might think they are preposterous and stupid. Others might dislike anything to do with magic and prefer their RPs to be gritty historical games. There's nothing right or wrong about that.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I long ago replaced "realism" with "believability". "Versimilitude" to my ears sounds like jargon for the sake of jargon.

By believability, I mean what happens need to make sense in the context of the game mechanics.

 

[Galloglaich]

There is very little difference between the age maturity of superhero comics and fantasy.

To say you are too old for comics, yet somehow the fantasy genre is in your age group, is just a bit silly.

Monsters evolving the shape of garments to eat Dungeon Delvers (Cloaker) just as ridiculous as humans developing strange mutation powers.

But you are missing my point. I don't use things like cloakers in my campaigns. I don't think "Cloakers=Fantasy" I don't find cloakers in the fantasy literature which defined the genre; Jack Vance or Fritz Lieber or Robert E. Howard or Lovecraft or Moorcock or Clark Ashton Smith. For that matter I never felt obligated to use all the monsters in the Monster Manual or even to use monsters from Greek Mythology and Tolkein in the same campaign.

It's a similar comparison between a made-for-Sci-Fi-Channel fantasy movie about radioactive gargoyles or something, vs. a film such as, say Princess Bride or Stara Basn. "Mansquito" has a very limited appeal, only people already very into the Sci Genre could sit through that unless they were drunk. My girlfriend definitely won't watch it. By comparison, Alien or Bladerunner, or Princess Bride, have a very wide appeal (and therefore reached a wide audience). I would similarly like to see RPGs, particularly DnD, reach a wider audience in terms of demographics than they do today.

"Mansquito" requires a different level of suspension of disbelief than Alien. The latter is more my idea of the level of 'fantasy' that I enjoy in an RPG. Even a more campy film like Princess Bride which may be more 'high magic' than Alien or Stara Basn, is still based (not coincidentally) on an understanding of everything from real historical fencing techniques to established literary tropes, and had it's own plausible internal logic that made sense on an adult level. To me it didn't "break" reality, it just bent it.

A table top rules system will not achieve realism unless in the construction experimentation is done, and lots of variables are isolated for effect. Otherwise it is all a matter of opinion of what is realistic. By their nature, all combat systems are abstractions, as they cannot account for 'realistic' forcings.

You can argue that literally anything is subjective including whether the sky is blue, at some level you have to fish or cut bait. Five years ago I wrote a game to prove that an RpG combat system can be both fast paced and realistic, without being complicated or using tons of variables. It has been put to the test and I think I've made my point. Realism does not equal complexity, that is a false dichotomy; realism is simply the basis of the underlying pattern. You as a game designer (or a DM) can choose the level of abstraction you want, and choose what factors you want to bend. So long as you are doing so intelligently it should still feel right.

The reason we base so many things in games on real or historical systems is because they have their own internal consistency, their own balance, they have the feel of the rhythms of real life. A fight based on real martial arts, whether it's got 5 variables or 500, is more fun to me than one based on arbitrary gibberish. You can call it subjective if you like but I think it's an objective reality. That is why in Fantasy and Sci Fi genres it's generally better to stretch reality (and mythology) than to re-invent it, which is why the default Fantasy genre involves men with swords slaying beasts rather than (as someone once put it) amoebas with health-rays building immune systems inside giant space arachnids*.

G.

* though who knows, that could be a fun game

 

[Galloglaich]

Steven Brust was a fantasy author who did an extremely good job of demonstrating the sort of implications that it would have on a society for death to be reversible.

Of course, the most immediate reaction was an attempt to make death permanent in ways that spells could not reverse.

The idea that you have to have ressurection in a Fantasy RPG game is another example of unnecessary baggage. It should be an option; it should not be hard-wired into the rules.

G.

 

[prosfilaes]

The idea that you have to have ressurection in a Fantasy RPG game is another example of unnecessary baggage. It should be an option; it should not be hard-wired into the rules.

You don't have to have resurrection in a Fantasy RPG. I'm sure that the Dresden Files RPG doesn't. But D&D isn't really a universal fantasy RPG--imagine trying to run the Dresden Files with D&D without a hundred pages of house rules or completely ignoring what the Dresden Files says about magic. If you want to play D&D as written, it's written for universes where there is resurrection magic. If you don't want to play with resurrection magic, then it's a simple house rule; the same type of house rule required if you don't want mages conjuring food--and if you want to run a Harry Potter RPG using D&D, those are just two of the rules you're going to have to change.

I find the positions that the books should take into account how much of an effect resurrection can have on the world and that resurrection should be an optional feature to be slightly contradictory, though. Optional rules are a lot harder to well-integrate into a system and world, since they are optional.

 

[Galloglaich]

Well, I think maybe that is part of the problem with how 'tight' DnD has gotten in it's last two or three incarnations in the pursuit of 'balance'. I'm by no means trying to start any edition war nonsense here, but somewhere along the line the game changed to start to build-in expectations of a certain type of play, and that is a bit of a problem for me. I think DnD is the 'gateway drug' of RPGs and should be fairly generic or at least grounded in the literary fantasy genre.

I don't think 1E DnD was hard wired for high - level / high - magic play (i.e. mandatory Resurrection). We didn't always play high-magic type games when I was into DnD in high school and in the Army. Sometimes we did, sometimes we went off into low fantasy or historical or Lovecraft or mythological based games. To me AD&D was flexible enough (maybe due to being pretty broken) to accommodate all of those styles of play. Maybe that changed somewhere along the line, I don't know exactly when, but as a gamer and an industry writer I can say it certainly got harder to move out of the main current of the game at all in more recent years. Not impossible, but harder. And at the same time, that current got narrower; more complex and less realistic and more inflated in terms of Magic and player power / expectations.

Someone upthread (scribble?) was using a term 'FUNdane', I think that is basically the same idea I'm describing of 'bending rather than breaking reality'. One always needs to make a few adjustments to 'reality' in a Fantasy or Sci Fi genre, whether for an RPG game or a Computer game or a movie or a TV show; and when you are doing it consciously and for a purpose I think it works. But the problem for some of us comes when it starts to generically drift, unconsciously if you will. When you are getting a whole lot of 'FUNdane' all over the place which isn't well thought out or even planned at all, or even necessarily Fun, the whole ground under your feet starts to shift into "Mansquito" territory and the only way to know what is going on is to be already deeply embedded into the cliches and worn out tropes of the genre. Which even some of us who know them are burnt out on.

I think a lot of the yearning for balance or even people complaining about realism is a matter of players not trusting their DM's, which is an entirely different issue... A good DM is really a prerequisite for a good RPG! I don't think you can fix the rules of a ROLE PLAYING game to handle a bad DM. I really don't think you should try to either, it will become an adversarial game by degrees, and a board game in the long run.

Some people may like this trend, which is fine. But in response to the OP, some people like a grounding in something from the real world, whether that is History, Martial arts, Mythology, or a well established Literary genre. The underlying core assumptions of a Fantasy RPG are going to be based on some elements of all of the above. Given that they are, and we know we are going to be living with them in any game regardless of the level of abstraction, the argument seems to be whether this grounding should be done carefully and with some effort, or haphazardly.

So are we basing our game in the Odyssey and Gilgamesh and the Norse Sagas and Talhoffer and Musashi and the Brothers Grimm and Tolkein and Jack Vance, or are we basing it on some TV shows, a bunch of old RPGs, anime and fan fiction and computer games that nobody even remembers any more? I guess that is the choice.

I personally would at least like to have the option of the former rather than being forced into the latter. I think that is what a lot of people, at least those who aren't struggling with a bad DM, mean when they say they want some 'realism' in their game.

G.

 

[Mournblade94]

You can argue that literally anything is subjective including whether the sky is blue, at some level you have to fish or cut bait.

Really you can't. Whether or not the sky is blue is not subjective, it is empirical. The scientific method of inquiry was invented just so you could eliminate the subjective. You might have a certain interpretation of 'what blue means' but it can be proven that the light reflected into your eye falls within the range of 450 to 475nm.

Five years ago I wrote a game to prove that an RpG combat system can be both fast paced and realistic, without being complicated or using tons of variables. It has been put to the test and I think I've made my point. Realism does not equal complexity, that is a false dichotomy; realism is simply the basis of the underlying pattern. You as a game designer (or a DM) can choose the level of abstraction you want, and choose what factors you want to bend. So long as you are doing so intelligently it should still feel right.

Yet it will STILL be an abstraction. What you did was make a less abstract model for combat. Unless you have experienced every type of combat you cannot know. I get that a 'realistic' combat system does not need to be complex. The only label you can put on it then is MORE realistic than X. Bottom line, is any paper combat system is an abstraction. It will not account for all variables, and therefore what you consider realistic, may not in fact be realistic. You mentioned before your rules system was 'cinematic'. If you mean 'cinematic' as portrayed by john woo or hollywood, right there realism is blown out of the water.

I do not argue that realism requires a maximum level of complexity, I argue that it is an impossibility to achieve in the realm of abstract table top systems. At best you get the level of reality for which you are happy. Even when you achieve that level of reality you enjoy, I doubt the rules make any sort of game impact change. In other words, I doubt a feat 'more realistic' than precise shot would really effect outcome all that much within the frame of the d20 system.

At that point you have to decide whether story is more important than simulation. I am a simulation nut, in that I want rules for research, and crafting, and castle construction, and writing spellbooks. I am more interested in THAT it is covered more than HOW it is covered. I improve rules where needed, and 'let it go' in other circumstances.

So if your argument is a MORE realistic system does not have to be complex I can agree. If your argument is a MORE realistic system is self evident, I have to disagree, because in the realm of table top it always must be an abstraction. Whether your combat system is CHESS or ROLEMASTER there is always an abstraction.

 

[Haltherrion]

I think a lot of the yearning for balance or even people complaining about realism is a matter of players not trusting their DM's, which is an entirely different issue... A good DM is really a prerequisite for a good RPG! I don't think you can fix the rules of a ROLE PLAYING game to handle a bad DM. I really don't think you should try to either, it will become an adversarial game by degrees, and a board game in the long run.

Regarding realism, that's never been an issue in my experience. My groups aren't afraid to use our real world experience for all of the more game parts of FRP where realism tends to crop up (how much does food weight, how far can you travel in a day, etc.) In the end, if it meets one's group's sense of realism, it is good enough. It is not like there is an independent realism police.

Regarding balance, that's another issue. That comes down to "game equity": do the players feel they are getting their share of fun in a gaming session. I've been playing for over 30 years and my players and I have put up with a lot of inequity over the years from the goofy XP tables of first addition onward and while it worked and we were good sports about rotating the less interesting roles, I'm all for the focus on balance and making sure each class packs a reasonably comparable amount of punch.

For our group, the 4E edition has been a big hit to a large extent because of the focus on balance and this is a very seasoned group. (That tactical combat system is a big plus for us, too. There are downsides but overall, big net win.)

I suppose my players and I may take a funny view on realism versus balance. We foremost recognize it is a game and accept rules that make it fairly even for all (same XP advancement tables, comparable things PCs can do in a combat round, same cost/effort of level advancement, etc.) but outside of the mechanics that determine rate of advancement and combat effectiveness, we like realism. We like our griffons to eat a reasonable amount of food for instance (see one of my blogs )

As we use the game rules for advancement/combat and our judgement for the rest, we look to the rules for balance and ourselves for realism.

And I've never had an issue removing ressurrection from any game system. Most campaigns, I don't allow it. Dead is dead; gives the game a little extra edge.

 

[coyote6]

Hey, I was describing my own life experiences, if somebody took that as a put down of Superman comics I can't help that.

I find thread necromancy to complain about moderator comments from 17 months ago unrealistic.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hey, I was describing my own life experiences, if somebody took that as a put down of Superman comics I can't help that.

G.

Clearly you don't realise when you are being condescending then. I'd advise you to think a bit more about it.

I'm not sure why you resurrect a thread from last year to comment on moderation, but you should know that if you've got questions or issues about moderation you should email or PM the moderator in question, not respond in the thread.

Thanks