On Behavioral Realism

[pemerton]

Unique (AFAICT) to ttrpgs though, a large number of people for a variety of reasons will bend over backwards in an attempt to make all roleplaying "equal" in quality. So, no matter what a character does; actions that conflict with stated motives or previous charachterization, anachronisms, using knowlege the character couldn't have, exploiting fringe-case rules, it's all perfect roleplaying and no more "realistic" than a player that tries to consider all the factors and act in the way that character would actually act in that situation. I understand some of the motivations for why people think this way, though I obviously don't agree. I think we would be much better off admitting when some people do a good job at something, like we do in all other walks of life.

<snip>

I have seen players sleeping out in the woods and players buying every luxury in town, both can make sense from an in character perspective and it's usually pretty clear when that's the case vs when the players are making the choice by largely ignoring the fictional world.

I think the reason some (not all) of the issue your raise comes up is because there is no general agreement, in RPGing. on the extent to which the fictional world, beyond immediate details like the dungeon walls and traps, should matter to play. Are they part of the focus of play, or a mere backdrop to establish some degree of verisimilitude (like the role of the completely abstract "home base" suggested by Moldvay in his Basic set)?

If you're playing that latter sort of game, then expecting players to have their PCs care about bathing as something they would pay for with their hard-won treasure seems ike a category error.

Where I think some confusion arises is when someone is running the second sort of game but think s they're running the first sort. I've seen this happen more than once in real life, and have read accounts of it also.

 

[happyhermit]

I think the reason some (not all) of the issue your raise comes up is because there is no general agreement, in RPGing. on the extent to which the fictional world, beyond immediate details like the dungeon walls and traps, should matter to play. Are they part of the focus of play, or a mere backdrop to establish some degree of verisimilitude (like the role of the completely abstract "home base" suggested by Moldvay in his Basic set)?

To some though, the agreement doesn't matter, the very idea that someone could do a better job at roleplaying is offensive to them. Even if you were to couch it as; "That player did/does a better job at portraying their character's actions and reactions in light of their situation in the fictional world." (commonly called roleplaying) those people would reject the premise and take issue with whoever brought it up.

 

[Fenris-77]

Except that this has never been an issue of "your role playing is bad". Specifically not actually. So I don't really see a lot of value in continuing to insist that value judgments are the key component here. Saying "I'd like things to look different" isn't actually the same as saying "what you're doing is bad" as much as you'd like it to be. The first is about managing and discussing table expectations and the second is a value judgment targeted at players. I guess you can find it offensive of you want, but that's probably an outsized reaction, IMO anyway.

 

[happyhermit]

Except that this has never been an issue of "your role playing is bad". Specifically not actually. So I don't really see a lot of value in continuing to insist that value judgments are the key component here. Saying "I'd like things to look different" isn't actually the same as saying "what you're doing is bad" as much as you'd like it to be. The first is about managing and discussing table expectations and the second is a value judgment targeted at players. I guess you can find it offensive of you want, but that's probably an outsized reaction, IMO anyway.

Not sure if this is addressing my post but I think the OP was saying things along the lines of wanting their players to make decisions that are more based in the fiction and that maybe they wished their players would put more care into making their decisions based on the fiction, so that it seemed "realistic". My point about why they felt they were villainized was that for some people, even that moderate (IMO) concept is problematic and implies one depiction might be more realistic which implies (to them) that it might be construed as better. About the only way to avoid this is to couch things as one's purely idiosyncratic preferences that bears no relation whatsoever to concepts like "realistic". It puts a lot of hobbles on the conversation compared to the way we can discuss other subjects, and I don't agree with it, but that's my observation.

 

[Fenris-77]

I wasn't passing judgement on either side, just expressing an opinion that the 'judginess' was I feel more added by subsequent posters than inherent in the OP. This really feel like a table contract kind of issue, which isn't about judging better or worse, just ensuring that peoples expectations match and are met as much as possible. Grownups should be able to have that conversation without anyone's feelings getting hurt.

 

[Imaculata]

Honestly, I think the OP's question is just a matter of storytelling. When my players have been trekking through the jungle for hours in the blistering heat, I describe what that feels like. I describe how despite the shade from the trees, sweat is running down their back constantly and their clothes are a soaked mess. I describe how thirsty they get as a result of sweating so much, and how their feet ache. It's all a matter of setting the scene properly. If your players are anything like the ones in my group, they'll take a bath immediately after a lively description of their harrowing trek through the jungle.