On the Value of "Realism"

[Reynard]

First and foremost, I do not mean "realism" as "realistic". Of course D&D, in its many incarnations, is a fantasy game and not at all realistic. Rather, I mean "real like", specifically as it relates to the world in which the characters, NPCs, monsters and societies operate, with special attention paid to basic physics, (near)human behavior and the forces that move societies and histories.

This kind of realism has great value in a D&D campaign of any edition, and many more fantasy role playing games besides. While there are many nuanced reasons, they can all be summed up as simply as this: the Players are able to engage the game more effectively.

Of course, the rules of the game will also inform how the players engage the game, and the particulars of any given setting, milieu and/or genre will do likewise. Nonetheless, an assumed baseline of "real like" enables, even empowers, the players as they engage the game. Players in a "real like" campaign will feel on surer footing than those not so fortunate. They will feel more confident in their own -- as opposed to their characters' -- abilities to assess and respond to the situations presented to them. Most importantly, perhaps, they will be more easily immersed in the setting and events of the game, as they are allowed the luxury of "filling in the blanks" in their own minds without so much fear of ebing caught off guard or proven wrong.

The first element of "real like" to discuss is physics, the very rules by which the universe and its inhabitants, player characters included, are bound. Hewing close to the rules of our own universe benefits both the players and the DM by giving everyone a common standard through which to interpret and interact with the world. If gravity works and fire burns as it does in our world, there will be less unspoken confusion. Architecture and manufacturing and agriculture and travel can all be assumed to fit with what is known (lack of or wrong knowledge notwithstanding). Less time needs be spent on explaining the base details of the setting and more time can be spent on exploring the world and finding out what *doesn't* fit.

This leads to the next point -- maintaing a close relationship with the "real" makes the magical more, well, magical. If players can safely assume that pigs do not fly, then the flying pig is something behold (and perhaps fear). Likewise with magic in all its forms, from grand sorcerers to terrifying dragons to ancient structures that should not stand. "Real like" paves the way for the fantastic and highlights those elemtns of the setting and game that make it a fantasy role playing game.

As with physics, the "softer sciences" should also embrace the "real like" as well: social structures, economics, psychology, history. The reason are the same, as well: players will be able to more effectively interact, make more informed decisions, and ultimately more easily immerse themselves in the game because they feel comfortable in their own assumptions. No DM, however skilled and/or detail oriented, can hope to create, and then impart, every aspect of his world to the players. He has to be able to trust that they will understand his world. The reverse is true as well: the players must trust that the DM will provide them with whatever important information their characters would reasonably know or sense. A "real like" setting makes these both much easier for each party in question.

Beyond the players, the DM benefits from a "real like" game environment at a different level. Not only can the DM, like the players, assess and interpret the setting more easily, the DM can also use sources outside the game itself for inspiration, from newspaper clipping to history texts to scientific research papers. There is a near infinite storehouse of human experience and knowledge at the fingertips of any DM with an internet connect, but the farther the DM's world or the game retreats from the "real like" the more of that information becomes unusuable.

It is important to note, however, that embracing the "real like" does put an onus on the DM to impart those aspects of the world that are not "real like" -- not any particular specific event (these can be imparted as the PCs discover them) but rather the rules by which the world operates. If elven paper doesn't burn or dwarven citadels defy the laws of architecture or the Free Kingdoms operate as a modern democratic republic but are otherwise feudal, this information needs to be given to the players as soon as it is relevant, if not before. As a fantasy, D&D will inherently encompass elements that are not "real like" and some of those elements will be ubiquitous. It is those that the players must be shown and very likely occassionally reminded of.

 

[Jack7]

While there are many nuanced reasons, they can all be summed up as simply as this: the Players are able to engage the game more effectively.

Nonetheless, an assumed baseline of "real like" enables, even empowers, the players as they engage the game. Players in a "real like" campaign will feel on surer footing than those not so fortunate. They will feel more confident in their own -- as opposed to their characters' -- abilities to assess and respond to the situations presented to them. Most importantly, perhaps, they will be more easily immersed in the setting and events of the game, as they are allowed the luxury of "filling in the blanks" in their own minds (based upon what they know, no?) without so much fear of ebing caught off guard or proven wrong.

Less time needs be spent on explaining the base details of the setting and more time can be spent on exploring the world and finding out what *doesn't* fit.

maintaing a close relationship with the "real" makes the magical more, well, magical. If players can safely assume that pigs do not fly, then the flying pig is something behold (and perhaps fear). Likewise with magic in all its forms, from grand sorcerers to terrifying dragons to ancient structures that should not stand. "Real like" paves the way for the fantastic and highlights those elemtns of the setting and game that make it a fantasy role playing game.

Not only can the DM, like the players, assess and interpret the setting more easily, the DM can also use sources outside the game itself for inspiration, from newspaper clipping to history texts to scientific research papers. There is a near infinite storehouse of human experience and knowledge at the fingertips of any DM with an internet connect, but the farther the DM's world or the game retreats from the "real like" the more of that information becomes unusuable.

Concur with these statements Reynard.

However I'd like to expand upon some of your statements from my point of view. I also think fantasy is about "breaking reality" on occasion so that the juxtapositioning of reality versus counter-reality (or perhaps alternate reality) leads to a sort of third type of intermingled reality, the "super-reality." But this super-reality does not operate constantly, (or it cannot be constantly perceived, which to us is the same thing) it is a sort of "breakthrough reality" of the ways things could be, or might be, if reality were different. Yet it is only when normal reality and the counter-reality intermingles that the super-reality adds some value to both other realities that they could not have if the super-reality were all there was. Relatively speaking.

That is to say if the super-reality were all there were then it would be "ordinary reality" and so not so very special at all. As you hinted and implied in some of your statements. But when normal reality is "excited" then it becomes "hyper-impressive." Therefore it is very valuable to have a normal reality as a base-line or starting point in order to work expansively towards a greater reality. If you start at the finishing point then you're already there with no-where really to go but around in circles. So reality serves an important role as "home port" from which you embark on the journey towards the unknown, the exciting, and the adventurous. The point of the journey is to sail form where you are, at the point at which you already familiar with everything (or at least you think you are) towards that land that is the undiscovered country, which is very different from your own, until you realize by being there awhile it is not so very alien after all. Only different. So you go out towards the strange to find what you could not find at home, only to return home and realize that the home you left is now much stranger than you left it because you have become infected with a new way of looking at it. Truth is it was always strange and fascinating and marvelous, you just didn't see it. Reality changes not because reality changes, but because our perception of it does. And without the foundation of our original velocity it cannot change, and neither can we. (Though neither really changes, yet both become different.)

This is the mundane and imaginative corollary of what you said about reality making magic that much more magical. If magic is everywhere then it is in effect nowhere in particular. If miracles occur any moment at which they are wished they are not miracles, they are just the ordinary functioning of the world, like air or water. In other words that which is truly impressive is impressive because it is rare enough to be noticeable to all precisely because it is so rare it demands notice whenever it is encountered. So magic doesn't grow on trees, but rather the tree is magical because it grows very differently and acts very differently from all other trees.

Anyways you raised some good points again, and that's what we both get for me listening to too much Jack Flanders of late.

By the way this thread was too long to read and so I didn't.

 

[fanboy2000]

In my own games, I use a kind of "it's just like our world, except when it's not." approach. There are a couple of reasons for this:

1. It allows players to interact with the world in the manner you describe. i.e. "the players, assess and interpret the setting more easily..."

2. I can avoid the word "real" which I think carries to many person specific connotations to be useful.

For example, physics. One fundamental law of physics is that matter cannot be either created or destroyed. Magic often completely violates this rule. In the real world, such a feat would completely change our view of the universe. However, for game purposes, we treat magic as an exception to the laws of physics. Is that realistic? Because magic doesn't exist in the real world (of course, some people disagree) that's impossible to find out.

My approach, which I suspect is similar to yours, is to do just that though. The rules of physics apply except when they don't. When they don't isn't, however, something I figure out and state-up front. I decide it on a case by case basis. This allows me some flexibility in running the game, but gives the players a basis to work on.

Economics is worse. For one thing, I'm not convinced economics or any of the social sciences are as accurate at modeling the world as their proponents claim. Second, I'm not interested in running an economic heavy game. Third, real-world economic principals should give-way to playability. (i.e., the ability to play the kind of game I want to play.)

 

[Jack7]

Economics

When I was young they called it the "dismal science."
Now they've just dropped the science part altogether.

 

[Cadfan]

I find arguments like this easy to agree with but difficult to apply in practice. I've heard many an argument about what really is or is not realistic. And sometimes what is or is not validly fantastical is easy to agree upon, because everyone gives "proper fantasy" a margin of error that they don't give to the mundane.

 

[ST]

It's interesting to me that this discussion of realism doesn't incorporate mechanics at all. I dig that.

I don't find mechanics particularly useful for providing realism; I think the descriptions at the table do a lot more to make things feel "right". Mechanics are great for introducing risk, and that's what I prefer to use them for.

 

[FireLance]

The problem with realism is that fiction often seems more real than fact.

 

[Reynard]

snip good stuff

While I find your views interesting, I don't think it is necessary or desirable to have a "goal" of reaching an ever more fantastic setting or milieu. I think you can maintain a sense of the "real like" throughout the life of a campaign or setting and also maintain a consistent "intrusion" of the fantastical.

 

[Rechan]

Just felt I'd share this:

Talking about a traditional dungeon (as in “& Dragons”), the most maligned aspect of dungeons it that they’re not realistic. Monsters living next to each other with treasure, etc. Whenever he uses the term “realism” in games, I put quotes around it. To an extent, it’s an impossible goal to reach. Nothing in RPGs is truly realistic. As soon as you abstract damage to HP, you’re talking about an abstraction. As a game master, going for realism isn’t necessarily a laudable goal. Instead, go for believability, and for that, context is important.

When players sit down, they have a willingness to believe. When you give them something they can’t believe, it breaks “realism.” Give them a sense of believability, give them a sense that it’s real without any glaring, obvious problems. “Why do these gnolls live next to this dragon?” If there’s a death trap in the way, how do the residents get there? (or go to the bathroom?) As long as you can avoid those big, glaring errors, they’re willing to go along with you. Realism isn’t a big a problem: if it is, they probably should be playing some other game.

I'd apply the above to everything.

There's also a quote with regards to movies, but it's easily adaptable: An audience is more willing to accept the impossible than they are the highly improbable.

 

[Glyfair]

IFor example, physics. One fundamental law of physics is that matter cannot be either created or destroyed. Magic often completely violates this rule.

Setting aside the ability for "magic" to break those rules, I think when you are considering enough "realism" to allow a willing suspension of disbelief it's best to limit that realism. I think it's sufficient that the "realism" be what is observable by the average person.

You might know how electricity works at a fundamental level. If the average person wouldn't know it works in a specific way, then it's not necessary that it does in the game world. As a pure matter of practicality, it doesn't require the GM to be as expert at all real world things that might apply as his players are.

Certainly, different games have different needs. I played in a fantasy RPG with 4 physic majors. Needless to say, at times there were some interesting discussions. Fortunately, it was rarely real world technical (except for the time they calculated how long it would take for us to hit the ground) and often just playfully trying to create "magic world physics" to explain different needs.