The Difference Between Realism vs. Believability

[Scribble]

Since there are perfectly good words which mean what Pasha is being misused to mean, one of those would certainly be preferable if you're going to be dealing with people who might now the difference. Unless of course your argument is that accept meanings of terms don't matter as long as people know what they mean in this context. This of course is why nobody would consider objecting to the term Warlord when speaking of 4e.

I do not think he thinks it means what you think he thinks it means?

His statement was basically: The local guy in charge (who also happened to be a Pasha) had total control.

It was two descriptions of the same person. 1. He's a Pasha 2. He has total control.

It didn't seem to imply he got this total control by being a Pasha.

 

[lutecius]

Unless of course your argument is that accept meanings of terms don't matter as long as people know what they mean in this context. This of course is why nobody would consider objecting to the term Warlord when speaking of 4e.

oh. THEM.

I don't think objections to the term Warlord had anything to do with believability. the warlord's mechanics, though, are another story.

 

[NoWayJose]

His statement was basically: The local guy in charge (who also happened to be a Pasha) had total control.

It was two descriptions of the same person. 1. He's a Pasha 2. He has total control.

It didn't seem to imply he got this total control by being a Pasha.

This. Bluenose misunderstood Radmod's statement. Too much antagonism can lead to a bit of knee jerk reaction. Now we have several off-topic posts trying to clean up the mess.

Furthermore, it is wise and prudent for posts like the OP to be written in such an anal retentive manner. Otherwise, THEY (ie., Those Who Nitpick) will come out from dark places to attack you on semantics and derail you with devil's details. Thus the long carefully written expositions. The "nitpickers" have effectively forced the "nerds" into thinking too hard, which leads to accusations of "nerd" and "you're thinking too hard".

oh. THEM

Yes. Hey. Pssss... [whispering] Bluenose.... he's one of THEM.

 

[Mallus]

Believibility is created by the DM and players in game.

This can't be stressed enough. Do the characters (PC & NPC) act in believable ways, or at least in genre-appropriate ways. Are the situations believable in the way they play out, even though they might involve impossible creatures and dubious battlefield geometry? What I've observed over the years is believability stems from the fiction, not the physics (or the biology, physical chemistry, economics, etc.)

Personally, I find an evening of D&D to be believable if the Beholder crime lord is well-characterized, with personality, even, believable motivations, and a reasonable plan for rubbing out his competitors. And reasonable reactions to my meddling PC's attempts to stop him.

I'm much less concerned about the general plausibility of levitating, ray-shooting ocular octopi, their ascent to positions of underworld power, or the fact our characters fought their lackeys in a room where the hypotenuse of a right triangle was equal to the length of either leg...

(I'm not completely unconcerned w/those questions... they're fun to answer, a chance to be creative. They just won't have logical answers...).

 

[Doug McCrae]

Mallus, I think you make some very cogent points. Particularly resonant for me is the idea that what believability, or realism, there is in rpgs is not to be found in the rules, which I've seen you express a few times recently. It's a strongly anti-sim position, and I think I agree with it.

Often critics of fantastic genre fiction will focus on what, to me, are really minor, piddling details like what firearm the hero is carrying, how many shots did he fire, or inconsistencies in some huge Marvel-esque type of world which no sane writer could be expected to fully grasp. A large gulf in viewpoint between fan and creator is apparent. Often I get the feeling that the fans are very different sorts of people than the writers. They aren't looking for a gripping, compelling story that speaks to the human condition. They want facts, and lots of them. Above all they read to learn about the world. I get the impression they prefer quantity over quality.

This was what I was thinking about when I said nerds value consistency too highly.

 

[Shazman]

Equivalently, many metagame rules ruin the believability of the in-game experience when the metagame priorities are so high as to override the internal logic of the setting.[/QUOTE]

That is a very good description of 4E.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Realism can be a spectrum as well as an end point. One can say that X is more or less realistic than Y without either being perfectly realistic. It used to be said of Babylon 5 that it was realistic, which is laughable if one means completely realistic, but makes sense if what one means is that it's more realistic than other sci-fi shows, such as Star Trek. Though one could say that being more realistic than Star Trek isn't exactly setting the bar high.

It's like that with D&D. It contains elves and dragons and wizards and so forth so it can never be 'kitchen sink' realism but one can speak of degrees of realism in other aspects of the game world. It's not necessary to say that, because it contains non-naturalistic elements, that we cannot use the term realism and must resort to believability, plausibility or verisimilitude.

Even the non-naturalistic elements might have many aspects that conform to the way things work in our world. The elven body for example is probably made of flesh and blood, has a brain, nerves, organs etc. It's not constructed of magical material, like the physical form of an angel or demon.

 

[NoWayJose]

Often I get the feeling that the fans are very different sorts of people than the writers. They aren't looking for a gripping, compelling story that speaks to the human condition. They want facts, and lots of them.

Hmm, I'm honestly not sure why or how you get that impression? I mean, I can imagine a believable hard sci-fi story full of science fiction facts, but I can't recall anyone discussing that here. I think a gripping, compelling story that speaks to the human condition is inherently a believable story (ie., take your pick of The Matrix, Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars IV to V, etc.). A loud, dumb, silly, unbelievable story (ie., Transformers, Pirates of the Carribean) can be fun, but I wouldn't use the words gripping or compelling or speaking to the human condition. I don't understand how facts come into play.

Edit: I think I get it, you're referring to trivia and factual errors, like movie continuity errors, anachronisms, etc.? If so, those are just accidental or unintentional mistakes in believability. Like with The Hurt Locker, some military people were poking holes in the story (incorrect miilitary terminology, tactics, etc.). But the writers were trying very, very hard to be realistic, and that's different than being sloppy or not caring at all. (Disclaimer: This has nothing to do with RPGs, I am not stating that fantasy must be anything remotely as realistic as the Hurt Locker.)

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Although in some cases a distinction has to be made between not caring for laziness and deciding that you wish to do things "wrong" for the style value.

I do think being more concrete about realism vs. believable might be a good idea. I mean there are tropes common in fantasy fiction/roleplaying that certainly aren't realistic but are possibly believable, but I wonder if some people who ask for them not to be included aren't making that distinction. Personal preference I totally support, but that's what should be said, not calling out whether something's not "believable" when that's what they don't mean.

 

[Scribble]

Edit: I think I get it, you're referring to trivia and factual errors, like movie continuity errors, anachronisms, etc.?

Nah- (forgive me if I'm wrong Doug) what he seems to mean by facts is like, ideas and descriptions about the fictional world.

Say, a comic mentions that Spiderman made his suits underpants out of a specific type of nylon... A35G because it's both breathable and heat resistant.

Some people wont even notice or won't remember this tidbit within a few minutes of reading it.

Some people will collect that as a "fact" about the larger universe Spiderman exists in. For them, in that world A35g is forever a breathable heat resistant nylon.