The Difference Between Realism vs. Believability

[NoWayJose]

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.

Oh. Well, I can't remember anyone arguing about that kind of detail.

 

[Scribble]

Oh. Well, I can't remember anyone arguing about that kind of detail.

Dunno- just saying how I read his post.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Ok, I think I've got it all figured out. Realism, believability, suspension of disbelief, &etc., all mean the same thing. Namely: whatever the person saying "that's unrealistic" is unwilling to accept. Simple, really.

 

[Scribble]

Ok, I think I've got it all figured out. Realism, believability, suspension of disbelief, &etc., all mean the same thing. Namely: whatever the person saying "that's unrealistic" is unwilling to accept. Simple, really.

I'm not sure I find that believable... Although it does seem realistic.

 

[lutecius]

To boil it down to exaggerations I have noticed that:

Some people like the game world to be defined by the rules . If a thing is a thing in the game world it should have rules to describe it. (This group cannot have a Goblin Sharpshooter without also having rules to describe what a Goblin is, and what a Sharpshooter is. They want all elements of the rules in play to be fully defined before put into play.)

I don't see a lot of that. I do see people expecting consistent rules, though. for example, some don't like having different builds for minions, regular monsters and PCs when they're supposed to be the same creature, story-wise.

I'm much less concerned about the general plausibility of levitating, ray-shooting ocular octopi, their ascent to positions of underworld power ...

again, I don't see many people who are, as far as fantasy goes.

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.

certainly a great amount of detail can add depth and believability to a story but I don't think the fans just want lots of facts. I believe most of them want flavorful details and facts that make sense to them. ultimately, they expect a compelling story AND internal consistency. these are not competing goals, they are complementary.

likewise, I don't think many simulationists expect rules for everything or rely solely on them for exciting "believable" games (obviously it's the dm and players' job too). they just don't want metagame and counterintuitive rules that get in the way of believability and immersion (and that's heavily system dependant)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't see a lot of that. I do see people expecting consistent rules, though. for example, some don't like having different builds for minions, regular monsters and PCs when they're supposed to be the same creature, story-wise.

That is your problem and the problem of others like you who share your prespective. It is not a problem to me, my players and others like me.
I find it a valuable tool in now I have a mechanism to do things that before required DM fiat like the taking out the sentries with one shot.

In other words I do not see the existance of minion and other classes of creature as an inconsistiency in the rules.

snip stuff we do not disagree on....

they just don't want metagame and counterintuitive rules that get in the way of believability and immersion (and that's heavily system dependant)

That all very well, different strokes for different folks but all it boils down to is that people will prefer different systems. So prefer Runequest or RoleMaster or D&D of a specific edition or vintage.

 

[pemerton]

Mallus, I think you make some very cogent points.

<snip>

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.

Fully, fully agreed. And it seems to come throug in so many ways - the arguments about departures from gameworld canon, for example, or the view that alignment disputes can be resolved by setting up ever-more elaborate tables of "good" and "evil" actions.

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

Also known as "literary criticism written by engineers".

I think a gripping, compelling story that speaks to the human condition is inherently a believable story.

By way of disagreement - I mostly read nonfiction, but two pieces of literature I've read/seen recently are "The Wind Up Bird Chronicle" and "Waiting for Godot". Both are gripping, compelling stories that speak to the human condition. Neither is inherently believable.

At least as I read them, the point that Doug and Mallus are making is that the quality of a story doesn't turn primarily on the accuracy of the geography, or the plausibility (considered in and of itself) of the ecology, or even of the sociology (can someone please explain Middle Earth's economy to me? how does the Shire have such a high standard of living when it is essentially an autarky?). What it does turn on is, of course, a bit tricky to specify and a matter of contention - but both Doug and Mallus seem to be favouring some sort of humanistic aesthetic. I certainly think that makes sense for an RPG, which is about the deeds of human (even if in elven guise) protagonists.

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.

So prefer Runequest or RoleMaster or D&D of a specific edition or vintage.

As a Rolemaster grognard I arc up a bit at this! I don't think it's such a strongly anti-sim position. You can play a purist-for-system sim game, like Rolemaster, in a way that focuses on important story elements rather than gameworld/canon minutiae. In a game like RM (and RQ) the purist-for-system elements are confined very much to the personal level - PCs/NPCs/monsters, rules for interpersonal interactions (whether talking or fighting), jumping over ditches etc. The economics, geography and sociology are left outside the scope of the build and resolution rules - but these are the things that are at stake in the believability/ fan vs creator question, I think.

Having calmed down a bit, and conceding a bit more that it is a position with elements of anti-sim: it's certainly anti-Traveller, which (via world creation, animal creation etc) does try to incorproate geography etc into its purist-for-system mechanics. And it's anti a type of "gamist" sim which emphasises operational detail like tracking ammunition, setting maximum gp limits on purchases in various settlements, etc (the sort of stuff that often comes up in discussions of a game's "economy").

 

[NoWayJose]

And it seems to come throug in so many ways - the arguments about departures from gameworld canon, for example...

There will always be comic book fans, Trekkies, etc. who analyze this sort of thing. These are people who point out that the tie was blue in scene 1 but then the tie is red in the next scene, that writer 1 made the Hulk stronger than writer 2, an issue that's external to the believability of the fiction.

...or the view that alignment disputes can be resolved by setting up ever-more elaborate tables of "good" and "evil" actions.

This is someone obsessed with adjucating the rules of the game. As above, this has nothing to do with in-game or in-fiction believability.

If you want, you can divide everyone into 2 camps (Anti-D&D-the-way-it-is-now and Pro-D&D-the-way-it-is-now) and lump ALL types of complaints into some sort of caricature of a nerd engineer who complains about every detail and laugh at him for being an angsty obsessive nerd so that you don't have to take the time and effort to actually read what he's writing, but it's not honest.

I mostly read nonfiction, but two pieces of literature I've read/seen recently are "The Wind Up Bird Chronicle" and "Waiting for Godot". Both are gripping, compelling stories that speak to the human condition. Neither is inherently believable.

I just imagined roleplaying in an absurdist fiction setting, and it came out funny at first and then a complete mess. Haven't actually read those books so nothing further to add.

At least as I read them, the point that Doug and Mallus are making is that the quality of a story doesn't turn primarily on the accuracy of the geography, or the plausibility (considered in and of itself) of the ecology, or even of the sociology (can someone please explain Middle Earth's economy to me? how does the Shire have such a high standard of living when it is essentially an autarky?).

The furious emphasis that believability requires numerous factual fantasy details mystifies me. Yes, every nice compelling detail helps to flesh out the believability of the world (ie., Dune, Hyperion, etc.) Yes, details have their time and place and it's up to the writer or developer to decide how much to include. No, readers and players in general do not consciously demand a certain level of details simply to ensure believability.

P.S. I would point out the Draconomicon DOES go into biological details of dragon anatomy, and that Forgotten Realms is dense with geography and history. Not that I need it personally, but it's there.

There's also a strong subjective personal element. I can imagine a U.S. soldier stationed in Iraq who enjoys a dumb action movie as much as anyone else. Then he sees the Hurt Locker and complains that the uniforms are wrong or that 'they would have never done it like that'. I wouldn't share his concerns, but I don't call him an obsessive nerd either as I could empathize how that might the throw off the immersion for him.

For everyone else, RPGs don't need to be plausible down to every little detail. The ideal RPG, however, sets the bar a little higher. Is this a revolutionary incomprehensible concept to you? If people were happy with the status quo, we'd be watching fun but dumb movies like True Lies all the time and never have gotten The Matrix. So what's the problem with expecting a little more?

 

[pemerton]

NoWayJose, obviously I can't speak for Doug or Mallus, but for my own part I'm not trying to set up a contrast between old and new D&D, or pro- and anti- D&D as it then/now was. To try to give weight to that point - I see fans of 4e calling for more detail on the PoL setting, for example, and it frustrates me about 4e just as much as it frustrates me in relation to other games and systems. (This is why I like the Plane Above better than the Plane Below, and why I like the domain bits of the Plane Above better than the island bits of the Plane Above - the discussions of the gods and the domains give me the most amount of thematically powerful stuff to incorporate into my game, whereas the islands - and a lot of the Plane Below - tend just to give me locations where the potential thematic issues have already been resolved.)

That's also why I disagree (at least to some extent, I think) with Doug about the "sim" issue. I think the old vs new D&D has a strong "sim" vs "gamist/narrativst" element to it, but this issue is (in my view) not quite the same as that issue.

I agree the image of the nerd engineer is a caricature. But the contrast that Doug draws between attitudes or orientations towards the aesthetic experience isn't, at least in my experience, mere caricature. I feel there is a real difference, and it's one that I bump into from time to time (not all the time) when reading these boards.

And even if the engineer is a caricature, I think that at least some of it might turn on where people are coming from as far as their familiarity with various literary and social ideas is concerned.

Any examples are likely to be at least a bit controversial, so before I offer up two I want to stress that I'm not trying to provoke. This is an attempt to communicate a type of experience I've had in posting and reading on these boards about FRPGing.

Example 1: Is D&D racist in the way it treats PCs races, "monster" humanoid races like orcs, etc? This question comes up from time to time. One of the most common responses I see is that "No, it isn't, because orcs don't really exist and so there is nothing racist about them being objectively worthy of condemnation within the gameworld. And in any event they're a different species, not a different race, from humans." Notice that this response assumes that the framework for answering the question about racism is the framework of the gameworld fiction. Whereas for me, and (I assume) for others who take the worry about racism seriously, the framework for answering the question is the real world, with the gameworld fiction understood as a cultural artefact in the real world. And so the question (for me) is really: is there something problematic about a cultural artefact which appears to promulgate or legitimate tropes of a racist variety? Now the answer to that question may be yes or no - see the Spike Lee film "Bamboozled" for one take on it, though not in the context of RPGing - but it seems to me to make a huge difference to one's take on that question how one approaches the gameworld fiction. At least as I read them, Doug and Mallus are saying it needs to be thought of as a cultural artefact, not a world to be evaluated, imagined and explored on its own terms.

Example 2: Love for the Planescape setting. This is often articulated by reference to the setting's detail, and the way that detail (cunning yugoloths, blood war, factions, layers shifting from Nirvana to Arcadia - or vice versa, I can't remember - etc) exemplifies the principle that belief shapes the planes. But nothing in that setting, at least as I've read its materials, is about the beliefs of the players - who are, in this context, the audience for the experience - shaping the planes. Or to put it in a way that steps a bit more outside the language of the setting - Planescape seems to me to be a setting which involves the players spectating on someone else's intricate and even byzantine morality story, rather than actually engaging themselves in the creation of their own morality story. And so discussions tend to focus on questions about (for example) which plane a certain NPC or PC's soul is most closely attuned to, or what the ingame rationale is for the celestials not trying to wipe out all the fiends in Sigil, rather than on questions about what it would mean for someone's soul to be condemned to the abyss (beyond becoming a manes!) or what it tells us about celestials that they are perfectly happy with shopping in Sigil side by side with all those fiends.

I could have put example number 2 more generally in terms of contrasting attitudes towards "exploring the gameworld as if it were a real place", but I think Planescape really makes clear the contrast that I'm trying to draw. "Exploring the gameworld" in the abstract can be all things to all people - the most thematically heavy game of Gloranthan HeroWars still involves exploring the gameworld. It's just that the exploration is a means to a thematic end rather than an end in itself. The thing about Planescape is that in many ways the gameworld is nothing but thematic content, and yet Planescape (or, at least, the feel for it that I get from the books, and the approach to it that I most commonly see on these boards) isn't about thematically engaging play at all, but about exploring the minutiae of a world where all the thematic issues have already been resolved by the setting authors.

I'm also now getting a better sense of why Doug is probably right that there's a type of "sim" vs "anti-sim" dimension to this. It's not a purist-for-system sim sensibility that's at issue (wheras this is what's at issue in the objections to 4e's "gamism"). It's an exploring-the-gameworld sim sensibility that's at issue. Is the gameworld an end in itself, or a tool for some other purpose?

 

[NoWayJose]

Pemerton, ooh, two wonderful examples, I love them.

Example 1: Is D&D racist in the way it treats PCs races, "monster" humanoid races like orcs, etc? This question comes up from time to time. One of the most common responses I see is that "No, it isn't, because orcs don't really exist and so there is nothing racist about them being objectively worthy of condemnation within the gameworld. And in any event they're a different species, not a different race, from humans." Notice that this response assumes that the framework for answering the question about racism is the framework of the gameworld fiction. Whereas for me, and (I assume) for others who take the worry about racism seriously, the framework for answering the question is the real world, with the gameworld fiction understood as a cultural artefact in the real world.

I think it's totally and absolutely believable that humans would be racist towards orcs in-game. In fact, if humans were politically correct towards orcs, I would find it completely unbelievable and upsetting (assuming that orcs are usually antagonistic, unlike Eberron's orcs if I understood it correctly). If the players thought that correct roleplaying included lynching of orcs and other Klu-Klux-like behavior, well, that's a loaded debate beyond the scope of this thread.

Example 2: Love for the Planescape setting. This is often articulated by reference to the setting's detail, and the way that detail (cunning yugoloths, blood war, factions, layers shifting from Nirvana to Arcadia - or vice versa, I can't remember - etc) exemplifies the principle that belief shapes the planes.

Another big topic. I hated the belief conceit in Planescape. I mean, the idea was cool, but it was never carried through in any meaningful way.

It's like the Holodeck in Star Trek. You had this awesome technology, and it was only used for the occasional play-acting. How about Holodeck porn, Holodeck escapism, Holodeck addiction, Holodeck simulation for R&D, etc. Sure, there was one episode of a guy who was addicted to the Holodeck. But, for everyone else, the Holodeck was of little significance. And that's unbelievable. I don't care so much how the Holodeck is scientifically possible, but I do care if characters act towards the Holodeck in a way that I think is plausible.

Same with the belief trope in Planescape. It was there as a vague concept, it was supposed to be really important, but it never had a systemic significance for PCs. (That's what you were referring to, right?)

I think the above is the kind of failure of imagination (and/or caring and/or time and effort) that leads to unbelievability in fantasy.