The Difference Between Realism vs. Believability

[Ariosto]

Both Dresden and LotR are examples of low magic settings.

I don't recall anyone in LotR reacting in disbelief or apparently never having seen magic in his or her life. Nor does it seem to me at all unbelievable that the protagonists, who are seeking some magics and trying to avoid the far-reaching attentions of others, should encounter as much enchantment as they do.

The setting could still be low magic because that's the experience of most of its inhabitants.

Which means what, Doug? It means the PCs are "always" (to use your word) not in "the setting" they inhabit.

That may or may not be realistic or believable, but using word play to be purposefully misleading as to what we are talking about is not exactly a help in assessing it!

Mount Kilimanjaro is at 3°4' South latitude. It also rises 5882 m, to an elevation of 5895 m above sea level. As a consequence, a climb to the peak is like going from the equator to the Antarctic.

Now, if you leave out that information, and the fact that we're talking about someone who climbs the mountain a lot, and define the setting as "tropical Africa", then it might -- at least to someone who is too hasty in leaping to conclusions -- be "unbelievable" that an inhabitant of the setting happens to encounter a lot of arctic conditions.

Moreover, "arctic conditions" would not encompass the high-altitude reality of something like half the oxygen as at sea level.

Planet Earth, indeed, is a "setting" that encompasses tremendous variety in environments and life forms. See James Cameron's "Aliens of the Deep" documentary for some awesome examples of things beyond our usual experience.

Are these things 'unbelievable' to you?

I do not find the Land of Oz any more believable for having however many more books' worth of silliness packed into it. I do not find the world of Normalman more believable than that of Superman.

I do not find you unbelievable simply because most people are not Scots. I do not find it unbelievable that there are billionaires in a world of people with much less wealth, or that there are people manning submarines armed with nuclear-warhead missiles in a world in which most people have never seen any of those things except in pictures.

What I would find unbelievable is the rich on the whole giving up their riches, and the nations on the whole giving up their preparations for war, to buy the world a haggis and keep it company.

Now, if there were some rationale for it, then maybe I could suspend my disbelief!

 

[radmod]

Once upon a time, as ardoughter mentioned, I too asked why (and how) a PC standing in a room without cover got a save vs. the Fireball erupting all around him. And why, if he made his save, was he in the same spot? Wasn't he diving out of the way?

Great example. I've always hated that one myself. Is this unrealistic or unbelievable?

Another observation...

At the heart of several objections to 4e is the belief that ...

I thought the heart of most objection to 4e was that it was "dumbed down" and "made for kids". (Sorry I cut off the rest of your well-thought post)

 

[radmod]

I think for me the question is one of game mechanics.
If the rules say something can be done, then we accept it as believable (whether it is or not).
However, realism runs afoul of game mechanics.
Take standard initiative. Let's say there are ten PCs with 30' move. If one picks up a stick and double moves, he transports the stick 60'. Yet, if each of the ten were 30' from the other and they had delayed so the initiatives went from high to low, first to last respectively, then that same stick could be moved 300' in a single round (each takes a move + standard to pass the stick).
That is unrealistic.

So, as a fan of realism, I run simultaneous initiative. Basically you tell me what you are doing, everything goes off at roughly the same time and initiative is rolled only when important (like who hit first).
I've found that it works and works well (speeds up encounters) and is more realistic.

Yet, if one tries to interject too much realism then the game breaks down (becomes harder and, perhaps, more boring to play). IIRC, GURPs is more realistic but doesn't play as well. I once ran the exact same encounter in GURPs as I did in D&D and it took something like four times as long.

That to my mind is why D&D has always been more popular. It's easier, and quicker AND unlike GURPs, where a low level can kill a high level with a single lucky roll, D&D allows you to go "Ouch, that hurt but I'm fine. Ouch. Ouch again. Um, guys, I might need some help. Ouch. Ouch, HELP! Ouch, thud!"

 

[FireLance]

Before the thread progresses any further, a definition of terms is in order I suspect.

Slight tangent, but it is precisely for this reason that I tend to prefer the terms "rare magic" and "common magic" myself when speaking of how regularly the average commoner encounters magical spells, objects and beings. I tend to use "low magic" and "high magic" to describe the quantity and power of the magic available to the PCs in a campaign. So, by my definition, LotR would be a high magic campaign in a rare magic world.

 

[steenan]

I think for me the question is one of game mechanics.
If the rules say something can be done, then we accept it as believable (whether it is or not).
However, realism runs afoul of game mechanics.
Take standard initiative. Let's say there are ten PCs with 30' move. If one picks up a stick and double moves, he transports the stick 60'. Yet, if each of the ten were 30' from the other and they had delayed so the initiatives went from high to low, first to last respectively, then that same stick could be moved 300' in a single round (each takes a move + standard to pass the stick).
That is unrealistic.

I don't accept everything what is possible in the game mechanics as believable and possible in the game world. The rules are not the laws that rule the setting - they are simplified to be usable at a game table. Like every simplification or abstraction, it creates some edge cases that are artifacts of the mechanics, not a part of the game world. In most games I played, the settings as described make no sense if it is expected to work exactly by mechanics - they are only believable if the system is treated as a simplification, not as whole truth.

On the other hand, having to think by the rules that don't corresponds to how the setting really works pulls me out of a character. For this reason, I prefer games that fall into one or more of three categories:
- strongly simulationist, where the system keeps close enough to the setting not to cause problem
- rules light, so I don't have to think about the rules when I play
- abstract and focused on color, not immersion - where the system resolves conflicts but it's up to the players to describe it in-setting

 

[Doug McCrae]

From my perspective, some people around here are mistaking realism (and simulation) for tradition. It's not that 4e is any less realistic, it's that 4e is unrealistic in several new ways, which they haven't spent the last 30 years getting used to.

Yes, this is another very insightful observation imo.

I was thinking recently that there is a lot to be said for sticking with whatever game system you've been playing for years, no matter what it is. Everyone knows the rules, so things go smoothly. Solutions - house rules or social conventions - have been found for most of what gives the group problems.

You don't see this given very often as a reason for sticking with a game system, but it's probably the best. Ofc one doesn't see it cited very often because it means the older system isn't objectively better, just more familiar.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Which means what, Doug? It means the PCs are "always" (to use your word) not in "the setting" they inhabit.

You have a point there. Setting could be taken to mean the wider world - a continent, planet, or multiverse - or it could refer only to the parts of that world the PCs interact with. I was thinking of the former, maybe I should've used the term world instead. If it's the latter then, yes, the setting will be the same as what the PCs experience, by definition. If the PCs are high magic then the setting will be, too.

Firelance's distinction between common and rare magic is also clearer than my terminology.

 

[Ariosto]

So, as a fan of realism, I run simultaneous initiative.

I find that it keeps the game moving more briskly, too. I've been doing it in many games since the '70s. The original D & D set referred one to the Chainmail rules, which offered two turn sequences -- Move/Counter-move and Simultaneous Movement.

With the individual moves and other factors commonly used in modern D&D, we might have
(a) a minute's worth or more of actions taking place, although
(b) most figures are effectively "frozen" for
(c) most of the ten minutes or so the last to move gets to watch and plan for
(d) what supposedly represents a period of but six seconds.

Now, each way presents the possibility of too much happening before someone gets a chance to react (e.g., the "Panzerbush syndrome" some 'grognards' may recall). This may provide good examples of the utility of being mindful that

The rules are not the laws that rule the setting - they are simplified to be usable at a game table.