The problem is, this is what a LOT of people claim they are doing, but when you actually challenge them about it, it's no longer simply a matter of the world being self-consistent. If you give explanations for beyond-IRL-physics things, such as non-magical sources of "healing," that's not enough in a large number of cases. This implies that self-consistency is inadequate to actually capture how real people use the term "verisimilitude." Real usage of the term very frequently--not always, but frequently--smuggles in "as much similarity to my [the speaker's] understanding of the real world as possible." But "verisimilitude" + "as close as possible to what I, personally, know of the real world" is simply a fancy way of saying "realism."
This is an extremely serious problem with the whole discussion.
It's a problem with, and I say this with absolutely no hyperbole, sarcasm, or irony whatsoever, literally
all discussions where RPGs are concerned, insofar as unclear language surrounding philosophies of design and play go. The lack of any sort of awareness of, let alone consensus around, standardized verbiage and definitions has been a mud pit that the RPG community has been stuck in for decades now. That is, in my opinion, the entire (very depressing) theme of Jon Peterson's excellent book
The Elusive Shift.
We gamers have these ideas, expectations, and reasons behind what we're looking for, but struggle to articulate them, and that's when we think to actually deliberately bring them up. Most of the time, we simply rely on intuition and a vague sense of personal (dis)satisfaction, which all too often results in either lashing out, or the perception that you're lashing out (triggering defensiveness on someone else's part), and the whole thing goes to pot.
That's why, for the purposes of this thread, I spent some time laying out definitions, expectations, and interactions with regard to what constitutes "verisimilitude," but I have no expectation that my OP will be hailed as the be-all end-all of what that term means with regard to the TTRPG space. If it can create a common basis for a discussion here, in this thread, that's good enough.
With regard to "realism" as "functions as per the real world" though, I think (and this is just my impression) that this is what a lot of people reach for when they're unfamiliar with the idea of verisimilitude as a method of making the setting feel more grounded, which is itself a source of satisfaction. There are plenty of people who don't spend a lot of time thinking about, reading about, or talking about D&D and similar games, and so it's no surprise that they have a hard time venturing into the weeds that hardcore fans are still trying to clear after decades of trying.
Groundedness is the actual goal here. Verisimilitude, or realism, or whatever else, are simply tools intended to achieve groundedness. Hence why I propose that we just aim for groundedness directly, rather than constantly invoking these other things which, IMO, lead to so many more arguments and distractions. Discussion of how to produce or develop a grounded feeling in a setting or work would be much more productive than asserting that X thing has more "verisimilitude" or Y thing is more "realistic" or whatever.
I mean, I suppose you can exchange one term for the other, but I'm not sure that's necessarily going to help move the discussion along. I'm of the opinion that there's a difference between them, in that "groundedness" speaks to what we're looking for with regard to how we can approach a (shared) fantasy world, whereas "versimilitude" is a tool used in achieving that. I'd personally go a bit further and suggest that verisimilitude is
necessary for achieving groundedness, since verisimilitude includes the internal logic which itself encapsulates the cause-and-effect relationships which, in turn, inform people's ability to judge what will happen if they do X
without actually doing X in the first place...but there's a considerable degree of variance to which people seem to need/want that modeled in their TTRPG game worlds to begin with, both insofar as actually relying on that data for what they want (their character) to try versus simply having it as a backdrop that makes the game world that much more immersive.
...and if you can make sense out of that last paragraph, you're smarter than I am.
I mean, maybe I am in fact becoming exactly what you describe here, but I have had multiple people tell me point-blank that it is better to have an openly, actively dysfunctional game--a game which actively opposes player enjoyment, which impedes players from doing what the game is designed to do--if doing so ensures greater verisimilitude, for any amount of verisimilitude gained. Concessions are made only in those cases where it is truly almost impossible to get further verisimilitude, and such cases are treated with intense regret, a wistful "if only...." Practicality, treating verisimilitude as one value which we should prefer as high as possible without painful sacrifices elsewhere, is simply not an option.
I'm not sure what to tell you, here. I think that there's a not-inconsiderable amount of fetishization among gamers regarding the immersive experience (as achieved via verisimilitude), but in my experience that's largely a degree of tilting at windmills. Simply put, unless everyone around the table is willing to buy into the various premises presented (which can include limitations, especially with regard to ideas/concepts/wishes that the players might themselves bring to the table), and willing to put in what can be a considerable amount of effort in doing so (especially in terms of having to learn and retain aspects of the game, ranging from mechanics to history to a large cast of NPCs, etc.).
To that end, it's understandable that some GMs might see what they're doing as larger than the individual players, much in the same way a sculptor might see the statue they're building as larger than whatever assistants they've hired to help them carve it. How sympathetic other people might be to that tends to vary wildly, though (again) in my experience most people tend to put less emphasis on someone else's labor of love than the laborer themselves.
That said, I'm of the opinion that excessive detail
can be helpful, but quite often isn't nearly as assistive to verisimilitude as a lot of world-builders tend to think. Buy-in on the part of the players tends to be more important (and a lot of details can be made in-play or before the next session, which isn't because those details aren't important, but because so long as they're understood
as ideas (i.e. what they are, how they function, and how they affect the rest of the world) then the minutiae can be fleshed out later on; like, if you know the king is a great orator, you don't have to worry about measuring his exact skill bonus to Perform (oratory) until it's time for him to put in a personal appearance). A popular example of this is just noting an NPCs salient characteristics (e.g. King Halvor II is a LG hm F12) rather than their entire character sheet.
Is that...really the case? Because it seems to me that there's plenty of ways one could explain something liek that within a setting's internal logic.
It seems to me that the actual logic broken here is one that is entirely external to the setting: "Power must be earned." Which has nothing to do with verisimilitude (I think we're all pretty keenly aware that there are a LOT of people who have done nothing at all to earn tons of power IRL...), but it absolutely does have to do with immersion--and that's part of why dragging another vague, problematic term into the mix doesn't help. Instead, it can just be stated as an opinion about settings: "I don't find this concept well-grounded, which means I just can't accept it as a positive contribution to the game." Or, to use my more typical phrasing here, the player failed to sell you on the concept.
It's a lot simpler to just ask players to truly sell you on the concept they want to play. Sometimes, like with your "I literally just want to be The Flash" example, that's not possible. You simply aren't buying what they're trying to sell. But, in general, such things are pretty rare IME. Most of the time, the GM is at least hoping to be sold on whatever concept the player brings, and vice-versa.
It's possible for there to be concurrent issues with regard to things like power, but that's a parallel issue to verisimilitude, as I see it. Certainly, it's all opinion, but if there's an effort being made to explain how something does fit into the logic of the setting (either in terms of possibility or simply in terms of probability, since technically-possible-but-still-horrendously-improbable coincidences tend to likewise damage immersion if there's no justification given for them, e.g. you happen to have the Infinite Improbability Drive in your spaceship).
A player who wants an
apparatus of Kwalish at 1st level is going to (potentially) cause issues with regard to balance, but there's also the aforementioned issues of verisimilitude with regard to them having (and being able to keep) a legendary magic item as a starting character. Saying something like "well, my late uncle was an artificer who spent all of his time trying to make this for me, and he completed it one week before he died mysteriously" is an attempt to soften the blow to verisimilitude (and does nothing for power/balance), but may or may not work depending on the wider implications with regard to the setting (and so is an area where expectations may be understood to not line up).
Personally, I would call this a very poor (and easily exploited) boundary condition. Someone can want something deeply, but not for constructive/pro-social reasons. It is, in fact, quite likely that selfish players will try to exploit such a standard by staking their whole enjoyment on being the best/strongest/only/etc. in whatever thing, which leads to serious problems. Sort of like the adage that anyone who wants power doesn't deserve it and anyone who deserves power doesn't want it.
I agree in principle, though in point of fact a lot of people don't seem to care for the drama that goes on if it looks like the differing expectations will lead to some sort of conflict, but as a general rule I'm not of the opinion that simply wanting it more is sufficient reason to carry the day when there's a clash of expectations/desires. But that seems to be an unpopular opinion these days.
Instead, I see it as a relative weighting of impact. There are certain lines I'm not willing to cross, as GM, because I don't believe I can continue to provide a fulfilling, interesting game experience if they are crossed. Likewise, I as a player can't really enjoy certain genres (e.g. grimdark, I'm so f#$king sick of grimdark) or situations (torture, abuse, the usual), and if I'm exposed to them it will show through in my RP and demeanor. I'm just not gonna have a good time and that's gonna sour the mood.
But apart from having just a few bright lines (whether as DM or player), I do my best to be accommodating, and I expect the same from my players and GMs. It truly is almost always possible to make a concept work. I just find that a lot of GMs are shockingly inflexible and disinclined to any form of discussion or consensus-building. "My way or the highway"-ism is unfortunately all the rage today.
Some of what you're talking about here sounds (to me) like it's more about personal taste that versimilitude per se. If you don't like certain genres, then a game which puts those genres front and center is going to be unappealing. The actions that NPCs take is a bit trickier (since their characters are often designed so that repugnant things might nevertheless make sense for them to undertake), but that's not usually too big of an issue to reconcile simply by keeping such things off-screen, as it were. Something can be a backdrop that happens but is never made relevant in the course of play (beyond noting that it happens), or can be glossed over in terms of presentation at the table, etc.
That said, I've personally encountered a "my way/highway" attitude more with players than GMs, largely with regard to them having a character conception that they don't want to let go of (which strikes me as more numerous simply because that requires less work than building a campaign world).
Whereas I find this is used very often (thankfully by people who don't GM for me; my GMs have almost always been lovely people) as simply an excuse to never even bother trying to build a consensus in the first place. "You want to play a <foo>? No, hell no, and never darken my door again." And yes, I have actually had someone use that exact phrase, in full earnest, as their response to someone asking if they can use perfectly reasonable existing mechanics for a character they find interesting but which didn't fit into the speaker's preconstructed world.
Hence why I say things like "it's the GMs world, you just happen to witness it." Because I hear things like the above from actual people.
If nothing else, I hope that this post has highlighted that (as I perceive it) even getting to a place where people realize that they're talking about issues of verisimilitude, groundedness, immersion, and other such issues tends to be far from the norm. TTRPGs have long been a magnet for people who have trouble relating to others, and I think that's still true today; likewise, as I mentioned before, casual players aren't really going to dig into these concepts either. So really, the potential for miscommunication, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations is going to be fairly high more often than not. One need only look at other threads here to see that even aficionados can fall prey to them.
Hopefully, this thread is doing some tiny part in helping clear those issues up before they happen.
