Worlds of Design: Making an Adventure “Believable”

How believable is your world? Or to put it another way, how much must players suspend their disbelief to enjoy the game?

How believable is your world? Or to put it another way, how much must players suspend their disbelief to enjoy the game?
overcoming-1697546_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

"I used to lose sleep over this, but then I realized if there's enough interesting things going on in a big budget epic sci-fi film, then you can distract me from all the science you're getting wrong."— Neil deGrasse Tyson

The second spectrum of game master play styles is about how much or how little the game resembles a believable world. Believability becomes important if immersion in the “story” of the game is important to the group, regardless of whether the GM is an improvisor, situation-setter, or storyteller. Anything that interferes with that immersion can potentially lessen a player’s enjoyment.

The three believability categories I’ve identified are “fantastical” vs. "realist" vs. "rule of cool".

Fantastical​

The Fantastical school (fantastical: strange, weird, or fanciful in appearance, conception, etc.) might be epitomized by Gary Gygax’s fountain of kobolds (IIRC it was an example in the D&D 1e DMG). Stashed away in a dungeon somewhere is a fountain (or even a hole in the ground) that issues kobolds constantly.

Where this unlimited supply of kobolds came from, nobody knows. Where those kobolds go, nobody knows. Players may wave it off as fantastic magic, and try to cope with an endless stream of minor monsters. Perhaps you could call this “sense of wonder” as a category, because the idea is that even if something is outlandish, if it’s conceivable in a high magic setting then it’s okay (perhaps even desirable) in the game.

Realist​

The Realists tend to think of the game as like a fantasy novel insofar as they want players to easily suspend their disbelief. My standard is: could you believe the event if you read it in a (good) fantasy novel?

Rule of Cool​

The “rule of cool” is, if something is cool, it’s okay to allow it in the game. Whose standard of cool? A combination of the GM and the players.

I remember a teenage friend of mine telling me about a game where a player wanted to throw a wood stove (a very large object of iron and steel) across a river. Of course, no D&D character is Superman or even the Hulk, so this should have been dismissed out of hand, but the GM gave the player one chance in 20 of doing it! Because it was cool. (And because an awful lot of D&D players don’t understand probability, that five percent is a very good chance in comparison with most real-world chances . . .)

Combining Modes of Believability​

Remember that this is a spectrum, so most people are going to be in between two of the three categories somewhere.

You could see the Fantastical as a subset of the Rule of Cool, where the Fantastical only applies the rule to the environment the players encounter, not to everything that happens. Both the Fantastical and Rule of Cool are related to a looser style of playing RPGs, common to new players who aren't fully versed with the rules. This frees up having to worry about knowing every detail of a RPG system, and depending on the group, may be preferred.

While I’m of the Realist school, I suspect the majority of RPG play today is dominated by the Rule of Cool. After all, so many movies and novels follow something like this rule, these days, that hardly any adventure movie is believable. But many viewers still enjoy them (including me).

Your Turn: Where do you fit in the spectrum of believability GM styles?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
great article. I call this knowing what franchise your in. It occurred to me when I was running a campaign and one of the players wanted to ignite gunpowder on a boat to do something you might see in an action adventure film. I realized some were under the assumption we were in a historical drama film. So the question ‘what franchise are we in’/‘what movie are we in’. Started getting asked at the table. I found if you explain to players what type of movie they are in (and movie doesn’t have to be the model I just like referring to films because they are a quickly understood set of examples), then it helps the players know what kind of logic is going to guide GM decisions about the world. And that is important for but in and believability whether this is a grounded realistic campaign in the style of 2001, or a something over the top like Star Wars.
 

Oofta

Legend
I'm more or less a realist. I want my games to be (action movie) real world + magic. While the PCs face far more threats before breakfast than most people would realistically survive or face in a lifetime. Perhaps even during breakfast, because who knows if that table is just a table or a mimic?

But it's action movie reality. Especially at higher levels the PCs can jump farther, hit harder, survive more than they should be able to. Much like John McClane in the Die Hard movies, they take hits and damage that at the very least should send them to the hospital, if not the morgue. It's assumed in most games that the PCs have a least a decent amount of plot armor.

I can justify a fair amount of that action movie logic with magic. People heal up wounds far too rapidly? They heal supernaturally fast without even realizing it, it's just normal to them. Most of the rest of the things that don't really work are just accepted due to simplification of the system to keep the game relatively fast paced and streamlined.

So yes, I want my game sessions to feel like they could be taken from a fantasy novel or movie that's not too far over the top. The PCs are heroes, exceptional in many ways. But they could never throw a wood stove across a river.
 

I put too much effort into small dumb things then let big things just go.

I did months of research into both fiction and non fiction ideas of multiverse theory...string theory...and other related things i bearly understood. I did this so when I got to dopplegangers, singliarities, and string theory all for about 3-5 minutes of an NPC explanation of how some magic works...

in the same campaign I had a PC warrior (class wise a fighter/rogue/monk) learn to double jump... not by magic but by meeting an old master who learned to physical do an crazy impossible thing...with no magic (yes it works in magic dead zones) and my explanation is 'cause'

in the same campaign I also had a wizard learn a 2nd edition spell from 'the survivor' of a dead cosmology... not even the cosmology that predates this one, but the one that predated 2 before that... because the multiverese is destroyed from time to time and reborn. And that could only happen by mixing all that crazy research on a 5ish min segment, and the rule of cool from the 2nd example...
 

aco175

Legend
I think I try to have my games grounded in more of the Realist category, but leave room for the other two. I tend to favor the Fantastical over the Rule of Cool though. Maybe the Realist and Fantastical blend some. I tend to think LotR books and movies as the standard for my games in terms of look and feel. I would also add supply lines and such to the hoard of orcs leaving Isengard, but likely only if the players thought to do something about it.

Magic makes things more wonkers. I like to have items that allows for PCs to do things not everyone can do. A ring might allow you to jump like the spell, but also 1/rest jump 100ft, like Wonder Woman in the old TV show.
 

Lord Shark

Adventurer
The Realist perspective sometimes leads to what's occasionally called the Guy at the Gym problem -- where the mighty warrior who's at or near maximum human physical ability can still only accomplish the sort of feats that a moderately fit 21st-century human can do, because the DM thinks anything more than that is "unrealistic."
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
You might find it surprising to know that I favor a blend of what you call "Realist" and "Rule of Cool."

I strive to build (and, frequently, improvise) a world, with my players' contributions, which is reasonably grounded. Poverty and wealth disparity are major problems, for example, and the party has had to deal with situations relevant to that. Religious groups exist for varied reasons, and cannot conclusively prove their beliefs. Friends or allies made in prior sessions often stick around, becoming better allies...or not, becoming more complex. Enemies are complex as well; one particular ruthless businessman underestimated the PCs on their very first adventure, and when he realized the magnitude of his mistake, he used secret means to work his way into having some...not exactly "trust" but "willingness to work together."

When it comes to stuff my players want to add to or do in the world, though? Rule of Cool all the way. Genuine, abiding player enthusiasm is not something you can just create out of thin air. That sort of thing takes work, nurturing, care. Every time I embrace what my players are enthusiastic about, so long as it isn't exploitative or coercive, I'm doing that work. And four years of running the game seems to bear out that that approach works, at least at my (virtual) table.
 

The Realist perspective sometimes leads to what's occasionally called the Guy at the Gym problem -- where the mighty warrior who's at or near maximum human physical ability can still only accomplish the sort of feats that a moderately fit 21st-century human can do, because the DM thinks anything more than that is "unrealistic."
yup... I actively fight against that... but the opposite issue has poped up lately (in theory since i have been told it online but never seen it in play)

the wizard (or other full caster) can only do exactly word for word what the spell says and isn't allowed to improvise or role play through things, while the fighter and rogue get the DM exclusive fiat of "Role play well and make things happen" giving THEM the advantage... (why casters are not allowed to use skills and RP has never made sense to me but hey it is what people have said)
 

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
Doing SF, I like to go with plausibility, because reality makes it rules light, as we already know what it is, and don't need stuff to interface that, allowing to focus on something else.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top