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

ruemere

Adventurer
This is a complex subject, and I do believe that there are many possible ways to address it. Here is what works for me and for my players (usually).

1. [me] Establish baseline and the inner logic of the world.

For example, for my Miserable Secrets CortexPrime game, it is the baseline is "human".
The inner logic:
Heroes are "human" at their weakest and scale up as per CortexPrime.
Antagonists are one step above human in their specialty, they have weakside or weakness that allows "human" win.
Vague specialties (special abilities) are defined at their first use.

2. [me] During session zero explain the world in game terms. Carefully consider player questions and make adjustments.

For example, my initial presentation was seriously lacking in terms of visual aids. So to make up for it, I am going to borrow screenshots from works of art that flesh out the world.

3. [in-game] Characters interact with the world and take actions. Make notes to compensate or clarify or record niche rulings.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

When it comes to realism, one thing I've brought up before in 5e modules, is: where are the bathrooms? And not just like toilets, but actual bathing areas as well. Both Dragon Heist and Candlekeep Mysteries have floorplans of places the PCs might very well take over as living quarters (a tavern with living quarters above, and a Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion), and they all have a lot of nice living space described in detail, but no bathrooms. Dragon Heist even has two nobles' mansions mapped out, but again, no bathrooms. Ironically, part of Dragon Heist takes place in Waterdeep's sewers, but apparently they're for show only as nothing seems to connect to them from above if the rest of the module is anything to go by! Yeah, bathrooms are not very adventure-y, but they and indoor plumbing do canonically exist in the Forgotten Realms, so it's just jarring for me to not see them. Heck, just leave small rooms unlabeled if necessary...
 



Hussar

Legend
I grew up with the Golden Age stuff, but I have never been a fan of the gritty realism approach to D&D.

Although Doctor Who was probably a bigger influence.
Oh, yeah. What we got into when we got into the genre probably shapes a lot of what we think now. I'll admit freely that I'm a much bigger SF fan than fantasy. I read and watch a lot more SF than fantasy by a fair margin. Things like Game of Thrones, I honestly couldn't even get through the first three episodes, although I did read the first four books. But, having finished those books, mostly because I picked up an omnibus edition, I have zero interest in going back to it.

Frankly, I'm a much bigger fan of shorter fiction to be honest. I read a lot more short stuff and novellas. So, thumping down yet another epic fantasy doorstopper is of very little interest to me. Which, in turn, shapes how I run games. Short fiction is so different from novel form and I think that really has an impact on how I design things. Setting in short fiction can play a big role, but, since you've only got so many words in a short story, you can't afford to worry about the small stuff. So a lot of the world building stuff that I see other DM's do is impressive as all get out, but, leaves me completely cold. I'm just not interested.

So, yeah, the whole "realism" thing won't work for me because why would I bother? If the setting is never that important and only serves as a place holder for the action or the characters, then, well, it's basically just movie sets. Scratch behind it and you see it's all painted wood.
 

I couldn't even get through the first chapter of the Game of Thrones novel, although the TV series started well.
Scratch behind it and you see it's all painted wood.
Keep the audience sufficiently entertained and they won't be tempted to scratch. It literally worked for 1970s Doctor Who.
 

delericho

Legend
I tend towards an admixture - the world itself is mostly realist, but the PCs and their immediate environs are much more fantastical.

It's more or less like the very early MCU films, where they're set in a mostly "real world", but you have a handful of super-powered heroes and villains running about.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top