Worlds of Design: The Hierarchy of Authenticity

"The limit of the willing suspension of disbelief for a given element is directly proportional to its degree of coolness. Stated another way, all but the most pedantic of viewers will forgive liberties with reality as long as the result is wicked sweet or awesome. This applies to the audience in general; there will naturally be a different threshold for each individual." TV Tropes.com (2010)

Defining Believability​

Believability in a character can stem from individual characteristics, background, and dialogue, but it is especially derived from actions. Let’s take an example that immediately drains believability: when the antagonist gives a long speech instead of acting immediately. Tuco, in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, after shooting the man who talked too much, says simply: "don't talk, shoot." While these monologues are often done for dramatic effect, the moment they supersede practical action, they break the immersion.

The degree of character authenticity generally falls along a spectrum of the medium, depending on what the author is trying to achieve.

The Literary Spectrum​

When examining media based on their potential for character depth, those that allow the most time for immersion tend to rate higher. Novels, as author Robert McKee noted, offer the ultimate setup: "We give the fantasy author one giant leap away from reality, then demand tight-nit probabilities and no coincidences thereafter." The complex, unbelievable events often seen in film are less common in the written word.

Plays have physical limitations that TV and film do not, forcing them to be more "down to earth" and thrive on realism. While they may only last a couple of hours, their constraints often necessitate strong character writing. TV series, especially the long-running ones like Game of Thrones, provide vast amounts of time to reveal character. Unfortunately, modern television is often littered with "big reveals" and effects that demand plot holes and ultimately reduce the characters' believability.

The Spectacle Spectrum​

In other media, the rules change entirely. Adventure Films generally offer only two or three hours for development and prioritize spectacle over character realism. Comic Books often strain believability as major characters rarely die permanently, and vast powers are wielded repeatedly without any significant lasting injury.

The fantasy spectrum is most pronounced in Video Games (excluding RPGs). These AAA titles often pursue photo-realism of the look while completely ignoring the realism of activity. Features like respawning cut the foundation from under any attempt at character normalcy. Likewise, Computer RPGs can suffer from complexity for complexity’s sake, often functioning more as puzzles than true collaborative games. Single-player CRPGs rarely offer organic opportunity for characterization via spontaneous interaction.

Finally, Tabletop RPGs are highly variable. Some players write complex, deep backgrounds, while others simply roll up a PC and let the game shape them. The fundamental challenge to realism here is that player characters in traditional fantasy games like Dungeons & Dragons consistently engage in high-stakes, dangerous behavior but rarely suffer the realistic, long-term injury one would expect.

Choose Your Cool​

The required level of character authenticity and the realistic consequences of their actions are features defined by the campaign's genre and the players' expectations. For genres like horror, decay and realistic consequences are essential for the narrative tension, but for superhero or high-fantasy settings, the quick recovery and ability to defy lasting consequence is often the primary appeal. GMs should determine this genre contract with their players first to ensure the game is rewarding and consistent for everyone at the table.

Your Turn: How much (if any) do you care for RPG characters to be believable people?

 

[dragoner]

Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t. -Mark Twain​

It really depends on the situation, though I will ruthlessly mine non-fiction for scenarios.

 

[payn]

I would say in my experience things do tend to be on a spectrum in character depth. Ranging from avatar to actualized being. I've also experienced the range in different RPGs. Fantasy ones such as D&D tend to be more hostile "just shoot" situations, where as others treat the situation as more of a role playing negotiation with the breakdown leading to "just shoot" I think the difference is in the expectation of the GM and players. Is the GM going to just read off a carefully constructed manifesto while the players are frozen, or is the situation an interesting interaction between characters with a number of possible conclusions?

I tend to play games more of the latter variety where many characters exist with a myriad of motivations and goals. Settings where just blasting somebody in broad daylight on the street likely has dire consequences. Solutions are not as easy as "just shoot" and take some thought and engagement. Id enjoy a back a fourth negotiation in character more than an hour long combat session. YMMV.

 

[doctorhook]

Let’s take an example that immediately drains believability: when the antagonist gives a long speech instead of acting immediately. Tuco, in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, after shooting the man who talked too much, says simply: "don't talk, shoot." While these monologues are often done for dramatic effect, the moment they supersede practical action, they break the immersion.

Your description of the scene and quote is a little bit off. For anybody who hasn’t seen this film, Tuco (“The Ugly” per the movie’s title) is taking a bath in an abandoned building, but knows he’s being followed. So he behaves deliberately unstealthily to bait the would-be assassin (a minor character out for revenge) into attempting to ambush Tuco in the bath. Unbeknownst to the assassin and the audience, Tuco brought his gun into the bubblebath, and shoots the killer during his revenge monologue. Tuco’s actual quote is “When you have to shoot, shoot, don’t talk.”

2 minute clip of this scene:
And if anyone here has never seen this movie, you absolutely should because it’s epic. And it’s an epic. It’s an epic epic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

View attachment 422885​

Defining Believability​

Believability in a character can stem from individual characteristics, background, and dialogue, but it is especially derived from actions. Let’s take an example that immediately drains believability: when the antagonist gives a long speech instead of acting immediately. Tuco, in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, after shooting the man who talked too much, says simply: "don't talk, shoot." While these monologues are often done for dramatic effect, the moment they supersede practical action, they break the immersion.

The degree of character authenticity generally falls along a spectrum of the medium, depending on what the author is trying to achieve.

The Literary Spectrum​

When examining media based on their potential for character depth, those that allow the most time for immersion tend to rate higher. Novels, as author Robert McKee noted, offer the ultimate setup: "We give the fantasy author one giant leap away from reality, then demand tight-nit probabilities and no coincidences thereafter." The complex, unbelievable events often seen in film are less common in the written word.

Plays have physical limitations that TV and film do not, forcing them to be more "down to earth" and thrive on realism. While they may only last a couple of hours, their constraints often necessitate strong character writing. TV series, especially the long-running ones like Game of Thrones, provide vast amounts of time to reveal character. Unfortunately, modern television is often littered with "big reveals" and effects that demand plot holes and ultimately reduce the characters' believability.

The Spectacle Spectrum​

In other media, the rules change entirely. Adventure Films generally offer only two or three hours for development and prioritize spectacle over character realism. Comic Books often strain believability as major characters rarely die permanently, and vast powers are wielded repeatedly without any significant lasting injury.

The fantasy spectrum is most pronounced in Video Games (excluding RPGs). These AAA titles often pursue photo-realism of the look while completely ignoring the realism of activity. Features like respawning cut the foundation from under any attempt at character normalcy. Likewise, Computer RPGs can suffer from complexity for complexity’s sake, often functioning more as puzzles than true collaborative games. Single-player CRPGs rarely offer organic opportunity for characterization via spontaneous interaction.

Finally, Tabletop RPGs are highly variable. Some players write complex, deep backgrounds, while others simply roll up a PC and let the game shape them. The fundamental challenge to realism here is that player characters in traditional fantasy games like Dungeons & Dragons consistently engage in high-stakes, dangerous behavior but rarely suffer the realistic, long-term injury one would expect.

Choose Your Cool​

The required level of character authenticity and the realistic consequences of their actions are features defined by the campaign's genre and the players' expectations. For genres like horror, decay and realistic consequences are essential for the narrative tension, but for superhero or high-fantasy settings, the quick recovery and ability to defy lasting consequence is often the primary appeal. GMs should determine this genre contract with their players first to ensure the game is rewarding and consistent for everyone at the table.

Your Turn: How much (if any) do you care for RPG characters to be believable people?

Quite a bit. Unless I am running a game in the supers genre (or another game in which mechanical enforcement of genre tropes is IMO needed), believability, verisimilitude, and yes realism in setting and character are very important to me. Without at least the attempt for such I rapidly lose immersion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm more interested in coherence than actual believability. A lot of fiction is about characters who aren't so much lifelike but have been turned up until the knob falls off. But this doesn't prevent them from having consistent and coherent motivations that are at the least amplified versions in their larger-than-life environments. I don't need Bohemia to have a coastline or for Romeo and Juliet to be normal people for Shakespeare's plays to work. I just require them to act coherently.

And you cite "author Robert McKee" as a source for the rules of novels. I'm curious as to what makes him your choice of authority; he's notoriously someone who teaches screenwriting without having ever had a script made into a film and he doesn't even teach novel writing.

 

[GDGD]

By necessity, PCs in games like D&D are going to be fairly unrealistic. I mean, you could spend more time on developing character background and personality, but the truth is that anyone subjected to the constant peril and violence that a PC endures would realistically suffer PTSD that would deepen into massive psychosis. Think about what it would be like to live a life where literally every day you are being hacked with swords and axes, bitten by horrific monsters, and blasted by evil spellcasters, only being saved by last minute bursts of healing magic that knit your smashed, torn, and burnt body back together so that you can go out and experience it all over again. A realistic character in that environment would be a gibbering lunatic.

 

[John Dallman]

Believability in a character can stem from individual characteristics, background, and dialogue, but it is especially derived from actions. Let’s take an example that immediately drains believability: when the antagonist gives a long speech instead of acting immediately.​

That has become a trope in its own right. The correct response from PCs is normally attacking.

Your Turn: How much (if any) do you care for RPG characters to be believable people?

Quite a lot. I don't worry very much about them being ordinary people (ordinary people wouldn't attempt the things that PCs try), but I do care about their feelings and motivations, and having them be reasonably consistent.

Playing a character for long enough for them to be changed by their experiences is my preferred form of role-playing: this takes quite a while. I'm running a campaign I expect to last another 10-15 years, and playing in one that will need to finish at about the same time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the problem here is "believability" is a moving target, not only on the viewer, but on genre and setting. Things that might be jarring in some genres and settings are easily accepted in others (obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone, some people have redlines they can't cross and settings and genres that challenge that will just be disdained).

 

[CF07]

By necessity, PCs in games like D&D are going to be fairly unrealistic. I mean, you could spend more time on developing character background and personality, but the truth is that anyone subjected to the constant peril and violence that a PC endures would realistically suffer PTSD that would deepen into massive psychosis. Think about what it would be like to live a life where literally every day you are being hacked with swords and axes, bitten by horrific monsters, and blasted by evil spellcasters, only being saved by last minute bursts of healing magic that knit your smashed, torn, and burnt body back together so that you can go out and experience it all over again. A realistic character in that environment would be a gibbering lunatic.

VERY good points. The James Bond novels are a great example, as opposed to the movies, which reboot pretty regularly without continuity. Over the course of the novels Bond ages. But he also really gets nutty. In the later ones by Fleming, Bond goes through a fugue state and is pretty clearly going guano insane. And no wonder given all that he's gone through, including the murder of his wife!

People can and do get used to lives of pretty rough circumstances, but you're absolutely right that the psychological effects of such a life is usually ignored. As an example, my now deceased great uncle was an RTO during World War II, which was one of the most dangerous jobs in combat arms. I didn't know him too well when I was younger---quite honestly he was a pretty scary dude and in retrospect was wrestling with PTSD from his service as a young man---but I got to know him pretty well near the end of his life. One thing he said was that every year he'd gotten to live after the war was a gift that many of the men he'd served with had not had.

For my money, a good PC has a developed enough personality to be interesting at the table, but fiction is fiction and a good PC is often kind of larger than life and fit the genre that's being played.