Firstly, let's discuss, in terms of D&D, what realism is not. Realism is not the belief that if it doesn't work in the real world, it doesn't work in a game. That's simulationism, not realism. Realism is not the belief that everything in a game has to work exactly as it works in the real world. I think that's the main problem with the word "realism." It invokes the idea, right when you say it, that you're talking about the REAL world, when you're not. And of course, for fantasy fans - that causes tension.
Now let's talk about what realism is. To me, it's two very important things: Verisimilitude and Logic.
Verisimilitude: As many of you know, verisimilitude means the illusion of depth. The quality of seeming real. To many gamers this is extremely important (and for many of you, you might not even realize how much you like 'realism' until it's put in different terms).
Verisimilitude allows us to immerse ourselves in the setting. It allows us to feel like our characters are part of a living, breathing world. In short - the setting makes sense.
A setting with 50,000 different kinds of monsters and 8 races of humanoids all living on a continent the size of Africa is a setting without verisimilitude. It makes little sense, it doesn't feel real. It raises too many questions.
On the other hand, a setting with 3 cultures stuck in the bronze age because they're on a continent far from any trading routes, while the rest of the world has hit a Middle Ages-era because of strong ties between nations (whether through war or peace), and which has specific monstery-races in specific places that make sense for their biology has bucket-loads of verisimilitude.
To many, that's a major part of what they mean by 'realism.' The illusion, the appearance and feel that this could be a real world. We know it's not. But it -could- be. It makes sense.
Logic: We know how things work. I know that even though I'm quick, I'll still want armour to protect me if I have to fight someone swinging a sword around. We don't make choices based on statistics and mechanics (generally). We make logical decisions. Many gamers prefer that characters do the same.
And logic -does- apply even in a fantasy game. What would the character DO? Not "what is statistically superior for me, the player, to choose to do." But what would the character actually do in this situation?
For me, a good example of this is Tripping in combat. There are trip-freaks out there that think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. But how "logical" is it? Sometimes it should be done, yes. But how often, if you were fighting for your life, would you try to knock the person over instead of just outright killing them? Especially if it were an Orc.
I'm not saying Trip doesn't have it's place. But people who use Trip constantly in battle are a good example of what I'm talking about (in my opinion). It carries no logic. It doesn't make sense from a character perspective.
That's the second most common definition (at least on the boards here) of realism. Does it make sense for the character, rather than just being statistically superior to do? A 40 pound sword in the hands of a human makes no sense. It's not "realistic" (no logic). Players and DMs alike sometimes prefer a world that makes sense. A world where the players are choosing actions based on what seems logical for the character, instead of what is simply statistically superior to perform. A world where you can imagine it could be real.
Try to remember this the next time you catch yourself scoffing at someone's mention of the world "realism." Saying something isn't realistic doesn't mean "this can't happen in the real world." It just means "that has no appearance of being true" or "that's not logical or sensible."
It's amazing how many people DON'T want realism when it's going to hurt them. For example, lets use the gun again. Period firearms did exist. They also were more likely to kill the person firing it than the person it was aimed at. Reload times for guns, even up until the 19th century, were measured in minutes, not seconds. The gunshot was so loud, it would make you go deaf. They threw up so much smoke you couldn't see after a few shots. Until the invention of the rifled barrel, the only way you could be assured of hitting your target was to jam the muzzle into the other guy's ribs when you pulled the trigger.
THAT is realism, but no one ever wants that when they talk about how to make a realistic gun damage wise.
Basically, the word "realistic" doesn't have a bad connotation around here because of it being a fantasy world, it has a bad connotation because every time it gets used, its in defense of something that is either completely unbalanced, or so utterly complicated it would slow the game down to a crawl to use (like the old 2e armors having different ACs against different kinds of attacks). Yeah, it might be realistic, but it makes for a bad game. And it *IS* just a game, after all.
Naturally, most of that I agree with, but the section on logic needs something more. The rules of logic also apply in fantasy. By them, an implication is always true if one of presumptions is false. By this rule, everything ever said about fantasy is always true. As that is somewhat shaky to base arguments on, we must assume that things work like we are used to them working, unless otherwise said.
Internal logic is what is needed. For example, we know how the magic works. We have rules in PHB, and further rules in many supplements. In the elf argument (about them having enough food to support themselves) it was said that elves can create needed food by magic. However, lowest level spells needed to do this weren't low enough level. Thus, it doesn't work. Saying, "this is fantasy world, it happens!" (usually with multiple exclamation marks, with CAPS LOCK, etc.) simply is not enough. An answer saying this is fantasy, it doesn't work is just as reasonable.
Try to remember this the next time you catch yourself scoffing at someone's mention of the world "realism." Saying something isn't realistic doesn't mean "this can't happen in the real world." It just means "that has no appearance of being true" or "that's not logical or sensible."
You are being fairly forward in tone throughout the entire piece Vahinir. I would not say try at this point, I would even think that the chunk would come out better simply without the "Try to", just start with Remember.
From a discussion with a friend "a good fantasy keeps all the truths of human existence, but changes the grass to green" …zen--a koan--maybe that's too dense a reference. Basically, remove any element, like your car or your racial characteristics, from a person's life and replace them with other elements. The details of that person's life will be drastically different, but the reality of what it means to be alive remains consistent.
Now let's talk about what realism is. To me, it's two very important things: Verisimilitude and Logic.
Now who is your audience Vahenir? It would seem to me, to be the world builder, more so than anyone else. In particular that bit about the 50,000 monsters. Those are decisions of the builder not necessarily the master, and most certainly not the player. I guess a player can carry around a 40lb sword, but it would be really awkward.
I would have liked to have seen reference to some of the D&D settings, maybe even a scale of your discernment of realism as it relates to ebberon vs ferun vs krynn vs toril vs ... Examples make thinking easy.
On the other hand, I've seen how some people react to a perfectly reasonable "realism" argument, and I imagine you have to. "Swords in D&D weigh too much. They should weigh around X." "IT'S A GAME, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE REALISTIC!" Or, alternatively, someone just scoffs and says that realism doesn't belong in fantasy games and that you're a stupid jerk for even bringing it up.
The kind of realism that trims down weapon weight or requires an explanation for how 10,000,000 different species of monster exist on an Africa-sized continent are prime examples of the kind of 'realism' that -should- exist in a game, that don't break it in any way. Suffice to say, there are plenty of mentions of realism which have little to no affect on game balance, and are still scoffed at, which is what my post was directed at, of course.
For example, you cite 50,000 monsters and 8 humanoid races on a continent the size of Africa, as unrealistic. I don't personally see that it is. After all, in modern Africa we have well over 50,000 species, and in a continent with pygmies, some of the tallest people on earth, Middle eastern migrants, European settlers, and several other physical variations, I don't see that 8 humanoid races is a stretch of the imagination. You may of course disagree - but that is precisely my point.
Arguing for greater realism presupposes we have common standard of what is realistic, and common priorities. I find secret societies controlling everything from the shadows to be vastly less realistic, and vastly more disruptive of what you describe as verisimilitude, than dragons and fireballs. Doubtless many would disagree.
That is probably because magic and large flying lizards don't touch my characters or views of the world as much as an organisation that is both totally unknown, and yet universally in charge. This is probably also why you get more arguments about a new taxation system or a new form of government, than you do about a new spell. The closer to our own experience, the more we have to alter our ways of looking at the world in order to successfully work within someone else's vision. I have far more trouble playing a human in society vastly different from my own than I would playing, say, an orc.
This principle applies to both logic, and to verisimilitude, as you have defined them. A shared world, such as one shared between the imagination of players and a DM, must be based on common preconceptions. The closer the issue is to the real world, the less likely it is to be accepted as a 'realistic' one.
It's amazing how many people DON'T want realism when it's going to hurt them. For example, lets use the gun again. Period firearms did exist. They also were more likely to kill the person firing it than the person it was aimed at. Reload times for guns, even up until the 19th century, were measured in minutes, not seconds. The gunshot was so loud, it would make you go deaf. They threw up so much smoke you couldn't see after a few shots. Until the invention of the rifled barrel, the only way you could be assured of hitting your target was to jam the muzzle into the other guy's ribs when you pulled the trigger.
Agreed with everything you said. Just wanted to nitpick, the rifled barrel existed by the 1700s, not the 19th century. And it took 15 seconds to reload for a trained infantry unit, not minutes. :P (Not to say that I don't agree, if someone has a gun they should definitely be stuck reloading it for two-three rounds. In fact, I think it would be even funnier if you made them get wet, and all of the sudden their gun didn't work at all!)
The other realism piece to guns in those days is that players should have to keep track of a lot of different parts. Ammunition, gunpowder, gauze, the plunger, the brush piece if they aren't using a rifle, etc. etc. Hell, you could even make them carry around flint if you wanted to be annoying about it.
You're right. Absolutely. Verisimilitude and logic vary from person to person. But that's certainly no argument for saying realism is a bad idea, or doesn't work.
The entire point of this thread was to delve into what realism means to a gamer, to give a better understanding to those that scoff at the very mention of the word, and to give a very -general- explanation of what constitutes "realism."
Certainly I'm not saying that those concepts that make up realism (verisimilitude and logic) are not subjective. I'm just saying that when reading someone say something about 'realism' - those two concepts should be taken into account as what the person is probably trying to discover for their game.
It's subjective, yes. But so is most everything else. The important thing is to recognize what realism represents to a gamer - rather than taking the word itself at face value and assuming the gamer is attempting to dispense with anything that would not function in the 'real' world, such as magic. It also attempts to remove the tired, lame response of 'it's fantasy, it doesn't have to be logical or make sense, ever.'
But I'd never go so far as to say that everyone feels the same things are logical - certainly, our view of logic and verisimilitude are coloured by experience and personal taste. But in a game setting, it's not difficult to get players and DM to come to an agreement about these concepts, at least in my experience.
For example, it's realistic that if I blast someone with a fireball and they're in full plate armor, the metal will fuse, or at least heat up a great deal. They should be taking burn damage for several rounds and possibly be unable to move. But that would obviously overpower the Wizard and Sorcerer classes, so we don't play that way. Both logic and verisimilitude are sacrificed in favor of balanced and streamlined game mechanics.
Basically, I don't think "realism" is ever a good reason for adopting or neglecting a piece of game mechanics. I don't care how much damage a katana does "realistically;" it does 1d10 in game. I don't care how "unrealistic" tripping is; it's the way the game works, and my character would have to be stupid not to take advantage of a tactic that clearly works.
"Realism" may be important in some situations. Campaign design comes to mind, as you mentioned. So do character choices and motivations. But tactics and rules in this game are not governed by realism, but rather by the higher powers of balance and simplicity.
When you're marching along for great distances and being in battles that may last hours, you might want a lighter weapon to keep up your stamina. Likewise, when fighting in formations, unusual weapons like the spiked chain and double axe would cause problems, and things like tripping wouldn't work out very well.
However, a typical D&D game is more like a series of arena battles (the combat parts, anyway). You fight very short battles, often lasting less than a minute at high levels, where victory is determined in the first strike more often than not. In these battles, you're not using formations, you're moving all over the place, using unusual techniques as well as magic, and facing opponents that can get very strange indeed. Furthermore, you've often got access to healing between battles, and magical transportation. In this setting, a huge sword that's more powerful is a logical weapon, because you only have to swing it for 1 or 2 minutes, if that, during a battle, and how fast you can dish it out is crucial. And if an unusual weapon will give you that edge, then you'll use it. It doesn't matter if it's dangerous to be around because you've only got a few teammates, and they know your fighting style. And since the party members know each-other's style, and can plan out tactics individually, maneuvers like tripping the tougher monsters to soften them up for the heavy hitters is not only possible, but practical.
I do think you've got a pretty good definition there, though.
In general, I agree with your ideas of verisimilitude and logic, but find one of your examples questionable. I find "a setting with 50,000 different kinds of monsters and 8 races of humanoids all living on a continent the size of Africa" to be perfectly believable in a fantasy setting. Evolution is totally irrelevant in a fantasy world because of creationism and magic. If the gods created 8 different races on one continent, then that accounts for that. Why shouldn't there be 50,000 different kinds of monsters? Magic has allowed for thousands of years the sort of genetic manipulation that our modern world has not yet attained. Now your example about heavy weapons and tripping, I agree with completely. That sort of foolishness just doesn't make sense. I find it very similar to characters in second edition with high plusses to hit that could essentially kill anything they wanted by targeting something's neck. They could do it, but it wouldn't make sense.
I'm not so sure about tripping and large weapons being illogical. One thing to remember is: Adventurers are more like gladiators than soldiers.
That is an excellent point, Fractal.
Gotta remember that for latter...The proof of this lie not in magic, monsters, flying dragons, or anything else that people often discuss and argue ad nauseum but rather in something far simpler and which is beyond debate: darkness exists. In the real world there is no such thing as "darkness". It is not a thing but rather an absence of a thing, in this case an absence of light. Yet in the D&D universe darkness is a real, tangible thing which can be created and manipulated. The same also holds true for cold (lack of heat) among others.
So while it is generally safe to assume that most things will operate similarly enough that it is normally a non-issue (things fall down, fire is hot, etc.) you cannot assume that everything is always the same as the D&D universe operates under a different set of physical laws than does our own.
I believe that verisimilitude is essential to a good D&D game: the game needs to feel "right" in order to engage the players. However, verisimilitude means not just the appearance of reality but also the adherence to the internal laws of the setting.
The comedian Marty Feldman once said "If you have five guys dressed as carrots sitting around in garbage cans and then a guy walks in wearing a suit you'd better have a damned good explanation why he's not dressed as a carrot and sitting in a garbage can".
What it means is that once you set up an alternate reality - such as a D&D setting - you must ensure that that reality remains internally consistent no matter how much it deviates from the real world. It needn't abide by the rules of the everyday real world but it must abide by the rules which you have set up for it.
Verisimilitude is key to a successful D&D game/setting and internal consistency is integral to verisimilitude.
Verisimilitude is key to a successful D&D game/setting and internal consistency is integral to verisimilitude.
I would almost say that consistency and verisimilitude are nearly synonyms. The idea being that: reality is consistent. The game is (semantics aside) about simulating the possibilites/consquences of real life +2, and doing so with a consistent and usable mechanic. You can ramble on about "it doesn’t need to be realistic" but it needs to feel real.
In a game I have had the weight differences of two weapons of the same type became pertinent - and it was only my masterful capacity to create microscopic details on the spot that gave my player "what they wanted to know." Why?
In a game about buying and selling (Merchant D&D - funtimes sometimes, and of course there are bandits to kill and burglars and mobs and pesky city officials to defeat). When the information becomes pertinent the weight of one sword over the other becomes .. fun to some. Appraise & Craft btw.
What I’m seem to be saying is that sometimes you are playing the meta-game and sometimes its like your playing football without the ball, having birthday without the cake, what would happen (by consideration of both physics and conceptual understanding of the situation) doesn’t happen, unless there is a rules break.
My opinion is that the rules should not need to be broken to the create the intended level or realism - that’s the key - level of realism. Some people want to cry tears of blood as their character struggle against impossible DCs, but sometimes to do that they have to switch systems, unsuspend their disbelief, or break/make the rules.
D20 is an open standard. It "simulates reality" - that’s the intent. This standard comes with rules that simulate certain "hyper-realities" and doesn't contain rules for certain "harsh-realities" such as natural (non-magical) fear and confusion. Hip points are a pale comparison of the facts of physiology, and the resolution of dealing with equipment sometimes makes me think more of a cartoon than an action movie.
There should be, like there was in 2nd ed with the (what three?) different encumbrance measures, options that are there to set the degree of reality. Of course there are. VP/WP (while unsatisfactory to me) provides a step down from the cartoon clouds toward the dirty ground level where everything is hurtsy.
Perhaps more than verisimilitude, the issue is one of attention. How much and to what are you paying attention to? The meta-game becomes unreal when you look to something and its not there. If an action in-game has a different consequence than is expected out of game, without explanation or reason, there is a problem with the game: it lacks verisimilitude.
There is one good excuse, and allot of explanations that come close to half a good reason: People have to play a game with these rules. Action, Intermediary, and Result. Good game designers maintain verisimilitude by paying attention to the intermediary: how many dice rolls and how many tables are between your action and your results.
In regards to your piece - that’s where I think you go with it - "How the system does and does not maintain verisimilitude" - and what players do to compensate for the holes that cannot be yet be filled in with a manageable number of dice roles and modifiers. Perhaps take us to where the whys are. Why this facet is considered unreal, why this one is not, and the like.
OY something else occurred to me, why is tripping someone "illogical?" You can trip someone, and it is a valid combat behavior - used mostly by mammals incidentally - one that provides more mechanical combat utility than say demoralize. So, how does it qualify as unreal - or even in offense to logical thought?
Plausibility, well that can depend on how obtuse you are.
Consider this: DOOM.
DOOM is unrealistic, but plausible. The laws of cause and effect have never been more perfectly executed in all of gamedom. However, surviving a rocket shot into the door before you illustrates it perfectly. The fact that you need to survive the point blank shot is palusible, the fact that you did is unrealistic.
The fact is: You need plausibility, not realism. Accurate even consistent physical laws are so petty and unnecessary for good play. What is the expectation and preparedness for a reasonable reaction to whatever the ground rules may be. Your PCs need only react sensibly and your NPCs also. Eberron enacts this aspect perfectly, the fact is in D&D 3.x Magic is not special, any schmuck can do it. And as such it is abundant in it's lower level capacities and it is put to good use. Towers, Airships, Warforged whatever.
That's the key, it's not that the physical laws need changing, it's only that the living simulacra react appropriately.
You dig?
The entire point of this thread was to delve into what realism means to a gamer, to give a better understanding to those that scoff at the very mention of the word, and to give a very -general- explanation of what constitutes "realism."
I say realism is being able to maintain your disbelief. The points of contention come in when you have to stop thinking about what you would do and start thinking about the rules.
For example,
HP - When I get hit I say "oww" for about 6 seconds and uncontrolably hold my wound, the term is "favoring." When a d&d character gets hit they do not "suffer" anything, there are no rules for the reality of "favoring." Their actions are not effected, and there is no reaction forced by raw. Thats not realistic. Period.
The fact is: You need plausibility, not realism. Accurate even consistent physical laws are so petty and unnecessary for good play. What is the expectation and preparedness for a reasonable reaction to whatever the ground rules may be. Your PCs need only react sensibly and your NPCs also. Eberron enacts this aspect perfectly, the fact is in D&D 3.x Magic is not special, any schmuck can do it. And as such it is abundant in it's lower level capacities and it is put to good use. Towers, Airships, Warforged whatever.
Realism can be maintained under completely different paradigm. Realism does not need the laws of physics. A system of laws, or something to the same effect, is probably a good idea. But a GM who knows how his world functions can maintain realism, even if it is completely different.