Realism and Believability - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Realism and Believability

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
Dec 04, 2003 8:29:21 The argument of realism vs. abstraction is one that pops up all the time, not just on this forum, but on various RPG forums across the web. The realism camp argues that D&D isn't realistic (most of the time this is in regards to HP and combat, but there are other mechanic disputes that could be classified as realism-based), while the anti-realism camp argues that D&D is abstract and not meant to fully represent reality. The point of this essay is not to argue either for or against realism per se, but to rather suggest a shift in the discussion.

I believe people who argue for realism have missed the point a bit. This is not to say they are wrong, but I don't think realism is really what they're looking for. Realism is a complicated and messy thing, and - as the anti-realism folk are quick to point out - the real world doesn't have magic or dragons or other fantasy elements. True realism also tends to dampen dramatic or heroic effects, something many gamers look for in RPG's. So what is it that the realism crowd is looking for if it's not realism? I propose that it's not realism these people should argue for, but rather believability.

The difference between realism and believability is subtle, but I think it goes to the core of what these individuals are looking for. I think the realism crowd realizes they aren't looking for true realism. If someone wanted to play real life they wouldn't be playing D&D. But these people just have a hard time believing in certain aspects of the game, whether its the HP or combat system or whatever, and this becomes a distraction in their gaming experience.

So what defines believability versus realism? Realism, obviously, is based in real-world physics. If it doesn't exist in or if it doesn't work the same way as it does in the real world it isn't realistic. Believability, however, is based in real-world logic. This means that for a mechanic to be believable, it's underlying logic must work in the real world. Is this just realism with a different name? No, the difference is physics versus logic. Realism is bound by the confines of the real world, and is thus fairly rigid. The rule of believability is logic, and thus is inherently more flexible than realism. A believable mechanic can break the laws of physics if it is still logical. However, the basis for such logic must be found in the real world. This means that a believable game system will be pretty close to realistic, though it may be exaggerated or may contain (unrealistic) fantasy elements.

One issue with the idea of believability, however, is that believability is inherently subjective. Different people will have different definitions of what they are willing to believe. Thus switching the "realism" discussions into "believability" discussions will not eliminate the arguments, but it will get both sides arguing about the same things. At present, the realism camp discusses the unrealistic elements of D&D, while the anti-realism camp discusses D&D's abstractive nature, two different (but not mutually exclusive) concepts. Under the concept of believability, both parties can get together and discuss what's really at the heart of most D&D arguments - simple differences in personal opinion.
#2
zombiegleemax
Dec 04, 2003 16:42:42 Also there are two different types of believability/realism: the believability of the rules, and the believability of the campaign.
#3
tzor
Dec 05, 2003 8:53:55 Timfire’s argument strikes at the heart of the general “realism” debate. Debates on “realism” are really debates on other issues, and the most common element on the subject is really a debate between “complexity” and “simplicity.” Pro realism groups want more complex rules, and con realism groups want simpler rules.

The question of believability is not as easy as Timfire might suggest. Believability requires two important elements. The first element is the rule that you want to determine if you can believe in it or not. But the second element is your own understanding of the rule. How you look at a rule can often make all the difference between whether or not you can believe the rule or not.

One example that happened to me recently was a discussion I was in on another forum over the weapon size rules in the revised edition. I’ve always thought they were exceptionally complex and confusing. But I soon realized after looking at it from a different perspective I realized that it all made perfect sense. Rules are like that. Good rules are sometimes not always well explained.

Sometimes they are never explained at all, and become an odd collection of rules that appear to make no sense whatsoever. Let’s take the classic fireball spell as an example.

A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

People often say this is a spell that is not “realistic” or not “believable.” Let’s see why and notice in the process that it is our assumptions that are not believable not the rule itself. It is clear that a fireball is an expansion of something that was projected from the wizard and expands when it hits something or reaches its target. What is expanding? Our first assumption is “fire” because we see the text “an explosion” but reason quickly reminds us that all fiery explosions create “pressure” and a fireball creates no pressure, by the rules.

Does this mean therefore that the fireball is not believable? No it only means that our assumptions are wrong. Only when we run out of believable assumptions can we say that the rule is not believable.

What if we were to say that it was not an “explosion” of fire that makes a fireball but an exploding wave of dimensional instability between the plane and the plane of fire? A wave of dimensional instability would not create pressure. Fire would follow as a result of the wave not as a cause of the wave. It would be the wave that would be impeded by physical barriers, assuming that the accompanying fire, which the wave would bring from the plane of fire, could not destroy the barrier.

My point in the above example is to show a case where the approach we take to a rule, and the assumptions we make which are not a part of the rule itself, are absolutely important in whether or not we can believe in the rule. I’m not going to suggest that all of the rules are perfect – they are not. However, in the same manner not all the rules are explained so that they can be “intuitively obvious to the casual observer.” (An old expression I heard once too many times in college physics classes.) The problem with both realism and believability arguments is that both sides tend to forget this part of the argument and wind up talking past each other and not to each other.
#4
zombiegleemax
Dec 12, 2003 7:40:40 I think an underlying problem in all realism vs. abstraction arguments is that realism itself is a tricky and ambiguous term. As already stated, it is rarely intended to mean adherence to the real world, at least in this context; even then, however, it is often unclear whether a given poster is really meaning believability, level of abstraction or level of detail; worse yet, often these different meanings intermingle with each other. As a result, in many of those threads much effort is wasted as the posters struggle to properly understand each other despite the ambiguity, or twist the meaning on purpose to attack discordant opinions.

Anyway, I want to point out an aspect that has not yet been mentioned: storytelling allowances. Literature is full of examples in which believability, statistics or physical laws are stretched or bent for the sake of the story, even after taking into account any quirk of its setting; in fact, these allowances often become the hallmarks of certain genres.

Cops in cinematic movies can cause enormous amounts of property damage, ignore procedures and freely start gunfights in public places with the bad guys, yet they never face prosecution beyond their chief yelling at them; mythic characters routinely perform superhuman feats, like singlehandedly defeating huge monsters or whole armies of rank-and-file soldiers; action heroes come out unscathed and victorious even when hopelessly outnumbered by enemies carrying automatic weapons; readers are rarely concerned with Superman's disregard for the laws of dynamics, nor do they wonder where female manga characters keep their Huge Hammers of Pervert Bane +5.

While many of these are just a matter of plot or style, some are actually implemented within the rules; as an example, both Star Wars d20 and d20 Modern try to capture a cinematic reality, rather than a grim and gritty one. Not understanding such premises is another source of countless arguments about rules and realism.
#5
hblast
Dec 13, 2003 11:04:33 I read a few posts using the fireball example too, something about a fireball used indoors will have incredible tremendous devastating abilities and blasting through the whole complex (don't really get those workings too great) and that outdoors the fireball would hardly have any use at all.

Something about a point twice as far from the explosion having 1/4 of the power of the blast or whatnot. I shouldn't have dropped physics if I wanted to understand this, but fireball really is THE spell to point out that realism is unachievable in D&D.

I prefer to use the term "logic" over realism. Another nice example is Freedom of Movement and the falling in water thing. Does the water stop you? Or do you drop straight to the bottom of the ocean?

I'm not going into a discussion here, because that would suck up the whole thread, but I agree that realism in D&D is unachievable, and that one should only try to reach a level of compromise between realism/believability/logic, and just plain rules for simplicity.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Dec 04, 2003 8:29:21	The argument of realism vs. abstraction is one that pops up all the time, not just on this forum, but on various RPG forums across the web. The realism camp argues that D&D isn't realistic (most of the time this is in regards to HP and combat, but there are other mechanic disputes that could be classified as realism-based), while the anti-realism camp argues that D&D is abstract and not meant to fully represent reality. The point of this essay is not to argue either for or against realism per se, but to rather suggest a shift in the discussion. I believe people who argue for realism have missed the point a bit. This is not to say they are wrong, but I don't think realism is really what they're looking for. Realism is a complicated and messy thing, and - as the anti-realism folk are quick to point out - the real world doesn't have magic or dragons or other fantasy elements. True realism also tends to dampen dramatic or heroic effects, something many gamers look for in RPG's. So what is it that the realism crowd is looking for if it's not realism? I propose that it's not realism these people should argue for, but rather believability. The difference between realism and believability is subtle, but I think it goes to the core of what these individuals are looking for. I think the realism crowd realizes they aren't looking for true realism. If someone wanted to play real life they wouldn't be playing D&D. But these people just have a hard time believing in certain aspects of the game, whether its the HP or combat system or whatever, and this becomes a distraction in their gaming experience. So what defines believability versus realism? Realism, obviously, is based in real-world physics. If it doesn't exist in or if it doesn't work the same way as it does in the real world it isn't realistic. Believability, however, is based in real-world logic. This means that for a mechanic to be believable, it's underlying logic must work in the real world. Is this just realism with a different name? No, the difference is physics versus logic. Realism is bound by the confines of the real world, and is thus fairly rigid. The rule of believability is logic, and thus is inherently more flexible than realism. A believable mechanic can break the laws of physics if it is still logical. However, the basis for such logic must be found in the real world. This means that a believable game system will be pretty close to realistic, though it may be exaggerated or may contain (unrealistic) fantasy elements. One issue with the idea of believability, however, is that believability is inherently subjective. Different people will have different definitions of what they are willing to believe. Thus switching the "realism" discussions into "believability" discussions will not eliminate the arguments, but it will get both sides arguing about the same things. At present, the realism camp discusses the unrealistic elements of D&D, while the anti-realism camp discusses D&D's abstractive nature, two different (but not mutually exclusive) concepts. Under the concept of believability, both parties can get together and discuss what's really at the heart of most D&D arguments - simple differences in personal opinion.
#2 zombiegleemax Dec 04, 2003 16:42:42	Also there are two different types of believability/realism: the believability of the rules, and the believability of the campaign.
#3 tzor Dec 05, 2003 8:53:55	Timfire’s argument strikes at the heart of the general “realism” debate. Debates on “realism” are really debates on other issues, and the most common element on the subject is really a debate between “complexity” and “simplicity.” Pro realism groups want more complex rules, and con realism groups want simpler rules. The question of believability is not as easy as Timfire might suggest. Believability requires two important elements. The first element is the rule that you want to determine if you can believe in it or not. But the second element is your own understanding of the rule. How you look at a rule can often make all the difference between whether or not you can believe the rule or not. One example that happened to me recently was a discussion I was in on another forum over the weapon size rules in the revised edition. I’ve always thought they were exceptionally complex and confusing. But I soon realized after looking at it from a different perspective I realized that it all made perfect sense. Rules are like that. Good rules are sometimes not always well explained. Sometimes they are never explained at all, and become an odd collection of rules that appear to make no sense whatsoever. Let’s take the classic fireball spell as an example. A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure. You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely. People often say this is a spell that is not “realistic” or not “believable.” Let’s see why and notice in the process that it is our assumptions that are not believable not the rule itself. It is clear that a fireball is an expansion of something that was projected from the wizard and expands when it hits something or reaches its target. What is expanding? Our first assumption is “fire” because we see the text “an explosion” but reason quickly reminds us that all fiery explosions create “pressure” and a fireball creates no pressure, by the rules. Does this mean therefore that the fireball is not believable? No it only means that our assumptions are wrong. Only when we run out of believable assumptions can we say that the rule is not believable. What if we were to say that it was not an “explosion” of fire that makes a fireball but an exploding wave of dimensional instability between the plane and the plane of fire? A wave of dimensional instability would not create pressure. Fire would follow as a result of the wave not as a cause of the wave. It would be the wave that would be impeded by physical barriers, assuming that the accompanying fire, which the wave would bring from the plane of fire, could not destroy the barrier. My point in the above example is to show a case where the approach we take to a rule, and the assumptions we make which are not a part of the rule itself, are absolutely important in whether or not we can believe in the rule. I’m not going to suggest that all of the rules are perfect – they are not. However, in the same manner not all the rules are explained so that they can be “intuitively obvious to the casual observer.” (An old expression I heard once too many times in college physics classes.) The problem with both realism and believability arguments is that both sides tend to forget this part of the argument and wind up talking past each other and not to each other.
#4 zombiegleemax Dec 12, 2003 7:40:40	I think an underlying problem in all realism vs. abstraction arguments is that realism itself is a tricky and ambiguous term. As already stated, it is rarely intended to mean adherence to the real world, at least in this context; even then, however, it is often unclear whether a given poster is really meaning believability, level of abstraction or level of detail; worse yet, often these different meanings intermingle with each other. As a result, in many of those threads much effort is wasted as the posters struggle to properly understand each other despite the ambiguity, or twist the meaning on purpose to attack discordant opinions. Anyway, I want to point out an aspect that has not yet been mentioned: storytelling allowances. Literature is full of examples in which believability, statistics or physical laws are stretched or bent for the sake of the story, even after taking into account any quirk of its setting; in fact, these allowances often become the hallmarks of certain genres. Cops in cinematic movies can cause enormous amounts of property damage, ignore procedures and freely start gunfights in public places with the bad guys, yet they never face prosecution beyond their chief yelling at them; mythic characters routinely perform superhuman feats, like singlehandedly defeating huge monsters or whole armies of rank-and-file soldiers; action heroes come out unscathed and victorious even when hopelessly outnumbered by enemies carrying automatic weapons; readers are rarely concerned with Superman's disregard for the laws of dynamics, nor do they wonder where female manga characters keep their Huge Hammers of Pervert Bane +5. While many of these are just a matter of plot or style, some are actually implemented within the rules; as an example, both Star Wars d20 and d20 Modern try to capture a cinematic reality, rather than a grim and gritty one. Not understanding such premises is another source of countless arguments about rules and realism.
#5 hblast Dec 13, 2003 11:04:33	I read a few posts using the fireball example too, something about a fireball used indoors will have incredible tremendous devastating abilities and blasting through the whole complex (don't really get those workings too great) and that outdoors the fireball would hardly have any use at all. Something about a point twice as far from the explosion having 1/4 of the power of the blast or whatnot. I shouldn't have dropped physics if I wanted to understand this, but fireball really is THE spell to point out that realism is unachievable in D&D. I prefer to use the term "logic" over realism. Another nice example is Freedom of Movement and the falling in water thing. Does the water stop you? Or do you drop straight to the bottom of the ocean? I'm not going into a discussion here, because that would suck up the whole thread, but I agree that realism in D&D is unachievable, and that one should only try to reach a level of compromise between realism/believability/logic, and just plain rules for simplicity.