|
There is one term I'm getting tired of seeing on this forum. Realistic.
Do you think this is realistic? Do you think that is realistic?
Its D&D! It's not supposed realistic. You want a realistic game? Okay. No magic. One shot and you're down. No supernatural abilities. No undead. No monsters. No Dragons. And so forth and so forth.
Come on! What you really need to be asking is whether something is BELIEVABLE within the given context. Maybe certain things work in a way that contradictory to physics and/or biology, but its not this world, or even this universe, different rules can, and probably do apply!
Does this belong on the Rant thread? Probably, but I didn't put it there. Saern's ego has had enough stroking. :P
Hehe.
This gave me a good chuckle Cato. 'Realistic' chaps my khakis too.
I really don't know, man. I think that definition of "realistic" is a tad more hardcore than anyone would ever mean. You can do the same thing with believable. Do I believe that a guy with faith in the Sun can touch a guy and heal his wounds? Well, no I don't. Do I believe in unicorns and dragons? Do I believe in arcane formulae and psionics and elementals and all that stuff?
Does that make the term unusable? I don't think so. I think folks just need to take a deep breath and realize how the words are being used. Honestly people can henpeck other folks' vocabulary until there's not a single word that anyone can ever use to talk about anything with ever.
It's pretty clear what I and others mean by realism. They mean simulating the reality of the setting as loyally as possible. Making it feel real. That's where the real comes in. You try to make the experience as close as possible to if it were really happening, get the players to invest in it. The opposite of this is game-mechanicky clunky weirdness. I mean I think that's gotta' be pretty straightforward. Sorry if it bugs you, or if it throws off your chi when I use the word like this--but I really think its a heckova' lot easier to just talk about what I mean rather than have to jump through a bunch of semantic hoops just to avoid getting flamed by folks who should know what I meant in the first place.
It’s the short form of “does this item push the boundaries of my suspension of disbelief,” which is a serious PITA to type out. I believe the proper word for this is antagonym (e.g. “bad means good”).
“Hate” is bandied about quite liberally as well, and you see quite a few people take offense to it, because in their minds hate is evil, and not to be used (though hatred of an unjust law can certainly foment positive change in society).
Personally, "realistic" in a RPG context also has connotations of "internally consistent with the rules and setting." No, "realism" shouldn't be taken as "things should work as they do in real life," but there should be a fantasy equivalent of "natural laws" that can be relied on. Also, one of the assumptions of RPGs is that the game reality works almost exactly the same as the real world, unless specifically defined otherwise.
One of the worst things a DM can do is change anything and everything on a whim, even contradicting the rules and the setting, with the excuse "it's MAGIC." If he's making changes to the rules set and/or setting, he should communicate the changes to the players ahead of time (unless such changes are not easily observed and/or widely known) and then be consistent with those changes.
So the thread has turned out to be worthy.
In pretty well any discipline the term realism is pretty well useless unless used to distinguish it from another term (romantic, fantastic, surreal). It doesn't really mean much by itself. As in an early definition of realism by Sir P. Harvey: it's "a loosely used term meaning truth to the observed facts of life...."
I think the use of realistic suffers from the same problem. We use it to define only certain qualities of realness, such as when we watch a CG dragon bite someone's head off and it totally "realistic" even though dragons do not exist. It is a word that describes fidelity to a quality which we wish to measure and thus we should be clear on what quality we are calling realistic when we use the word.
As Dragonchess player has suggested, the rules play an important part in this in that we need an internal consistency.
As Grimcleaver suggested, the game making it feel real for us can be called realistic, and the interesting thing about this is it's not just the system but the DMs ability to conjure that feeling and our ability to suspend our disbelief.
As Dragonchess Player said...when I use word "realistic" in context of RPGs I usually mean "internally consistent". It means that I can accept existence of magic and monsters because those are set parameters: magic and monsters exist.
Then I can start questioning that if there is a CR 25 silver dragon residing near the town, how it will affect the town in question? What effect will the existence of Mending or Raise Dead spells have on society? Or the fact that almost everyone can read and write, and speak Common?
While I am willing to accept the parameter that magic does exist, it feels somewhat half-realized to have a feudal pseudomedieval society where all the individuals are out of modern era Western world (or Star Trek). It is, dare I say it, "not realistic". Same for magic which seems to at the same time exist (there are spellcasters) and not exist (spellcasters have surprisingly little effect in the world). Why? How? Does magic really exist as written in PHB/DMG or not?
|
|
Let me give a little explaination for my point of view here.
I'm the type of person that says what I mean. I don't like leaving things to question. Unless I'm making some kind of joke, there's no innuendo or hidden meaning. I avoid, if at all possible, inaccurate descriptions. I try and state things as they are(to the best of my ability, of course).
I'm also a very contextual type of person. I function best when I have the proper context for a situation. I also try and provide context for what I say and do if it isn't readily apparent.
This is why the use of the word "realistic" gets on my nerves. Its missued it so many ways. That's why I use "believable". When I imagine a dragon flying about. I don't imagine one flying past a skyscraper(curse you, Dragon Wars!), I imagine one flying through a land where it could logicly exist. One with magic, supernatural forces, and such.
Is a dragon in our world realistic? Of course not. But it is believable when viewed as part of some other world.
I also agree with Dragonchess Player to a point. But that's a somewhat different subject.
How about using the word, "logical". It avoids the problem with both "realistic" and "believeable" relating to the real world. "Logical" does not require any true facts, it is based on assumptions. If we assume A and B, then C should logical follow from that. The fact that A and B don't really exist doesn't mean the logic that C would follow if they did, is flawed.
How about using the word, "logical". It avoids the problem with both "realistic" and "believeable" relating to the real world. "Logical" does not require any true facts, it is based on assumptions. If we assume A and B, then C should logical follow from that. The fact that A and B don't really exist doesn't mean the logic that C would follow if they did, is flawed.
"Logical" is better because it at least implies a series of mental steps. I agree that "realistic" is a pretty lousy term to use in D&D. In the context of D&D it then becomes a "cliquey" term that only "insiders" would understand. If you tried to explain D&D to someone who's never played before and then started saying how "dwarven women with beards are more realistic than dwarven women without" you'd get snickers and raised eyebrows - because neither is "realistic". If you say "logical" then at least you would have a stronger footing to explain why, even to the uninitiated.
Greg
I prefer the word "verisimilitude" myself.
I prefer the word "verisimilitude" myself.
I have trouble pronouncing it without spitting cheetos all over the battle-mat. :-)
I have trouble pronouncing it without spitting cheetos all over the battle-mat. :-)
This is why your mother was always telling you not to talk with your mouth full, Greg. In case you ever found occasion to use words like verisimilitude in front of your friends.
I prefer the word "verisimilitude" myself.I have trouble pronouncing it without spitting cheetos all over the battle-mat. :-)
I also am a big fan of verisimilitude...and cheetos, truth be told.
I also am a big fan of verisimilitude...and cheetos, truth be told.I prefer the word "verisimilitude" myself.I have trouble pronouncing it without spitting cheetos all over the battle-mat. :-)
But where's the mountain dew?
I also am a big fan of verisimilitude...and cheetos, truth be told.I prefer the word "verisimilitude" myself.I have trouble pronouncing it without spitting cheetos all over the battle-mat. :-)
Now in all seriousness, I've seen the word used a lot (and maybe have even used it on occasion) but never knew the exact definition. So, in the interest of educating myself (and maybe someone else) I did a little digging:
According to Wikipedia:
Verisimilitude—or truthlikeness—in the philosophy of science is trying to articulate how a false theory could be closer to the truth than another false theory.
And according to Miriam-Webster:
verisimilar
1 : having the appearance of truth : probable
2 : depicting realism (as in art or literature)
Interestingly, the Wikipedia definition is closer to what we are discussing here than the MW. According to MW, its seems to be nearly a synonym for "realistic", where Wikipedia seems to more what we are discussing here. (As an aside, doesn't does "truthlikeness" sound like something Stephen Colbert would come up with?)
That's it. Discuss or ignore at your leisure...
Greg
But where's the mountain dew?I also am a big fan of verisimilitude...and cheetos, truth be told.I prefer the word "verisimilitude" myself.I have trouble pronouncing it without spitting cheetos all over the battle-mat. :-)
IN THE FRIDGE, I TOLD YOU!
I echo many of the "does it push my suspension of disbelief" statements made by the other posters. When people try to bring "real-world" realism into the game, that's where I begin to take issue with things. The "You take damage from your own shocking weapon while you're underwater..."-type arguements are the things that irk me. Bat-poop, a match-head, and some funny words and gestures can make a 40 ft conflagration of fire, but you feel the need to have more "realism" in the game? Sorry, not in my setting...
The realistic part is also one of my pet peeves. Whenever someone tells me that something is unrealistic, and in the same breath talks about some character that can make things to up in flames by thinking about it.
Call it credible or believable, but not realistic. Realistic doesn't belong to a fantasy setting (unless the author has a very poor imagination ;-))
IN THE FRIDGE, I TOLD YOU!
Important: Those mountain dew bottles under the stairs do NOT contain mountain dew. Beware.
Now in all seriousness, I've seen the word used a lot (and maybe have even used it on occasion) but never knew the exact definition. So, in the interest of educating myself (and maybe someone else) I did a little digging:
According to Wikipedia:
Verisimilitude—or truthlikeness—in the philosophy of science is trying to articulate how a false theory could be closer to the truth than another false theory.And according to Miriam-Webster:
verisimilar
1 : having the appearance of truth : probable
2 : depicting realism (as in art or literature)Interestingly, the Wikipedia definition is closer to what we are discussing here than the MW. According to MW, its seems to be nearly a synonym for "realistic", where Wikipedia seems to more what we are discussing here. (As an aside, doesn't does "truthlikeness" sound like something Stephen Colbert would come up with?)
That's it. Discuss or ignore at your leisure...
Greg
I like Wikipedia's definition better, too. And "truthlikeness" does sound very Colbertian, but it's also the exact definition.
From the Latin:
veri - meaning "truth"
similis - meaning "like"
Does it have the ring of truth, like any other good story?
A much better question to explore than "is it realistic?"
Important: Those mountain dew bottles under the stairs do NOT contain mountain dew. Beware.
Interestingly enough, one of the euphemisms for moonshine is Mountain Dew.
I also am a big fan of verisimilitude...and cheetos, truth be told.I prefer the word "verisimilitude" myself.I have trouble pronouncing it without spitting cheetos all over the battle-mat. :-)Now in all seriousness, I've seen the word used a lot (and maybe have even used it on occasion) but never knew the exact definition. So, in the interest of educating myself (and maybe someone else) I did a little digging:
According to Wikipedia:
Verisimilitude—or truthlikeness—in the philosophy of science is trying to articulate how a false theory could be closer to the truth than another false theory.And according to Miriam-Webster:
verisimilar
1 : having the appearance of truth : probable
2 : depicting realism (as in art or literature)Interestingly, the Wikipedia definition is closer to what we are discussing here than the MW. According to MW, its seems to be nearly a synonym for "realistic", where Wikipedia seems to more what we are discussing here. (As an aside, doesn't does "truthlikeness" sound like something Stephen Colbert would come up with?)
That's it. Discuss or ignore at your leisure...
Greg
Hmmm in the arts (especially theatre) verisimilitude has a completely different meaning than the one wiki cites.
It means that "consistent within the parameters of an established world or universe of a play." The world or universe you establish need have absolutely no basis in "reality" whatsoever.
Hmmm in the arts (especially theatre) verisimilitude has a completely different meaning than the one wiki cites.
It means that "consistent within the parameters of an established world or universe of a play." The world or universe you establish need have absolutely no basis in "reality" whatsoever.
And yet, I still think this definition is applicable (and fits the "truthlikeness" nature of the word).
When I run into things that seem internally contradictory in a game, it throws me out.
Hmmm in the arts (especially theatre) verisimilitude has a completely different meaning than the one wiki cites.
It means that "consistent within the parameters of an established world or universe of a play." The world or universe you establish need have absolutely no basis in "reality" whatsoever.
Well, I may be putting on my "Captain Obvious" hat, but it does say "in the philosophy of science", so I'm guessing it's roots are in scientific hypotheses and their relative accuracies.
It's probably not surprising that there is a different definition when applied the arts. But why neither Wikipedia nor MW had it, is interesting.
Greg
On a related note the Troll disliked the evolutionary approach used in some Ecology Of writeups. It disturbed the Trolls verisimilitude.
In the Troll's world maggots and rot grubs spontaneously arise from uncovered meat, rats are spawned by sewers and Red Dragons breath fire because it is their nature to do so.
The Troll
It disturbed the Trolls verisimilitude.
A little bit of Pepto-Bismol can help that.
Hmmm in the arts (especially theatre) verisimilitude has a completely different meaning than the one wiki cites.It means that "consistent within the parameters of an established world or universe of a play." The world or universe you establish need have absolutely no basis in "reality" whatsoever.
Isn´t that exactly what is discussed here? "consistent within the parameters" in a game world is what comes very close to the matter at hand. And, come to think about it, a definition borrowed from theatre is probably more fitting to RPGs than a scientific one.
Stefan
On a related note the Troll disliked the evolutionary approach used in some Ecology Of writeups. It disturbed the Trolls verisimilitude.
In the Troll's world maggots and rot grubs spontaneously arise from uncovered meat, rats are spawned by sewers and Red Dragons breath fire because it is their nature to do so.
A very accurate point. I had similar problems with Atropus in Elder Evils (it talked about orbiting planets and the like) and some other stuff I've read recently.
But the original reason I was going to post was about the realism thing - I've found that most often when one of my players wants to talk about realism, they want to twink some feature of the game to do what they want.
But the original reason I was going to post was about the realism thing - I've found that most often when one of my players wants to talk about realism, they want to twink some feature of the game to do what they want.
"That's not realistic at all! My character should die outright from a fall like that!"
We know how to choose our battles, sir.
Roll the dice to see if I'm getting drunk!
Am I in the room where everyone's casting all these spells?
Are there girls... Alright, that's enough of that.
*ahem*
Anyway, realism != realistic. Realistic means resembling reality, not being reality. Different people have different definitions of what it takes to resemble reality. Personally, I want the universe to be internally consistent, like the real universe, and for it to favor intuitive thoughts like a rock being heavy, and fire being painful.
Are there girls... Alright, that's enough of that.
*ahem*
Owww!!! Right in my darkness! It burns ussss
Owww!!! Right in my darkness! It burns ussssAre there girls... Alright, that's enough of that.
*ahem*
You know what'll make that all better? Some of this Mountain Dew I found under the stairs...
Does this belong on the Rant thread? Probably, but I didn't put it there. Saern's ego has had enough stroking. :P
My ego... it hungers!
Anyway, I'm in the camp that does not favor the term realism or realistic when applied to D&D. About half the times I've seen it used, it's been associated with arguments such as that posted by Warforged Goblin ("You take damage from your own shocking weapon under water"). That kind of approach to the game both angers and bores me terribly.
Essentially, the term realism (or realistic) has no real meaning in D&D, as everyone's conceptions of what realistic means is different. No one ever bothers to spell out what exactly they means by realism. Nor should they. It would be tedious and boring. A better solution is to find a more appropriate word, as suggested toward the beginning of the thread.
Believable is better than realistic, logical is better than believable (because believable is still very relative), and verisimilitude is best of all, at least for me (since there may well be times that in-game logical needs a minor contradiction to retain the feel of the setting and the action).
The problem with verisimilitude is that it doesn't describe the kind of setting you are trying to create. Verisimilitude is equally applicable in the Eberron, Forgotten Realms, and Middle Earth, but means something totally different in each. The term "realism" often connotates an affinity with the latter settings and rejection or dislike of the former, but it still doesn't have enough real meaning. Other terms, such as low or high magic or a description of the normal socioeconomic status (more advanced in Eberron, more primitive in Middle Earth); other terms are more useful in describing the setting one wishes to portray than realistic.
In my experience, most of the "realism" issues in D&D are economic. And this makes sense; you can handwave physics, you can handwave anatomical logistics, but you can't handwave supply and demand.
This is mostly a problem in high-magic settings. For low-magic settings where most people haven't even seen a magic item, the prices of magic items versus the prices of nonmagic items and services seems pretty fair. In a high-magic campaign setting like Eberron, however, the prices are the same... and yet Everburning Torches line the streets of Sharn, each worth enough to house and feed a man for two years! Magic items are still worth many, many times more than nonmagic goods, so if everybody has magic items, the only explanation is that everybody has a lot more money... which doesn't make sense when the rates they charge for services are the same, too.
And this isn't even entering into the impact spells like Fabricate have on supply and demand...
(Trivia! In Eberron, the service of a barrister (a lawyer) costs 1 gp/day! Note that this figure lines up neatly with PHB services prices.)