I have seen a lot of people indicate that they require verisimilitude from their game of choice. This still perplexes me. I am hoping that someone might be able to set me straight.
I understand that verisimilitude != realism. We are talking about dragons and magic here. O.k. I can wrap my head around that.
Would someone explain to me how D&D (whichever edition does so for you) offers verisimilitude?
Verisimilitude in gaming (as I understand it) is not realism but resonating with a stable internal logic.
Magic, weird critters, space monster or any other whacky thing is fine as long as the laws of the (game) universe are consistent in their application (even if the laws themselves are mutable).
So the most believable games (easiest to suspend disbelief) have verisimilitude, as in a reflection of enough real world rules / concepts for comfort, and a set of extraneous rules (to cover non real world events & powers) that once understood allow further consistent application.
Thats at least the way I mean it/understand it.
Edit: In other words, Verisimilitude = realism (but not necessarily realistic)
The only thing I'd add to ArchLich's definition (and this is arguably an unnecessary extension of what he already said) is that verisimilitude means that actions have consequences.
If the dragon burns 75% of the local fields shortly before harvest, that can't be just the hook to get brave adventurers to go kill the dragon and make it all better: farmers are going to be broke with no harvest to sell; food prices are going up in the city due to shortages; some people may starve.
It's not necessary that the PCs deal personally with any of this, or that the DM describe how any NPCs did so, but you have to acknowledge the problems exist or it's not satisfactory.
|
Verisimilitude
Think of it more as "the subconscious suspension of disbelief" -- you know it's not real; you don't really believe it's real -- but you subconsciously "suspend" that disbelief. (So you can enjoy it)
You're watching cartoons, say, and you know that rabbits don't really stand erect or have speech: they can't say "What's up, Doc?" You know that you can't really take the two barrels of a double-barrel shot-gun and tie them in a knot so that it backfires on the pig that's trying to hunt wabbit.
But you totally buy into it.
Every time.
You can't get enough of it.
It's funny as hell.
How come?
Because if it's animated you automatically -- subconsciously -- accept that it's a Looney universe.
Think about it, do you think to yourself, Well, that's just a sitcom set; it's not a real house but 3 flats decorated as walls lashed together and there is no 4th wall at all, just a camera & mike... They're not really married they're just actors reading lines, etc., etc.
If something happens in that movie or cartoon or D&D game or whatever that throws your mind out of its "suspension of disbelief" -- if you stop and think Hey, that can't be real, you've lost your verisimilitude.
That's verisimilitude. I hate the lame ass definition "appearance of realism" -- it's not good enough. Everyone's "level" of verisimilitude is different.
For me, for example, when I saw the movie From Dusk Till Dawn, I spent the first 1/2 of the movie thinking it was about 2 crooks escaping and running to Mexico. (I hadn't seen any previews; I didn't know what it was about.) When all the sudden vampires started showing up I was furious! I hated it. My verisimilitude was totally broken. You don't put vampires in those kinds of movies. I almost walked out of the theatre -- only I was my friends' ride home and we did pay those stupid movie prices.
Men in Black was the same for me the first time I saw it. Again, I don't have a TV; I hadn't seen any previews; I had no idea what it was about. I knew it was big; everyone was talking about it. The opening minutes of the movie I was really excited -- Tommie Lee Jones as some kind of CIA or something officer on that old desert road with a bunch of illegal Mexicans -- that was a heckuva intro... Then all the sudden it's some kinda silly alien movie with Ghostbusters-like aliens. WTF?! I did walk out of the theatre that time, dragging my girlfriend (who wasn't into movies anyway) back to the house.
As a gamer my verisimilitude was lost in "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks." D&D is for swords and sorcery in my mind -- NOT lasers and flying saucers!
Lashonna, a Silver Dragon Vampire! -- OMFG, are you kidding me?!
-W. E. Ray
Taking verisimilitude in its "truth-like" sense, plenty of people will find different criteria for what do they find verisimilar.
Some people see Legolas' exploits like swinging from the neck of a horse in motion to ride it and say "I don't buy that."
Some people see the Witch King of Angmaar telling Gandalf "It is death you're looking at" before destroying his staff and say "I don't buy that."
Some people see this same Witch King falling to a warrior that removes her helmet saying "I am no man!" before killing him ans say "I don't buy that."
Some people see Aragorn negotiating with the ghost army and say "I don't buy that."
It all boils down to what a GM wants/doesn't want to see happening in his games.
In my case? I settle for the game's rules being the world's rules, but then that's not verisimilitude, that's congruence.
Taking verisimilitude in its "truth-like" sense, plenty of people will find different criteria for what do they find verisimilar.
QFT.
And even a "realistic" story with no magic and no science fiction is bound to have SOME element that makes no sense, in some respect. It's often necessary to keep the story moving and exciting; besides, writers are only human and will make mistakes.
Incidentally, that's why I don't much like d20 at high levels; I find it hard to believe that a knife is no longer a credible threat (which at 1d4 damage it isn't, unless in the hands of a class designed especially for knife use, or else in the hands of a fighter who has specialised in it; but even then only in pathfinder), and I find it hard to believe that a high level character can be hit by a quiver full of arrows and still survive it.
Heh. I'll never forget the time I ran an adventure I called "Diplomacy & Death." The PCs were guarding a diplomatic function in a castle. In the dining hall, weapons were prohibited. At the table the cutlery included knives whose stats made them completely impractical as weapons. But of course, even 1 point of damage is enough for an assassin to make a death attack...
Just rambling. As for the business of getting more hit points at higher levels, I always figured that was probably inspired, at least in part, by Howard's Conan stories. They kept saying things like "Conan took enough wounds to fell five normal men, but he kept fighting." Obviously, it's not realistic, but some people like those kinds of stories. It's hard to kill a long-running character.
Personally, I like to see believability in my games. Not necessarily realism, because that could get old quickly, but believability. Incidentally, that's why I don't much like d20 at high levels; I find it hard to believe that a knife is no longer a credible threat (which at 1d4 damage it isn't, unless in the hands of a class designed especially for knife use, or else in the hands of a fighter who has specialised in it; but even then only in pathfinder), and I find it hard to believe that a high level character can be hit by a quiver full of arrows and still survive it.
I want to jump in to talk about this point, as I have argued with people over the years about this. Basically it boils down to what a 'hit' is in game terms. Does it wound? Draw blood? Or is it a near miss/deflection off armor or an artful parry/dodge?
What are Hit Points? Are Hit Points a measure of sheer abilty to take damage? In some cases, say a tyrannosaurus, perhaps, but why does a 15th-level fighter have more Hit Points than Farmer John? They're both humans right?
You kind of have to think of Hit Points as less abilty to soak up wounds than the training and ability to deflect wounding attacks IMO. In my games, most 'hits' don't truly hit, they are a hard attack that fatigues the opponent a bit. Sometimes the hit is a mere scratch where a less-experienced person would have gotten a deeper wound.
The 15th-level fighter I alluded to will be able to stay up and fighting before getting winded much longer than Farmer John thanks to his rigorous training and experience, ergo it will take many more 'hits' to fell him. With both, the final few hit points of damage leading to zero are the only really serious wounds.
If you look at cinematic fights, there are very few cuts that draw blood, there is usually a period of energetic swordplay with ringing parries, blocks and ripostes with an occasional head weave and jump over the opponent's sword. Only at the end does the victor jab the swordpoint home.
My 2 Cp on versimilitude in hit points
So why do weapons which should do more damage fatigue you more? Why is T-Rex able to nimbly avoid blows as well? Why does the rogue who can avoid traps completely not get any compensation at all?
To me, this is all after the fact rationalization. Hit Points are an abstraction. A little inconsistent, but hey. I have no problem with abstracting Hit Points. Just do not try to turn around and tell me Martial Powers make no sense.
|
Personally, I like to see believability in my games. Not necessarily realism, because that could get old quickly, but believability. Incidentally, that's why I don't much like d20 at high levels; I find it hard to believe that a knife is no longer a credible threat (which at 1d4 damage it isn't, unless in the hands of a class designed especially for knife use, or else in the hands of a fighter who has specialised in it; but even then only in pathfinder), and I find it hard to believe that a high level character can be hit by a quiver full of arrows and still survive it.I want to jump in to talk about this point, as I have argued with people over the years about this. Basically it boils down to what a 'hit' is in game terms. Does it wound? Draw blood? Or is it a near miss/deflection off armor or an artful parry/dodge?
What are Hit Points? Are Hit Points a measure of sheer abilty to take damage? In some cases, say a tyrannosaurus, perhaps, but why does a 15th-level fighter have more Hit Points than Farmer John? They're both humans right?
You kind of have to think of Hit Points as less abilty to soak up wounds than the training and ability to deflect wounding attacks IMO. In my games, most 'hits' don't truly hit, they are a hard attack that fatigues the opponent a bit. Sometimes the hit is a mere scratch where a less-experienced person would have gotten a deeper wound.
The 15th-level fighter I alluded to will be able to stay up and fighting before getting winded much longer than Farmer John thanks to his rigorous training and experience, ergo it will take many more 'hits' to fell him. With both, the final few hit points of damage leading to zero are the only really serious wounds.
If you look at cinematic fights, there are very few cuts that draw blood, there is usually a period of energetic swordplay with ringing parries, blocks and ripostes with an occasional head weave and jump over the opponent's sword. Only at the end does the victor jab the...
I've always thought of class HD as being "training" and racial HD as being "ability to take damage" - hence a dragon is actually getting cut all up by longswords with each hit, but it takes many to actually slay it. By comparison, the high level fighter is not getting hit the same number of times as the dragon, they are turning those wounds aside with armor/rolls/parrying/training.
So why do weapons which should do more damage fatigue you more? Why is T-Rex able to nimbly avoid blows as well? Why does the rogue who can avoid traps completely not get any compensation at all?
To me, this is all after the fact rationalization. Hit Points are an abstraction. A little inconsistent, but hey. I have no problem with abstracting Hit Points. Just do not try to turn around and tell me Martial Powers make no sense.
I would never do that noble poodle. To my thinking rules systems are just a personal preference, not a declaration of partisanship. I'm just kinda talking my rationalizations which help me to maintain my own sense of versililitude. I know the concept of hit points is an inconsistent abstraction, but it works for me and allows me to arbitrate the storyline.
I've always thought of class HD as being "training" and racial HD as being "ability to take damage" - hence a dragon is actually getting cut all up by longswords with each hit, but it takes many to actually slay it. By comparison, the high level fighter is not getting hit the same number of times as the dragon, they are turning those wounds aside with armor/rolls/parrying/training.
A good point Jal, and I totally agree with it. I mean it is silly to think a rhino has less hit points than a high-level fighter, but if you think of it as two separate 'types' of hit points it makes sense. The way I think of it is that hit points ARE an abstraction, and can take into account many factors when expressing someone's staying power in a fight.
|
To get back to the OPs thing about Verisimilitude, I'm not entirely certain it's entirely about 'realism' so much as atmosphere. When one of my players declares he's going to leap off the magical flying ship and onto the back of a dragon to stab it with his Hoarfrost Blade nobody yells: "Wait a second... you can't carve a functional sword out of ice!"
Rather it's about generating a consistent atmosphere. If you run Pathfinder as an over-the-top action fantasy game where the laws of physics come second to the laws of being completely awesome then your players would want you to remain consistent with that.
Also it's about creating believable NPCs with their own agendas. Whether the PCs visit their old friend the captain of the guard who's annoying secretary won't let them in because "he's in a meeting" and the villain they are about to accuse of murder then walks smugly out of the office 10 minutes later. Or whether it's a dungeon where the monsters don't just stand around piles of treasure waiting to get slaughtered.
Sometimes that means taking a pre-published dungeon and tweaking the logic a little. If there are guards placed outside, and they see an intruder then one of the guards should probably run inside and warn *everybody*. That means intelligent guardians go on alert and patrol, or set ambushes. It means occasionally half-way through a fight PCs end up having to fight a two-way battle. It means if the PCs are low on health and retreat to rest up then the denizens of the dungeon send out scouts and trackers to murder the meddling heroes.
What you then have is a more dynamic game that engages the players to think actively about the consequences of their actions. Once the players are engaged at that level it's very rare they worry about a little thing like how does a medusa eat if everything she looks at turns to stone?
Just do not try to turn around and tell me Martial Powers make no sense.
WhereTF did this come from?
You asked a pretty open-ended question.
One answer would be keeping a roughly constant speed when moving at a diagonal by counting 1-2-1-2
I would never do that noble poodle.
Fair enough. I was not singling you out, Patrick. Just trying to understand some of the anti-4e arguments.
Does the gaming/story world have that "inner consistency of reality" as Tolkien put it, or, its own "logic," as some have put it above? There has to be a way things work. If anything can happen in a game, nothing can happen -- the players cannot inhabit their characters and interact with the world with any satisfactory chance of making something happen. Also, as has already been mentioned, for their to be voluntary suspension of disbelief, there has to be this sense of verisimilitude for them to maintain it, making the world seem real and their actions of value. As it is for the reader in fiction, so it is for the player in rpging. If you don't enter the world, you don't enter the role. There are species of board games and video games that also do not require verisimilitude, but these are different kinds of games.
Perhaps you are confusing the meaning of "verisimilitude" with "exactly representative/reproductive of reality"? Verisimilitude is having the appearance of truth, thus we have magic, monsters, etc. But monsters have ecologies, magic has rules, etc. This is absolutely necessary. Tolkien, again, came up with the concept through studying fairy tales -- stories as "unrealistic" as you can get, right? What he found in the genre is a consistent putting forward of rules of various sorts that the stories depend on. (Yes, I am dependent of Tolkien--and perhaps Lewis--here for my conceptualization of the issues, but he /they were dependent on George MacDonald and G. K. Chesterton.)
The more developed the verisimilitude of a world is, the more potential it has for the player to enter the character and not get knocked out of it by a lack of that inner consistency that is productive of a secondary reality.
Perhaps you are confusing the meaning of "verisimilitude" with "exactly representative/reproductive of reality"?
Yes, I am not seeing a difference in your elaboration. Would you further elaborate?
I find it difficult to get much clearer than this, since the difference is obvious to me. I attempted to unpack this in the lines immediately following this quote. I will think about it. A potential problem might be that the term, like all terms that get taken up in theoretic ventures, has been used variously, and I am using in in the way Tolkien used it--and also Newman, but that takes us into philosophical territory we don't need to go into.
Perhaps if you attempted a thought experiment: Try to create a role-playing scenario in which there were absolutely no rules. This would be the limit case of anti-verisimilitude.
Is verisimilitude always subjective? It seems to me that every role playing game has some sort of verisimilitude. Some are more internally consistent with their rules. However, by its very definition, it seems a role playing game must present a means of abstracting the events of a world. And in that, there is always some measure of verisimilitude.
Perhaps if you attempted a thought experiment: Try to create a role-playing scenario in which there were absolutely no rules. This would be the limit case of anti-verisimilitude.
So rules light systems have less verisimilitude and rules heavy system have more?
Yes. But admitting that it is subjective (always relative to/subject to some judge) is not admitting any fault with it. Just like there are folks who are better at telling the difference between truth and falsehood in certain areas, there are folks who are better at creating/maintaining/recognizing the inner consistency of a secondary creation. That's not going to help end any edition wars, but you didn't really think that was likely, did you?
Perhaps if you attempted a thought experiment: Try to create a role-playing scenario in which there were absolutely no rules. This would be the limit case of anti-verisimilitude.So rules light systems have less verisimilitude and rules heavy system have more?
What does rule heavy or rule light have to do with whether there are rules or not? Could too many rules produce it's own set of problems, just as too few could? If we are broadening rules to include "flavor," then the distinction ends up being between a more thoroughly imagined world and a less thoroughly imagined world. Assuming that they both share the same level of consistency, of course a more thoroughly imagined world will have greater verisimilitude than one that is less thoroughly imagined. I'm guessing we can both think of games we played in over an extended period of time that were more developed and thus will always seem more real to us?
No, I am not looking to end the Edition Wars. I am just trying to understand them better.
If I am understanding correctly, then, it has nothing to do with crunch and everything to do with fluff? Or am I off base again?
Thanks for your patience, Mairkurion {tm}.
I will use Hero as an example since that will be less likely to rankle people here.
Hero has very internally consistent rules focused on simulating reality. However, the core rule book has no setting at all. So would that mean it has little to no verisimilitude?
No problem, man. I started to delete the stuff I said about rules/flavor, but I figured it was inevitable. You're talking to someone who is very opinionated against making a strong dichotomy between the two: I think the best rules are crafted to support flavor as much as ease of play. So, the more imagined a world, the more flavor there is for the rules to support. If there is a potential confusion in bringing in the literary theory to illuminate gaming, it is probably the fact the word "rules' have a different meaning. In Tolkien's Faerie, rules are the foundational structures of the "flavor," not the mechanics, as they are in gaming. Hopefully, I'm not muddying the water I'm trying to clarify.
|
Is verisimilitude always subjective? It seems to me that every role playing game has some sort of verisimilitude. Some are more internally consistent with their rules. However, by its very definition, it seems a role playing game must present a means of abstracting the events of a world. And in that, there is always some measure of verisimilitude.
It is subjective, if only because everyone has a different idea of what appears true.
I think I am starting to understand.
No rules = pretend. I would not classify pretend as a role playing game. Others may.
So it is more of how the rules simulate the world? How the crunch simulates the fluff?
In that case, Hero by itself has no verisimilitude until someone applies it to a world. After the application of a world, Hero's verisimilitude depends on how well it simulates that world.
|
Is verisimilitude always subjective? It seems to me that every role playing game has some sort of verisimilitude. Some are more internally consistent with their rules. However, by its very definition, it seems a role playing game must present a means of abstracting the events of a world. And in that, there is always some measure of verisimilitude.
Hit points are an example of an exception that we grit our teeth and accept. If a 10th level Fighter or a 1st level Commoner takes 8 hit points of damage, it doesn't matter if we wave our hands and pretend that the Fighter avoided the damage through skill, training or luck, he still requires the same amount rolled on a Cure Light Wounds to 'fix' those eight hit points. It takes the same amount of positive energy to heal that Dying Commoner as it does that 10th level Fighter who didn't even notice the injury. It's a kludge and one that I accept.
GURPS has far more simulationist rules, and could be regarded as having much more versimilitude. Mutants & Masterminds could be regarded as having much *less* versimilitude (and designedly so, as the 'reality' it is 'simulating' is that of comic books). I like both games, and 3.X D&D as well, despite their widely disparate levels of versimilitude.
But if a game setting says that 'clerics and wizards can do X' and then painstakingly presents a medieval-clone world that shows absolutely *no* differences, it makes my head spin. If a setting goes a step further and presents NPCs doing things that are quite simply 'impossible' to PCs, that bugs me. The rules of a game only exist to make it fun for everyone, and when they get in the way, they should be rightly modified or taken out behind the woodshed. But when the rules are just flat-out ignored to make an irrelevant DMNPC able to do something that the game doesn't allow, that's not 'adding fun.' That's the setting-author or DM playing with himself and forcing his players to watch.
I will happily suspend disbelief to have multi-tonned flying reptiles that can breath cold, because it's magic and magic can do funky stuff, and it's absolutely vital to the setting (particularly in a game called Dungeons & Dragons). But other stuff, from terribly considerate and unselfish Efreeti who would never dream of granting a Wish that benefits themselves, to spiked chains drawn by people who couldn't be bothered to twirl a necklace around on their finger to see how the links of a chain rotate while in use, bug me. (The stats for those things? Fine. If anything, the spiked chain is, IMO, the only Exotic Weapon worth blowing a Feat on. It's the lame art that bugs me.)
Perhaps if you attempted a thought experiment: Try to create a role-playing scenario in which there were absolutely no rules. This would be the limit case of anti-verisimilitude.No game rules, or no rules period?
Because you can't have the latter: guidelines will develop simply from the nature of people (or else you're dealing with actually the honestly insane). The success of the venture will depend on whether the group can adopt one set everyone more or less agrees to use.
Yeap, sorry, SilvercatMoonpaw (see above). What I meant specifically was no rules in-world. As in, "Oh, this game has magic, so anything goes!" If I step through a portal into a room where nothing is anchored to the floor, you immediately start producing (if you're CF and do it after the fact, that is ;) ) the in-world rules (flavor) about how in the Poodle-Sith realm, there is no gravity because the ancient Poodle Lord's death created the Poodle-Sith effect, which is matched by gaming rules about how play takes place in areas with anti-gravity effects. You probably also start making both kinds of "rules" about portals, ad infinitum.
But what you said about game mechanics also applies, and I think just as much, to the co-creation of a secondary world that the gamers inhabit together.
TO HD & Set -- thanks for the assists, both which shed light on what I was saying about VS/SDB.
Mutants & Masterminds could be regarded as having much *less* versimilitude (and designedly so, as the 'reality' it is 'simulating' is that of comic books). I like both games, and 3.X D&D as well, despite their widely disparate levels of versimilitude.
I find this a bit confusing. Does verisimilitude apply to reality or the world which a game system represents. Does Toon have plenty of verisimilitude or none at all?
|
|
No, I am not looking to end the Edition Wars. I am just trying to understand them better.
If I am understanding correctly, then, it has nothing to do with crunch and everything to do with fluff? Or am I off base again?
Thanks for your patience, Mairkurion {tm}.
I want to preface this with I don't care about editions. Well, 1e rocks and everything after can kiss off, but, well, you know what I mean...
Part of what I'm seeing with the "4e bad" group is D&D meant a certain thing (Vancian magic, classes not working in similar manners, mechanically, and, for 3x players, a unified, not exception based, rules system (why 4e's exception based system would bother old school players is beyond me, it was the way OD&D/AD&D/BECMI worked)), and 4e changed a lot of what D&D was at it's core for 34 years.
Part of what I'm seeing with the "4e good" group is a lot of them didn't much like previous editions anyway, and think 4e does a nice job of addressing a lot of what they disliked about D&D (poor inter-class balance, Vancian magic, and, in 3x, unified systems that handcuff GMs).
So, it is kind of a combo of rules and flavor that cause the two camps to give each other the stink eye, and both rules and flavor contribute to verisimilitude. Neither camp gets what they need out of the other's preferred game (with some crossover exceptions), so they go on the web and have death matches.
|
|
Mutants & Masterminds could be regarded as having much *less* versimilitude (and designedly so, as the 'reality' it is 'simulating' is that of comic books). I like both games, and 3.X D&D as well, despite their widely disparate levels of versimilitude.I find this a bit confusing. Does verisimilitude apply to reality or the world which a game system represents. Does Toon have plenty of verisimilitude or none at all?
Toon does, as the goal is to represent WoW (World of Warner). Verisimilitude only means "reality" in context. The "reality" of Warner Bros. cartoons is you can fall from 2000 feet, a ring of dust goes "poof" when you land, and in the next scene you're painting a tunnel on a mountainside.
That seems to contradict Set's statement. M&M would have just as much verisimilitude since it is simulating comic books. Maybe even more if it does a better (highly arguable) job.
|
|
That seems to contradict Set's statement. M&M would have just as much verisimilitude since it is simulating comic books. Maybe even more if it does a better (highly arguable) job.
I think people use the word differently. For me, verisimilitude is gauged in the context of the setting/what the rules are trying to accomplish. To others, it is in relation to the real world.
It's one of those words that make debates like this difficult, if everyone has a different idea of what it means.
I would never do that noble poodle.Fair enough. I was not singling you out, Patrick. Just trying to understand some of the anti-4e arguments.
I've never understood those. I still can't wrap my head around all the foo-faraw in 'which game engine do you use?'. If we lived next door to each other CF, in the interests of being able to play an actual table top game I'd learn Hero. Just as I'd dust off my 1st Edition books if HD was my neighbor.
I am very blase about rules, I have a good versimilitude-tuned imagination. ALL math equations about resolving actions in a NON-REAL setting are fairly arbitrary. I'm sure Hero has its weak spots, as does every edition of D&D, Pathfinder, Amber diceless, Fudge, World of Darkness, etc.etc.
If anyone ever comes up with the perfect ruleset that no one can tell the difference from real life, then I will build them an altar and sacrifice a calf in their honor.
That would also largely explain my confusion in regards to D&D verisimilitude. I never read Jack Vance. I could not stand Tolkien. D&D never simulated the Fantasy I was use to, which was largely movies and Conan comic books.
If anyone ever comes up with the perfect ruleset that no one can tell the difference from real life, then I will build them an altar and sacrifice a calf in their honor.Someone did. it's called "real life". That's why we play games, to get away from that system!
;)
LOL, my point exactly ;)
|
|
Toon does, as the goal is to represent WoW (World of Warner). Verisimilitude only means "reality" in context. The "reality" of Warner Bros. cartoons is you can fall from 2000 feet, a ring of dust goes "poof" when you land, and in the next scene you're painting a tunnel on a mountainside.
BEEP! BEEP!
That would also largely explain my confusion in regards to D&D verisimilitude. I never read Jack Vance. I could not stand Tolkien. D&D never simulated the Fantasy I was use to, which was largely movies and Conan comic books.
Well, Versimilitude is a really vague subject. What one person can easily believe makes another cringe. I think Set mentioned above dragons as an unrealistic monster, and if you go by sheer physics that is totally correct. Giant insects are another, their sheer size would strangle them unless the atmosphere had a lot more oxygen.
One sticking point I have always had is the sheer number of sentient races in a given world. You would have thought caveelf, cavedwarf, caveorc and caveman would have duked it out for supremacy in the dark mists of prehistory.
All these things you kinda have to give a mulligan to, either that or go back to watching sports on TV.