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.People will argue about what kind of calf to sacrifice. And then other people will insist it should be a sheep.
*sigh* probably right there SM. Look how much blood is shed in the real world arguing about which 'ruleset' in divine matters is correct.
The one off Witten's foot certainly ruined my verisimilitude.
I was not even thinking about the fluff, but you are absolutely right. The fact that Elves and Dwarves live so much longer than humans brings a big hammer smashing through any immersion I have.
"So…um, your Elven Fighter is 1000 years old?"
"Yep. Cool, huh?"
"And he gets less Skill Points than my Human Rogue?"
"…"
"Does he have some kind of learning disability?"
I have a similar reaction about a lot of D&D's fluff: I think all the races should be presented as having personalities/cultures exactly as varied and not in any way unlike humans because I grew up with a lot of moral lessons about how everyone is actually very similar despite outward differences.
I usually get beyond my dislike of many differing sentients in one world by the old EPT* standby of an ancient mystery beings that brought many differing races from differing places together for amusement and servitors.
I also try to include many variants in racial stereotypes. Can Elves have a viking culture? Why not? Could orcs build a center for education and arcane persuits? What's stopping them?
Of course, having humanoid raiders ride down mountains on wargs looking for the PC's scalps is a fine stereotype, one that many of us understand.
*Empire of the Petal Throne RPG by M.A.R. Barker
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?
I've seen this debated a few different places lately, a lot of it in the context of disassociated mechanics, specifically things like marking in 4E (but this would apply to ANY game, any system, any edition that has similar mechanics).
How any game offers me verisimilitude is that there's a reasonably clear in-game association between game mechanics and the game world.
When a mechanic affects gameplay, be it a spell, an ability, etc., I expect a plausible game world explanation for it, and there are mechanics to explain the interactions with other mechanics. Spells with verbal components are affected by silence. Binding a mage's arms/hands/fingers prevents utilization of spells with somatic components. That kind of thing.
Conversely, marking an opponent doesn't have an in-game explanation of how it works, how it interacts with other abilities, how it can be countered or modified, etc. Further confusing the matter are different marks. A paladin's mark is defined as being divine in origin, yet a fighter's mark can override a paladin's divine mark. How? Why? How do these marks work in-game? How can they be countered?
When there's a plausible explanation behind a mechanic, as well as how it interacts with the game world, the immersive experience is maintained. The suspension of disbelief is maintained.
When there's a mechanic that's simply a mechanic that affects gameplay, but no in-game explanation, or a completely implausible one, it's a major impediment to maintaining that immersive environment.
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.
I think there is a real complex interplay here for a given person (even more so, group) between the game world and the real world. In other words, we still are driven to judge what is consistent in the game world by the consistency we know in the real world. But going into that would be a long ass post and it's late and I'm tired. I think there's an inevitable both/and: not only do we see if the mechanics support the secondary world's features and that those features go together, but both of those elements by how things work in the real world, with varying degrees of desire, concern, and knowledge affecting those judgments. I don't worry about the physics of dragons all that much (although, I have worried about them some), but I HATE when polytheism exists in really artificial ways in the game world. (Something Golarion, for example, does much better than what I remember of the old Greyhawk.)
...but I HATE when polytheism exists in really artificial ways in the game world. (Something Golarion, for example, does much better than what I remember of the old Greyhawk.)
As someone not yet finished reading the Pathfinder Gazetteer, I find your comment intriguing. What don't you like about Greyhawk theology, and how is Golarion better?
The way real polytheism works is generally your classical nature polytheism.* In it, people deal with the whole pantheon, "the gods". They may have their own favorites or patrons, but religion is towards the gods as a whole, with situation directing religious actions. This is a complex cultural difference, while in all my experience with the default pantheon (note, I don't claim to be an expert in Greyhawk theology), the gods were treated laid over assumptions of contemporary monotheism, producing a weird disconnect. The gods are largely disassociated and people are assumed to worship only one god, priesthoods and temples are exclusive, and so forth. When I saw the great temple to all the gods in Korvosa, great was my happiness. My memory says that the temple in Sandpoint is also dedicated to more than one God.
*Hinduism may have started that way, but it went through a major revolution.
I see why this has been baffling me. It seems some people apply their verisimilitude in the context of the real word and some in the context of the game world. In addition, people pick and choose which verisimilitude breaks are ignored and which ones rankle their fur.
Would it be fair to say that 'lack of verisimilitude' is highly subjective and a better argument would be 'lacks verisimilitude for me'?
The way real polytheism works is generally your classical nature polytheism. In it, people deal with the whole pantheon, "the gods". They may have their own favorites or patrons, but religion is towards the gods as a whole, with situation directing religious actions. This is a complex cultural difference, while in all my experience with the default pantheon (note, I don't claim to be an expert in Greyhawk theology), the gods were treated laid over assumptions of contemporary monotheism, producing a weird disconnect. The gods are largely disassociated and people are assumed to worship only one god, priesthoods and temples are exclusive, and so forth. When I saw the great temple to all the gods in Korvosa, great was my happiness. My memory says that the temple in Sandpoint is also dedicated to more than one God.
Interesting. When you put it that way, I guess I feel the opposite. I thought that part of Burnt Offerings was rather odd. I could imagine a god saying "You're in the same temple with people worshipping other deities? That's not honoring me, that's an insult!"
If I were to create a fantasy world with a polytheistic culture, I'd rather each person would say "Yes, there are many gods, but MY god is the most powerful one, who created the world." "No, MY god is!" "No, my god!" <sound of weapons being drawn>
It's just a matter of personal taste.
If I were to create a fantasy world with a polytheistic culture, I'd rather each person would say "Yes, there are many gods, but MY god is the most powerful one, who created the world." "No, MY god is!" "No, my god!" <sound of weapons being drawn>
+1 There is certainly verisimilitude in that.
...people pick and choose which verisimilitude breaks are ignored and which ones rankle their fur.
EXACTLY!!!
Would it be fair to say that 'lack of verisimilitude' is highly subjective and a better argument would be 'lacks verisimilitude for me'?
YES!!! ABSOLUTELY!!!
If I were to create a fantasy world with a polytheistic culture, I'd rather each person would say "Yes, there are many gods, but MY god is the most powerful one, who created the world." "No, MY god is!" "No, my god!" <sound of weapons being drawn>
And five minutes after I wrote that, I thought twice about it. I would edit it if it hadn't gotten a reply already. The last time I tried to write a fantasy novel, I had the characters refer, vaguely, to "the gods," without naming any specific gods. (Orson Scott Card's novel Xenocide comes to mind.) They referred to the Devil simply as "the Evil One." I was planning to have them meet a group of strange people who worshipped a different set of gods, but wasn't planning to delve into the pantheon all that deeply.
Well...no.
I find that this illustrates exactly why I argue simultaneously for the complex nature of verisimilitude. To the example: when you look at nature polytheisms as they occur in the historical record, this is exactly what you do not see: they are basically inclusive, not exclusive. So my background in this area causes me to have the reaction I have. Going out on a limb here, others' lack of background in this area, along with their background in exclusive monotheisms, cause them to have the opposite reaction. On the one hand, this shows the subjective side of verisimilitude (each person is their own judge). On the other, it shows that in certain areas, some are better judges of verisimilitude than others (the less subjective side). To take the dragon example, if my scientifically informed friend starts going on at length about the impossibility of dragons, and how they break verisimilitude for her, then I am more dependent on her expertise to adjudicate the matter. Do we just make dragons smaller? Do we change their bone structure? Have them fly by magic instead of wings? Make them big helium tanks? Do we change the make-up of the atmosphere...and such.
You do realize you set up verisimilitude as an elitist banner, right Mairkurion {tm}?
In essence, we have to defer to scientist and literary critics to tell us the level of objective verisimilitude any individual game has. We have to further assume that the scientist and critics understand the true intent of the game designer as well. Consider the scientist judging the Fantasy game whose author was aiming for a world in which magic was real.
If this is verisimilitude, I really have no use for it. I do not care how much the critics rave that Real Life 2.0 is the most realistic game ever. But then I generally do not trust critics.
I am sorry, Mairkurion {tm}, but this smells like grognards trying to legitimize their cries of, "We were here first and only we know what [insert role playing game here] should be like."
You do realize you set up verisimilitude as an elitist banner, right Mairkurion {tm}?
In essence, we have to defer to scientist and literary critics to tell us the level of objective verisimilitude any individual game has. We have to further assume that the scientist and critics understand the true intent of the game designer as well. Consider the scientist judging the Fantasy game whose author was aiming for a world in which magic was real.
If this is verisimilitude, I really have no use for it. I do not care how much the critics rave that Real Life 2.0 is the most realistic game ever. But then I generally do not trust critics.
I am sorry, Mairkurion {tm}, but this smells like grognards trying to legitimize their cries of, "We were here first and only we know what [insert role playing game here] should be like."
Well, if you don't like the smell of elitism, I won't apologize for that, such is life. Of course, I am an elitist, I don't like gaming with just anyone, just as I don't like playing just anything, but again, tolerance varies: it's one thing to try anything once, it's another to commit to a group or a campaign. If I am working on a group project, I want an elite team to work with. If I am getting surgery, I want an elite surgeon, and yes, if I have my druthers, I will game on a commitment basis with elite players. I've gone as far as I can go in recognizing the subjective element, if you think the objective side is nothing but taste, and when I give evidence to the contrary you say it's elitist, I can only say, I sure hope so...or thanks. If you say such elitism is subjective, we end up in the same boat where I say yes and no, for the same reasons. Blame the elves.
Different individuals, different groups, different times, will tolerate different levels of verisimilitude in various parts of the game, but it is a necessary part. As I said, there are likely areas that I am willing or able to comprise on in one situation that I would find it harder to in another. The reason, if I am right, is that this is a subtle, difficult cumulative effect, causing some things to stick out like a sore, disbelief inducing thumb.
Notice, that I am not necessarily taking my game to the science department and saying, judge my verisimilitude. But if the science department comes to my game, then I have to take that into account. So, the players, and not outside authorities standing over our games with bad poodle paddles (as if the grognards of the world had this much power) determine the verisimilitude of the game, and their unconscious objective failures will not result in a failure of verisimilitude for the game, unless the composition of the group changes through addition or learning.
Realizing I had offended you, Mairkurion {tm}, gave me a great deal of disconcertion. I have gone back and reread your posts trying to better understand your position. While I was, something else occurred to me. There is yet another axis to verisimilitude. The amount desired by each individual player.
So you have…
The amount perceived by an individual which is subjective
The amount there actually is, which isbest identified by those with appropriate expertise
The amount desired by an individual which is, obviously, a matter of taste
This last axis, I believe, is what set me off. As I read your post, I kept thinking, "I don't want some scientist telling me dragons do not exist." This last axis also interacts almost step for step with the first one. I think this is why I had such a hard time understanding where you were coming from.
Regardless of my misperceptions, I apologize.
Whoa-whoa-whoa!
Hey CF, I'm not offended or mad. You may have punched my buttons a little bit so that I responded rhetorically (alas, my snarky sentence where I tried to turn elitism around on you lies on the cutting room floor, because I figured that one would be misleading), but I'm not conscious of anything you need to apologize for. That said, let me go back and read the rest of your response.
You would think I would recognize a little snark when I see it. :) Then allow me to withdraw my apology and substitute a 'thank you' for your patience in trying to lead me into the light.
OK, I completely agree that desire is a powerful part of the mix, and the most slippery. Now, I don't think it gets us away from the two-sideness of the objective/subjective pole: for example I should objectively not want to roast babies and should objectively want to protect them, whatever my own taste in babies is (the only baby I've ever been super jazzed about was my own...and even then I really wanted to be a gagillionaire who hired a maid to change the dirty diappies.) But again, I completely concur that desire is a part of what makes this such a heady and difficult mixture. But is that also what gives the whole thing its magic? Tolkien wrote of his young self, that he desired dragons profoundly. When I read that, I thought, Yeah, here's another old nerdie intellectual who not only admits his childhood desires, but admits to not having let go of them one whit. I too desire dragons, and if this line of thinking is right, somehow that which will let me have them, and that which will not let me have them, are two sides of the same coin (there may be a much better metaphor for this, but its all I have late Fri afternoon as I am about to embark on weekend conference.)
Ignoring verisimilitude applying to our own world…
You have literary source A where all Dragons breathe fire.
You have cinematic source B where there are many different types of Dragons with many different types of breath weapons.
System X models source A and includes Dragons which only breathe fire.
System Y models source B and includes Dragons with many different types of breath weapons.
Does either system have more verisimilitude?
Ignoring verisimilitude applying to our own world…
You have literary source A where all Dragons breathe fire.
You have cinematic source B where there are many different types of Dragons with many different types of breath weapons.System X models source A and includes Dragons which only breathe fire.
System Y models source B and includes Dragons with many different types of breath weapons.Does either system have more verisimilitude?
Not really, no. If they're reasonably modeling their sources, I'd say it's a wash.
But I'm generally going to look more favorably on whichever source and system model that fits in better with my real-world understanding of large creatures, top predators, and so on. It's hard not to let our own understandings get involved. So, I might look on one of these as having more verisimilitude if it does a better job of modeling real-world assumptions even if it deviates a little than the other one deviates from its own source material.
Ignoring verisimilitude applying to our own world…
You have literary source A where all Dragons breathe fire.
You have cinematic source B where there are many different types of Dragons with many different types of breath weapons.System X models source A and includes Dragons which only breathe fire.
System Y models source B and includes Dragons with many different types of breath weapons.Does either system have more verisimilitude?
I think versimilitude is a measure of the observer's preferences. If Observer A likes literary source A and hates cinematic source B then his versimilitude will rest with System X, and he will find System Y lacking in versimilitude. It really is in 'the eye of the Beholder*'
...
*And if we can swallow big floating armor-plated orbs with eyestalks that shoot magic rays we can believe just about anything right?
*passes popcorn around*
I have always taken verisimilitude to mean internal logic or consistancy. If we make assumptions X, Y, and Z, then what should be the natural/logical consequence of those on ideas A, B, and C.
Now when people say that something lacks verisimilitude they may be refering to the idea that A, B, and C are not acting in a way consistent with assumptions X, Y, and Z. For example, if you have magical creatures that are powerful and dangerous, then would you really have a lot of large natural animals running around? Or would they have been all killed or never evolved because the niches were already filled.
But you can also have people claiming that something lacks verisimilitude, when really it is the observe that is not buying into the assumptions being made (some of which might be subconscious). Thus to them it seems as if something lacks internal consistency, but that is merely because they haven't accepted a key assumption (there are powerful nature deities and magic users/druids that protect and promote natural creatures and thus allow them to florish even with magical competition).
So something might be said to lack verisimilitude for either "objective" reasons (does the thing follow logically from the assumptions) or "subjective" reasons (the assumptions from the setting don't match my internal assumptions).