TheRPGSite

I figured posting my standard sticky response to the "On the virtues of unrealism" thread would be threadcrapping, so here 'tis.  From another forum, several years ago:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QuoteI think the real question here is, "why do you consider the mechanics nonsense"? We're talking an imaginary dwarf, with 100 imaginary hit points, falling off an imaginary cliff, taking damage that is, also, imaginary.

If the designer finds it desirable that a character could fall off a cliff and survive, it will be so. If not, for whatever reason, it will not be. (The first mention of "but it's not REALISTIC!" gets you kicked. This is all *imaginary*, remember?)

If I had a dime for every time I've heard this over the last couple decades, I could pay all the bills this month.

Well, yes, it's all imaginary.  So why use cliffs, or indeed any recognizable terrain at all?  Why not adventure in big fluffy masses of amorphia?  Or just 'port to anywhere we want to go, and imagine it to be anything convenient to us?

Why should we use perfectly recognizable medieval weaponry?  It's imaginary, isn't it?  Don't limit yourself, hit the enemy with your kerfluffmezoz or your wheezimithuzit!

And since it doesn't have to make sense, we don't need to have these pesky movement rules, besides which we all want to be Matrixy and John Woo-esque, don't we?  Tell your DM that you're running through the air and phasing right through every intervening tree and foe to hit the Big Bad with your wheezimithuzit, and better yet you're doing it before he cut down your friend, because since it's all imaginary we don't have to use linear time either.

No, I don't care that I rolled a "miss."  Skill progression is one of those boring realism constructs, and I don't believe in it.  Let's just imagine that I hit the Big Bad whenever I need to, and for twenty-five hundred d8 of damage, too.  Encumbrance is boringly realistic too, so I'm ignoring it, and I'd rather imagine that my snazzy quilted vest protected me like the glacis armor on a T-72, please.

Alright, show of hands.  Why don't we play our RPGs that way?

It's called suspension of disbelief. We put our games into recognizable settings that mimic real life.  We use swords in fantasy games because we have the expectation that such milieus use swords, and those swords do the relative damage of a sword instead of the damage of a 155mm mortar shell because that is our expectation too.  Our fantasy characters wear tunics and cloaks, live in walled cities or sacred groves, and scale ramparts where the force of gravity pulls us downward, not pushes us up.  We have an expectation of how fast we can walk, how far we can ride, and how long we can sail.  All these expectations are founded in reality.

To the degree we ignore these things, just because, we lose touch with suspension of disbelief.  If the ten-foot-tall Big Bad hits a peon with his greatsword, we expect the peon to be in a world of hurt; we don't expect the sword to bounce off.  If the party wizard shoots a fireball at the orcs' wooden stockade, we expect that it might catch fire; we don't expect the wall to grow flowers instead.  

And if an armored dwarf takes a gainer off of a hundred foot sheer drop, we expect to find a soggy mass at the base of the cliff.  We sure as hell don't expect a dwarf boinging around like a rubber ball, happily warbling, "Bumbles bounce!"

That there are a great many gamers who want their rule systems to reflect reality, rather than ignore it -- so that we find ourselves constantly sidetracked as to issues of WHY suchandsuch doesn't make sense, or because the GM has to explain how come the dwarf isn't a soggy mass -- ought be a surprise to no one.

Realism or whimsy are not absolute states in the realm of gaming.

The level of abstraction desired for a given system will have a huge impact on the realism level of the game. We might want familliar trappings to our fantasy worlds yet have heroes who can withstand the kind of damage that would realistically kill anyone.

The game itself is an escape from reality. Its an alternate place we can visit for a time and have the unreal become real. You could simulate a realistic approximation of a pseudo-medieval world if you wish,but the first time a wizard starts flinging magic missiles the suspension of disbelief is shot to hell.

The type of reality desired for me varies a lot depending on the game. I can accept fighters surviving 100 foot drops in a D&D game but it would spoil my enjoyment if such things happened regularly in a GURPS espionage game.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;693836We might want familliar trappings to our fantasy worlds yet have heroes who can withstand the kind of damage that would realistically kill anyone.

I'm assuming that's the royal 'we' there. :D Personally I find it's quite a rush to play in a fantasy game where the system is fairly realistic, no comfort blanket of scores of HP, no super saving throws, etc. Some like medieval superheroes, good for them.

I mostly agree with the OP but I will say that I put playability above realism, way above it. I hardly bother with encumbrance and I deliberately don't use hit locations or death spirals, too much accounting. If something is realistic but is slowing the game down, it's getting ditched. With that said I usually try to research the bits I do keep in my game so they individually or combined produce realistic outcomes, or as near as I can find data for.

It's all about internal consistent rule sets, right? But with an over arching agreement between the players and GM that the GM is telling the story and gets to decide on what happens in the story, with the players general consensus, and a set of mutually understandable rules that help them work out various random/chaotic bits.

Dwarf falls off cliff? Roll 1d100. I rolled a 1 -- critical success maximus. What now? Catch branch from tree growing out of cliff? Fall in soggy patch of swamp at base of cliff. The guy rolled a 1! You've gotta give him a break, right, some kind of in game reward for having beaten the odds by so much.

And let's face it, when was the last time you saw a dragon at the park? Or someone casting a teleport spell to get to a meeting on time? The suspension of disbelief allows unreal stuff within a gradation of acceptable scales. If we insisted on reality, all those swords that everyone uses all the time would cost about fifty times what they do and for the most part they'd be made of bronze or bad iron

Quote from: Ravenswing;693752It’s called suspension of disbelief. We put our games into recognizable settings that mimic real life.

That is a consideration but not the only one for incorporating emulation based on realism.

The more important one to me is that resolving actions realistically is that players can use their real life knowledge to determine their choices. This cuts down on what the referee has to communicate and allow him to spend more time on other things.

And being realistic is not the sole criteria by which to judge this. Any widespread tropes can be used in this manner. One reason we have so many variations of vanilla D&D fantasy settings in RPGs because the conventions are widely understood. You don't have to explain to most people what a dwarf, elf, or halflings is.

Suspension of disbelief is important to many but it is so subjective too. Suspension of disbelief operates in a game of Toon as well as the most gritty game of Harnmaster.

However the amount of what you have to tell your players, and amount of information the player have in order to make choices are easier things to look at objectively.

For me the use of realism in my fantasy allows me to cut down what I have to tell my players. Allows my players to make valid assumption about my setting. I combined this with the generous use of stereotypes both mundane and mythical. The net effect of which allows the group to spend more time on the unique and interesting aspects of the Majestic Wilderlands.

Quote from: The Traveller;693842I'm assuming that's the royal 'we' there. :D Personally I find it's quite a rush to play in a fantasy game where the system is fairly realistic, no comfort blanket of scores of HP, no super saving throws, etc. Some like medieval superheroes, good for them.

I was speaking mainly about the popularity of D&D. I enjoy gritty low fantasy also. Low point total characters in GURPS fantasy is some of my favorite gaming. :)

The real problem is that deep in our little selfish knows-it's-wrong heart of hearts we all entertain the delusion that we're God, and that we can SEE HOW THINGS REALLY ARE. The issue with that is that everyone sees things differently. This creeps into RPGs because players and GMs assume that their limited, subjective viewpoint is indeed objective - "it's common sense man!"

Realism, in terms of RPGs, is a big fat lie unless one can put some restraint on how a selfish, narrow point of view.  If you're running a sandbox game, I think it's helpful to have a discussion at the beginning of the game as to what is expected in how things work - players and GMs can't read each other's minds, but they can come to a mutually agreed on understanding of tone, flow, characterization, how the imaginary physics work, and so on. When folks say "I want a realistic game!", the question I ask is, "whose realism?" It certainly is possible to make the GMs realism (the only one that really matters in a sandbox game) understood before the game starts. I'm starting Temple of Elemental Evil using AD&D 1 tonight and I'm having this conevrsation with my players right now.

When some folks talk about how they have a hard time accepting, for example, how a human fighter can kill 4 opponents with one blow (perfectly allowable against less than 1 HD opponents in AD&D 1), they're really talking about their understanding of the agreed upon simulated setting. Likewise with shouting healing at people (Warlords in 4E), and so on. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as we accepted it's just one of many positions.  Also, I feel that for that the BRP series of games (RuneQuest in particular) are better at strict physics simulation than D&D, but that's for another thread.

My point is that a GM should take great care with explaining "this is how I see things" to players, and players should take great care to understand how their GM views things if playing in an OSR/sandbox style setting. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having strict emulation guidelines in a Sim/Physics engine style game, but there needs to be clear communication. Players need to know whether or not certain kinds of action are going to fly (for example, some GMs love Errol Flynn or Wu Xia style acrobatics and stunts, others will hate that and want to see the clash of shields and hard, gritty styles of combat.)

Fact - in real life, combat is often boring to watch. D&D and other early games have their roots in movies and books as much as in any notions of historical real world combat. So, 'realism' is a shibboleth, it should be substituted for 'what I want to see.'

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;693867Realism, in terms of RPGs, is a big fat lie unless one can put some restraint on how a selfish, narrow point of view.  

It's not realism unless you're comparing it with real world data. The falling off a building one is a good example, we have real world data on survival rates based on falls from various heights. These are expressed as percentage chances.

Dice rolls, ranges, average hits points and how these interact can also be very easily expressed as percentage chances.

Edit: damn somehow wiped out half my post, in summary opinion shouldn't enter into anything described as 'realism', only references to real world data and how closely you can match your results to real world outcomes. Sometimes that means using wacky maths, sometimes the simplest systems are the best, but of course no system can be 100% realistic if for no other reason than that standard dice ranges often don't compare well to the various curves and bumps you encounter in reality. Wherever possible however I would attempt to research real world effects and get as near an approximation as I can without impeding playability.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;693867Fact - in real life, combat is often boring to watch. D&D and other early games have their roots in movies and books as much as in any notions of historical real world combat. So, 'realism' is a shibboleth, it should be substituted for 'what I want to see.'

The fact is, being in combat in real life is not in any way tedious. Watching a group of people sit at a table throwing dice and shouting is boring, but to them, living the experience, it's anything but. They aren't watching the combat, they are in the combat. This is immersion, it's not a spectator sport, and it is definetely something that keeping an eye on realism helps.

Quote from: estar;693845The more important one to me is that resolving actions realistically is that players can use their real life knowledge to determine their choices. This cuts down on what the referee has to communicate and allow him to spend more time on other things.

I think that this gets to the essence of my position as well.  

It's also the same reason why published game worlds can be useful -- people can read about the nation of Cormyr and have some idea of what it is like.  People know the basic ideas of the setting.  It's also why I think Dragon Age is a neat RPG world -- it's easy to find people who spent 40 hours learning all about the setting.

Somewhere a middle is sitting in a sleazy hotel room pounding down shots of cheap whiskey while a loaded revolver sits on the table.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;693867When some folks talk about how they have a hard time accepting, for example, how a human fighter can kill 4 opponents with one blow (perfectly allowable against less than 1 HD opponents in AD&D 1) . . .

Against opponents of less then one hit die, fighters may make a number of attacks equal to their level.

That's not 'killing 4 opponents with one blow.'

Quote from: Black Vulmea;694021Against opponents of less then one hit die, fighters may make a number of attacks equal to their level.

That's not 'killing 4 opponents with one blow.'

True.
And, it is during a melle round of one minute assumed to contain many strikes, so the fighter is not even 'getting 4 attacks'; its all consistant.

Realism isn't the right word.

ver·i·si·mil·i·tude

/ˌverəsəˈmiliˌt(y)o͞od/

noun
noun: verisimilitude
1. the appearance of being true or real.
"the detail gives the novel some verisimilitude"

synonyms:
realism, believability, plausibility, authenticity, credibility, lifelikeness

Edit: Let me expand a little bit. What people who say "We want realism" really want is verisimilitude, not realism. As has been noted, realism precludes all fantasy. Verisimilitude means something that feels real, even when it obviously isn't. It aids in suspension of disbelief.

Of course, in the end, it still ends up in the same place:

Not everybody wants the same things from a game (or any other recreational activity). There is one One True Way Of Gaming.

Quote from: taustin;694455Realism isn't the right word.

ver·i·si·mil·i·tude

/ˌverəsəˈmiliˌt(y)o͞od/

noun
noun: verisimilitude
1. the appearance of being true or real.
"the detail gives the novel some verisimilitude"

synonyms:
realism, believability, plausibility, authenticity, credibility, lifelikeness More

A commonly repeated mistake but a mistake nonetheless.

Totally agree with the OP. Great post, btw.

Quote from: taustin;694455Edit: Let me expand a little bit. What people who say "We want realism" really want is verisimilitude, not realism. As has been noted, realism precludes all fantasy. Verisimilitude means something that feels real, even when it obviously isn't. It aids in suspension of disbelief.

That's true, of course, and often cited in such arguments (along with the requisite stuffy "It's Not Realism!!" crack).

My retort is that "realism" is understood perfectly well, people know what it means in this context, and it's the term in general circulation for such discussions.  I err on the side of huffy pedantry often enough without doing it here.

Quote from: Ravenswing;694516That's true, of course, and often cited in such arguments (along with the requisite stuffy "It's Not Realism!!" crack).

My retort is that "realism" is understood perfectly well, people know what it means in this context, and it's the term in general circulation for such discussions.  I err on the side of huffy pedantry often enough without doing it here.

It's not really pedantry when the entirely of the argument hinges on the two sides using the word differnetly, and one of them incorrectly.

It's like we're arguing over whether or not apples are tasty, but one of us is calling oranges apples.

Quote from: taustin;694542It's not really pedantry when the entirely of the argument hinges on the two sides using the word differnetly, and one of them incorrectly.

It's like we're arguing over whether or not apples are tasty, but one of us is calling oranges apples.

Verisimilitude is a description applied when a rule or set of rules, or even a setting "feels" realistic in the opinion of the decision maker. It may or may not have anything to do with actual reality, but it can have its place.

Realism is where a rule or set of rules attempt to produce results based on real factual research, and the designer can produce said research upon request. I suppose it could even be applied to settings if you wanted to do a historical game.

It's valuable to make this difference for various reasons, but most importantly that opinions differ while facts don't.

Applicability of facts differs, though, depending on genre and mood.

Quote from: vytzka;694575Applicability of facts differs, though, depending on genre and mood.

True, but having a baseline of facts to adjust and work from makes things much easier. There are a lot of other considerations as well, as I've mentioned before playablity being an important one. I happily discard realistic rules if they're getting in the way of the game being playable, but my preference is for those rules which are kept to be realistic. Phoenix Command is a very realistic game, and he's got the homework to back that up, but for most people it's not very playable.

The issue in this situation however is one of debating the existence of realism at all in the context of RPGs - it does indeed exist and is applicable as has been outlined above.

I guess for me it partly comes down to genre. For the most part, "realish" is what I look for in systems. I don't expect them to model falling damage on actual statistics of falling deaths, but I do expect characters to have a good chance of surviving a minor fall and a bad one of surviving a major one. This is true for subjects I am well acquainted with as well. It doesn't bother me if the game breaks down a bit in a subject at a level requirinf specialized knowledge. My main issue is when games glaringly break from reality in ways that common sense can detect.

Quote from: vytzka;694575Applicability of facts differs, though, depending on genre and mood.

Which facts apply is an opinion.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;694583I don't expect them to model falling damage on actual statistics of falling deaths

It's actually pretty easy to do, and maps to a d10 almost shockingly well. Not every situation is as easy to simulate of course, but yeah let a thousand flowers bloom and all that. What baffles is those who clutch their pearls at the mere mention of the word "realism" and seem to believe that because a game includes dragons it can't also use realistic mechanics, because... er...

Quote from: The Traveller;694662It's actually pretty easy to do, and maps to a d10 almost shockingly well. Not every situation is as easy to simulate of course, but yeah let a thousand flowers bloom and all that. What baffles is those who clutch their pearls at the mere mention of the word "realism" and seem to believe that because a game includes dragons it can't also use realistic mechanics, because... er...

I am not concerned with the difficulty, so much as whether it matters to me in play. Falling deaths are probably relatively easy to transfer to a mechanic like you suggest. I think what i am saying is, for me at least, i an unlikely to care all that much if the mechanic matches up with real world statistics. So going to the trouble to map it to the statistics, won't result in me liking the game any better. Failing to do so wont make me like it any less.

If it is jarringly obvious the mechanic is just wrong, then i have a problem. So for me "realish" is the measure: if the game allows me to have a sucking chest wound one minute and be right as rain two minutes later without some kind of miracle, then that to me is jarring. If it just handwaves the details and my sucking chest wound is healed in three weeks, i have less of a problem. I probably expect about the same level of realism that i do from movies, and genre makes a difference in my expectations on this front.

That said, if someone likes realisms, more power to them. There are some good systems out there for it, and lots of stuff online. I have no issue with someone wanting realism.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;694664I think what i am saying is, for me at least, i an unlikely to care all that much if the mechanic matches up with real world statistics. So going to the trouble to map it to the statistics, won't result in me liking the game any better. Failing to do so wont make me like it any less.

I totally get that, it's just to me and for my tastes not putting in the effort, well there's a lack of rigour which might be reflected elsewhere. It might not put me off the experience entirely but it won't help. Obviously this is seperate from genre conceits, but there's a reason that successful writers do a lot of research before publishing even fictional works.

Again the baffling part is this fit of the vapours that seems to afflict some at the mere mention of the word.

Quote from: The Traveller;694669Again the baffling part is this fit of the vapours that seems to afflict some at the mere mention of the word.

It's mostly because in the past efforts to include more "RAELISARM" into games have been kind of terrible, and/or that "my system is more realistic" has been used as a rhetorical cudgel way to much.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;694664I am not concerned with the difficulty, so much as whether it matters to me in play. Falling deaths are probably relatively easy to transfer to a mechanic like you suggest. I think what i am saying is, for me at least, i an unlikely to care all that much if the mechanic matches up with real world statistics. So going to the trouble to map it to the statistics, won't result in me liking the game any better. Failing to do so wont make me like it any less.

If it is jarringly obvious the mechanic is just wrong, then i have a problem.

I also am unlikely to care about the details of falling deaths in a game. However, there are a number of things where I will care about the difference between just sounding reasonable as opposed to being based on research.

For example, suppose I play in a WWII game, and nothing in the game was a jarringly obvious mistake. However, I look up some stuff later and find that the game author just made up whatever sounded good without doing any research into WWII. I would be disappointed in it.

No matter how 'good' ones research is, anyone looking for innacuracies will find them. Game systems always have limitations as well.

Not saying that research is not advisable, but you can't win.

Quote from: Bill;694692No matter how 'good' ones research is, anyone looking for innacuracies will find them. Game systems always have limitations as well.

Not saying that research is not advisable, but you can't win.

I agree that you can't be perfect and have zero complaints, but I don't think that these are necessary to win. If you make a product that you're proud of and some people have fun with it, I think that's winning.

Quote from: jhkim;694686I also am unlikely to care about the details of falling deaths in a game. However, there are a number of things where I will care about the difference between just sounding reasonable as opposed to being based on research.

For example, suppose I play in a WWII game, and nothing in the game was a jarringly obvious mistake. However, I look up some stuff later and find that the game author just made up whatever sounded good without doing any research into WWII. I would be disappointed in it.

For me this sort of thing depends on the game. I really can't say I get bent out of shape by it even though I am a history buff. I am all for historical research, but at the same time, when it comes to movies, novels or rpgs, that isn't where I go to get my information. I read history books to learn about the past and I play rpgs or watch movies to relax and unwind. If they want to take liberties, I am totally fine with it. If a movie or game wants to do some heavy research and make that their strong point, that is fine too, but I am totally fine with an Arabian campaign setting that is barely based on the reality (and that was my area of study, so I tend to notice inaccuracies). For me it is more important that I get a cool and fun book/setting or movie than an accurate one.

Quote from: The Traveller;694669Obviously this is seperate from genre conceits, but there's a reason that successful writers do a lot of research before publishing even fictional works.
.

But even here every writer is different, and to be honest some writers take it too far and don't focus enough on writing a good story sometimes. So you have to balance it like everything else. Personally, I am the sort of person who needs real street level detail if I am going to run a game in a particular setting or write a story against a particular backdrop. So I think research can be fun and rewarding and see its value. It just isn't the only way to approach things. Some people can write a great story without really doing a whole lot of research, and their story might even be better because they shine when they are not tethered to sticking with the facts. I think it is a personal choice.

Also, even though writers may research what they are writing about, they don't necessarily research to make things realistic. I mean plenty of writers ignore basic physics when it suits them, even if they made damn sure understood the finer points of insider trading before they wrote a single word.

Yes, I don't get the reaction to the word. At the same time, I don't have a whole lot of patience for people who ruin my movie or gaming experiences by commenting how unrealistic or historically inaccurate something is.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;694718It just isn't the only way to approach things.

I don't think anyone's saying that it is.

Quote from: The Traveller;694722I don't think anyone's saying that it is.

I think you are right.

Quote from: Bill;694692No matter how 'good' ones research is, anyone looking for innacuracies will find them. Game systems always have limitations as well.

Not saying that research is not advisable, but you can't win.

well, yes.  Because game systems are approximations.  Even when we play modern 'Papers and Paychecks', we are still using the system as 'shorthand' for modeling reality, moreso when we are not playing our own reality.

DEpending on the setting, and style, and players, as much realism/verisimilitude as possible should be added in to avoid having the players look at the system instead of the setting.  Everytime the players are 'jarred'  by the inconguity of the system vs their perception of reality, it lessens immersion, Holy Immersion.  Hah.

The issue I've found is that when people say 'realism' they're usually meaning 'detail'. From a game design and statistical standpoint, those two things are incompatible.  It's pretty easy to find casualty rates for units under fire and map that to an appropriate die roll.  It's possible to do the same for an individual's survival against firearms injuries, provided you are only concerned with whether they survive or not.  You start trying to make the same assumptions about individual bullets, ranges, and impact points, and your model starts to fall apart.  And bullets are relatively easy to model.  Try doing the same thing for knives, fists, kung fu or swords and you're in some very shaky territory, and there's nothing like enough data to make any assumptions for swords.

I favor, for 'realistic' games, a high degree of abstraction. The mechanics of wounding are varied, but the results, on a gameplay level, only need a few levels of resolution to make a difference.

I say let the human brain fill in the details, keep the game system as abstract as possible.

Quote from: taustin;694455What people who say "We want realism" really want is verisimilitude, not realism. As has been noted, realism precludes all fantasy.

Know what? You're free to define it as "all or nothing" for yourself, but that's bullshit when it comes to other people's freedom to speak (and think) for themselves.

I say (and I reckon most people do as well, for what majority is worth) that a work can be realistic to some degree in one aspect, and to a different degree in another aspect. It's a spectrum, not a choice -- never mind a global choice -- between all black or all white.

Quote from: JonWake;694874You start trying to make the same assumptions about individual bullets, ranges, and impact points, and your model starts to fall apart.  And bullets are relatively easy to model.  Try doing the same thing for knives, fists, kung fu or swords and you're in some very shaky territory, and there's nothing like enough data to make any assumptions for swords.

That sort of stuff is modelled every day in computer games, that's why they trumpet "more realism" as an achievement. Clearly they take liberties, like you aren't debilitated by wounds until you're actually dead, but they could make it as real as they wanted to. The military has spent a lot of time working this stuff out too. It's a solved problem and not that hard to abstract to pencil and paper.

The desireable level of abstraction is a different question of course.

One benefit to finding a realistic data point like falling damage and being able to map it to your system almost perfectly is that you now have a tangible baseline against which to compare everything else. All you need to do is compare relative survival rates of different types of injuries and plot it accordingly.

The system for falling incidentally is 1d10 per 10m fallen, with an average human HP of 5 (1 to 10). This also encompasses the possibilities for wounding as well, since it's a random roll. But now we know that weapons which have a roughly 50% chance of killing instantly at whatever range should do 1d10 damage. Weapons which have a 70% chance of killing should do 1d10+2 or whatever. Lots of things can be extrapolated from that one statistic. What you say and what can be done are two different things.

Another benefit I have found is that adhering to a more or less realistic baseline means things get a lot simpler. That example falling damage system above is a lot simpler than the standard D&D system and produces more realistic results.

Naturally where no stats are available you'll just have to wing it but c'est la vie.

Quote from: The Traveller;694889That sort of stuff is modelled every day in computer games, that's why they trumpet "more realism" as an achievement. Clearly they take liberties, like you aren't debilitated by wounds until you're actually dead, but they could make it as real as they wanted to. The military has spent a lot of time working this stuff out too. It's a solved problem and not that hard to abstract to pencil and paper.

What the. Which computer games? I can think of one offhand – Dwarf Fortress – that even attempts to model organic wounds with any degree of realism. There are a few others that model physics-based damage to machines, the Combat Mission games for example. "More realism" in the context of computer games usually means "everything is gray and brown", "you're gonna need a bigger graphics card", and maybe "you don't have very many hit points compared to what the weapons can do".

Quote from: The Traveller;694889That sort of stuff is modelled every day in computer games, that's why they trumpet "more realism" as an achievement. Clearly they take liberties, like you aren't debilitated by wounds until you're actually dead, but they could make it as real as they wanted to. The military has spent a lot of time working this stuff out too. It's a solved problem and not that hard to abstract to pencil and paper.

The desireable level of abstraction is a different question of course.

One benefit to finding a realistic data point like falling damage and being able to map it to your system almost perfectly is that you now have a tangible baseline against which to compare everything else. All you need to do is compare relative survival rates of different types of injuries and plot it accordingly.

The system for falling incidentally is 1d10 per 10m fallen, with an average human HP of 5 (1 to 10). This also encompasses the possibilities for wounding as well, since it's a random roll. But now we know that weapons which have a roughly 50% chance of killing instantly at whatever range should do 1d10 damage. Weapons which have a 70% chance of killing should do 1d10+2 or whatever. Lots of things can be extrapolated from that one statistic. What you say and what can be done are two different things.

Another benefit I have found is that adhering to a more or less realistic baseline means things get a lot simpler. That example falling damage system above is a lot simpler than the standard D&D system and produces more realistic results.

Naturally where no stats are available you'll just have to wing it but c'est la vie.

If you're looking for realism, HPs are a bad place to look.

1. You can be injured and have the injury not debilitate you and have the injury heal on its own.

2. The injury can require medical attention or it will get worse, but still not incapacitate a person.

3. The injury can incapacitate the person and require medical attention, but is not immediately life threatening.

4. The injury is life threatening, usually because of blood loss of damage to respiration systems. Emergency medical treatment is needed.

5. The injure is fatal, either instantly or within minutes.

If you're curious, these are the five trauma categories that ER rooms use.

Injuries may be additive, but not necessarily. A person with two broken legs is incapacitated, but barring a blood clot they probably won't die anytime soon.  If you break an arm on the same person, they're not going to die, though they might go into shock.  

On the other hand, a person who has been shot in the guts and is slowly bleeding to death will die significantly faster if you open a vein elsewhere.

None of that takes shock, pain, or adrenaline into account, which can change the symptoms of an injury significantly.  When it comes to pain, the narrative people tell themselves alters the perception of pain. Soldiers, doctors, and cops report feeling less pain from injuries than civilians, possibly because they can rationalize the circumstances of their injury.

HPs don't model any of these things. In fact, the more you attempt to make them model these things, the more you fall into a GURPS hole of subsystems for subsystems, and the more subsystems you have in place, the slower the game will run.  

Now, a computer will run these quickly, but the outputs they produce are pretty simple. If you look at ARMA III, the creme de la creme of realism, it's infanty damage model is abstracted into incapacitation and bloodloss, and that's about it.

Quote from: Imp;694898What the. Which computer games? I can think of one offhand – Dwarf Fortress – that even attempts to model organic wounds with any degree of realism. There are a few others that model physics-based damage to machines, the Combat Mission games for example. "More realism" in the context of computer games usually means "everything is gray and brown", "you're gonna need a bigger graphics card", and maybe "you don't have very many hit points compared to what the weapons can do".

Sorry, to be more exact, physics engines are a school project level challenge these days. It was the new hotness about ten years ago, with games like Half Life 2 and Forza Motorsport making a big deal of their ability to say model real world materials to the textures used to simulate them in the game - brick, wood and steel objects - all deflected bullets differently.

That's a level of realism that RPGs don't have and don't need. Phoenix Command again made more than a gesture in that direction, but it was quite difficult to actually play. And as I said, most video games deliberately take liberties with physics, but that doesn't mean the essentials can't be distilled down to something useful, as I hope has been shown. Or should I link falling fatality statistics as well to emphasise the point, which I have already done in another thread?

Even when you don't have precise statistics, like the fatality percentages in swordfights between people of different levels of skill, an extrapolation isn't really that hard. Should a minor cut have a high chance of killing someone, and what level of damage can a skilled swordfight inflict on an unskilled one?

The grounding in realism provides a superb gradient from unskilled to highly skilled here (depending on weapons used etc), leaving us with what might not be a perfectly realistic simulation but one which at a minimum is more realistic than one drawn from someone's posterior. And I don't mean to say that arbitrary numbers are neccessarily a bad thing, if players are enjoying themselves then they're enjoying themselves, end of story.

Quote from: JonWake;694905HPs don't model any of these things. In fact, the more you attempt to make them model these things, the more you fall into a GURPS hole of subsystems for subsystems, and the more subsystems you have in place, the slower the game will run.  

Please, there's no reason why HPs can't be combined with stun or permanent injury systems without having to go to massive depths of dependency. But as I've said many many times before, and I'm getting really tired of saying, I put playability above realism by quite a stretch - I don't even bother with hit locations and death spirals, because they involve too much accountancy.

The issue here, which seizing upon HPs won't help you with, is the perfect applicability of real world data to RPGs in order to provide a better experience, or at least one which has less chance of jarring immersion, in the face of irrational insistence to the contrary.

And it is completely irrational.

Quote from: JonWake;694905Now, a computer will run these quickly, but the outputs they produce are pretty simple. If you look at ARMA III, the creme de la creme of realism, it's infanty damage model is abstracted into incapacitation and bloodloss, and that's about it.

If the outputs are simple it's a deliberate effort to make them so, for whatever reason, perhaps processing power or usability. Projectile trajectory code and Verlet integrators take mere days for students to put together, it's not going to take a team of professional coders long to do much better.

But when they do (did), they'll probably be thinking along the same lines as the method I outlined above.

Quote from: The Traveller;694908If the outputs are simple it's a deliberate effort to make them so, for whatever reason, perhaps processing power or usability. Projectile trajectory code and Verlet integrators take mere days for students to put together, it's not going to take a team of professional coders long to do much better.

But when they do (did), they'll probably be thinking along the same lines as the method I outlined above.

Tracing the trajectory of a bullet in air is pretty dead simple. ARMA has the best sniping simulator out there, complete with windage, drop, and bullets tumbling through cover.  

A bullet moving through a body with a variety of densities is a whole other bag of beans. A low caliber bullet, say, a .22 LR, has very little momentum but also very little surface area. A person can be shot with a .22 and literally not even notice it for days.  But they kill more people than the far more common 9mm round. The .22 will ricochet off of bones, sometimes doubling back through tissue in unexpected ways. A .22 to the skull might just part your hair or it might scramble your brains. The narrow profile of the .22 means that it will penetrate a Class II vest where the heavier 9mm will just deform.  And that's just a single round.  

A rifle round, say, a 5.56 will shatter bone if it hits it. However, it's not any bigger than a .22 (.223, for reference), and the permanent cavity varies dramatically by depth. At 9cm, the 5.56 round begins to arc upwards, tumbling end over end in the body cavity, crushing a huge amount of tissue. However, if the body part it hits is thinner than 9cm, the injury isn't much worse than the .22.  And then you have the hydrostatic shock, which is the shockwave that moves through the body. Through most tissue, the body simply deforms around the shockwave and springs back. However, if the shockwave moves through a frangible tissue, like the liver or brain, the shockwave will effectively detonate the organ. And  what's more, if the shockwave gets close to the spine, the pressure can cause swelling in the nerve sheath and cause temporary paralysis.

All those effects change at semi random by angle of entry, rotation of the body, normal of the bone impact, so on and so forth. That's a lot of effort to produce a result that boils down to Incapacitated/Dead/Bloodloss.

Quote from: JonWake;694911Tracing the trajectory of a bullet in air is pretty dead simple. ARMA has the best sniping simulator out there, complete with windage, drop, and bullets tumbling through cover.  

A bullet moving through a body with a variety of densities is a whole other bag of beans. A low caliber bullet, say, a .22 LR, has very little momentum but also very little surface area. A person can be shot with a .22 and literally not even notice it for days.  But they kill more people than the far more common 9mm round. The .22 will ricochet off of bones, sometimes doubling back through tissue in unexpected ways. A .22 to the skull might just part your hair or it might scramble your brains. The narrow profile of the .22 means that it will penetrate a Class II vest where the heavier 9mm will just deform.  And that's just a single round.  

A rifle round, say, a 5.56 will shatter bone if it hits it. However, it's not any bigger than a .22 (.223, for reference), and the permanent cavity varies dramatically by depth. At 9cm, the 5.56 round begins to arc upwards, tumbling end over end in the body cavity, crushing a huge amount of tissue. However, if the body part it hits is thinner than 9cm, the injury isn't much worse than the .22.  And then you have the hydrostatic shock, which is the shockwave that moves through the body. Through most tissue, the body simply deforms around the shockwave and springs back. However, if the shockwave moves through a frangible tissue, like the liver or brain, the shockwave will effectively detonate the organ. And  what's more, if the shockwave gets close to the spine, the pressure can cause swelling in the nerve sheath and cause temporary paralysis.

All those effects change at semi random by angle of entry, rotation of the body, normal of the bone impact, so on and so forth. That's a lot of effort to produce a result that boils down to Incapacitated/Dead/Bloodloss.

Something that looks like this (http://pronost.nicolas.free.fr/Papers/Real-Time%20Musculoskeletal%20Model%20for%20Injury%20Simulation%20on%203D%20Human%20Characters%20MIG2012.pdf) (PDF warning) you mean?

None of which has any bearing on the way you're avoiding the actual point. The HP segue didn't go anywhere and the "even computers can't simulate it" route is following in its footsteps. Not that it matters, we aren't using computers.

Do you think that realism as described has any place or can even exist in RPGs or not?

Quote from: Phillip;694877Know what? You're free to define it as "all or nothing" for yourself, but that's bullshit when it comes to other people's freedom to speak (and think) for themselves.

If you use words differently than other people, other people will not understand you when you speak. When you use "realism" to mean "verisimilitude," people will think you mean "realism" and not "verisimilitude." If you do not wish to be understood, that's certainly your call, but don't whine like a little baby who pooped his diaper when people don't understand you.

A realistic game will not have:
Dragons
Elves
Orcs
Interstellar space ships
Laser pistols
Magic of any kind
Lizard-like aliens
Intelligent computers

And many, many other staples of roleplaying games. You're pretty much stuck with playing episodes of Law & Order, only without about 90% of the interesting stuff.

Quote from: Phillip;694877I say (and I reckon most people do as well, for what majority is worth) that a work can be realistic to some degree in one aspect, and to a different degree in another aspect. It's a spectrum, not a choice -- never mind a global choice -- between all black or all white.

As I said, you can make up definitions to words all you want. But if you don't, don't whine when nobody knows what you're talking about.

And make no mistake about that. The part of this thread I replied to was entirely based on two people using the word "realism" in differnet ways, one of them correctly, the other incorrectly. If that hurts your feelings, tough shit. You'll get over it. But "realism" and "verisimilitude" still aren't the same thing.

Quote from: taustin;694970If you use words differently than other people, other people will not understand you when you speak. When you use "realism" to mean "verisimilitude," people will think you mean "realism" and not "verisimilitude." If you do not wish to be understood, that's certainly your call, but don't whine like a little baby who pooped his diaper when people don't understand you.

I agree with your first and third sentences, in any event.

Yes, indeed, verisimilitude would be a more correct word.  Your assertion notwithstanding, people generally use "realism" in this context, which is why I used it in the title of the thread.  I'm pedantic often enough without pushing the issue.  This is not the first, nor the fifth, nor the fiftieth bit of generally acknowledged gaming jargon which contradicts Merriam-Webster and the OED.

And, come to that, you understand perfectly well yourself.  You didn't start out saying "Huh?  What?  What are you guys talking about?"

Quote from: Ravenswing;694979I agree with your first and third sentences, in any event.

Yes, indeed, verisimilitude would be a more correct word.  Your assertion notwithstanding, people generally use "realism" in this context,

This very thread is an example of that not being universally true. Specifically, two people arguing past each other, because they were using different definitions to the word. As I said, it's like arguing over whether apples are tasty when one person is calling oranges apples.

Quote from: Ravenswing;694979which is why I used it in the title of the thread.  I'm pedantic often enough without pushing the issue.  This is not the first, nor the fifth, nor the fiftieth bit of generally acknowledged gaming jargon which contradicts Merriam-Webster and the OED.

And yet, we have here, in this very thread, an example of people using two different definition, and neither of them realizing it.

Quote from: Ravenswing;694979And, come to that, you understand perfectly well yourself.  You didn't start out saying "Huh?  What?  What are you guys talking about?"[/COLOR]

I didn't ask what y'all meant because I understood it. I explained the issue because at least two people arguing clearly didn't understand each other. Did I really have to explain that to you? Seriously? You couldn't figure that out for yourself?

Quote from: taustin;694970A realistic game will not have:
Dragons
Elves
Orcs
Interstellar space ships
Laser pistols
Magic of any kind
Lizard-like aliens
Intelligent computers

You can keep saying it as much as you like and it still won't be true. RPGs aren't a media production, they are games. Games can use realistic elements in their systems while having fantastical elements in their settings. In fact they can use realistic elements in their settings too.

Spoons for example, highly realistic. Leaf-bearing trees, shockingly real. The existence of a dragon in a forest of leaf bearing trees doesn't make those trees any less realistic or the dragon any less fantastical. And since they have roots (ho ho) in realism, we expect them to behave in a realistic manner.

Which is of course the point.

Quote from: taustin;694995I didn't ask what y'all meant because I understood it. I explained the issue because at least two people arguing clearly didn't understand each other. Did I really have to explain that to you? Seriously? You couldn't figure that out for yourself?

Whatever about game systems, I seriously weep for the education system that produced you.

Quote from: taustin;694995This very thread is an example of that not being universally true. Specifically, two people arguing past each other, because they were using different definitions to the word. As I said, it's like arguing over whether apples are tasty when one person is calling oranges apples.

Hrm.  Did you miss the part where I used the word "generally," or are you channeling Humpty Dumpty?  I'm quite capable of picking the modifiers I want for my sentences, without them being "helpfully" revised, thank you ever so.

That being said, it may just be me, but if someone doesn't understand the generally recognized definition of a word or phrase, there's a ready solution: for him or her to learn the generally recognized definition.  It isn't brain surgery.

Quote from: The Traveller;694917Something that looks like this (http://pronost.nicolas.free.fr/Papers/Real-Time%20Musculoskeletal%20Model%20for%20Injury%20Simulation%20on%203D%20Human%20Characters%20MIG2012.pdf) (PDF warning) you mean?

None of which has any bearing on the way you're avoiding the actual point. The HP segue didn't go anywhere and the "even computers can't simulate it" route is following in its footsteps. Not that it matters, we aren't using computers.

Do you think that realism as described has any place or can even exist in RPGs or not?

It's cute that you think this is some kind of grand 'either/or' argument.

Let me restate the issue:
The degree of realism, (that is, the mechanical properties of the system follow the statistical properties of what they're simulating) is inversely proportional to the degree of detail (the tracking of individual factors that make up the result).  

A realistic game is better built around a very abstract core that tracks a relatively minimal amount of data than one like, say, Millenium's End or GURPS, that tracks tons of data.  This does not hold true with computer simulations. How that got brought up is beyond me.

Quote from: JonWake;695101It's cute that you think this is some kind of grand 'either/or' argument.

That appears to be the sticking point for people like taustin, who deny the possibility that realism can exist within an RPG at all in any way.

Quote from: JonWake;695101Let me restate the issue:
The degree of realism, (that is, the mechanical properties of the system follow the statistical properties of what they're simulating) is inversely proportional to the degree of detail (the tracking of individual factors that make up the result).  

This is a very garbled sentence, can you expand on it a bit?

Quote from: JonWake;695101A realistic game is better built around a very abstract core that tracks a relatively minimal amount of data than one like, say, Millenium's End or GURPS, that tracks tons of data. This does not hold true with computer simulations. How that got brought up is beyond me.

Edit: oh wait I think I see what you're saying now and I kind of agree. Sort of.

Quote from: The Traveller;695018You can keep saying it as much as you like and it still won't be true. RPGs aren't a media production, they are games. Games can use realistic elements in their systems while having fantastical elements in their settings. In fact they can use realistic elements in their settings too.

So, your argument is that if a game realistically models falling damage, and has photographs of real swords next to the equipment tables, but humans can fly and have eight foot long penises, it's a realist system because it uses realistic elements in its systems?

Dude, it's fine that you've redefined the word "realism." It really is. People using technical jargon do it all the time. But when someone else is clearly using the word differently, and you either don't realize it, or do but don't point that out, you just look stupid.

Quote from: Ravenswing;695029Hrm.  Did you miss the part where I used the word "generally," or are you channeling Humpty Dumpty?  I'm quite capable of picking the modifiers I want for my sentences, without them being "helpfully" revised, thank you ever so.

That being said, it may just be me, but if someone doesn't understand the generally recognized definition of a word or phrase, there's a ready solution: for him or her to learn the generally recognized definition.  It isn't brain surgery.

And if you're using specialized jargon, and someone else doesn't understand that, there's a ready solution: someone can point out that the word is being used in different ways. As I did. And then a couple of people started humping my pantleg like over-excited chihuahuas over doing something they should have done themselves.

Get over yourself, dude. You've derailed the entire discussion of the usefulness of realism/verisimilitude in to a pissing context over who has the bigger dick. And lost.

Quote from: The Traveller;695110That appears to be the sticking point for people like taustin, who deny the possibility that realism can exist within an RPG at all in any way.

Actually, I did not. I postulated what a game with actual realism (instead of verismilitude) would be like.

My only point is that you were using the word "realism" to mean "verisimilitude." This has apprently pissed you off for some reason, possibly because it somehow challenges your manhood and makes you feel like you have a tiny little penis or something, and now you'd much rather call me names than just admit that, yeah, you were using the word differently than the people you were arguing with, and proposing a specialized jargon definition (I assume you're emotionally incapable of switching to the correct word - technical jargon is usually used when no real word exists for whatever it describes, and that's not the case here - so presumably you'll want to use "realism," but you really should just say, out loud, that you're using your own definition, and that definition is identical to the dictionary definition of "verisimilitude." Or is it that you fear you won't be able to spell verisimilitude?)

Quote from: taustin;695114So, your argument is that if a game realistically models falling damage, and has photographs of real swords next to the equipment tables, but humans can fly and have eight foot long penises, it's a realist system because it uses realistic elements in its systems?

To be honest I don't know what you're warbling about at this stage. The only one shrieking about "any unreal elements means everything is unreal so VERISIMILITUDE" is you. It's a nonsense point.

What I've been saying and which has apparently caused much hyperventilation and more flashing handbags than a Louis Vuitton expo is that game systems can be modelled on real data and this can bring numerous advantages. This is realism as applied to elements of RPGs.

Quote from: taustin;695114Dude, it's fine that you've redefined the word "realism." It really is. People using technical jargon do it all the time. But when someone else is clearly using the word differently, and you either don't realize it, or do but don't point that out, you just look stupid.

What looks stupid to me is someone who takes an all or nothing approach to what is obviously a multifaceted and multipart system. It's like onetruewayism gone wronger.

Quote from: taustin;695116but you really should just say, out loud, that you're using your own definition, and that definition is identical to the dictionary definition of "verisimilitude." Or is it that you fear you won't be able to spell verisimilitude?)

All this means is that you understand neither the language you're trying to use to prove your point nor what I'm saying. I mean I encourage anyone with aspirations to literacy, but you should at least get through basic before trying for the regionals.

Quote from: The Traveller;695119To be honest I don't know what you're warbling about at this stage.

Maybe that's because you keep making up your own definitions for words, intead of using the same language as everyone else.

Another good example of what I'm talking about.

Quote from: The Traveller;695121All this means is that you understand neither the language you're trying to use to prove your point nor what I'm saying. I mean I encourage anyone with aspirations to literacy, but you should at least get through basic before trying for the regionals.

If you won't use words to mean the same things and everyone else, and won't admit you're not, it is impossible to communicate.

And you get results like . . . this thread. Where you are now more interested in calling me names than the subject of realism/verisimilitude in games. Which is fine, if that's what you're interested in, but it does say something about you that isn't very complimentary.

All I did was point out that two people were arguing because they were using the same word two different ways. In all seriousness, dude, why does that piss you off so much? Really. I'd like to know why that pisses you off so much.

Quote from: taustin;695123Maybe that's because you keep making up your own definitions for words, intead of using the same language as everyone else.

Another good example of what I'm talking about.

Quote from: The Traveller;694570Verisimilitude is a description applied when a rule or set of rules, or even a setting "feels" realistic in the opinion of the decision maker. It may or may not have anything to do with actual reality, but it can have its place.

Realism is where a rule or set of rules attempt to produce results based on real factual research, and the designer can produce said research upon request. I suppose it could even be applied to settings if you wanted to do a historical game.

It's valuable to make this difference for various reasons, but most importantly that opinions differ while facts don't.

Although to be honest even the dictionary definition you supplied calls them synonyms, and so can be used interchangeably. English, learn some. Although I'm finding this repeated foot shooting entertaining so if you don't want to you don't have to.

Quote from: taustin;695124And you get results like . . . this thread. Where you are now more interested in calling me names than the subject of realism/verisimilitude in games.

No no, that's just the mustard on the hot dog.

oh joy.  Another thread of taustin being taustin.  The word 'realism' is perfectly fine to use.  He quoted verisimilitude, so he knows how to use a dictionary.  Look up 'realism' and he'll see it's just fine for how it's been used.  Also neglected to see that in his own definition, they are synonyms.

and then doubles up by complaining about people calling names after just getting done making dick references.

Quote from: The Traveller;695127No no, that's just the mustard on the hot dog.

Hot dogs, meh.

Mmm, Tommy's chili cheese Trollburger ...

@Taustin -

The Traveller isn't wrong.  While you may be correct that verisimilitude is the desired state (the appearance of being realistic), when something appears realistic, most people say 'that was realistic'.  

Having realistic basics, like falling damage (ie, basics that don't damage verisimilitude), makes it easier to accept the truly fantastic (like having 8 foot penises, or whatever you have in your fantasy game).  

When nothing works in a realistic fashion (like if I could fall and miss the ground to begin flying a la Hitchhiker's Guide then I don't even begin to know how things should work without the fantastic elements - or rather everything is fantastic.  

So when things have the appearance of corresponding to real world expectations, we usually call it realistic.  When it doesn't correspond to real world expectations, we point out that it damages verisimilitude (because it's unrealistic).

Quote from: The Traveller;695125Although to be honest even the dictionary definition you supplied calls them synonyms, and so can be used interchangeably. English, learn some. Although I'm finding this repeated foot shooting entertaining so if you don't want to you don't have to.

Once again, in this thread, there were (at least) two people obviously using different definitions, and obivously, neither of them was aware of it. I've pointed that out several times. You refuse to acknowledge it's been said, much less respond to it.

Again, why does that piss you off so much?

Quote from: The Traveller;695127No no, that's just the mustard on the hot dog.

If that were the case, you'd be continuing the actual on-topic discussion. You're not, that I can see.

Ergo, either you're lying, or you're completely deluded by your own weakness. Either way, you're the problem.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;695133oh joy.  Another thread of taustin being taustin.  The word 'realism' is perfectly fine to use.

If that were the case, there wouldn't have been the confusion I responded to.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;695133and then doubles up by complaining about people calling names after just getting done making dick references.

I didn't start the namecalling, retard. Now, yes, I'm namecalling, because that's all you're doing, and all you will be doing. You, too, have completely derailed the original subject so that you can prove how small your dick is by calling me names.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;695174@Taustin -

The Traveller isn't wrong.  [/QUOTE]

I was responding to two people who were using the same word with different meanings, and clearly not aware of it. I will keep pointing that out as long as the tiny-dicked retards keep ignoring it.

Why is it that someone trying to clear up an obvious minsunderstanding (and I did so entirely politely) pissess you off so much? Seriously, dude, why does that get under your skin? Is it that you just can't stand the thought of rational discussion between other people, who aren't paying attention to you? That makes you a troll, and nothing more.

Quote from: taustin;695196wah

Quote from: taustin;695197waah

Quote from: taustin;695198waaah

Quote from: taustin;695200waaaah

You're done, son. I'm just mopping up the bar afterwards. Maybe in your next incarnation you'll be a little more provident in your decisions.

Christmas, are you 2 still at this?  
The English definition is not the same as the compartmentalized, hobby specific definition.  They are not synonymous in our hobby, one is a subset of the other.

Realistic applies to how something compares to the players expectation of the real world, such as physics or human nature.  

Verisimilitude is a subset of realism, and can apply to realism, but also includes internally consistent logic within a campaign.  

In a Venn Diagram, they share a lot of space, but not the same space.  Gravity and greed are normally examples of both whereas magic, if done right, can be an example of Verisimilitude but not of magic.  But this means in many cases, they can be used interchangeably.    

As the DeadDMwalking mentioned, using realism well sets up verisimilitude.

The problem with an 8ft long penis is, it sounds great...until you realize you need an 8ft deep vagina.  Things become rather unattractive at that point.

Quote from: CRKrueger;695254The problem with an 8ft long penis is, it sounds great...until you realize you need an 8ft deep vagina.  Things become rather unattractive at that point.

Unattractive...or awesome?

Quote from: JonWake;695261Unattractive...or awesome?

The possibilities...:hmm:

How the fuck did this discussion get to talking about 8 feet long penises?

Like Vreeg said it is a Venn diagram.  I always saw it as something Like this. (https://www.lucidchart.com/documents/view/4545-b3f4-5248d3dd-a74c-108b0a008da4)

Quote from: CRKrueger;695268Like Vreeg said it is a Venn diagram.  I always saw it as something Like this. (https://www.lucidchart.com/documents/view/4545-b3f4-5248d3dd-a74c-108b0a008da4)

I disagree with that diagram. Verisimilitude is about apparence of reality, in other words, believability. Now what is believable depends on the context of the game world, and some things may be believable or unbelievable while being realistic or unrealistic. This is something that is only tenuously related to actual positive reality, since it is in fact predicated on our own personal, subjective, perceptions, expectations, and imaginations extrapolating the possible from impossible contexts.

For instance. A Methuselah lifting a building in Vampire the Masquerade is completely unrealistic for a variety of reasons involving physics, biology, etc, but it can be believable (= verisimilar) in the context of the World of Darkness when a combination of supernatural disciplines and magickal laws of the universe are involved (not to mention, a Methuselah piercing the Earth's crust with its fists... but I'm getting side-tracked here).

So verisimilar things are not necessarily realistic. Your Venn diagram doesn't reflect that.

Verisimilitude has a narrower meaning from its philosophical origins of "closer to truth", which in RPG terms would mean closer to our reality.  The broader meaning, coming more from literature means believable, which in RPG terms would mean suspension of disbelief.

VtM has internal logic of that world, which is not our own, even though there is a great overlap.  So how vampirism works, the methods of transmission, the power of methuselahs all is believable if it is coherent and remains consistent with regards to its own internal logic.

Where the WoD overlaps with reality is where a game system is going to be what most people term "realistic" but is really "verisimilar".  Most people don't question why Ventrue have Fortitude or why Toreador have Celerity, they just do, there's no dissonance in comparison to our world, because in our world these things don't exist, so suspension of disbelief of fantastic elements is very easy as long as the setting stays coherent and obeys the physics and science of that world, aka Internal Logic.

Where a game can fall down and where suspension of disbelief is hard to attain is when something that exists in both our Reality and the reality of the game world does not function the same.  For example, in the WoD, there exist both .22 pistols and .50 rifles.  In our world a .50 rifle will usually and dramatically outdamage a .22 pistol.  If the WoD made it so that a .50 rifle did not outdamage a .22 pistol, it would be jarring.  Something that exists as the same thing in both worlds does not do or act like the same thing in both worlds is a dissonance that inhibits suspension of disbelief.

At this point the game loses verisimilitude because what should act like reality does not.  So, when we're talking about Verisimilitude with respect to comparing our reality to another reality where you're going to really nail the setting is where our world and the other world overlap.  This grounds the campaign and provides a stable foundation from which the players can experience the fantastic elements of the setting.

If there is no comparison to reality, then the term verisimilitude has no meaning IMO, it's not just a synonym for "believable" in other words.

I agree there has to be the start of a comparison point with reality, as in a base to extrapolate from possible scenarios into impossible scenarios depending on impossible contexts.

But you can very much have believable things that suspend your disbelief without them being realistic at all. Another example: the sound of TIE fighters in space. When you hear that sound, you know a TIE is coming. If you see a TIE fighter but you don't hear that sound, something is amiss: it breaks immersion into the SW universe. These elements of sound in space in Star Wars participate to the feel of SW and actually, far from breaking immersion for most viewers, participate to the experience of what a SW movie is, what the universe feels like. Hence, verisimilar.

That's really my point here: verisimilar, or believable, doesn't mean it necessarily has to be realistic. Your Venn diagram implies it does.

Quote from: taustin;695198I didn't start the namecalling, retard. Now, yes, I'm namecalling, because that's all you're doing, and all you will be doing. You, too, have completely derailed the original subject so that you can prove how small your dick is by calling me names.

All I've been doing is namecalling?

Perhaps you should go back and reread your response here tomorrow, and hopefully you will see how you're coming off to others.

Quote from: Benoist;695279I agree there has to be the start of a comparison point with reality, as in a base to extrapolate from possible scenarios into impossible scenarios depending on impossible contexts.

But you can very much have believable things that suspend your disbelief without them being realistic at all. Another example: the sound of TIE fighters in space. These elements of sounds in space in Star Wars participate to the feel of SW and actually, far from breaking immersion for most viewers, participate to the experience of what a SW movie is, what the universe feels like. Hence, verisimilar.

I see where you're going, even though with SW movies (or BSG or Firefly who do sound in space differently) you're dealing with genre conventions, which has it's own built-in assumptions which suspension of disbelief relies on.

I just don't see verisimilar to only mean believable in a suspension of disbelief way.  I probably wouldn't use the term in some of the same sentences you would, especially if we were talking about game design, in which I would probably use it more like the "closer to truth" definition.

As an example, if the Game of Thrones setting established that Dragonbreath was hotter the larger the dragon, and then it showed one of Dany's young dragons breathing fire hotter then that of the monstrous Balerion the Dread, I don't know that I would call that breaking verisimilitude.  It's definitely inconsistent and violating the internal logic of the setting.

However, if in the books young Arya Stark could lift more weight then Gregor Clegane, I certainly would call that breaking verisimilitude, even if, since Martin wrote it, it's supposed to be "canon".

Quote from: CRKrueger;695282I see where you're going, even though with SW movies (or BSG or Firefly who do sound in space differently) you're dealing with genre conventions, which has it's own built-in assumptions which suspension of disbelief relies on.

I don't think that's "genre" in a literary sense I'm talking about here. Star Wars sound does not belong to and isn't representative of a "genre", except its own, if you want to construe it that way, which would be a post-modern way of describing it, but not really accurate, IMO. I'm talking about in-world logic. One of the reasons Star Wars made such an impression when it came out on the big screen in 1977 was that it felt so genuine, so believable, with its used universe, its sounds in space, its believable Force. I'm talking about some of the setting's believable elements which are not "realistic" by any definition of the word and yet, participate to a sense of immersion in the world.

Quote from: CRKrueger;695282I just don't see verisimilar to only mean believable in a suspension of disbelief way.  I probably wouldn't use the term in some of the same sentences you would, especially if we were talking about game design, in which I would probably use it more like the "closer to truth" definition.

To me verisimilitude is literally just that: the appearance of reality as it relates to the game world.

It's the truth of the game world. Not the truth of our own.

BTW someone once asked on the forums what defined Star Wars as a universe, and I was not kidding when I answered "sound in space". Though that might have come off as "it's unreal" or "it makes no sense and it's cool", I actually meant what I am explaining here. That the Star Wars universe is a reality of its own, to the mythos level, and the simplest expression of this believable other-world of Jedi and lightsabers and flying pieces of garbage that can do the Kessel run in 12 parcecs is that sound in space we keep hearing while we watch the movies.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;695133oh joy.  Another thread of taustin being taustin.  The word 'realism' is perfectly fine to use.  He quoted verisimilitude, so he knows how to use a dictionary.  Look up 'realism' and he'll see it's just fine for how it's been used.  Also neglected to see that in his own definition, they are synonyms.

and then doubles up by complaining about people calling names after just getting done making dick references.

Yeah, it IS useful to identify those sorts of people here ... the ones who just figure if they keep on shouting "I'm right!  I'm right!  Anyone who disagrees with me is wrongwrongWRONG!" at the top of their lungs, they can just declare victory.  

Maybe I should just establish Ravenswing's Law (in the spirit of Godwin's Law): making penis references in an Internet debate is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

Quote from: Benoist;695269So verisimilar things are not necessarily realistic. Your Venn diagram doesn't reflect that.

You know what Ben, this is quite right. It also fits in with this:
Verisimilitude is a description applied when a rule or set of rules, or even a setting "feels" realistic in the opinion of the decision maker. It may or may not have anything to do with actual reality, but it can have its place.

That doesn't mean this isn't an important concept:
Realism is where a rule or set of rules attempt to produce results based on real factual research, and the designer can produce said research upon request. I suppose it could even be applied to settings if you wanted to do a historical game.

To move away from rules for a minute and on to the more easily understandable vista of settings, let's say you've just watched Charlie Sheen in his 1993 Three Musketeers extravaganza. You decide, hey that was awesome so I'll run a game based on the movie. Your friends who watched the movie with you agree, you run your game in that setting.

It doesn't have much to do with the realities of 17th century France but you wouldn't know 17th century France from Ben Hur so as far as you're concerned that's the real deal. This is verisimilitude, and everyone had a great time, brilliant.

A realistic setting on the other hand is where the author puts in the time and effort to research 17th century France as it actually was, learns about the important political figures, the effects of the Ancien Régime at all levels of society, the kinds of equipment, medical facilities and skillsets available, the culture and its interactions with other cultures to produce a more nuanced and detailed picture.

There's no reason why you can't view all that through the lens of Charlie's two fisted musketeering but what you now have is a broader, deeper milieu to adventure in. Stick in a dragon under a mountain somewhere and yes the whole becomes less true to life but the realistic elements remain realistic. Brotherhood of the Wolf was just such an effort to use another example from the big screen.

Quote from: Ravenswing;695312Maybe I should just establish Ravenswing's Law (in the spirit of Godwin's Law): making penis references in an Internet debate is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

Unless it happens to be a discussion about penises, which let's face it the internet has more than it's fair share of and so needs an exception written in there, thus you've associated your handle forever with discussions about penises.

Not neccessarily the route I'd have taken.

Maybe a glossary is needed of all these technical terms so that everyone knows how to use them correctly.  Wasn't there another site at one point that didn't something like that?

Quote from: Dog Quixote;695328Maybe a glossary is needed of all these technical terms so that everyone knows how to use them correctly.  Wasn't there another site at one point that didn't something like that?

I didn't really think that penises were that technical but if you google the word you'll find plenty of examples.

Quote from: The Traveller;695326You know what Ben, this is quite right. It also fits in with this:
Verisimilitude is a description applied when a rule or set of rules, or even a setting "feels" realistic in the opinion of the decision maker. It may or may not have anything to do with actual reality, but it can have its place.

That doesn't mean this isn't an important concept:
Realism is where a rule or set of rules attempt to produce results based on real factual research, and the designer can produce said research upon request. I suppose it could even be applied to settings if you wanted to do a historical game.

To move away from rules for a minute and on to the more easily understandable vista of settings, let's say you've just watched Charlie Sheen in his 1993 Three Musketeers extravaganza. You decide, hey that was awesome so I'll run a game based on the movie. Your friends who watched the movie with you agree, you run your game in that setting.

It doesn't have much to do with the realities of 17th century France but you wouldn't know 17th century France from Ben Hur so as far as you're concerned that's the real deal. This is verisimilitude, and everyone had a great time, brilliant.

A realistic setting on the other hand is where the author puts in the time and effort to research 17th century France as it actually was, learns about the important political figures, the effects of the Ancien Régime at all levels of society, the kinds of equipment, medical facilities and skillsets available, the culture and its interactions with other cultures to produce a more nuanced and detailed picture.

There's no reason why you can't view all that through the lens of Charlie's two fisted musketeering but what you now have is a broader, deeper milieu to adventure in. Stick in a dragon under a mountain somewhere and yes the whole becomes less true to life but the realistic elements remain realistic. Brotherhood of the Wolf was just such an effort to use another example from the big screen.


Unless it happens to be a discussion about penises, which let's face it the internet has more than it's fair share of and so needs an exception written in there, thus you've associated your handle forever with discussions about penises.

Not neccessarily the route I'd have taken.

This is why I said it was a subset.  Verisimilitude CAN be synonymous with Realistic, in the RPG definition, and the two terms are always related.  And someone made the point that Verisimilitude feels like realism, in the context of a setting/game.  In the description above, as long as the GM makes the Sheen Musketeer setting feel consistent and the NPCS act with motivation, and we are on our way with verisimilitude.

Quote from: LordVreeg;695337In the description above, as long as the GM makes the Sheen Musketeer setting feel consistent and the NPCS act with motivation, and we are on our way with verisimilitude.

I never said you couldn't or shouldn't do that. However I hope the example illustrates the difference between verisimilitude and realism. And there are places where realism is impossible, like if you wanted to run a global economics simulator. Even professional economists can't manage that much, so there's nothing to work from, so just do what feels approximately right, aka verisimilitude.

Quote from: LordVreeg;695337This is why I said it was a subset.  Verisimilitude CAN be synonymous with Realistic, in the RPG definition, and the two terms are always related.  And someone made the point that Verisimilitude feels like realism, in the context of a setting/game.  In the description above, as long as the GM makes the Sheen Musketeer setting feel consistent and the NPCS act with motivation, and we are on our way with verisimilitude.

It can be synonymous, but it also doesn't have to be. That's precisely what I was trying to explain with my TIE fighter example. Star Wars feels real, and the verb is just as important as the adjective, here.

I also don't think that there's something inherently superior in being concerned by realism as opposed to verisimilitude, or that it means the GM concerned about realism will necessarily pour more work into his setting than the guy concerned with verisimilitude. I mean you can have a look at the Bandit Level in the Advice to build the mega-dungeon. I can say as the guy who wrote it that I'm not concerned about realism so much as verisimilitude, and I'm the kind of guy who cares for little details that make the environment feel more real, certainly.

But here's also where I disagree: I think that if I was to make a hierarchy of terms, I would put "realism" as a subset of verisimilitude, instead of the reverse. You are always constrained by the context in which the more-or-less-fantastic world exists. Whether we are talking about a page in a book using words to describe things, or images and sequences on a silver screen, or equations in a rules system for a tabletop role playing game.

This natural constraint of the medium means that you are necessarily making choices and shortcuts to create a universe that feels real, whether it's based on pure imagination or history, as opposed to actually modelling reality accurately. You can't model the actual way in which learning and brains and experiences build individual behaviors and capacities on a 1:1 basis because reality is just too complex for that. So you summarize a variety of areas of learning and ability as "skills" in a game system, and you choose to split hairs more or less finely, skills from 1 to 10, or 01 to 00, depending on context, whatever feels good enough for maintaining a suspension of disbelief, this idea that the world has an existence of its own, an appearance of reality.

So when you're building your Three Musketeers historical game, you are going to deal with verisimilitude primarily, whether you care for the original historical context, or not so much. You are going to build a game setting and context that is "good enough" for the table, a context that will feel real to you and your audience. There's nothing intrinsically superior or more complicated or whatever in this than a guy who would create a fantasy multiverse with dedication as well. It's all verisimilitude, to me. The only thing that changes is the relative proportions of the referents/source materials you are using in order to extrapolate and make choices of what will feel real in the game world.

Quote from: Benoist;695356This natural constraint of the medium means that you are necessarily making choices and shortcuts to create a universe that feels real, whether it's based on pure imagination or history, as opposed to actually modelling reality accurately. You can't model the actual way in which learning and brains and experiences build individual behaviors and capacities on a 1:1 basis because reality is just too complex for that. So you summarize a variety of areas of learning and ability as "skills" in a game system, and you choose to split hairs more or less finely, skills from 1 to 10, or 01 to 00, depending on context, whatever feels good enough for maintaining a suspension of disbelief, this idea that the world has an existence of its own, an appearance of reality.

By this standard realism doesn't exist anywhere, and shouldn't exist as a word until we can accurately model the entire universe down the the smallest subatomic particle.

Incidentally I don't know why people are making out one is a subset of the other or vice-versa, that's not even linguistically accurate. They're seperate things with seperate but related meanings. There are situations where they can be used synonymously but if that were the case with RPGs I don't know why people are having conniptions over the word.

Quote from: Benoist;695356There's nothing intrinsically superior or more complicated or whatever in this than a guy who would create a fantasy multiverse with dedication as well. It's all verisimilitude, to me. The only thing that changes is the relative proportions of the referents/source materials you are using in order to extrapolate and make choices of what will feel real in the game world.

I agree with everything you wrote, but I'll point out that when your world lacks versimilitude, your players will say 'that's not realistic'.  Maybe it's just harder to say in a conversation, but while we are really discussing versimilitude, whenever we talk about what destroys it, we're talking about things that appear 'unrealistic'...  That may mean that they don't correspond to the 'real world' or that they lack internal consistency.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;695364I agree with everything you wrote, but I'll point out that when your world lacks versimilitude, your players will say 'that's not realistic'.  Maybe it's just harder to say in a conversation, but while we are really discussing versimilitude, whenever we talk about what destroys it, we're talking about things that appear 'unrealistic'...  That may mean that they don't correspond to the 'real world' or that they lack internal consistency.

Yes. That's because they are misusing the word (it's not dramatic or special, we're all misusing words all the time every day), making a shortcut between what they think feels real and the referent that came to mind, actual reality. This is related to the players' expectations as they relate to the game world and its context. Basically when they're saying "it's not realistic" in most cases what they really mean is "that isn't believable/that breaks my immersion/this isn't verisimilar in this game's context."

Try the same thing with TIE fighters making no sound in the Star Wars universe and the viewers won't use the same expression, i.e. they won't tell you 'that's not realistic', but they'll tell you "this doesn't feel like Star Wars." They mean the same thing as those guys who were telling you that this or that element didn't feel "realistic" in that other game.

If you're aware of this as a GM, you can hear the complaint of a player, whatever form it takes, and understand what he or she means, as opposed to the way s/he's actually saying it. Then you can concentrate on solving the issue from a verisimilar standpoint, instead of getting sidetracked trying to split hairs too finely modeling physics or whatnot.

Quote from: Benoist;695375Basically when they're saying "it's not realistic" in most cases what they really mean is "that isn't believable/that breaks my immersion/this isn't verisimilar in this game's context."

Hahaha, ah jeez. Just for the record Benwah here has me on ignore because of the last discussion about realism. He's unable to come to terms with being objectively wrong.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;695364I agree with everything you wrote, but I'll point out that when your world lacks versimilitude, your players will say 'that's not realistic'.  Maybe it's just harder to say in a conversation, but while we are really discussing versimilitude, whenever we talk about what destroys it, we're talking about things that appear 'unrealistic'...  That may mean that they don't correspond to the 'real world' or that they lack internal consistency.

Right,
This is why I feel the hierarchy belongs this way, based on the perceptions of those who play.  It is a small thing, and Ben and I agree on 95% of what we are saying, but I consider Realism to be the touchstone and parent-concept.

Quote from: LordVreeg;695380Right,
This is why I feel the hierarchy belongs this way, based on the perceptions of those who play.  It is a small thing, and Ben and I agree on 95% of what we are saying, but I consider Realism to be the touchstone and parent-concept.

Yup. We agree on most of this stuff, and disagree on this particular point.

I think this is reflected in our respective campaign worlds and cosmologies, actually. :)

This also could explain our different takes ages ago when I was conceiving the Enrill as this multiplicity of worlds (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=26999) each with their own game systems and referents while you were positing that sooner or later I would revert to a single system for all that stuff. I think you were thinking of one single objective source of realism for the multiverse, while I was (and still am) more interested in modeling the specificity of each world's reality with its own appropriate game system, linking all of them through the same meta-campaign and letting the metaphysical implications work themselves out on their own, as they arise in actual play, from there.

One recurring problem since at least the late 70s/early 80s is that one person will see so-n-so as perfectly realistic and someone else will see the same thing as unrealistic. Some players and GMs want the high fantasy, some want the low to zero fantasy. As usual, varies wildly from group to group. Even from game designer to game designer.

D&D HP is the most common one. Some will view it as fatigue, luck, lots of maneuvering, whatever. Others view it as flat out life, meat, whatever. And in both it is possible to fall off a cliff and live. Its up to the GM to detail how this happened if they so desire. Were there rocky prominences that the character pachinkoed down the cliff off of? Was the ground they landed in soft from a recent rain? Did they actually not fall all that far?

The GM put a cliff there for the character to possibly fall off of. The GM sure better have a interesting reason why the character survived if the players are reality fanatics.

Ive seen players who freak out at dragons flying or elves existing as being unrealistic. Define realistic in a fantasy setting where people can blast eachother with fireballs conjured from thin air?

There is a point where realism has to take a hike. Either that or come up with good excuses why the fighter fell off a cliff and lived. My local group has fun coming up with amazing descriptions of how their character survived.

And of course some nut will argue that falling from 6ft/2m and living is unrealistic. People have died from shorter drops. Walking and living is unrealistic. People have tripped and died. My counter is that people also live through such things every day. And people have fallen from obviously 100% lethal heights and walked away. There is a really disturbing documentary series from BBC I believe showcasing the impossible things people have lived through.

In the end. It is up to the individual GM and players to determine and to play out or not play out things that seem unrealistic or not.

And Spelljammer actually had lethal rules for falling from orbit... ow...

I have been playing rpgs for a ton of years and I can coun't 'realism debates' on one hand. Usually when someone attempts something truly absurd. I really can't recall anyone debating marginal realism situations.

Quote from: Omega;695412One recurring problem since at least the late 70s/early 80s is that one person will see so-n-so as perfectly realistic and someone else will see the same thing as unrealistic.

Unless you've done the legwork and have the research to back it up, as has been repeated fairly often. What you're talking about is verisimilitude, which causes plenty of arguments and makes the 'GM as god' philosophy a prerequisite in some games, apparently.

I'm mainly acquainted with the term "verisimilitude" as denoting a literary technique for drawing the reader into story elements that are known to be contra reality, by mustering (knowingly) fake "documentary" support. The classic exemplars are Edgar Allen Poe and H.P. Lovecraft.

Quote from: Phillip;695497I'm mainly acquainted with the term "verisimilitude" as denoting a literary technique for drawing the reader into story elements that are known to be contra reality, by mustering (knowingly) fake "documentary" support. The classic exemplars are Edgar Allen Poe and H.P. Lovecraft.

I'm mainly acquainted with the term "verisimilitude" from the Amber DRPG, which summarizes this entire thread nicely without any penis references, making this argument old enough to drink in all fifty states.

Quote from: JonWakeAnd then you have the hydrostatic shock, which is the shockwave that moves through the body. Through most tissue, the body simply deforms around the shockwave and springs back. However, if the shockwave moves through a frangible tissue, like the liver or brain, the shockwave will effectively detonate the organ. And what's more, if the shockwave gets close to the spine, the pressure can cause swelling in the nerve sheath and cause temporary paralysis.

Do you have any cites for this?  All the research I've seen indicates hydrostatic shock is a myth (more accurately, the "getting shot in the leg causes your brain to liquefy" meme is a myth).

Quote from: daniel_ream;695516I'm mainly acquainted with the term "verisimilitude" from the Amber DRPG, which summarizes this entire thread nicely without any penis references, making this argument old enough to drink in all fifty states.



Do you have any cites for this?  All the research I've seen indicates hydrostatic shock is a myth (more accurately, the "getting shot in the leg causes your brain to liquefy" meme is a myth).

YS Selman et al., Medico-legal Study of Shockwave Damage by High Velocity Missiles in Firearm Injuries, Fac Med Baghdad 2011; Vol. 53, No. 4

Basically it says examination of battlefield corpses shot with high velocity bullets almost always show internal tissue damage away from the wound channel, typically in lungs or abdomen.

Google up hydrostatic shock there are studies done where scientists shoot pigs in the thigh and then look at the brain.  The brain does not liquefy, but brain damage can be present due to the pressure wave of the bullet travelling up major blood vessels to the spine or brain.  So, you probably won't die from the brain damage, but you might have a host of difficulties.

Quote from: daniel_ream;695516Do you have any cites for this?  All the research I've seen indicates hydrostatic shock is a myth (more accurately, the "getting shot in the leg causes your brain to liquefy" meme is a myth).

Did you read past the first word?

Quote from: daniel_ream;695516I'm mainly acquainted with the term "verisimilitude" from the Amber DRPG, which summarizes this entire thread nicely without any penis references, making this argument old enough to drink in all fifty states.

OK, this made me curious, so I looked it up in my PDF copy.  This is the section of verisimilitude.

QuoteGAME MASTERING TECHNIQUES

There are two "arts" to being an Amber Game Master. The first is the art of creating a story, covered back in the section on "Campaign Building." Art number two is the art of interacting with player and making things interesting from one minute to the next.

Verisimilitude.

Yeah, I know, I can barely pronounce it myself.

The word "verisimilitude" means, according to the dictionary, "the quality of appearing to be true." That's one of a Game Master's main objectives, trying to get the players to believe in what is happening in the campaign. To get players into accepting the events of the role-playing scene as "truth."

Don't Say It, Show It!

The first rule of making things believable is, as they put it in Hollywood, "Show it, don't tell it." What that means to a Game Master is that you should never tell the player anything about the universe. Instead you describe what the character sees, hears, smells, feels, and tastes.

For example, you could tell the player that a certain little role-playing experience. It gives them a chance to form the girl is really rotten. Or you could read the following:

"You peek into the room quietly, expecting to see both children asleep. Instead, you see that the sweet little girl is up, leaning over her older brother's bed as he lies sleeping. She's lifting his blanket with one hand, and in the other she's holding a jar that seems to contain some kind of bee or wasp."

If you want to present a character as nice, show them doing something nice.

In the same way, trying to tell a player that their character is mad, or sad, just isn't as "real" as role-playing through whatever circumstances it takes to bring them to that emotion.

Even when you have to tell the player about their character's emotions, it's best to present it from the character's point of view. For example, "so-and-so told you," or "you read somewhere," or "you saw," are always superior to saying "you
 know." Here are a three variations on communicating a "remembered" emotion with a player:

Sample Memory with Told Emotional Memory.

Peggy's character Iresa has a memory associated with a name the group has encountered. I n this case the Game Master just gives the player a thumbnail sketch of where and when and what are the feelings recalled.

GM: That name, Josek, seems to mean something to you. Yes, you're pretty sure that you knew somebody of that name when you were a kid.
Peggy: I do? How old was I? What was Josek to me? Tell me about it.
GM: You were ten or twelve, off in that boarding school that you hated so much. Back when your mother had the nervous breakdown, and, as usual, when your father was off on one of his frequent absences. You remember Josek a s a kid of your age, who frequently humiliated you. You hate him.

Sample Memory with Shared Emotional Memory.

Again we'll take a look at Peggy's character Iresa and her relationship with has a memory associated with a name the group has encountered. In this case the Game Master just gives the player a thumbnail sketch of where and when and what are the feelings recalled.

GM: That name, Josek, seems to mean something to you. Yes, you're pretty sure that you knew somebody of that name when you were a kid.
Peggy: I do? How old was I? What was Josek to me? Tell me about it.
GM: You were ten or twelve, off in that boarding school that you hated so much. Back when your mother had the nervous breakdown, and, as usual, when your father was off on one of his frequent absences. Iresa was a perfect athlete, but had some problems with her academic studies. In particular you were struggling with your compositions, and with math. Also, since your old school hadn't covered classic languages, you were way behind in those subjects. Does that sound right to you?
Peggy: Yeah, I think so. Still, Iresa would have worked hard, she would have been trying.
GM: Exactly, she was trying very hard to keep up. Josek was a smarty-pants who made your life miserable. He was always way ahead of you in every subject, and he would taunt you with his good tests and grades. He also used to make up clever little Latinate riddles with your name. The whole school thought they were just hilarious, and you even heard teachers telling them in class.
Peggy: Was he just picking on me?
GM: Yes, he never made up riddles about anyone else.
Peggy: What a snot!


Sample Memory with Role-Played Emotional Memory.

For the most involved possibility, the Game Master will role-play Peggy through a critical memory of her relationship with Josek. The background starts the same, but in this case the Game Master takes Peggy into the past.

GM: That name, Josek, seems to mean something to you. Yes, you're pretty sure that you knew somebody of that name when you were a kid.
Peggy: I do? How old was I? What was Josek to me? Tell me about it.
GM: You were ten or twelve, off in that boarding school that you hated so much. It's back when your mother had the nervous breakdown, and, as usual, your father was off on one of his frequent absences. Does that sound right to you?
Peggy: Yes, that fits in with how I see Iresa's childhood.
GM: Okay, just a bit more background. You're a good athlete, but you're having a lot of problems with your studies. One day you walk into the classroom where you're learning the old classic languages, and you see the teacher, Josek, and a couple of other students laughing. The teacher sees, you, puts his hand on his mouth and turns a little red. What are you doing?
Peggy: He did that because he saw me?
GM: It would seem so. Josek glances at you, whispers something to the other students and they break out laughing even harder. What are you doing?
Peggy: I guess I'l1 just ignore it and go sit down.
GM: "he teacher hushes up the students, and things settle back down to normal. A couple of hours later the class is over. Are you doing anything unusual?
Peggy: No Well, do I know any of the students who were laughing?
GM: Sure, they're all classmates. You know one of them well. Hmmm. Let's call her Vina.
Peggy: I'll go up to Vina and ask her about the joke.
GM: She seems embarrassed and she tells you it was nothing.
Peggy: Right.
GM: Do you want to press her on it?
Peggy: No, I'll let it go.
GM: Fine. A couple of days later in the dining room you see some older kids laughing and passing around a note. The one who has the note sees you and starts shoving the note into a book. What are you doing?
Peggy: Can I grab the note?
GM: If you want to step over, probably.
Peggy: I'll take the note.
GM: The guy doesn't want to give it up. He holds his hand out to block you. What are you doing?
Peggy: Can I twist his arm and make him give it to me?
GM: With your strength? In a flash you've got the note. What now?
Peggy: What's on the note?
GM: It's in Latinate. Not exactly your best subject. However, you do spot your name. It's used like a rhyme, at the end of every sentence.
Peggy: What does it mean?
GM: As far as you can tell, it's some kind of play on words. What are you going to do?
Peggy: I'll go find that slime, Josek.
GM: You see him on the other side of the dining room.
Peggy: I'm going to push this in his face and ask him if it's his work.
GM: He looks pretty scared when you walk over. He's kind of a wimp, and you're at that age where the girls are mostly bigger than the boys. He looks at the note and kind of gulps. What are you doing?
Peggy: (in Iresa's angry voice) If you ever, ever, write anything about me ever, ever again, I'm going to pound you into the ground, rip off your arms, and break your legs!
GM: Well, that had an impact! Everybody in the dining room goes deathly quiet. A couple of teachers are looking your way, what are you doing?
Peggy: I'll just leave.
GM: Fine. That's the last clear memory you have of Josek.

Quote from: The Traveller;695414Unless you've done the legwork and have the research to back it up, as has been repeated fairly often. What you're talking about is verisimilitude, which causes plenty of arguments and makes the 'GM as god' philosophy a prerequisite in some games, apparently.

No. Just different viewpoints, perspectives, interpretations. Even with perfectly clear cut rules. Someone somewhere is going to read it some weird direction. You want to head that off.

The GM should lay out what is what at the start and stick to it. "This is how I will be treating HP and yadda-yadda." Keep everyone on the same wavelength. That is how I start a campaign and my rulebooks.

Quote from: The Traveller;695326Unless it happens to be a discussion about penises, which let's face it the internet has more than it's fair share of and so needs an exception written in there, thus you've associated your handle forever with discussions about penises. Not neccessarily the route I'd have taken.

Oh.  Good point.  Thanks.  Great.  I'll call it Taustin's Law, then.

Quote from: Omega;695544No. Just different viewpoints, perspectives, interpretations. Even with perfectly clear cut rules. Someone somewhere is going to read it some weird direction. You want to head that off.

The GM should lay out what is what at the start and stick to it. "This is how I will be treating HP and yadda-yadda." Keep everyone on the same wavelength. That is how I start a campaign and my rulebooks.

I think this is a major motivator for the "never not never no never" brigade, the concept that realism might chip away at their GM-as-god foundation. Although to be honest I don't see how ignoring one set of rules and ignoring another set of rules is much different.

Quote from: Ravenswing;695556Oh.  Good point.  Thanks.  Great.  I'll call it Taustin's Law, then.

Winner! :D

Quote from: The Traveller;695206You're done, son. I'm just mopping up the bar afterwards. Maybe in your next incarnation you'll be a little more provident in your decisions.

Since all you have left is to literally lie about what I said, I'll take that as an admission that you've realized that I'm right, and that you're a useless tit more interested in trolling than discussing games.

Again.

Quote from: LordVreeg;695251Christmas, are you 2 still at this?  
The English definition is not the same as the compartmentalized, hobby specific definition.  They are not synonymous in our hobby, one is a subset of the other.
/

Once again, there was an argument going on in which the two sides were clearly using different definitions, and equally clearly were not aware of it.

Why does my pointing that out piss people off so much? Seriously, dude. Why does that piss you off so much?

Quote from: Benoist;695267How the fuck did this discussion get to talking about 8 feet long penises?

Because a number of the regulars here just aren't interested in talking about gaming. They're much more interested in giant penises.

Quote from: Benoist;695269I disagree with that diagram. Verisimilitude is about apparence of reality, in other words, believability. Now what is believable depends on the context of the game world, and some things may be believable or unbelievable while being realistic or unrealistic. This is something that is only tenuously related to actual positive reality, since it is in fact predicated on our own personal, subjective, perceptions, expectations, and imaginations extrapolating the possible from impossible contexts.

For instance. A Methuselah lifting a building in Vampire the Masquerade is completely unrealistic for a variety of reasons involving physics, biology, etc, but it can be believable (= verisimilar) in the context of the World of Darkness when a combination of supernatural disciplines and magickal laws of the universe are involved (not to mention, a Methuselah piercing the Earth's crust with its fists... but I'm getting side-tracked here).

So verisimilar things are not necessarily realistic. Your Venn diagram doesn't reflect that.

Indeed. The appearance of reality is not actually connected at all with what can actually happen in real life.

That's the disconnect I was pointing out in the first place.

Some people apparently have a real problem understanding (or perhaps accepting) this fact.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;695280All I've been doing is namecalling?

That's all you're doing now.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;695280Perhaps you should go back and reread your response here tomorrow, and hopefully you will see how you're coming off to others.

Apparently, pointing out that two people are arguing past each other because they're using different definitions of the same word, and are unaware of it, comes across in such a way as to piss people off, for reasons beyond human understanding, but apparently based on having a very small penis.

Do you really think I care what retarded children think of me?

Quote from: Ravenswing;695312Yeah, it IS useful to identify those sorts of people here ... the ones who just figure if they keep on shouting "I'm right!  I'm right!  Anyone who disagrees with me is wrongwrongWRONG!" at the top of their lungs, they can just declare victory.  

Maybe I should just establish Ravenswing's Law (in the spirit of Godwin's Law): making penis references in an Internet debate is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

A number of people have agreed with the point I made. The one shouting "I'm right!  I'm right!  Anyone who disagrees with me is wrongwrongWRONG!" isn't me. I didn't start the namecalling and personal attacks.

Again, why does it piss you off so much that I pointed out that people were using different definitions of the same word and were unaware of it? I really don't understand why that pisses you off so much. What vested personal interest do you have in deliberately fostering misunderstandings? In actively preventing effective communcations?

Is it that your entire sense of self-worth is rooted in feeling superior to other people because you can call them names, or something? How sad.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;695328Maybe a glossary is needed of all these technical terms so that everyone knows how to use them correctly.

Not a bad idea, but put on your fireproof underwear if you try.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;695328Wasn't there another site at one point that didn't something like that?

If there was, it probably got driven out of existence by people who just get pissed off at the thought of people communicating effectively with each other.

Quote from: Ravenswing;695556Oh.  Good point.  Thanks.  Great.  I'll call it Taustin's Law, then.

Any time you talk about me, I win. Because you'll keep talking about me until I allow you to stop. You know it's up to me, and that you'll do what you're told.

@ Taustin -

Right next to the 'quote' button is another button that looks a little like a stack of papers...  Not a realistic stack of papers, mind you, but close enough.  In any case, that is the 'multi-quote' button.  If you click on that button for several posts and then hit 'quote' on the last one or 'reply' you will quote multiple people in a single response.  

This is also helpful if you want to quote the text someone is resonding to.

Example -

I hit the button for each of your posts above, and they're all here.  Now if I wanted to respond to each one (or portions of each one) I could without multiple responses.  

Quote from: taustin;695722Since all you have left is to literally lie about what I said, I'll take that as an admission that you've realized that I'm right, and that you're a useless tit more interested in trolling than discussing games.

Again.

Quote from: taustin;695725Once again, there was an argument going on in which the two sides were clearly using different definitions, and equally clearly were not aware of it.

Why does my pointing that out piss people off so much? Seriously, dude. Why does that piss you off so much?

Quote from: taustin;695726Because a number of the regulars here just aren't interested in talking about gaming. They're much more interested in giant penises.

Quote from: taustin;695729Indeed. The appearance of reality is not actually connected at all with what can actually happen in real life.

That's the disconnect I was pointing out in the first place.

Some people apparently have a real problem understanding (or perhaps accepting) this fact.

Quote from: taustin;695731That's all you're doing now.



Apparently, pointing out that two people are arguing past each other because they're using different definitions of the same word, and are unaware of it, comes across in such a way as to piss people off, for reasons beyond human understanding, but apparently based on having a very small penis.

Do you really think I care what retarded children think of me?

Quote from: taustin;695732A number of people have agreed with the point I made. The one shouting "I'm right!  I'm right!  Anyone who disagrees with me is wrongwrongWRONG!" isn't me. I didn't start the namecalling and personal attacks.

Again, why does it piss you off so much that I pointed out that people were using different definitions of the same word and were unaware of it? I really don't understand why that pisses you off so much. What vested personal interest do you have in deliberately fostering misunderstandings? In actively preventing effective communcations?

Is it that your entire sense of self-worth is rooted in feeling superior to other people because you can call them names, or something? How sad.

Quote from: taustin;695733Not a bad idea, but put on your fireproof underwear if you try.



If there was, it probably got driven out of existence by people who just get pissed off at the thought of people communicating effectively with each other.

Quote from: taustin;695736Any time you talk about me, I win. Because you'll keep talking about me until I allow you to stop. You know it's up to me, and that you'll do what you're told.

Quote from: taustin;695731Do you really think I care what retarded children think of me?

There's the door dude.  Seriously.  If all you're going to do is bitch about how much you hate people here, leave.  Clearly, even after a couple days, you looked back at your post like I asked and came away with the impression that I'm the one calling you names, rather than looked at how you're coming off to everyone else.  There is no reason why anyone would make the effort to try to have an honest conversation with you, and you clearly don't like the reaction you're getting from anyone else.

So leave.  Spare yourself the increased blood pressure.  I don't hang around sites that I hate, so why are you?  And before you say something along the lines of "occassionally there is good info", show me one interaction where you had a good conversation with people?  Because they are all like this.

Quote from: taustin;695736Any time you talk about me, I win. Because you'll keep talking about me until I allow you to stop. You know it's up to me, and that you'll do what you're told.

Actually it's up to us.

Let's try talking to each other about the thread subject shall we?

and no, i'm not interested in "he said, she said."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;695740There's the door dude.  Seriously.  If all you're going to do is bitch about how much you hate people here, leave.  Clearly, even after a couple days, you looked back at your post like I asked and came away with the impression that I'm the one calling you names, rather than looked at how you're coming off to everyone else.  There is no reason why anyone would make the effort to try to have an honest conversation with you, and you clearly don't like the reaction you're getting from anyone else.

So leave.  Spare yourself the increased blood pressure.  I don't hang around sites that I hate, so why are you?  And before you say something along the lines of "occassionally there is good info", show me one interaction where you had a good conversation with people?  Because they are all like this.

Dude, I'm not the one pissed off. In fact, I'm quite amused by the dancing monkeys. You appear to be getting more and more angry. Perhaps you should leave. Only a suggestion, mind you. If you just can't handle seeing posts that disagree with you, and dismiss you as a loser, you could also set me to ignore, so that you won't see my posts at all. Again, only a suggestion. Because, you see, like you I don't own this web site, so, you know, I don't get to order people to leave. Neither, of course, do you.

So take a chill pill, dude, and act your age. Unless, of course, you already are, in which case, take a chill pill, dude, and grow the fuck up.

Quote from: One Horse Town;695750Actually it's up to us.

And yet, you replied.

Quote from: taustin;695763And yet, you replied.

and now, we're done talking about you, just like i said.

Closed. You all know who to blame.

Quote from: taustin;695763And yet, you replied.

How about I make it a touch clearer: derail another thread like this, and you're gone.

RPGPundit