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 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!

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.