Forums of the Megaverse®

verisimilitude

the semblance of reality in dramatic or nondramatic fiction. The concept implies that either the action represented must be acceptable or convincing according to the audience's own experience or knowledge or, as in the presentation of science fiction or tales of the supernatural, the audience must be enticed into willingly suspending disbelief and accepting improbable actions as true within the framework of the narrative.

If you want to run a game that you and your players will still be talking about in 15 years you need to master the above concept as a game master/storyteller.

I hear a "But is it fun?" out there some where. Sure fun is important but marbles is fun, checkers is fun, if you want to kill an afternoon rolling dice and pretending to smash the coalition state that's fun too.

When I put pencil to paper I'm looking for something more than "just fun", I'm looking for something epic. Obviously I'm not going to get something epic every time I GM, I might never get to that level but I'm going to try. And the only way a GM is going to ever take a step up from a game being "just fun" to "holy crap! I can't wait for next week's game" is to understand the concept and execution of verisimilitude.

If you master the art of verisimilitude, having fun will be easy and require little effort. The work you put in ahead of time will see to that.

This is just something I wanted to share that I feel strongly about. I can't tell somebody else what is or isn't fun for them.
But I can smell a crappy game being run @ a convention a mile away.

Disagreement: Alot of people say Tolkeen made a convincing world.

I really think anyone who enjoyed it didn't enjoy a convincing world, they enjoyed the character development that occured because of all the stuff in the world. Even the ents went through some character development on contact with the hobbits!

Tolkeen had alot of world detail, but if you look you find every single bit was used in character development of some kind. Every bit! That's the genius!

Noon wrote:Disagreement: Alot of people say Tolkeen made a convincing world.

I really think anyone who enjoyed it didn't enjoy a convincing world, they enjoyed the character development that occured because of all the stuff in the world. Even the ents went through some character development on contact with the hobbits!

Tolkeen had alot of world detail, but if you look you find every single bit was used in character development of some kind. Every bit! That's the genius!

Just to be clear I think you meant Tolkien not Tolkeen....

I don't know about epic. Some of my fondest role playing memories are not epic. Hell, some of them didn't occur in character.

Noon wrote:Disagreement: Alot of people say Tolkeen made a convincing world.

I really think anyone who enjoyed it didn't enjoy a convincing world, they enjoyed the character development that occured because of all the stuff in the world. Even the ents went through some character development on contact with the hobbits!

Tolkeen had alot of world detail, but if you look you find every single bit was used in character development of some kind. Every bit! That's the genius!

I respectfully disagree with your analysis. I think without the convincing world the characters lack any history or back ground to give them depth, for instance when boromir calls agagorn his king before he dies (my favorite part BTW) with out the well developed convincing world the importance of these word are lost.

Without verisimilitude lord of the rings is just some guys running around trying to throw a ring into a volcano.

Sure they can grow and develop, but it is empty without a history or context.
The impact of the battering ram Grond for instance was quite moving for me as I knew the history of the name and was impressed that the evil army would name their ram after saron's mace.

If that world detail, that you pointed out, was used strictly for character development than I contend it needed serious verisimilitude, his histories and legends that have nothing to do directly with any of the characters in the LOTR we pivotal in convincing the reader that what he was looking at was real and could (within the well defined paradigm) happen.

sasha wrote:I don't know about epic. Some of my fondest role playing memories are not epic. Hell, some of them didn't occur in character.

The same hold for me as well, moments from games are great to remember and sit around with the old group an laugh. But I really love remembering the 6 years we spent developing a story around a few characters that grew into something big and (within the context of the game) important. That game was great because we were able to buy into the story and world. That sort of suspension of disbelief is only possible through good use of verisimilitude. That was all I was trying to say.

I, in no way meant to belittle anyone's previous gaming experience. I was just pointing out if you think big you better plan hard.

i'm not sure "epic" and "verisimilitude" are directly connected. you can have an epic without verisimilitude, just look at Space Battleship Yamato or star wars. what verisimilitude is about is getting the details just close enough to how we perceive reality that the viewers/players don't have issues with suspension of disbeleif. and thus, it is a very subjective thing. for example, the new Battlestar Galactica was often refered to as "feeling very real", due to its general avoidance of 'plot device technology' like sheilds or energy weapons, for it's portrayal of a 3D and inertia based space travel, and it's portrayal of 'real' people... but at the same time, others had trouble with the low technology of the ships, despite the presence of FTL and artificial gravity, the fact it's 'real people' were just carbon copies of the society, government, and military of the united states; only with some names and such changed.

so you have to find the balance between reality and fiction that your players will accept.

pestigor wrote:

Noon wrote:Disagreement: Alot of people say Tolkeen made a convincing world.

I really think anyone who enjoyed it didn't enjoy a convincing world, they enjoyed the character development that occured because of all the stuff in the world. Even the ents went through some character development on contact with the hobbits!

Tolkeen had alot of world detail, but if you look you find every single bit was used in character development of some kind. Every bit! That's the genius!

I respectfully disagree with your analysis. I think without the convincing world the characters lack any history or back ground to give them depth, for instance when boromir calls agagorn his king before he dies (my favorite part BTW) with out the well developed convincing world the importance of these word are lost.

No the importance would be lost if Boromir had called Aragorn his king all along. The pivotal moment is that his character changes, and he now accepts Aragorn as his King (even though he dies shortly after) whereas before he didn't (IIRC).

Imagine it with all the rich history but this time Boromir called Aragorn his king the whole while ... so what if he says it again at death? It'd be nice, but it's not pivotal. It wouldn't be a moment - he'd just be repeating the usual stuff.

It's not the history that matters. It lends weight to the issue, but it's not the issue.

Or in my above example would you say it's pivotal still?

Without verisimilitude lord of the rings is just some guys running around trying to throw a ring into a volcano.

Sure they can grow and develop, but it is empty without a history or context.

How can someone grow and develop, yet it's empty? Can you give an example from a book or something? I remember in an old western 'Shane' the gunslinger (pretending to just be a worker, IIRC) and farmer work together, sweating in the midday sun, to remove an ancient old stump from the ground. It's tough for them, but they manage to do it together. No ancient curse or evil incarnate around. Is it empty for that?

Edit: Not intending to drive this down a 'I'm right' path, just trying to leave an impression there might be something else to this.

How can someone grow and develop, yet it's empty? Can you give an example from a book or something? I remember in an old western 'Shane' the gunslinger (pretending to just be a worker, IIRC) and farmer work together, sweating in the midday sun, to remove an ancient old stump from the ground. It's tough for them, but they manage to do it together. No ancient curse or evil incarnate around. Is it empty for that?

Edit: Not intending to drive this down a 'I'm right' path, just trying to leave an impression there might be something else to this.

I've love Shane ever since my dad showed it to me years ago. When I watched it as a kid I didn't really appreciate the movie ( I still loved it). It was years later when I learned of the back ground of pig farmers and cattle men and HOW desperate the situation really was that the actions of the characters had a deeper meaning for me. Like I said above, before I understood some serious key elements of the milieu (or world/paradigm) it was just 2 guys digging up a stump. When I understood the way their world worked, and the history of men like Shane the movie (and later book) became more real to me and It became more than just another western and it became a Legend. Although my mom is still driven insane when me and my dad call after Shane like the kid at the end....

We could go back and forth like this forever. I'm willing to say Genre development, milieu & established paradigm are of paramount importance when attempting any endeavor with regard to fiction which allows for realistic& meaningful character development, and you see character development as paramount when it comes to establishing story and background as secondary. While I completely disagree and feel I've expressed my view (as have you) I respect your opinion. I don't see it as wrong, I see it as a way I don't see things. I suppose I'm agreeing to disagree in a congenial manner.
Thank you for your candor and sharing.

I disagree as well.

It isn't about the story.. It isn't about the game. It isn't about the sytem.

Everything boils down to have a good time with friends. Some of the worst campains we still look back at and laugh about how much fun we had just enjoying each others company.

Nomadic wrote:I disagree as well.

It isn't about the story.. It isn't about the game. It isn't about the system.

Everything boils down to have a good time with friends. Some of the worst campaigns we still look back at and laugh about how much fun we had just enjoying each others company.

Fact is: the system should not interrupt the momentum of play, and it should not detract from the enjoyment of the story - the system should vanish into the game.

If your story is about the world, verisimilitude is vital; if it is about the characters, growth is vital. Anything that is a mix of the two should use both with as much equality as possible.

Verisimilitude is more than just the world though; it has an equal amount to do with the characters in that world.

If you're running a game and you have 2 players buying into your world, all is well. Say though a third player joins and is playing their character on a more generic front; that is, your take on Rifts Earth (for example) diverges from that of the norm, and this third player is acting as if there is no divergence - that serves to shake the verisimilitude.

Add in an "odd-ball", someone who is taking nothing seriously and acts as if they are a player of a role-playing game instead of a character in a simulated world and pow - you lose verisimilitude because not everyones' mind-set is focused on bringing the world to life.


Verisimilitude is paramount to fun in this respect because with verisimilitude there is group-investment. No one wants to see an investment turn bad, so sometimes a bit of work on all parts must take place in preference to "fun".

Where does this leave us?
We all want fun, but fun can be had in many ways; you can watch a stand-up act for instance. The problem though is that you will not derive fun from that activity for ever; you cannot simply watch all stand-up acts as your sole form of entertainment. Eventually you will get bored. This is why we have other mediums of entertainment; movies categorize this quite well and are synonymous with this hobby (acting in a fictional or simulated world and all that).

With movies we enjoy actions, dramas, love-stories, mysteries, horror, and of course comedies.

All of these things equate to a bundle of emotions that add up to much more than just "fun"; they provide a sense of fulfillment, inspiration, and excitement. This is what verisimilitude equates to; a setting and characters in a world where everyone gleans a sense of fulfillment, inspiration, excitement, and ultimately fun.


It is apparent in many of your posts that you guys are equating just the world you're playing in as the sole anchor of verisimilitude.

It is so much more than that.

Dog_O_War wrote:Verisimilitude is more than just the world though; it has an equal amount to do with the characters in that world.

If you're running a game and you have 2 players buying into your world, all is well. Say though a third player joins and is playing their character on a more generic front; that is, your take on Rifts Earth (for example) diverges from that of the norm, and this third player is acting as if there is no divergence - that serves to shake the verisimilitude.

Add in an "odd-ball", someone who is taking nothing seriously and acts as if they are a player of a role-playing game instead of a character in a simulated world and pow - you lose verisimilitude because not everyones' mind-set is focused on bringing the world to life.


Verisimilitude is paramount to fun in this respect because with verisimilitude there is group-investment. No one wants to see an investment turn bad, so sometimes a bit of work on all parts must take place in preference to "fun".

Where does this leave us?
We all want fun, but fun can be had in many ways; you can watch a stand-up act for instance. The problem though is that you will not derive fun from that activity for ever; you cannot simply watch all stand-up acts as your sole form of entertainment. Eventually you will get bored. This is why we have other mediums of entertainment; movies categorize this quite well and are synonymous with this hobby (acting in a fictional or simulated world and all that).

With movies we enjoy actions, dramas, love-stories, mysteries, horror, and of course comedies.

All of these things equate to a bundle of emotions that add up to much more than just "fun"; they provide a sense of fulfillment, inspiration, and excitement. This is what verisimilitude equates to; a setting and characters in a world where everyone gleans a sense of fulfillment, inspiration, excitement, and ultimately fun.


It is apparent in many of your posts that you guys are equating just the world you're playing in as the sole anchor of verisimilitude.

It is so much more than that.

Not to take away or belittle what others have said above but I have to say, thank you Dog_O_War for summing up what I was unable to clearly define in my previous posts.

pestigor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Verisimilitude is more than just the world though; it has an equal amount to do with the characters in that world.

If you're running a game and you have 2 players buying into your world, all is well. Say though a third player joins and is playing their character on a more generic front; that is, your take on Rifts Earth (for example) diverges from that of the norm, and this third player is acting as if there is no divergence - that serves to shake the verisimilitude.

Add in an "odd-ball", someone who is taking nothing seriously and acts as if they are a player of a role-playing game instead of a character in a simulated world and pow - you lose verisimilitude because not everyones' mind-set is focused on bringing the world to life.


Verisimilitude is paramount to fun in this respect because with verisimilitude there is group-investment. No one wants to see an investment turn bad, so sometimes a bit of work on all parts must take place in preference to "fun".

Where does this leave us?
We all want fun, but fun can be had in many ways; you can watch a stand-up act for instance. The problem though is that you will not derive fun from that activity for ever; you cannot simply watch all stand-up acts as your sole form of entertainment. Eventually you will get bored. This is why we have other mediums of entertainment; movies categorize this quite well and are synonymous with this hobby (acting in a fictional or simulated world and all that).

With movies we enjoy actions, dramas, love-stories, mysteries, horror, and of course comedies.

All of these things equate to a bundle of emotions that add up to much more than just "fun"; they provide a sense of fulfillment, inspiration, and excitement. This is what verisimilitude equates to; a setting and characters in a world where everyone gleans a sense of fulfillment, inspiration, excitement, and ultimately fun.


It is apparent in many of your posts that you guys are equating just the world you're playing in as the sole anchor of verisimilitude.

It is so much more than that.

Not to take away or belittle what others have said above but I have to say, thank you Dog_O_War for summing up what I was unable to clearly define in my previous posts.

Amen...Amen guys...hats off!!!

This really is the best thread I have seen in the Megaversal Forums for a long, long time.

Sidenote: There is no opposite for verisimilitude in the English language. The French, however, do have such a term. I can't type it correctly with this browser, but it looks like donnee and is pronounced like don-nay. Donnee is the aspect or aspects of a story which the audience finds to unexceptable and breaks the suspension of disbelief.

Noon wrote:Disagreement: Alot of people say Tolkeen made a convincing world.

I really think anyone who enjoyed it didn't enjoy a convincing world, they enjoyed the character development that occured because of all the stuff in the world. Even the ents went through some character development on contact with the hobbits!

Tolkeen had alot of world detail, but if you look you find every single bit was used in character development of some kind. Every bit! That's the genius!

I think you got it backward. the character development was virtually nonexsistant and the characters carcitures at best and faceless mooks most of the time. The world was the only interesting part, the only characters who got any development whatsoever were gandalf, frodo, sam, and Gimli.