Realims, Versimilitude, Logic: What's with the love?

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I keep hearing people say they don't like thing X because it isn't realistic or just in some way breaks some sort of logic.  And this is starting to confuse me:

What do people like so much about the realistic or the logical?  Why do people hate unrealistic and illogical things so much?

[Llum]

People as a rule are logical machines (discounting throwing emotions into the mix). We work by logic, things without logic seem foreign, uninteresting or just plain strange.

Personally I don't mind things being unrealistic but I like things to have a consistent internal logic. I find this shows that at least some thought was put into the creation of the thing.

Personally I find things that are illogical boring, I have no interest in them.

[Steerpike]

I think there's a huge difference between external and internal logic.  I can buy any breach (more or less) of external logic (for example: magic exists; there's a huge underground cavern called the Underdark; hyperspace; etc).  You get around all of that by suspending your disbelief, which anyone with a good imagination can easily do.

Then there's internal logic which I identify as linked to "verisimilitude."  This is whether all the elements you've inserted into the world as breaches of external logic still function in a way that makes sense or that doesn't contradict itself.  For example, say you've got a dungeon with kobolds in one level and a much stronger orc tribe in the other level.  Both orcs and kobolds aren't real so they break your frame of external logic, but we don't care because we understand that we're playing a game in a fantasy world.  But if the orcs don't enslave the kobolds (ie if there's no internally logical reason supplied why the kobolds haven't been overwhelmed by the orcs) then internal logic is broken and verisimilitude is shattered.  Same goes for inconsistent rules of magic, ecolgoies that don't work ("what do the displacer beasts eat?"), bad dungeon layouts ("where are the hobgoblin latrines?  Or their kitchens?") etc.  All of those things violate an internal frame of logic and remind us that we're only playing a game: all believability is lsot, and the whole thing feels fake and hollow.  The best fantasy novels/games make a world with wildly fantastic or unreal elements seem credible or believable.  We don't actually believe the place exists, but we believe it could.

Just my take.

[SDragon]

Near as I can tell, it's because we live in a world that once had a man by the name of Isaac Newton. Blame him.

Seriously, I love believability. I think "realism", in this context, is just a euphemism for believability and/or verisimilitude. Elves, dwarves, trolls, orcs... none of these are "realistic", but done right, they all can be believable. As long as it's established whether setting-specific elves are closer to the Tolkien variety or the Keebler variety, it won't have to be questioned.

From what I've seen, though, there does seem to be a way you can properly dismiss internal consistency. Near as I can tell, the way to do this is to explicitly express internal awareness of the lack of consistency. It seems readers are more willing to accept inconsistency if in-world characters seem just as baffled by it as the readers do. Weird Sun has an element of this, as does the Everworld series, and to a lesser degree, Carroll's Alice books.

[Nomadic]

I am a strange mix. For sci-fi and modern style RPGs if the logic doesn't work it will kill it for me. Fantasy style stuff though I don't mind having all kinds of weird stuff (though I prefer to have realism in all my settings, its how I work).

[Superfluous Crow]

I agree with the division Steerpike made between External and Internal Logic. Then again, i think most people agree with that. Anyway, i like stuff that is wildly original but it *has* to be consistent and credible and don't break the internal logic. I can't really take normal spellcasters anymore, for example, because they never provide a reason for why they use verbal and somatic components. Or, if they ascribe it to magical words, why are the words magical? That kind of stuff ruins it for me... It must seem like it makes sense to the people that live in the world. And to Halfling Fritos comment I'd say that even stuff that is weird to the characters in the setting can be internally consistent if there is a source for the weirdness. If Chaos is an actual force in your setting then it is logical that something illogical happens because of it.

[Elemental_Elf]

I, like Steerpike, like worlds to have internal logic. If you keep and maintain that, I don't generally have a problem with it (though the more you stretch external logic, the more explaining you will have to do).

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I think I see my problem: I don't assume that just because I can't see them that there aren't rules.  So instead of a break in internal logic not working for me I simply assume that a new rule has been invoked that I'm not privy to yet.

[Ghostman]

While I agree with the importance of internal logic, I admit that there are times when mystery should not be sacraficed to it. If you explain everything, it can become extremely difficult to invoke the sense of wonder and supernaturality. Like Silvercat said, there can be logic at work even when it's hidden. In such cases it could be useful to drop hints and clues that point to the existence of a logic but that do not actually reveal it.

[Polycarp]

I think there's a difference between the mysterious and the incongruous.  When I first read the Return of the King, one of the things that bothered me immediately was how that huge orc army in Mordor even existed.  They are living on a huge lava plain - where does their food come from?  There's plenty of mystery in the books, allusions to past histories and powerful ancient beings that aren't readily explained (unless you are a masochist and read through the Silmarillion), but there's no real "mystery" to the logistics of an orc army - no allusions to their ancient beef-summoning rituals, or mentioning of the great food tribute they extract from their human "allies," or any other hint.  It's just there, an inconsistency.

A mystery is something the author is aware of and deliberately chooses to keep in the shadows, while an inconsistency is something the author either missed or doesn't really care about.  I find it's usually not too hard to tell one from the other, and while some inconsistencies aren't problematic, they can ruin a story for me if they are too big and too many.  When they really permeate a story I feel like the author didn't care enough to write something that made sense, and it makes me care much less about the story.

[Nomadic]

I can't really take normal spellcasters anymore, for example, because they never provide a reason for why they use verbal and somatic components. Or, if they ascribe it to magical words, why are the words magical? That kind of stuff ruins it for me... It must seem like it makes sense to the people that live in the world.

Haha I agree with this so much. When I was thinking about verbal components for my worlds spellcasting I actually started thinking about why they would be needed. The two ideas I concluded with were that either the sonic effects on air helped focus the local aether, or that they were simply a concentration tool that helped the magician focus their mind.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I agree on the "why do they need verbal and somatic" though I once came up with a good explanation.  In fact I have problems with any ideas that require humans or something like them (i.e. psionics requires minds).  To me it's easier to believe that everything follows the laws of physics and that the laws are flexible enough that you can get away with things that look like magic.

[Nomadic]

I agree on the "why do they need verbal and somatic" though I once came up with a good explanation.  In fact I have problems with any ideas that require humans or something like them (i.e. psionics requires minds).  To me it's easier to believe that everything follows the laws of physics and that the laws are flexible enough that you can get away with things that look like magic.

Well its fine if you use the mind... you just need to link it properly. For example in Karros the Aether is life energy (in the same category as lightning, heat, etc) which happens to have special links to other energies. So anything with life energy in it can potentially manipulate the aether. Thinking beings (including animals running on instinct) do it easier because of how electrical impulses in the brain interact with the aether. So a human can train themselves to think a certain way (and so certain words help trigger these thought patterns) and some creatures instinctually know how to think to get certain reactions.

</ridiculously complex science in a fantasy setting... I just killed like 10,000 catgirls>

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Okay, let me rephrase that: I have problems with any ideas that propose that humans, sentient minds, living things, etc. are objectively "special", that is that they are more than the sum of their parts.  Or that they have special parts that the rest of the universe doesn't have.

[Superfluous Crow]

hmmm, telekinetic animals...
Anyway, i see your point. The world has to be an objective frame of reference that is equal to all.
I think i had some ideas on how minds could manipulate stuff stored away in some article on this forum but i'm not going to go find it now.