Suspension of disbelief

[GreatWolf]

In the "realistic RPG" thread, the topic of "suspension of disbelief" came up.  In this thread, Ron stated:

#3 is most general, and I hope it doesn't spawn a string of outrage like the last one I posted about this topic - which is that "suspension of disbelief" may be itself controversial as a term, perhaps even more so than realism when examined critically.

So I thought that I would start this thread to begin discussion of "suspension of disbelief".  And, to do so, I'm going to cite John Wick.

In Wick's Orkworld Design Journal, he mentioned "disbelief suspenders".  These are imaginary items that hold up your disbelief.  He then used the example of a movie totally misquoting and blowing a scene with roleplayers gaming.  You might gasp or bolt upright or even yell (or want to yell), "That's not so!"  Your disbelief suspenders have been snapped.

He also introduced the idea of a "gimmee".  A gimmee is something that must be accepted in order for the rest of the setting/story/whatever to make sense.  It's as if the game designer says, "I know that this is crazy, but if you will just gimmee this item, the rest of the game will not snap your disbelief suspenders."  As I recall, John cited lightsabers as an example of a gimmee.  One of my personal favorite examples of a gimmee is from the movie Face/Off.  The surgery premise was almost
absurd, but (IMHO) the emotional weight of the movie was worth dealing with the silliness of that one part.

Now, I'd like to suggest that "suspension of disbelief" is NOT an accurate term.  Rather, I think that what we're actually dealing with is an example of "reality priorities".  In other words, everyone has an internalized list of realism expectations of the game or story before them.  (This list can vary between games and stories, BTW.)  The items on this list are non-negotiable.  Everything else is flexible.

"Suspension of disbelief" is actually a reflection on the areas not covered by this list.  For example, I personally am willing to look past dated special effects in a movie.  It's not an important issue for me, so when I see an obvious example of blue-screen work, I can look past it.  Someone else might have "Nondistracting special effects" on his list, and therefore he will not be able to look at the same movie in the same way.  I am engaging in "suspension of disbelief", not because I'm overriding my reality priorities, but because no reality priority exists for me in this area.

Here's a gaming example.  There is currently a thread on RPGnet where someone is quoted as not liking Unknown Armies because it is not "realistic".  The low percentage skills in the game, even for competent characters, violate his sense of realism.  Therefore, this individual has "High success probabilities for skilled characters" on his list of non-negotiables.  The responding individual was arguing that UA is realistic for precisely the same reasons.  His list includes "Accurate rendition of effects of stress on characters".

In this thread, it is obvious that the first person had his disbelief suspenders snapped, whereas the second one did not.  I do not think that urging "suspension of disbelief" would work in this case.  Instead, what we are seeing is a conflict of reality priorities.

Now, I think that I could even take the next step and tie these reality priorities to GNS priorities (non-exclusively), but I will leave that for someone else.  I will say that, even within a given section of GNS, there can be different reality priorities.

Any thoughts?

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

[Valamir]

I'm 100% in agreement Seth, except the part about not thinking its SoD is a useful name for it.  I happen to find it a perfect description of what is going on.  

Suspension of Disbelief is grammatically poor because it is nothing more than a double negative.  However practically I think it is more precise and more accurate than simply Belief.

Every event in a work of fiction is either believable or not believable.  Some things are generally believable by default:  Guy got shot at, shooter missed.  Ok, nothing hard to believe there.  Other things are unbelievable.  Such as Arnold in Commando walking calmly infront of a dozen trained soldiers armed with assault rifles.  In this case all of those shooters missing with all of those bullets IS hard to believe.

However, some people are willing to set that aside and just enjoy the movie.  Their willingness to do this does not make the scene any more believable, rather they just choose not to be bothered by it.  Sure they don't believe its really likely for that to happen but they're willing to "suspend" that disbelief in order to promote other priorities.

Other people who are totally clueless about such things might not realize that they should be disbelieving the scene.  This is simply ignorance (in its precise non-malicious form).  It is the ignorance of science found in most audience members that causes so much "science" fiction to get away with being completely ridiculous.

So I submitt that there is Willing Suspension of Disbelief (with possible subcategory "begrudging") and Ignorant Suspension of Disbelief.  In other words people who believe because they don't know any betther...they're disbelief is suspended by their ignorance of facts/reality.

So to me, the double negative statement "Suspension of Disbelief" seems like a completely appropriate term that perfectly describes what's occuring.  The fact that it is also a widely used term, and widely used to mean exactly the above...seems to indicate that trying to change it is pretty pointless.  Its a lay-term that's actually accurate.  Bonus.

[Alan]

Hi all,

I'll plunk in a chunk of fiction theory, which I think clarifies the use of "suspension of disbelief" and which I think applies to the play and mechanics of RPGs.

A reader comes to a work with some willingness to invest his trust in the story about to unfold.  The basic rule is that a reader will continue to trust, provided an event grows logially from what has been shown before and what he knows of human responses.

Thus, for example, a world establishes how magic works before it becomes crucial to the story.  Any use of magic after that will be accepted by the reader, provided it follows those rules and the people involved respond according to their established character, and the nature of humans as the reader understands them.  

So there's two ways to break someone's willingness to believe in a fantasy: first, to violate the rules you've set up, and second to have the characters violate their rules of behavior.

A reader (or game player) will accept a large range of assumptions in advance, but will find the results "unrealistic" if the elements and characters of the story don't respond within those boundaries.

Or in the example of the old SF movie - or Dr. Who episodes - many people are willing to accept the cheesy special effects because they know about them going in.  But did you ever see a bad special effect show up in the middle of a movie with otherwise good effects?  That's the one that pops you out of belief.  

I think this applies equally to a player's experience of a role-playing game.  They'll accept a lot of changes in the way the imaginary world works as compared to ours, but can become unhappy when the imaginary world violates its own rules - or just doesn't live up to past experience.  

Consistency is more important than the accuracy of simulation (in the sense of simulating real world physics etc.)

[Gordon C. Landis]

FYI, the previous discussion Ron refers to (in the thread the quote is from) is here.

I'm not sure I've anything to add that I didn't say there, but we'll see where this thread goes . . .

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Hi folks,

I don't have anything to add beyond my comments in the thread that Gordon links to.

Sort of a negative-space post, I know, but sometimes people are interested in what I think, so there it is.

Best,
Ron

[Sylus Thane]

I have a question. At one time or another I think we have all had to deal with this type of problem. We have people who willingly suspend, and then we have those who ignorantly suspend. What about those who refuse to suspend? For example, I have a guy who I have gamed with for many years that when I run something in sword and sorcery area he merely chalks it up as fantasy and plays allthough not with any real oomph. Then should I attempt to run a sci-fi oriented game he instantly gets all up in arms, even if I explain how the setting works ahead of time, he disrupts game play in constant bemoaning of how it offends his sense of reality. What would you call this person, a refuser of suspension? I'm very curious as to where this thread goes as well considering it is also a topic of contention in a playtest I am participating in.

Sylus

[Mike Holmes]

Alan's post gives me an odd idea. A metagame currency for the GM. Basically the players reward the GM for good explanations or something. But when the GM wants something to go off without the players complaining, he can buy them off with the currency. Sorta, fine, that was weak, now just acept it and shut up.

The currency once given to the player would turn into whatever traditional reward. Thus the player is mollified in his disbelief by the payoff  required.

Silly, sorta, but it brings it into game context if you think about the transaction that's occuring.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

Suspension of disbelief is tricky, the only real way to keep it alive at all times is to know what each player believes - which is impossible.  Ignorant suspension really is a blessing - it turns out much more 'real' for the player.  Willing suspension is more susceptable to player mood - it can go ka-thunk at any moment.  It only takes one player to turn your crystal tower, gleaming in the bright desert sun, into a big shiny dildo.

[Valamir]

Suspension of disbelief is tricky, the only real way to keep it alive at all times is to know what each player believes - which is impossible.  

That is a subtly powerful statement statement, Jason.

I harken back to recent threads such as "Does Setting Matter" which discussed the advent of huge setting intensive monstrosities and I wonder...

Perhaps the sheer volume of setting material is an unconcious response to an intuitive understanding of the above statement.  That one possible way to know what each player believes (or at least to increase the odds) is to right 1000 pages of splat books that carefully outlines what each player SHOULD believe...

[Mike Holmes]

Ralph,

Yes.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

On the other hand...

The more detail you put into a setting the more little nooks and crannies you'll be creating where someone can dig to find something they believe untrue - most likely leading to a nice domino effect on the believability of connected setting elements.

What ups your chances of maintaining suspension of disbelief more?
Clearly defining what the players should believe beforehand.  (Such as using a heavily detailed setting and describing everything in detail.)
Or providing less to challenge their assumption so they can fill in the details with what they believe in.  (Such as using detail light setting and describing only immediately relevant elements.)

I'm not certain, depends on the group and situation I suppose.

[Alan]

When thinking aobut comments on background detail as support for believability, I had an interesting thought.

How does tolerance of inconsistency in background detail relate to the GNS preferences?

For myself, I play so I can make heroic decisions through my character.  I think this is a form of narrativist preference.  I'm happy to tolerate inconsistency in background details and even rule applications, provided my understanding of the conflict and my character's role in it are not violated.

I'd suggest that a player with gamist preferences will tolerate even larger inconsistencies in realism and background, provided the rules of whatever competition he enjoys are applied consistently.

Finally, a player with simulationist preferences will be concerned with a greater depth and detail of consistency.  But each player may have a preference for a different realm of simulation; so, one player might prefer simulation of cinematic combat, or simulation of a proprietary universe, or simulation of social structure and interaction.  Each player's preference will determine where he is most sensative to inconsistency.  

Does this variation in the simulationist preference lead to an inevitable jumble of focus at the table?  Perhaps game authors address this either by trying to proscribe the interpretations available, or by covering as many angles as possible.  Both these would lead to lengthy background material.