I also think the method can matter. Some other posters seem to disagree, though.
Both these posts seem to asssume that there are only two possible resolution systems for determining if the PCs find sect members at the teahouse: the GM decides based on his/her beliefs about the gameworld, or the GM "says 'yes'".
That is, they seem to assume that play will be driven simply by GM decision-making.
I find that to be an odd assumption to make, but unsurprisingly I agree that running a game that way will tend to make for a mediocre play experience.
(One reason I find it an odd assumption: the first RPG system I know of that explicitly deals with the issue of trying to find certain sorts of people in urban situations is Traveller (1977), and it assumes that the outcome of such attempts will be affected by rolls that are affected by skills like Admin, Streetwise and Leadership, with subsequent supplements adding further relevant skills like Carousing and Recruiting. It doesn't say anything about the referee just decding what happens.)
I may be contradicting my earlier post, but as I’ve tried to dig deeper into these concepts I’m finding that, like so many others, methodology and experience are two entirely separate entities that are sometimes intertwined. Certain methods may be more predisposed to a certain style of play, but I’m coming to the conclusion that it’s rare for it to be incapable of producing that style of play.
This isn’t entirely a surprise to me, because much of how we play our game is a mashup of other stuff I/we are learning from elsewhere.
For example, due in large part to discussions with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others, we handle things like critical hits, misses, and death quite differently than the usual approach in D&D, and this also addresses fudging.
The primary reason I fudge occasionally is because of a choice we’ve made on mechanics. We would prefer a bell curve for skill checks, combat, etc., but we like a d20 better. So instead of using 3d6, we accept that most of the time the d20 is fine, but in those circumstances where we decide it’s not, then we adjust the consequences. So they were fine with me fudging.
But some people are strongly against fudging. And if I know that, then I don’t fudge with that group.
So I started rolling attack rolls in front of the players, and they would know when I was fudging. There were still no objections, but occasionally somebody would say, “nah, that’s fine. Let it ride.”
An interesting thing is that the players who objected to fudging and wanted to “always let it ride” were usually not the ones accepting their character’s death under these circumstances. They would accept the fudging without question.
But it got me thinking. Who is better able to decide if it’s the character’s time than the player that created them? Why can’t the player decide to fudge the die? Would it be different if I let them make the initial decision?
We typically have at least three PCs each, but some characters are more precious than others. Also, sometimes the current fiction implies the characters’ survival is more important.
A lot of the time it’s just death, but they have become more dramatic. We still have the underlying rules for guidance. Sometimes they let the death saves decide. Other times they have decided that even with help, they can’t be saved.
I can’t say that we experienced any of these to be “better” than the others. They didn’t affect the realism of our game, because we continued to make the experience - the content “realistic.”
I think our goal of a “realistic” game does have an impact on how these rules are used in our game. Our changes to the math of death saves was done to be “more realistic,” in that we felt it was unrealistic for a character who
Is reduced to 0 hp has a 60%+ chance of surviving without any assistance at all. Our falling rules were modeled after when science tells us you have a 50% chance of dying. But in all these cases it’s really just a feel, not true fact. And it’s generally more about the math than the method.
But others might argue our death mechanic is less realistic. That we don’t get to choose when we live or die and that it should be the dice that do so.
I’d argue that the person (the character) isn’t. The player is making that decision*, and the only thing that changed is which player decides - the DM or the player who created the character. And for us, it’s sometimes a joint decision, even including other players.
But not every player will like it, or play in good faith, etc.
So I agree that the method might have an impact, or make it easier or more difficult, but ultimately I think the concept of realism in a game is more about the experience than the mechanics. But I’ll also acknowledge that for many players the mechanics have an equal or greater importance than realism for their gaming experience.
*This ties into my increasing belief that there is a difference between player agency and character agency, a topic for another day. Because it’s even more complicated than this one.