D&D 5E Fairy tale logic vs naturalism in fantasy RPGing

[Lanefan]

Along with "Common sense isn't common", I would add the observation that "Naturalistic logic isn't Natural" as both qualities are very subjective..

Statements like "I don't understand how you can misinterpret this situation, it's crystal clear to me", and "I don't need to provide explanations, it should be obvious" are symptomatic of such failures to communicate, and I've seen them again and again.

Common sense and naturalistic logic both work just fine if - and it's a very important if - communication remains clear and open.

The problems always seem to originate from someone expecting someone else to read their mind.

I prefer to use rules systems rather than personal opinions on "naturalistic logic" to run a game, as the former is accessible to everyone and can be debated, whereas disagreements as to the latter are immediately personal as potentially disagreeing with the worldview of the DM.

My own mantra as its evolved is that the DMs responsibility is to run an entertaining and accessible game for all involved and that versimilitude and fidelity to setting are secondary considerations. I've seen too many games where theoretical considerations have dragged the game to places that aren't fun for some of the participants.

Where I find that the more rules there are, the more things get dragged down by discussions/arguments about said rules; which isn't entertaining in the slightest. Verisimilitude and consistency within the gameworld are absolutely vital if one expects to achieve and maintain any sort of immersion at all.

That said, the bit I've bolded of yours above is very well put. I'm particularly glad you included "entertaining", as the entertainment side seems of late to be taking second place to the rules-arbiter side.

Sometimes, folks are miraculously on the same page from the word go. Sometimes, the social dynamics (the GM is an overwhelming alpha, folks are willing to cede full authority even in disagreement, folks don't take play too seriously, the group is able to solve disputes quickly and amenably) render the above moot.

Or sometimes people read their Gygax where it says the DM is the final authority.

Personally, I think one major key is something you hit on here: don't take any of it too seriously. Relax, have some fun, roll some dice, kill some Orcs, loot some treasure chests, then go back to town and expose the King's chamberlain as an outright fraud - it's all in a good night's play.

Lan-"if nobody ever laughs while at the table, something's wrong"-efan

 

[Aenghus]

Common sense and naturalistic logic both work just fine if - and it's a very important if - communication remains clear and open.

The problems always seem to originate from someone expecting someone else to read their mind.
Where I find that the more rules there are, the more things get dragged down by discussions/arguments about said rules; which isn't entertaining in the slightest. Verisimilitude and consistency within the gameworld are absolutely vital if one expects to achieve and maintain any sort of immersion at all.

Not everyone values immersion and those that do can value it in many very different ways. I've seen people who could immerse while tolerating many sort of distractions, but were upset but the most niggling little details. Verisimilitude is very much subjective and what works for one person or group may not work for another.

That said, the bit I've bolded of yours above is very well put. I'm particularly glad you included "entertaining", as the entertainment side seems of late to be taking second place to the rules-arbiter side.
Or sometimes people read their Gygax where it says the DM is the final authority.

Draconian dictatorship is one way for running a game for unruly teens and pushy wargamers...

Personally, I think one major key is something you hit on here: don't take any of it too seriously. Relax, have some fun, roll some dice, kill some Orcs, loot some treasure chests, then go back to town and expose the King's chamberlain as an outright fraud - it's all in a good night's play.

Lan-"if nobody ever laughs while at the table, something's wrong"-efan

Tho the balance of humour again varies from group to group. A jokey, silly game benefits from a lot more laughter than a serious character study or tragic situation. I prefer a game with some humour, but not enough to derail the game.

This hobby is so complex, with so many moving parts, it's nigh on impossible to be comprehensive in pinning down a situation sufficiently for discussion without leaving lots of loopholes to produce red herrrings and distractions.

 

[pemerton]

This hobby is so complex, with so many moving parts, it's nigh on impossible to be comprehensive in pinning down a situation sufficiently for discussion without leaving lots of loopholes to produce red herrrings and distractions.

This is why I think actual play reports are pretty important elements in analysis.

Also familiarity with some different games. Or, at least, a readiness to acknowledge that the way I've always played D&D doesn't exhaust the ways in which RPGs are played.