Fun vs. Reality: a false dichotomy?

[Dungeoneer]

I read a couple of video game design blogs, including one by the lead designer of Civlization IV, Soren Johnson. He has written a really interesting post which I think applies to tabletop games just as much as a strategy game on the PC. It's about the perennially controversial topics of realism and gamism.

There have been a lot of debates on the merits of simulationist versus gamist game design over the years. Is it better to have a game that closely models reality, or a game that is just fun and intuitive to play? But Soren suggests that you can't have one without the other. Fun games need a basis in reality for the gamer to get into them in the first place:

Game designers also need to communicate something effectively – a set of rules and mechanics that the player must learn and master. This education process is one of the biggest challenges game developers face, and many games with fun systems have failed simply because few players get past the learning curve. Many tools exist for solving this problem – well-paced tutorials, helpful tooltips, accessible UI – but perhaps the simplest approach is to activate one of the player’s pre-existing schemas that is well matched with the game’s underlying mechanics.

...

Using schemas as a tool to give players a window into a game system raises the question of realism because the rules also need to accurately mirror the assumptions the players bring with them. If a baseball game gave the player four outs instead of three, the use of the baseball schema would not just be useless but actually counter-productive because players would be constantly mixing up the exact rules.


Thus, realism matters and is an important tool for designers. However, realism has earned a bad name among game developers. For instance, fans who nitpick over small historical details that a game gets wrong are called “rivet counters.” Indeed, Sid Meier famously said that “when fun and realism clash, fun wins.”


However, in many ways, this choice is a false one. Realism that gives the player an easier learning curve makes a game more fun, not less. The danger from an over-zealous pursuit of realism comes when the designer expects the player to bring significant outside knowledge to the game, limiting the potential audience. If a WWII game contains realistic ratings for different flavors of German panzers, that’s fine, but if the game expects the player to already know these ratings by heart, without in-game help, that’s a problem.

You can read the rest here.

(As an interesting sidebar, Soren says that fantasy-based games are among the hardest to get into because they don't 'reflect reality' as much as a contemporary or historical game. So he says it's actually very important that fantasy based games use well known cliches. An interesting argument for having elves and orcs in your game if I ever heard one!)

Soren Johnson thinks that a game that is 'too simulationist' is one that requires knowledge of reality that a casual player is not going to have. In a tabletop game like D&D this might be something like detailed rules for encumbrance and movement based on what type of armor you are wearing. Casual gamers aren't likely to know or care how much full plate armor actually weighs or how far you could run while wearing it.

On the flip side, a game that is 'too gamist' would be one where the rules are so abstract that they have no obvious connection to reality. Spells that a wizard 'magically' forgets every day might be a good example of this kind of rule. This is something that is clearly done for game balancing purposes rather than to reflect any 'schema' based on the real world. A more modern example might be healing surges.

Of course these are both relative concepts. To a group of history buffs, highly detailed armor rules aren't too simulationist because they actually do have a lot of knowledge about medieval armor. Meanwhile to someone who has read the right fantasy novels, Vancian spellcasting might make sense in terms of the 'fantastic reality' they're familiar with.

But we can't lose sight of the casual gamer. For a game like D&D, there are a lot of people playing who aren't into historical reenactments and don't have a comprehensive library of fantasy literature. Arguably you shouldn't be expected to know these things to enjoy the game.

I'm curious as to how you think the various editions of D&D, both old and new, rate.

• How hard is D&D to get into for someone who isn't already deeply invested in fantasy or history?
• Does it expect them to know things they're unlikely to know?
• Or does it throw too many rules at them that don't seem to have any real-world basis?
• Which version did you start with, and what tripped you up as a rank n00b?

Or do you just think Soren is just way off the mark?

 

[Dungeoneer]

Dammit, I thought this was in the General RPG forum. Mods, could you do me a favor and move it?

UPDATE: Thanks for the move, mods!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There are a lot of differences between computer games and TT games. TT games have much more significant playability constraints in some respects for instance. A computer game can do an almost infinite amount of book keeping and complex calculations and tracking. There is a hard limit on this kind of thing in TT PnP games. OTOH TT PnP games naturally have greater rule transparency.

PnP games are also in a sense always more simulationist than most computer games. The 'rules' of the world are inherently open-ended and incorporate all the things we normally expect from reality to some extent. There is ALWAYS a 'schema'. Maybe in a few games things are stretched and bent a whole lot, but your typical RPG has basic mundane reality as a firm jumping-off point. Magic or whatnot may break the ordinary rules of the world, and the characters may have highly exaggerated capabilities, but they are usually starting off from what we see around us every day. You expect gravity to work and falling to hurt.

I think the design decisions related to TT games have more to do with conveying a specific genre and its unique expectations. Getting the right 'feel' to things so you can support player expectations properly. So for instance in Call of Cthulhu the PCs are relatively fragile and rarely, if ever, become superhuman or possess extraordinary capabilities. No matter how long you play your CoC character a shoggoth is still going to eat your lunch. Core system design is the main tool here. It isn't about realism vs gamism, it is about what basically does the genre demand as basic assumptions and how does the game system hold to them? CoC pits your doomed investigators against unimaginable cosmic horrors which cannot be overcome (mostly). 4e D&D pits your almost super-human adventurers against an ever more deadly array of monsters and situations in an adventure-movie-like sequence of events where you forge on bravely and pull out that last trick from your back pocket in the final scene to win the day, and then level up so you can do it again with even nastier opponents.

Personally I think 4e's approach works well for the genre it aims at. Healing surges are 'realistic' in the same way that Bruce Willis can get shot in the arm in scene one, slap a bandage on it, and come right back for more in scene 2. It is not particularly realistic, but it is very much in tune with the genre expectations for action adventure. This is more important than having detailed realistic healing which would create all sorts of story constraints. Notice that some games have done that, but they are also permanently marginalized in this genre, while D&D has enjoyed great success. I think as long as you understand what sort of game you're playing this is all fine. THAT is where the designer's challenge is, to make sure that the players internalize the genre expectations appropriate to the game they're playing. Trying to play CoC like D&D will get you nasty surprises. Trying to play D&D like CoC will just be weird and probably won't convey the cosmic horror aspect very well.

 

[DracoSuave]

Every time I see D&D discussions basing itself on 'realism' vs 'gamism' I shake my head.

Seriously, shake my head.

Look, I'm not saying that D&D can't be used for realism, but look at what most threads on this and every other D&D board is about. They aren't about creating rules to simulate aspects of reality; they're more often about gaming the rules in the face of reality.

You have Char-Op forums (gamism), you have arguments over how rules work in extreme corner cases as if D&D were some game where the rules must always work 100% to cover every case (gamism), you have discussions on what the DPR is of a Ranger vs an Avenger (gamism).

What you do not have are discussions on castle constructions in a world of flying enemies. You do not have discussions on the impact dungeons and their treasure have on local economies. You do not have discussions on political structures as ruled over by variously colored dragons. You do not have attempts to create a system to reflect the amount of ambient light given which of the three moons happen to be in the sky at any given time. No discussions on whether D&D is trying to simulate Raymond Faust,or wuxia films more. No discussions on the particulars on how divine magic works, and why it sometimes requires a god, and sometimes does not.

-----

The game is designed to feature combat as a game in itself, with the narrative 'realism' being a responsibility of the players, similiar to how the original D&D was fast and loose, and didn't try to simulate every minutia of the game world.

A more valid discussion would be 'What is a game system attempting to accomplish, and how effective is it at doing so?' D&D sets out to accomplish what it does, and it is VERY capable of doing so. It's when people start trying to get it to accomplish things it isn't designed to do that it starts to seem 'bad'.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

• How hard is D&D to get into for someone who isn't already deeply invested in fantasy or history?

• 
  
  Not hard at all. At least in Canada, everyone knows enough about basic middle ages stuff they can join. (The stuff they know might not be accurate, but that's another story.) DMs need to have a higher level of knowledge though.
  
  

  [*]Does it expect them to know things they're unlikely to know?

  
  Typically yes, but you either learn the rules for it (often inaccurate too) or ignore them. Only if simulationist DMs start pushing realistic rules (in-game or house rules) do problems occur.
  
  

  [*]Or does it throw too many rules at them that don't seem to have any real-world basis?

  
  No. The rules generally cover conflict, combat and social alike. It doesn't matter how the Diplomacy skill works, it rarely covers interactions between nobles and commoners, in the sense that there are no special mechanics. (DMs usually just ignore this anyway, not coming up with house rules that generally just serve to screw over the PCs.)
  
  

  [*]Which version did you start with, and what tripped you up as a rank n00b?

  
  I started with 2e, but the games we were in were so goofy there was nothing realistic to trip over.
  
  

  Or do you just think Soren is just way off the mark?

  
  I can't help but recall the various debates on guns in DnD. That's an example of simulationism causing serious problems. Most players "know" there were no guns in the Middle Ages (inaccurate) and even many DMs who know better want to stick to tried and true tropes. Most simulationist DMs "know" it takes two to three rounds to reload a gun (perhaps that's accurate, but it's not fun!). Many simulationist DMs know how often guns jam, how much smoke they emit, how inaccurate they are, have some vague idea of how much damage they deal, etc, most of which cause problems with fun, balance, complexity or all of the above.
  
  Of course, it is possible to be too unrealistic. For instance, if a gaming company invented a class that represented 1/7th of the people of a culture and insisted they were all ambidextrous, or made them follow an unrealistic code of honor, etc.

 

[Alex319]

Most of what Soren says is accurate, and I would expand on it by saying that one good test of whether or not a feature added for "realism" is worth it is:

(1) Does the feature help teach players to play the game in the way Soren describes?
(2) Does the feature add to the strategy of gameplay in its own right?

If the answer to those questions are both "no", then it's probably not worth adding extra complexity for. Magic: The Gathering designer Mark Rosewater frequently describes this in terms of "complexity points": You only have a certain amount of "complexity points" to "spend" before the game becomes too complex and you lose your audience, so you have to spend them wisely.

Here's some examples:

1. I played a game called "Road to the White House" at a con last weekend. The game simulated a presidential primary. You had these pieces representing candidates and campaign staff that you moved around the board, and then these event cards came up. When you draw an event card you have to cross-reference the issues on the event card with your candidate's positions and then do some math to figure out which states you gain or lose votes in (for instance, a card labeled "health care costs rise" would make candidates who supported the "current health care system" lose votes.) This was a complicated process that took several minutes to resolve each card, and dozens of cards came up over the course of the game. However, it didn't really add much strategy, because your candidates' positions were fixed and the event cards were random so there was no way to affect or plan for the event cards. It certainly added realism, but the realism wasn't really essential to activate the "schema" (the "election" schema was already very clear). So I thought that mechanic added a lot of complexity and slowdown for little benefit.

2. Agricola, an example used by Soren in his article. There are lots of things in the game that don't fit the "farming schema", such as the length of time between harvests shortening as the game goes on, and each action space only being usable by one player per turn. But that doesn't really interfere with your learning of the game, because once you understand the farming part of it you can learn the rest.

3. I remember a long discussion on these boards about whether 4e swarms can be grabbed, with some players saying it isn't realistic and other saying you can as long as you can describe how you're doing it in a way that makes sense. From this perspective, calling the action "grabbing" is good because it activates the "grabbing schema" (when you grab the target you're holding on to it) but once that is done, it doesn't hurt your understanding to say that you can (or can't) grab a swarm, so that decision should be made based on what is better for the gameplay.

4. It's also interesting to thing about how Soren's argument would apply to things like magic. Since magic doesn't exist in real life, the only pre-existing "magic schema" people will have is what comes from other games.

 

[billd91]

What you do not have are discussions on castle constructions in a world of flying enemies. You do not have discussions on the impact dungeons and their treasure have on local economies. You do not have discussions on political structures as ruled over by variously colored dragons. You do not have attempts to create a system to reflect the amount of ambient light given which of the three moons happen to be in the sky at any given time. No discussions on whether D&D is trying to simulate Raymond Faust,or wuxia films more. No discussions on the particulars on how divine magic works, and why it sometimes requires a god, and sometimes does not.

Actually, I have been involved in discussions like these, though less frequently than in the days of 2e AD&D. I think that actually does mean something too.

When 3e hit the market, there were suddenly a lot of character optimization and rule topics to cover in meaningful ways. There's simply a lot more grist for the mill. But even with that in mind, including 4e's gamist-oriented take on D&D-style games, the occasional topic comes up about the magic item economy and economics in general as well as what the world looks like with all that magic and so on. It's just they aren't as common as they used to be, in part, because the game has reduced its focus on these topics.

 

[Dungeoneer]

This is why I love Soren's blog: he's posted the counterpoint to his own argument. Sometimes you just need to say "screw realism" and do what makes sense for the game.

In other news, hello? Mods? Can I get a forum move here?

 

[Dausuul]

I wholeheartedly agree with Soren Johnson. One of my biggest complaints about 4E is the way many rules became unmoored from any concrete concept within the game world. The rules do not have to simulate the game world, but they need to make sense in an intuitive way, so that DMs and players can easily switch back and forth between manipulating the rules and imagining the events taking place in the game world.

See for example the recent thread about "Hurting to Heal," where a cleric player expresses his sense that all the cleric powers where you zap somebody in order to make your ally better seem... off. It's very hard to figure out what's supposed to be happening in the game world when you use those powers--what's the logical connection between "I zap the monster with holy light" and "Bob the fighter feels healthier?" (This problem seems to come up a lot with divine classes in 4E.) It's a real pain when trying to narrate combat.

Older editions of D&D, for all their failings in other areas, understood this. 4E lost sight of it for a while (although I think it has begun to remember it; Essentials does a much better job than core 4E in this regard).

What you do not have are discussions on castle constructions in a world of flying enemies. You do not have discussions on the impact dungeons and their treasure have on local economies. You do not have discussions on political structures as ruled over by variously colored dragons. You do not have attempts to create a system to reflect the amount of ambient light given which of the three moons happen to be in the sky at any given time. No discussions on whether D&D is trying to simulate Raymond Faust,or wuxia films more. No discussions on the particulars on how divine magic works, and why it sometimes requires a god, and sometimes does not.

I have seen and participated in threads on these forums discussing castle construction in a fantasy world (with attendant arguments over flying enemies, teleporting wizards, and quite a lot more); dungeon treasure and economics; the thematic background of D&D, including wuxia, fantasy fiction, and various other sources; and the origins and nature of different types of magic, including divine.

I admit, I have not seen a thread discussing rules for ambient lighting in a trilunar world, nor on the differences between argentian and aurean dracocracy. But in general... you're flat wrong. All this stuff gets hashed out at great length on ENWorld and other forums. The fact that this stuff can actually make a difference in-game is what sets real RPGs apart from the computer variety. If you're not seeing it, perhaps it's because you're not looking for it; doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[fanboy2000]

How hard is D&D to get into for someone who isn't already deeply invested in fantasy or history?

When I started playing, I wasn't "deeply invested in fantasy or history." I had never read Tolkin. Medieval Europe held no interest to me. But I liked the play style. And I'm familiar with fantasy tropes, I just wasn't big into them.

So, I people had to explain what an orc was. And a few other things. I immediately gravitated to elfs and wizards.

So, I think it's fairly easy.

Does it expect them to know things they're unlikely to know?

D&D? No, it doesn't. Individual DMs might. And I think that's the real problem. When DMs expect player knowledge the player doesn't have. Sometime assumptions differ among reasonable participants.

Or does it throw too many rules at them that don't seem to have any real-world basis?

I think the rules have a bigger real-world basis than their given credit for. I think part of the problem is that more things are possible in the real world than what happened in actual European history.

Which version did you start with, and what tripped you up as a rank n00b?

2e. Multi-classing (I was either a half-elf thief/wizard or an elf thief/wizard. I can't remember. But I had no clue how it worked. My DM did the grunt work.) Spell selection tripped me up, I remember picking a spell called "Deep Pockets." Later my DM was talking with another player and he was mocking my choice of spell. To this day, I don't know what was wrong with it.

Combat tripped me up. I had no clue how it worked. Reading the rules never seemed to help. It wasn't until 4e that I under stood the combat rules as written. With 2e and 3e, I had to actually play the game to understand it. 3.5 was better writing, I think, but it's hard to tell since I already knew what was going on by them.

Or do you just think Soren is just way off the mark?

No, I think Soren is right. I think is missing an key ingredient in these debates thou, different expectations from different players.

In my games, I handle this fairly easily. I tell all my players at the beginning of the campaign that I know nothing about real-world combat and warfare, and that I'll follow the rules rather than some notion of what real-world combat is like. If someone doesn't like that play style, it doesn't bother me that they might leave. No one's ever left, though I do hear a lot of grousing about it. I've learned to ignore it.

I wholeheartedly agree with Soren Johnson. One of my biggest complaints about 4E is the way many rules became unmoored from any concrete concept within the game world. The rules do not have to simulate the game world, but they need to make sense in an intuitive way, so that DMs and players can easily switch back and forth between manipulating the rules and imagining the events taking place in the game world.

See, this just isn't a problem for me. 2e, 3.x, and 4e have all made sense to me. As have WoD (both new and old) and even Paranoia.

I'm not trying to belittle your problem. I'm simply stating that we have different expectations and assumption about what makes sense. Companies like Wizards of the Coast, Pazio, White Wolf, and Mongoose have to balance my expectations with yours.