Fun vs. Reality: a false dichotomy?

[CuRoi]

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

I believe everyone will create their own frame of reference. I once initiated a gamer who was -not- your stereotpical player. This mall shopping cheerleader had however read vampire fiction she enjoyed but had no prior interest in deep investment in fantasy worlds or in history. We played, she loved it and was one of the most expressive players. When I described the fetid smell of an ogre, she would visibly cringe. She took to naming things to her own liking, which was all contrary to the "established" nomenclature, but always seemed to fit. This told everyone she was perhaps more invested than the stereotypical gamer because she was actually relating to the material beyond that stereotypical fantasy frame of reference.

So, the key I believe is a fertile imagniaton to work with, and not necessarily any prior deep investment.

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

As a DM, I'd rather they didn't know it, so no, I don't think it does. The "blank slate" players are the best because they don't assume the aforementioned stereotypical experience. I can inroduce certain concepts to them and they will use it as the building blocks for their own perspective. If anything, in a narrative driven game, all I need them to know is "what is you character going to do?"

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

See above - the rules are ultimately the purview of the DM. It's my job to explain the game and how that is played, but to keep the player immersed in the narrative.

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

Got my first red box many years ago by selling greeting cards door to door. I was young and frankly, the rules did not trip me up. No, I wasn't a child gaming RPG prodigy , it was because if I didn't understand something I either glossed over it or made up my own way of doing things. The rules seem to encourage that. I think we all do that as we learn to play. I suppose this perspective isn't as helpful as an adult who discovers RPGs and can say where they got "tripped up".

 

[Dungeoneer]

Got my first red box many years ago by selling greeting cards door to door. I was young and frankly, the rules did not trip me up. No, I wasn't a child gaming RPG prodigy , it was because if I didn't understand something I either glossed over it or made up my own way of doing things. The rules seem to encourage that. I think we all do that as we learn to play. I suppose this perspective isn't as helpful as an adult who discovers RPGs and can say where they got "tripped up".

Well, I'm curious to know what rules you didn't understand and glossed over, which I think would be my definition of 'tripped up'.

 

[Umbran]

Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think this is what is being discussed. The "reality" being talked about is the game reality posited by whatever set of rules we set for the game universe, not the same rules that apply in our own world.

So, not so much "realism" as "internal consistency"?

Take Roger Corman's recent movie, Sharktopus as an example. Welding a shark and an octopus together is completely unrealistic, but having assumed that deed's accomplished, the movie doesn't violate its own rules.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Soren Johnson's original contention is that players learn games faster when the mechanics are based on a reality that they are familiar with. As he notes, in fantasy and sci-fi some allowances must be made, which is why tropes are a good thing. Players will accept elves in your game if they've encountered elves in other fictional fantasy settings. Those previous settings are the 'reality' that you want to springboard off of. But the elves in your game shouldn't deviate too far from the elves of those settings.

What's important is not whether the 'reality' your game is drawing from actually occurs in the real world or is even accurate. The only question is how familiar your players are with it and if it will help them get into your game.

 

[CuRoi]

Well, I'm curious to know what rules you didn't understand and glossed over, which I think would be my definition of 'tripped up'.

Heh, seriously? Well, I was in elementary school at the time, so frankly, I'm not sure exactly what made sense and what didn't. I'm also not at all sure what I may have mis-interpreted and what I played correctly. That was...ummm...almost 25? years ago. Great, you just made me go dig out my book : ) Things I know I skipped were Retainers, Encumbrance, Weapon Ranges, Morale, and even back then I wasn't much for "Wandering Monsters" preferring to place all encounters myself. Most of the notes in the margin are math (Adding gold, XP, etc.)

It wasn't until middle school that I really started to pay attention to the rules and then it was the mostly over the top, outside the scope of the rules, "Hey, I'm 100th level" sort of silliness. By high school, I had stopped playing and I didn't return until college. At that point, I had been playing computer RPGs for so long, and had many fond memories of RPGs so I don't recall much tripping me up.

 

[innerdude]

I didn't phrase it very well in another post I put up yesterday, but part of the "Fun vs. Reality" discussion is also very much dependent on what level the player wishes to actually interact with the rules to begin with.

Some players aren't interested AT ALL in how the rules actually impact the "game world." They simply want to interact with the rules as a logical construct. In other words, as long as they can understand the rules' implications for letting them "win," they don't necessarily care how it affects the game world.

I personally have one player in my group who's very much in this boat--the rules are more about playing the game around the rules than in interacting on a "game world level." Now obviously, given the choice between a rule that's consistent and works in connection with at least a moderate sense of realism, and one that's consistent and has no bearing on "real life," the more "realistic" of the two is preferable, assuming the general purpose for the rule is the same.

The ones who have a problem with it are the ones who WANT to interact through the gameworld, and have the rules interpret the consequences. This was one of the Alexandrian's biggest beefs with the 4e rules, incidentally, in that he felt that many of 4e's rules constructs were a barrier to players being able to do that.

But the real point is that how and on what level a player wishes to interact with the rules has a real impact on how they play the game. A player who wants to interact with the rules on a rules-level vs. a player who wants to interact on a game-world level vs. one who interacts with the rules as a shared "community agreement" are all wanting different outcomes for how the rules "play."

 

[Aramax]

There is not now nor will there ever be a real set of rules.Too many aspects of real life are untanslatable to the gaming table.
How many games represent how previlent rape would be(and if there were rules for it I'd want the writer horse-whipped)?

How about cumulitive damage to equipment?

Do weopans break fairly often?

Do they have magic Frying pans,brooms and diapers for the wealthy?

Do Pcs die in child birth?Are thier children stillborn?

What social class does the pc come from and are they representitive of the population or are they all wealthy?

Why do pcs who if they met in real life would kill each other adventure in the same party let alone TALK to each other?

Its a game and thats how I like it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

First up: there is no dichotomy. It's as plain as the nose on my face that you can simultaneously have realism and fun.

However if you graph fun vs realism, I think you'll find that there's a fun sweet spot, and that almost all games are on some part of it. The only reason we get this impression that realism destroys fun is when the level of realism is reaching the edge of that sweet spot. That same thing happens when realism drops too low: the game becomes so abstract that it's effectively work to understand what is going on.

 

[Victim]

I think he's way off base. Eurogames tend to do pretty well with largely bolted on themes. It's a nice bonus when they do, but the core is manipulating the game stuff so you get points. Or other games too - like Monopoly. There are like a zillion different versions of Monopoly, and mechanics work pretty much the same regardless of the "setting."

(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.

Depends. One thing that really makes or breaks a game is "What do the PCs actually do?" In DnD, you'll often go into dungeons, fight horrible monsters, and then take their treasure - it's right in the name. Sure, that's not all you can do with it. But if you're lost, it makes a good starting place.

A lot of modern or historical games don't provide that basic expectation, so it's hard to get everyone on the same page.

 

[karlindel]

It is a false dichotomy to the extent that more realism can lead to more fun. How much realism is going to vary widely from person to person, and this is one reason why different people like different games. Also, different people will differ on what they consider to be realism, especially in relation to things which have limited basis in reality (i.e. elven or dwarven culture).

It reminds me of an old book I read about science fiction writing. It advised that the audience of a science fiction story will believe one big lie about science, but you should be careful to keep everything else well grounded in things that the audience will accept, or it will break their suspension of disbelief. If the lie was interesting enough and got reused, it would become a trope (such as hyperspace), and thus part of the accepted, and you would no longer need to use it as your big lie. In the same way, "realism" in an rpg can draw on the tropes of the appropriate genre, and people will accept things that would normally be unrealistic as long as they fall within the genre.

I agree with Victim that fantasy games are not harder to get into than contemporary or historical games. After all, many people will understand the conventions of the fantasy genre who have little or no knowledge of the history necessary for a truly realistic historical game. A contemporary game set in a foreign country will face similar problems. I do think, however, that it raises the interesting point that a game is easier to get into the closer it is to things that the player (and GM) are familiar with.