How much does reality matter in your games?

[CarlZog]

This question is spawned by some thoughts and observations I've had about pirate games, but I suppose it applies to all subjects.

I've seen a number of posts from DMs who want to run pirate games, but have trouble coming up with adventure ideas. It occurred to me that perhaps this is because many folks just don't understand the underlying politics and economics of piracy, or how to translate it into interesting game material.

Similarly, I've grown extremely frustrated with the wealth of books providing ridiculously inaccurate descriptions of sailing ships and their characteristics.

Both of these happen to be topics I have fairly extensive professional knowledge of, and I thought, "I should set the record straight and write a couple game articles or even a book."

But how much does anybody really care about the nitty gritty reality of their role-playing games?

For example, I know nothing about horses, and I'm sure an equestrian would scoff at the way horses have been depicted in many of my games. Does it really matter to me that I made up the stuff I didn't know about? Would my game be anymore fulfilling if I learned all about horses and applied realistic rules to them?

Likewise, is a guy who's worked in foreign intelligence likely to produce a better espionage game than me? Or is he so constrained by what he knows would and wouldn't be realistic that that he can't suspend disbelief enough to create a fun game?

In your games, how much does it matter to you to know how things work in the real world? How do your personal areas of expertise influence your games? Is there a point where too much knowledge hinders rather than helps the game?

Just wondering,
Carl

 

[Arnwyn]

In your games, how much does it matter to you to know how things work in the real world?

Not one iota. "Reality" has no place in our game... just a little versimilitude is all that's needed.

(In fact, a self-proclaimed "expert" on anything related to a medieval subject would likely not be welcome in our group.)

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

In the example of piracy that you give, I like to know what happened in reality so that I can more easily devise sensible plots in the game world. I may choose to create totally new causes, but knowing the real ones helps me make my make-believe ones more plausible, and stands an excellent chance of giving me ideas I wouldn't have otherwise had.

Real world history offers all kinds of ideas for adventuring and campaign concepts. I regularly browse a few encyclopedia sites, just looking for little bits of history that I can shamelessly steal plot frameworks from.

 

[francisca]

Not much. Everything needs to fit the context of the game world, though.

As for the details, this discussion goes back as far as the original boxed set, when SCA members complained about the unrealistic D&D combat system.

Me, I'm a D&D player/DM. I'm fine with "good enough" approximations for combat, travel, etc, and have been for years. I'm sure others who are more concerned about realism either move to other systems, find third parties to provide realistic mechanics, or roll their own.

I've yet to see a real-world based magic system, though....

 

[Henry]

I'm going to take a different tactic: I'm going to say that such a product would sell WELL, if done not with an eye toward the accuracy, but with an eye toward making games richer.

Think of it this way: Having recently read Barsoomcore's pirate adventure, it gave me a very good portrayal of the ship, the Ascot Marine, on which the action took place. Were I to write a similar story, or just describing things for my players, knowledge of the subject will help me.

BIG BUT... this will only be important to the extent of making it more fun for the DM and players. For a sailing ship, knowing terms like (what's a lateen sail?) or (the armory should go near the captain's cabin) or (what's a bo'sun actually do?) are important, but knowing that (cleaning barnacles was done with a spatula 14 inches in width, and the barnacles were of the genus and species X) would not be helpful. I hope I'm communicating my point properly, having not enough knowledge there as it is.

Look at Expeditious Retreat Press' Magical Medieval Society Series. Those things were AWESOME sellers, and highly recommended as resources for setting up a medieval culture and society, as well as a magical ecology. Books that treat a subject from a gamer's eye can be very popular, and spread at places like ENWorld and RPG.net like wildfire, and though you won't have a NY times bestseller, you could possibly have a modest hit that might sell well within the expectations of your market (PDF or print, for example).

 

[berdoingg]

My game is barely on nodding terms with reality, but I am running a piratey campaign at the moment, so would love to hear anything you've got to say about ships, pirate economics etc.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I agree with Henry. I like a little bit of nitty gritty, but useful nitty gritty. My large group ends up on board ships often enough that I would love something to add more depth to those times and a better understanding of sailing ships, the people who crew them, their roles, basics of ship types and design would be a boon. Sure I could look up all kinds of stuff on-line or at the library, but it won't have a gaming bent and so will likely be full of stuff I could care less about.

Actually, doesn't FFG have a book on ships in the Legends and Lairs line? Anybody know if they did a decent job with that book?

 

[Wombat]

For me, a good basis in reality (or versimilitude, if you prefer) makes for a good fantasy.

For my current campaign, by way of an example, I did research on Spanish colonies in the New World, including governance, organization of plantations, troop types, laws, relative cost of goods, etc. No, I did not take this information over 100% accurately, as that would be both silly and boring, but it informed the basis for the campaign. Of course both history and the game "gave" a bit -- there are no "intelligent monsters" in the game other than certain undead, for example (well, let's not talk about that dragon yet) and coinage is much more common than in "reality". I also picked up a great little weather generating program (WeatherMaster) that helps me give a real "feel" to the place. And on top of that, one of my gamers is a darn good artist; he and I have worked together to create a series of street scenes based partially on mid-16th century costuming, architecture, and suchlike, and partially on our own ideas. Gives a great sense of reality to the game.

Starting a campaign in a believable place and situation helps the players suspend the disbelief for the later stages. I always think of The Lord of the Rings in this kind of situation. The story begins in The Shire. Although hobbits don't exist in our reality, nor do smials, The Shire itself is utterly believable. It feels like rural England, with a vaguely 18th century flavour to it. It is because The Shire is so cozy and believable that the rest of the book works so well -- you start out with something pretty familiar-feeling and then realize you are part of a larger, more dangerous world, yet even in other places, there are familiar touches.

Short answer: Yes, reality helps games.

 

[RFisher]

Roleplaying games have always been an excuse for me to learn new things. I like increasing my real-world knowledge & applying that knowledge to the game.

Besides, even in the many cases in which I do decide to go against reality, I like to know that I'm doing it & that I'm doing it consciously & that I have a reason.

 

[painandgreed]

Likewise, is a guy who's worked in foreign intelligence likely to produce a better espionage game than me? Or is he so constrained by what he knows would and wouldn't be realistic that that he can't suspend disbelief enough to create a fun game?

In your games, how much does it matter to you to know how things work in the real world? How do your personal areas of expertise influence your games? Is there a point where too much knowledge hinders rather than helps the game?

I try to make it as realistic as possible, using any knowledge I have and doing soe reseach to make it so. is there a point where too much knowledge hinders the game? Sure. There's still a realism versus playability thing going on. Trying to make the combat system as realistic would bog down the game, so would other examples. if it would bog downthe game play or otherwise hurt the flow of the game, I might just ignore that aspect. However, usually a basic understanding of things allows for a better experience IMHO. The games run by people with extensive knowledge of the area seem much more fleshed out, alive, and simply make better sence. The military themed games that were run by military people were much different than those run by those with no military experience. For the most part it was just basic strategy and tactics that made perfect sence once they were mentioned. the same with espionage games run by somebody who is at least a spy novel buff. knowing the the basic theory and practice for the genre you're playing in make for a much better game than not because that is much of what gives the genre its feel.