How much does reality matter in your games?

[shilsen]

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

Arnwyn nailed what I was about to say. As long as the world of my game is internally consistent, I really don't care how much - or little - it maps to the real world. The core rules of D&D basically through physics, chemistry, biology et al out of the window, and that's even before magic comes into the picture, so working hard to insert it in one area seems counter-productive to me. In my experience, when people find a particular part of the game "unrealistic", they are only aware of it as such because it relates to an area they have expertise in, and they usually ignore other areas which are equally or more unrealistic. Since I don't worry about realism, I avoid this problem.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

 

[Jack Spencer Jr]

My answer is a question: what is realism? What does reality mean, in RPG terms?

For the most part, it means leverage. It give a player leverage to force the GM to let the player bend the rules because something is or is not "realistic."

As such, I don't worry about realism too much.

 

[barsoomcore]

I did tons of research for my Dead Man's Chest pirate campaign. And it was huge fun. I came up with so many ideas, NPCs, locations, everything through my research. Tons of great stuff.

Virtually all the NPCs in my campaign were based on real people, I had period maps of most of the locales (some being hand-drawn captain's sketches), and looked up flags of the different navies and squadrons and stuff. It was great, and having all that knowledge in my head really helped with the feel of the game.

I don't know much about sailing ships except what I've gleaned from many years of fanatical reading of Hornblower stories. It seems to have been good enough. For Henry, at any rate.

 

[Umbran]

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 think that realism matters only to the point that events make the players go, "Huh? How the heck did that happen?"

In a given world, the PCs will be familiar with that world's physical laws, because they live with them on a daily basis. However, the players live with the real world's physical laws. Breaking those laws too badly can break the players out of the fiction, which can lessen the roleplay experience.

Imagine, if you will, a person with deep knowledge of weather and climate sciences watching "The Day After Tomorrow", or someone who knows a great deal about space science watching "Armageddon". The repeated use of bad science will distract them from the story, while a person without their knowledge won't blink an eye.

On the flip side, reality is complex. The more closely you want to model it in game, the more complex the game rules become, and this can be taken to the point where you spend more time with rules than with playing.

The border between these will vary from person to person, and subject to subject. In my games, the point is to be real enough to keep the player's intuition applicable, so they don't have to think too much about their actions, but no so real that it bogs things down.

 

[was]

50-50. Half realistic, half-fantasy. It just works for us.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

My games are as realistic as they need to be.

 

[Thanee]

Of course everything has to be (pseudo-)realistic, that is within the limits set by the background of the game.

Magic is realistic (as are dragons and elves), for example, and effects can vary greatly and obviously do things we cannot do today, but without magic, the laws of physics, for example, while not accurately applied for obvious reasons, cannot be circumvented.

Abstraction is the one thing, which takes away from realism.


So, this is probably the same as what people above labeled with "not realistic, but internally consistent or with a certain versimilitude", just that the term is used differently.

Bye
Thanee

 

[robberbaron]

Realism matters up to a point.

I don't like putting anything in my campaign that I can't explain better than "It's magic!" or "it just does".

NPCs (at least major ones) have to have reasonable motivations or the players will think I'm taking the piss and merely going through the motions.

I guess I am saying that everything has to be reasonable, but not necessarily Real.

 

[philreed]

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.

I highly recommend that all DMs track down "The Writer's Complete Fantasy Reference." An excellent book for those looking to add just a touch of reality to their games.