How much suspension of disbelief do you require?

[Sadrik]

A few RPG design questions:

1. When playing your favorite RPG as player or GM/DM, how much suspension of disbelief do you require? For instance, as a player do you prefer to have a character and game world that could make "sense" or it really doesn't matter as long as I am having fun and it is not too abstract and gamey.

2. How much meta-talk at the game table do you like? For instance as GM/DM do you like your players in-character most of the time or do you like talk about mechanics and the best way to use them? How much do you allow?

3. Do you mind if the mechanics get in the way of the story at times? For instance, is it ok if you cannot form "real life" tactics with the game mechanics?

4. What level of mechanical "robustness" does the game feel right at? Is it broad easily applied rules that stay out of the way or more detailed rules that have more individual application?

 

[jaerdaph]

A few RPG design questions:

1. When playing your favorite RPG as player or GM/DM, how much suspension of disbelief do you require? For instance, as a player do you prefer to have a character and game world that could make "sense" or it really doesn't matter as long as I am having fun and it is not too abstract and gamey.

2. How much meta-talk at the game table do you like? For instance as GM/DM do you like your players in-character most of the time or do you like talk about mechanics and the best way to use them? How much do you allow?

3. Do you mind if the mechanics get in the way of the story at times? For instance, is it ok if you cannot form "real life" tactics with the game mechanics?

4. What level of mechanical "robustness" does the game feel right at? Is it broad easily applied rules that stay out of the way or more detailed rules that have more individual application?

1. The amount of suspension of disbelief required really depends on the game's genre. That's established by a social contract between the GM and players as to what that genre (and by default the setting) is and isn't. Being true to and remaining consistent with the agreed-upon parameters of the genre are key to keeping that suspension of disbelief.

2. It depends. Most of the time, I like to keep the meta-talk limited, but that's not always possible depending on the rules system being used. As a GM (referee being one of the GM's roles), if I make a ruling how something works, then that's what we do and any further discussion is welcome after the game.

3. Yes and no. Sometimes a player comes up with a cool idea or solution But there is nothing in the rules to cover it. That's when you wing it if it will make for a better story that everyone will enjoy.

4. Again it depends on what everyone at the table wants - another social contract. Personally, I find myself preferring rules-light (Microlite20 and Wushu) and rules-lighter (True20) systems more and more.

 

[Shemeska]

When mechanics gets in the way of story, that's when I start playing a different game.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

1. When playing your favorite RPG as player or GM/DM, how much suspension of disbelief do you require? For instance, as a player do you prefer to have a character and game world that could make "sense" or it really doesn't matter as long as I am having fun and it is not too abstract and gamey.

I require none at all. But then I appear to be a unique anomaly, and I like being different so don't let anyone else get the chance to try it.

2. How much meta-talk at the game table do you like? For instance as GM/DM do you like your players in-character most of the time or do you like talk about mechanics and the best way to use them? How much do you allow?

I prefer meta-talk to be made by the characters rather than the players. At least that way we're all still roleplaying.

3. Do you mind if the mechanics get in the way of the story at times? For instance, is it ok if you cannot form "real life" tactics with the game mechanics?

Mechanics should never get in the way of story unless the game is designed for that.

4. What level of mechanical "robustness" does the game feel right at? Is it broad easily applied rules that stay out of the way or more detailed rules that have more individual application?

It actually depends on what's light and what's heavy in the individual rule sets. I can't make a blanket judgement.

 

[Pseudonym]

1. When playing your favorite RPG as player or GM/DM, how much suspension of disbelief do you require?

I agree that it depends upon the genre. I play in a fairly standard 4E homebrew game and I also play in a Golden Age M&M game. I am willing to accept different things depending.

2. How much meta-talk at the game table do you like?

Roughly 70:30 in character versus meta talk. It depends upon the group and the game. We tend to do more RP in the M&M game for instance.

3. Do you mind if the mechanics get in the way of the story at times?

In the case of a conflict, the story always wins, as a GM or as a player.

4. What level of mechanical "robustness" does the game feel right at?

Again, it depends upon the genre and the game. I think our 4E game has enough "robustness" to be a 4E game, if that makes sense. Our M&M game theoretically has a rules framework with regards to task resolution but I don't think we've reference the rules more than a half dozen times over the life of the campaign. If we switched systems entirely I don't think we'd really notice.

 

[steenan]

1. When playing your favorite RPG as player or GM/DM, how much suspension of disbelief do you require? For instance, as a player do you prefer to have a character and game world that could make "sense" or it really doesn't matter as long as I am having fun and it is not too abstract and gamey.

I only enjoy settings that make sense. It's just not fun for me if the game world does not have logical and aesthetic consistency. Of course, there are various kinds of consistency. I like worlds that are believable, with a "this could really exist" internal logic. But I also like worlds with a strong stylistic consistency, a strong genre - like in Star Wars or Exalted. If a game has neither a definite style nor verisimilitude, I won't play it.

2. How much meta-talk at the game table do you like? For instance as GM/DM do you like your players in-character most of the time or do you like talk about mechanics and the best way to use them? How much do you allow?

I prefer as little meta-talk as reasonable. Of course, it's not possible nor sensible to disallow out-of-character talk completely, but it's good to keep it low. I definitely dislike discussing characters' plans and tactics on meta-level if it is not an inherent part of a resolution mechanics.

3. Do you mind if the mechanics get in the way of the story at times? For instance, is it ok if you cannot form "real life" tactics with the game mechanics?

I'm not sure what you mean by "story" here. RPG, for me, is not about pre-written plots, it's about what comes out from players' decisions. If mechanics gets in the way of what is chosen and what makes sense in-game, it's time to change the mechanics. I have nothing against mechanics that are abstract enough to act at completely different level then concrete in-game actions, but I don't accept mechanics that encourage tactics much different from what is logical or stylistically appropriate in the game world. This "stylistic appropriateness" is an important factor: for example, if a game presents itself as "heroic fantasy", I want it to encourage heroic choices, not tactical ones. If it is horror, the optimal tactic should be "run for your life, then research, then return", not shooting the monster with the biggest gun you have.

4. What level of mechanical "robustness" does the game feel right at? Is it broad easily applied rules that stay out of the way or more detailed rules that have more individual application?

I prefer mechanics that focuses on what is important for given game and leaves the rest broad and simple. A lot of small rules is hard to remember, hard to use and easy to munchkinize. Simple rules and a reasonable GM works much better. On the other hand, the main theme of the game should be represented mechanically by something more than a single die roll. Dogs in the Vineyard is a good example of what I consider a good design.

 

[Oryan77]

1. do you prefer to have a character and game world that could make "sense" or it really doesn't matter as long as I am having fun and it is not too abstract and gamey.

Things need to make sense....unless I'm drunk; then it's the greatest game ever. But I'm not 12 years old anymore and if I can't imagine it being somewhat logical, then I can't take the game seriously. Which that is ok, but games like that get boring pretty fast for me. If I can take my character more seriously, then I have more fun and that fun will be longer lasting.

2. How much meta-talk at the game table do you like?

Having players stay in character the entire game would be a dream...but even I can't do that. I don't mind meta-talk as long as it isn't disrupting an event that is important to me. Like, if they talk about how they are going to ambush Fatty McGee (I apologize if anyone reading this is a McGee), a lot of rules discussion is going on. It would be nice if they stayed in character, but I understand that they want to attack in the most efficient way that can and it just makes it easier to discuss it by referencing rules. But if they are metagaming, that's different. Just because I said a PC is charmed doesn't mean the other PCs can react to it without realizing he's charmed.

3. Do you mind if the mechanics get in the way of the story at times? For instance, is it ok if you cannot form "real life" tactics with the game mechanics?

I wish mechanics could get in the way of my real life sometimes. Maybe I'd be making more money, or be smarter than I appear to be
No, mechanics never get in the way of the story. If someone wants to do something that seems perfectly reasonable, I'll make up a rule for doing it if I need to. I actually think the rules get in the way a lot. "Luckily", there are rules to cover most situations...but the downside is that using those rules sometimes takes away from the cinematic action of the moment. When a person wants to jump off the balcony, swing from the chandelier, flip in mid air, land in the middle of a group of enemies, do a tumbling roll, and flip up on his feet to prepare for the attack, having the player perform all of those checks seems to kill the action and downplay the event. But I still require the checks because on the flip side, I still think it adds to the story if they fail a check and they mess up the moment. It's a good story to tell, "Remember when you tried showing off and you fell from the chandelier? That was classic!"

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

1. When playing your favorite RPG as player or GM/DM, how much suspension of disbelief do you require? For instance, as a player do you prefer to have a character and game world that could make "sense" or it really doesn't matter as long as I am having fun and it is not too abstract and gamey.

What matters most to me is internal consistency. It doesn't need to make "sense," but if it isn't consistent, there had better be a good reason for it.

2. How much meta-talk at the game table do you like? For instance as GM/DM do you like your players in-character most of the time or do you like talk about mechanics and the best way to use them? How much do you allow?

I am, and my gaming friends are, the types of people with lots of meta-talk. It doesn't bother me in the slightest, and it would be wierd to me to be mostly in-character talk. Just not the way I play, and I think it makes those roleplaying moments where we do get into character all the more remarkable and fantastic.

3. Do you mind if the mechanics get in the way of the story at times? For instance, is it ok if you cannot form "real life" tactics with the game mechanics?

Game dependent, but I am finding, in general I do not enjoy as much games with lots of fiddly bits that make it more "simulationist," mostly because the game becomes an exercise in the mechanics, and many arguements ensue.

4. What level of mechanical "robustness" does the game feel right at? Is it broad easily applied rules that stay out of the way or more detailed rules that have more individual application?

Game dependent, but I perfer a middle ground. Too broad can make the game seem too open to interpretation. Too detailed can lead to the mechanics issues stated above.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

1. Very little. Or more so that I make things make sense in my mind. I'm willing to shoehorn things in that seem to make little sense on paper into something that makes sense to me.

2. As much as the player's want. The game is for their enjoyment. And if they can't accomplish what they want to in-game because I've restricted meta-talk I feel I've failed them.

3. The story? No. Real life tactics? Depends. Some people's idea of this is their SCA experience. Then no. Some flabby guy (the one I know in particular, not all you SCAers) running around in armor playing fake sword fights is not an expert on medieval warfare, and even if he was that expertise does not necessarily translate into the abstract combat system most RPGs use.

4. I prefer games that run rules moderate (I consider all editions of D&D to be at most rules-moderate) to rules-lite, depending on the genre.

 

[Mallus]

1. When playing your favorite RPG as player or GM/DM, how much suspension of disbelief do you require?

I'm pretty willing to suspend disbelief so long as I'm being entertained. Frankly, most of the genres of fiction that RPG's are based on aren't too believable to begin with. Why should the games be more sensible than fiction that inspired them?

2. How much meta-talk at the game table do you like?

My group switches freely between in-character and out during the session. Both kinds of talk are equally amusing.

3. Do you mind if the mechanics get in the way of the story at times? For instance, is it ok if you cannot form "real life" tactics with the game mechanics?

I don't find the mechanics get in the way of the story very often. Sometimes the story takes a smoke break while we focus our attention on this dandy little war game.

Put another way, when the story is the interesting thing, I don't roll dice (or I roll as few as possible).

4. What level of mechanical "robustness" does the game feel right at? Is it broad easily applied rules that stay out of the way or more detailed rules that have more individual application?

It varies. Sometimes I like knobs to twiddle, sometimes I don't. My level of interest in mechanics changes from session to session, heck, from hour to hour, depending on what's happening at the table.