How much suspension of disbelief do you require?

[Rechan]

My suspension of disbelief is constructed with steel cables. I can take it if I'm having fun. Gaminess is OK with me. Realism isn't important to me, and often too much realism takes away my enjoyment; the most important thing for me is "Is it cool?" But that suspension can get violated by story things. Lack of continuity, hamfistedness, or what doesn't make sense for the NPC to have done.

Story (and common sense) should usually trump rules. It doesn't really matter the rules for "You're on fire"; if the character jumps in a lake, by god they should be no longer on fire. Good tactics should also work, but see "story and common sense" rule. The old "Carrying a bag of flour" gimmick is not cool with me. This is one reason why I like games that allow the PC to "take control" of the narrative and say what happens.

The fewer rules the better. Rules "Structure" or "Framework" is fine, but the more specific it gets, the worse it is for me. Subsystems and lots of loopholes and fiddly bits get on my nerves.

I'd prefer meta-talk be minimal, but it's just the nature of the beast. Hard to get rid of it.

 

[Desdichado]

I require exactly nine suspension units of disbelief.

I don't even know how to answer that question. Like pr0n, it's one of those "I can't explain how much is enough, but I know it when I see it" kinda things.

 

[Chrono22]

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.

Well, my favorite system requires very little suspension of disbelief in the first place, since the system is very broad, flexible, and intuitive.
I like the game environment to be as realistic as is reasonably possible. It makes the conclusions, ideas, and experiences I derive from play more rewarding- so, both. I find immersion to be fun, for the same reasons wearing new clothes or being in new places can be fun.

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 allow both. Fortunately, my RPG doesn't really require the players/GM to discuss the mechanics at large during play- the core mechanic/processes are simple enough to understand.

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?

Well, once again, this isn't a problem with my system. The mechanics reinforce player action in the context of his desires and the game environment. So, "real life" tactics actually happen more often as a consequence of how the rules function, instead of happening in spite of them. As a preference, though, I don't like it when an RPG gets in the way of RPing.

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?

Broad easily applied rules that can be applied individually.

 

[xechnao]

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


2. How much meta-talk at the game table do you like?
None.


3. Do you mind if the mechanics get in the way of the story at times?
No. On the contrary, I think it is a requirement.


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?
Both.A tabletop needs both.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Desdichado]

Less flippantly.

1) Yes, I like it to make sense, but how do you determine what "makes sense?" That's a big, broad, touchy-feely and fairly personal and arbitrary thing to require, so although I say "yes" I think that's a fairly meaningless answer.

2) Table talk doesn't have anything to do with suspension of disbelief to me. They're not even related.

3) No, mechanics that disallow common sense actions are bad. I handwave 'em away as a GM, and I expect GMs that I play for to do the same.

4) I'm not sure what this has to do with suspension of disbelief either, since to me, that's a completely unrelated question. I like systems that give a fair amount of definition to characters at chargen. Like, 3.5 for instance. However, 3.5 is pretty clunky to actually run unless you handwave some of the details away. I never calculate DCs for things, for instance. I pick one that seems reasonable out of the air, round to the nearest 5 and go.

But again, that's not because of suspension of disbelief. You can have the exact same suspension of disbelief requirements playing Rolemaster or The Window.

 

[Nagol]

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.

So long as it's internally consistent, it doesn't matter if it makes sense. That consistency can be for game purposes instead of world purposes.

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?

In-character is better, but I assume rule discussions/game terms can be translated into in-world concepts directly. Meta-talk about information not known to the characters is discouraged.

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?

The tactics that are appropriate to the genre should be appropriate to the game. The mechanics shoudn't get in the way of story if the story matches the emulated genre otherwise I'll find a game that better matches the expected genre. I do mind adventure designers who try to tell a story that doesn't fit the genre/game engine and force it into the environment. An example of this is trying to use a dying-breath speech in D&D. Curative magic is too common, too effective, and too quick to sensibly allow this narrative gambit.

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?

Robustness for me is an indication that the players and GM will have a similar understanding as to how a sitution should be resolved in the rules and that the players can gain an understanding as to the probability of success and the degree of risk inherent in the action. Different genres need different levels of granularity for resolution.

 

[Celebrim]

I admit to being somewhat of an extreme case.

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

I find it very difficult to enjoy movies or novels that are not internally consistant, or where the characters do stupid and irrational things solely to further the plot. For me, RPGs are no different. In an RPG it's not just that I find it difficult to suspend my disbelief, it's that when I discover something that is inconsistant I assume its deliberately included as some sort of clue and will start chasing it. If this chase doesn't have some sort of payoff, then I get irritated. Also, I'm going to tend to be irritated by any rule or ruling which is unrealistic when any sort of obvious rule or ruling could have taken its place without that much trouble. For example, it irritated me in 3.5 when horses went from occupying a 5'x10' space to occupying a 10'x10' space. Dropping realism like that for the sake of trivial rules simplification irritates me like fingernails on a chalk board. Ditto 4e and its square bursts.

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

Zero. But in practice that's never achievable, so whatever the minimal metacommunication that is necessary for clarity. I also really really hate when players stop in the middle of combat to discuss tactics and plans in an out of character fashion, and generally will immediately act to stop it. Players that want to coordinate are expected to communicate through there players on their turns and in character.

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

If it comes down to a question of mechanics vs. story, the mechanics have to go or better yet change to suit the story. If I have a really detailed combat system, and I suddenly find myself in a situation that that combat system doesn't handle well (for example in d20 if the player proposes that the characters undertake simultaneous action in order to avoid getting separated, or a cinematic chase scene breaks out), then the proposition will be handled with the best available rules fudge or by transitioning to another rules subsystem and to hell with the strict letter of the rules.

Naturally, the less often you have to rules fudge despite the detailed 'realistic' proposition handling available in the rules as written, the more impressive I find the system.

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?

Deep and robust. It's nice to have some large scale consistancy like 'Roll a d20 and beat a number', for when you just need an ad hoc fortune mechanic, but you have to be careful that the system isn't so rules light that it implies to the player that the set of propositions that they can make is strictly limited, or to the DM that if the rules don't handle it explicitly then it must be impermissable. Lots of rules subsystems are preferable to just a few, because rules subsystems encourage DM creativity and player initiative. Of course the danger here is that your rules heavy system will encourage so much metagame language that it will get in the way of natural propositions and roleplay, so you need some guidelines for the player on how to create a valid meta-proposition like 'I use diplomacy on the Duke' using a natural proposition like, 'Your Grace, I sought an audience with you because you are reknowned for your bravery and sound judgment...'

 

[Ainamacar]

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 want each game world to have its own rules and then stick with them, whatever they may be. A self-consistent system isn't necessarily right, but a self-inconsistent system is certainly wrong (even if that just means incomplete). That has some genre dependence for me, but self consistency is more important. As a player I am not necessarily privy to the rules, and am willing to go quite far afield unless the DM is clearly (or even admittedly) being lazy in this area. As DM, I'm pretty darn fastidious.

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 really like the meta-game, and am pretty tolerant of it as a player or DM. Generally speaking I haven't played with many people who feel the need to be in character all the time, and I feel a little unnatural when I do. Thus, except for big scenes, my regular group is rather free with meta-talk, and there have only been a few times when that has been a problem for someone at the table. The game I'm in right now is also the test bed for a system a friend is designing, so we occasionally take lengthy meta-game breaks to figure things out. That said, if we're all in the in-character "zone", I'm loathe to break it.

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 feel that mechanics should be as consistent as possible with the coherency of the game world, since that usually defines how characters and NPCs interact with it. That can be rules-heavy or rules-light, as long as it (and/or the DM) is sufficiently flexible for the game world to make sense. If that is basically true, then a story which is in serious conflict with mechanics is actually a story that is in conflict with the coherency of the game world. In other words, that is a story best told in a different game. If the mechanics and the game world themselves don't match, one or the other should bend a little. If this must be done constantly they were never a good match in the first place and, yes, I mind that.

I liken it to video games where characters perform incredible acts in cut scenes, ostensibly to serve the story, but can't do anything remotely comparable during gameplay. It's a pet peeve for me.

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?

In general I like a small set of broad rules that apply universally (a framework) and a wide range of effectively independent sub-systems that only interact with each other through the broad rules. In my view that lends itself to coherency as well as an interesting metagame. I think this organization is compatible with both rules-light and rules-heavy games, unless the game has so few rules no subsystems could really be said to exist.

My preference for the number of subsystems and how complicated they should be is tough to express... It's not very helpful to say I like parsimony as well as enough complexity not to get bored (i.e. "just right") because pretty much anyone could say that. I really enjoy D&D 3.5 from about levels 3-12, so that is something of a benchmark. I like the basic framework of 3.5 very much, and I don't feel that it collapses under its own weight (as a player) until level 16 or so. As a DM, whole 'nother story...

 

[Victim]

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.

Well, it depends. I don't require much SoD at all. OTOH, sometimes a plan might hinge a more realistic situation, so some of the stuff I'd normally be happy ignoring comes into focus. Knowing how much disbelief I'm going to be suspending, what genre conventions will be important, etc really helps to get everyone on the same page.

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?

We do a lot of meta talk, especially about mechanics. We often go months between sessions and some players are much more aware of mechanics than others. Tactical discussion helps get everyone working together.

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?

Nope. I like playing games. If a set of rules involves interesting tradeoffs and tactics, then it's fine even if you can't use real life tactics. Moreover, realistic tactics tend to map poorly to many of the situations involved in our games (magic, intelligent monsters, super heroes, etc).