Which is more important - smooth/fun game play or realism?

[Glyfair]

Edit: There is a lot of confusion about this point because I was unclear. Let me make this more clear. This is purely about making a decision where one choice is more fun in the short term, the other is more realistic. I know there are other situations where one choice has both elements, this isn't directly about those. It's just about your priorities between the two elements where there is conflict between those two elements.

While this question came from the 5' corridor discussion (starting about post #8), it has been a balancing act since the beginning of the game.

Which do you feel is more important when creating a game element? Is it more important that the game element feels "real" or that it creates a more fun* game?

In the example above the general consensus is that 5 ft' corridors tend to make for boring combats that leave much of the party out of the action during combats. However, regularly having wide corridors and rooms for interesting combats lacks realism. How often are corridors going to be 30'-40' wide?

Such decisions come up often. It's at the base of any system. Do you create an abstract combat system that is more exciting, or do you create a detail oriented system that simulates reality better at the expense of extra bookkeeping?

In similar situations (and not just his specific example) which direction do you tend to prefer?

*Note that I'm not dismissing the "fun" element of simulating reality. However, simulating reality tend to be less about creating fun than avoiding unfun elements. A very unrealistic game tends to distract people from the fun, rather than directly creating the fun.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's a continuum, obviously. You don't want to completely ignore one or the other, so as you say, it's a balancing act.

That said, my own opinion, as both a gamer and a designer, is that you lean in the direction of smooth game play. Realism doesn't matter to everyone, and even to those whom it does matter, it's often subjective--but smooth play benefits everyone.

My rule of thumb, then, is that game play trumps realism up to the point that something becomes so unrealistic that it would bother the sensibilities of a majority of gamers. At that point, you've gone too far. But only at that point.

Obviously, it's best if you can incorporate both (and I voted for both in equal measure, because of that, though my actual vote would probably fall between that and the next option). The above applies only when one must be sacrificed for the other.

 

[Lanefan]

Where chance permits, I try to make things at least vaguely realistic even if it means a slightly less "efficient" game...most of the time this shows up in combat. For example, a Hobbit wielding a dagger doesn't need a whole 5x5' space to operate in...even a Human wielding a dagger can do with less than 5x5, meaning more people can fit in a smaller area. Another example: re-rolling initiative each round. Sure it slows things down a bit, but it's far more realistic than my-turn-your-turn, so I stick with it.

Where possible in a magic-based world I also try to keep things like physics, geology, etc. somewhat close to realistic, if only because that way I can figure out how-why things work as they do.

Lanefan

 

[Faraer]

The question presupposes what fun is, while effectively asking 'What do you find fun?', or 'What do you enjoy'? Well, I like long-term fun, which often involves deferring quick fulfilment in favour of a larger sense of a real, believable world.

Abstract vs detailed rules is surely a different question. I generally find more detailed rules a waste of time that don't contribute any kind of realism or enjoyment except for people who like playing with rules.

 

[Wik]

I generally believe that smoother rules can reflect reality BETTER than heavy rules sytems, because reality doesn't always follow that path.

A simple system, like HP, can realistically reflect damage in the hands of GM. (or, at least, a modicum of reality).

Most hit location systems take up a lot more processing power to run, and I've yet to see one that is really any more "realistic" than the HP system (sure, a character shot in the leg will limp away, and take movement penalties that his D&D counterpart with the same wound wouldn't suffer from, but really...)

Just my two cents.

 

[delericho]

I don't really like the poll options. My game is somewhat realistic (as far as D&D goes, anyway), but when 'realism' and 'fun' come into conflict, I go with 'fun' every time.

 

[mmadsen]

Which do you feel is more important when creating a game element? Is it more important that the game element feels "real" or that it creates a more fun* game?

Obviously some people find a "realistic" game -- define that however you want -- more fun than a game that doesn't make sense to them. The goal of the game is to have fun, but a big part of that is not breaking suspension of disbelief.

It's at the base of any system. Do you create an abstract combat system that is more exciting, or do you create a detail oriented system that simulates reality better at the expense of extra bookkeeping?

I think you've drawn a false -- if common -- dichotomy. Many systems become less realistic as they add more details. After all, with a more abstract system, the players can agree on a sensible explanation for what's going on, and the system won't contradict them.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Fun>Realism.

D&D is a abstract game not physic 101.

---Rusty

 

[Slapzilla]

I insist on realism in things like dungeon and wilderness ecology when I'm running the game, but that is a relative thing in a fantasic setting. It's true that I have set things like gnome barbarians mounted on giant rabbits on my players, but only when they begin to get waaaaaay too serious. There is something to be said about cities of lava, sentient ships, cloud miners and such. I love it when players come up with crazy, hare-brained, twisted schemes, but it's the story that is interesting and the player's actions within it that makes it fun.

 

[Gold Roger]

Though the occasional one-dimensional caricature can be fun, I'm heavily in favor of decently realistic NPC personalities and motivations. I also try to enforce a certain amount of inner consistency on the game world.

That all is to provide a stable skeleton for the game. The meat is pure fun going as crazy as it can.