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

Which is more important; fun game play or realism?

  • I go with realistic over just fun most of the time. My game is pretty realistic.

    Votes: 2 0.9%
  • I go with realistic more often than fun. My game is somewhat realistic.

    Votes: 16 7.0%
  • I go with each about equally.

    Votes: 61 26.6%
  • I go with fun over realism more often. My game is somewhat unrealistic.

    Votes: 100 43.7%
  • I go with fun over realism most of the time. My game is pretty unrealistic.

    Votes: 50 21.8%

Realism sucks. I'm in the real world all the time. It's a lot of work and not very exciting and when it is exciting it can end up screwing you over. I don't want a realistic game. I'm running Buffy right now, so this is a game where a bunch of high school kids fight demons and vampires and keep the world from blowing up all in their little small town. Vampire slayers, half-demons, warlocks, and robots are all valid PC options. If someone claims something isn't "realistic" I'm just going to laugh at them.

Things do need to be consistant though. The player has to have some way to figure out what they want to do, and if action X is a good idea on Tuesday but screws you over on Thursday the players are not going to be happy, and in fact are going to feel railroaded. Like their actions only succeed when they do what the GM wants. When a player says "That's not realistic!" what they mean is "That's not what I expected!" Just explain the genre conventions and tell them to go with it. I've had it stick in people's craw that in Buffy when a vampire turned to dust their clothes and possessions turn to dust too. Unless its important like a ring or something with a clue on it. Why? Because that's how it was on the show, and that's what this game is emulating. Feel free to make fun of it, but don't complain when it happens.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Things do need to be consistant though.

Exactly. I think it's important, in a discussion like this, not to conflate "realism" with either "verisimilitude" or with "consistency." A game, or a setting, can be completely internally consistent, and more or less believable, without necessarily being especially realistic.
 

In general, err on the side of smooth gameplay. However, I would dispute an assertion that more complex rules system inherently results in difficult games.

I prefer to have a game that is consistent enough that players can quickly grasp how they fit into the world, what the likely consequences are of any simple action, etc. Ive historically had reasonable players that would accept alterations to that in the name of 'realism' without it being a big deal.
 

I tend to believe that fun trumps realism.

Of course, the two can't be completely separated either. If a rule meant to keep the game simple and fast flowing occassionally produces a result which forbids something reasonable, then the rule should be trumped momentarily in favor of allowing the player to attempt what would normally be forbidden by the rules but realistically could be attempted.

This is more fun than a hidebound adherance to the rules. There are always edge cases where ad hoc rules are better than either the system rules or nothing.

Likewise, there are times when realistic complexity contributes to fun. If you go down a 10' corridor, open the door and find a 50'x50' room with no other exits and a dragon in it, if there is no reasonable explanation for this then its going to eventually reduce the fun. Likewise, if you go around the corridor and find a room filled with the most awful stench, the fact that you couldn't smell it 5' away is an example of reducing complexity to the detriment of an enjoyable game. Part of fun is emmersion, and a lack of versimilitude is the enemy of emersion.
 

This is not a fair or useful question; the dice are loaded. It's a poll which is a waste of time.

What's better? "Having Fun or ______."

Put just about anything in the blank, and "Fun" wins. It's a loaded question.

"Do you prefer awkward game play or smooth gameplay?"

Gee. Do we really need a poll to determine the answer there?

The real question is this: when does an unrealistic game mechanic hurt enjoyment of the game?

It's not a question which can be answered by a poll - but it's the question which the poll is attempting to explore.

Like all questions relating to game mechanics, it needs facts and examples to clarify them.

Example: If you could drop an arbitrary height of unlimited measurement and only take a maximum of 2d6 damage in a D20 setting, no matter what, would that be a sucky rule?

Answer: Probably. Why? Because the suspension of disbelief is gone - it's outright Looney Tunes physics.

Example:
Is it a better rule to figure out the number of hit points taken based upon elasticity of all surfaces impacted and perform a 9.8m /s^2 velocity calculation? T

Probably not. That might end up being a more realistic rule - but would slow things down too. Grade eleven physics tends not to be a popular hobby. It does not meet the "fun" test.

"Game Reality" for most people lies somewhere in the middle. Game systems compromise. Where that compromise "should be" is a matter of taste and judgment.

To ask if people prefer "smooth gameplay" does not assist either. It hides the individual judgments all players make and buries that positive judgment within the question.

Might as well ask, "do you prefer crappy games or good games?"
 
Last edited:

Steel_Wind said:
Example: If you could drop an arbitrary height of unlimited measurement and only take a maximum of 2d6 damage in a D20 setting, no matter what, would that be a sucky rule?

Answer: Probably. Why? Because the suspension of disbelief is gone - it's outright Looney Tunes physics.

I disagree and the reason why is in your answer. What is "realistic" and what isn't is dependent on the genre you are playing in. 2d6 damage for a fall of any distance might be a really good rule for Looney Tunes d20.

Example:
If instead, you had to figure out the number of hit points taken based upon elasticity of all surfaces impacted, a 9.8m /s^2 velocity calculation , that might end up being quite realistic rule - but would slow things down too. Grade eleven physics tends not to be a popular hobby.

Again, for most games probably not, but I could imagine a hard sci-fi game that had such a rule, though perhaps done up on a table for reference.

Reality is in the middle. Game systems compromise. Where that compromise "should be" is a matter of taste and judgment.

To ask if people prefer "smooth gameplay" does not assist either. It hides the individual judgments all players make and buries the postive outcome within the question.

Might as well ask, do you prefer crappy games or good games?

Agreed. I would prefer to have both fun and realism not in the question. What the OP is trying to get at is do you prefer abstract or complex rules?
 


Fun is all that really matters. If the realism makes a game more fun, then it's good. Once it starts making it less fun, it no longer matters. This is a game, not a simulation.
 

Realism?

You're kidding, right? I have wizards flinging fireballs, elves from the forest, and the dead rising from their graves, both to continue the crusade, and as soul-sucking terrors.

I've got giants bigger than NYC skyscrapers.

I've got giant squid that control the weather.

I've got gnomish barbarians who fall from the stratosphere into a pool of lava and *get up to keep fighting*.

Realism is a Sisyphus quest.

Verisimilitude, sure. Don't break my suspension of disbelief. But that's only "realism" by a very very liberal definition.
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top