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

[Jaws]

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

Exactly.


j.

 

[Geoff Watson]

The problem with the poll is that it assumes that unrealistic equals fun.

There's a lot of stuff that is neither realistic or fun.

Geoff.

 

[Nifft]

There's a lot of stuff that is neither realistic or fun.

QFT. Synnibar? Spawn of Fashan?

Spoiler

OD&D?

Such things should be avoided.

Cheers, -- N

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Damn, You're Smooth!

I don't really like the poll options.

I agree. I prefer moderate realism/fun.

-Samir

 

[Glyfair]

The problem with the poll is that it assumes that unrealistic equals fun.

There's a lot of stuff that is neither realistic or fun.

It assumes no such thing. It is asking when you have two directions to go and one is "fun" and one is "realistic" which way do you go. Clearly if the fun choice is also realistic then there is no conflict.

As I said, this was suggested by the corridor width discussion. In that case it's generally agreed that larger combat areas are more fun, tight narrow one aren't (mostly because only a handful of players get to fully participate). The objection, brought up by James Jacobs (former editor of Dungeon) among others, is that larger corridors aren't realistic. A conflict of "fun" vs. "realistic."

 

[Aus_Snow]

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?

I don't see these goals as being contradictory, at all. And from experience (so far), they're not.

*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.

Again, I'm not sure I can even agree with the premise, to be honest. No offence intended, as I'm simply noting said disagreement.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Sophia!

A better poll question would have been: Which matters more to you ... smooth gameplay or verisimilitude?

-Samir​

 

[Celebrim]

As I said, this was suggested by the corridor width discussion. In that case it's generally agreed that larger combat areas are more fun, tight narrow one aren't (mostly because only a handful of players get to fully participate). The objection, brought up by James Jacobs (former editor of Dungeon) among others, is that larger corridors aren't realistic. A conflict of "fun" vs. "realistic."

In this case, go with realistic. Before a setting can be emmersive, it has to look right. If you stick to gamist concepts that work well as battle mats, I can gaurantee you that your players will never envision what that place looks like in thier heads. Instead, they will see the battle taking place in the mental space of the battlemap between minatures. They won't actually be involved, and the space in which the battle took place will never be in the quasi-real place of a player's imagination. It turns an RPG into a tactical wargame. You might as well play ASL.

By making the setting realistic and intricate, you encourage the players to engage thier imagination. This ultimately leads to a much more satisfying experience.

Now, there are some caveats. Don't overuse narrow corridors, and 'rig' your encounters so that they don't generally occur in corridors (or if they do, make sure that they are not static, that is, make sure one side gives or has to give). Plan your dungeon with a realistic mix of small spaces and spaces large enough to contain your battles.

It's possible to be realistic and have alot of space. Cathedrals, abbeys, insulas, and castles all have large enclosed spaces - either rooms or courtyards. If you need space, plan your main battles to occur in those spaces. This is both interesting and realistic (castle courtyards were designed as killing grounds). Any temple complexes is usually designed as large public places to accomodate many celebrants. So its possible to have plenty of space and also narrow corridors and small rooms dependig on the section of the structure you are in.

Caves likewise have this complexity. The largest open space I've been in a cave is larger than the largest space I've ever been in a fantasy dungeon (under world 'outdoors' maps excluded). Conversely, the smallest space I've been in in a cave is smaller than the smallest place I've ever been in a fantasy dungeon.

Another good thing to keep in mind is that some structures in a fantasy game might have no parallel in the real world, and so there is no way you can say that thier broad corridors are 'unrealistic'.

Where I tend to drop realism in favor of fun in fantasy architecture is in two things: economics and symmetry.

Realistically, most structures have a high degree of symmetry. It's just easier to design and build things that way, and symmetry is often very appealing visually. Classical architecture is almost always symmetrical. On the other hand, symmetry is highly unappealing in a dungeon. While I generally recommend designing dungeons from life (real world structures), I do suggest that you look at how architectures incorporate assymetry into buildings and then overuse these devices to a degree that real world buildings wouldn't.

Realistically, most buildings and excauvations are limited by economics to being quite small and uninteresting. In my games, I tend to pattern an average structure after the larger sorts of examples of thier type in the world (big Edwardian or Crusader castles, for example), and to have truly epic structures which are far larger than the largest real world examples. Most players could care less about the economics of building and maintaining a structure, and you can pretty much handwave the wealth level of whatever society or person built the original structure. Besides, D&D builders have access to giants, magic, genies, and all sorts of other things that ancient real world builders didn't. It wouldn't at all be surprising if they built bigger and grander than even the big grand things of antiquity. That isn't to say that its usual to dungeoneer in such large structures, but they are there if I want them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In this case, go with realistic. Before a setting can be emmersive, it has to look right.

It might just be me, but nothing looks "wrong" with 10 or 20 foot wide corridoors, giant rooms, all the stuff that makes the big maps with space to move fun to have. I buy it just as I buy 5' wide corridoors: makes enough sense.

Again: giants taller than skyscrapers. Squids that control the weather. Magicians with guano-powered miniature apocalypses.

If you stick to gamist concepts that work well as battle mats, I can gaurantee you that your players will never envision what that place looks like in thier heads. Instead, they will see the battle taking place in the mental space of the battlemap between minatures. They won't actually be involved, and the space in which the battle took place will never be in the quasi-real place of a player's imagination. It turns an RPG into a tactical wargame. You might as well play ASL.

....there's...a lot off in this paragraph. Starting from the end and working backwards:

#1: You can play D&D and get tactical play as well as storytelling, character development, etc. Adventures are partially tactical excersizes. I don't need to go to another game just because I use a heavily tactical approach.

#2: RPG's are only turned into wargames if people stop playing their roles. 10' wide corridors don't tell you that you are no longer Prince Farquat of the Empire of Poopenmier. So the only thing that can turn an RPG into a tactical wargame is if the participants decide to go play a war game instead. An RPG can, of course, have tactical wargame elements without loosing what makes it an RPG.

#3: "Never" is a troublesome absolute. Players can get plenty involved with a battlemat, and imagination still has a strong role to play, even with representational figures.

#4: Players won't always see things as a miniatures battle, simply because the terrain makes those interesting. Often, battles will simply be imagined as more dynamic, run-and-jump-and-dodge affairs, rather than "stand and hack" slugfests. Even if you NEVER use minis (I don't), the extra space gives imaginations room to run wild.

#5: Just because something does work well as a battle mat doesn't mean that it necessarily interferes with the running of everything else D&D does.

In conclusion: Why does something so simple destroy verisimilitude so easily?

 

[Mallus]

Creating a 'fun game' is a goal. 'Realism' is a tool used --to varying degrees-- to achieve that goal.

Finding out where players want greater (or less) realism seems like a more productive line of inquiry.