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

[RFisher]

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 my experience, more abstract often means more realistic.

The great thing about RPGs is that, whenever something strays too far from realism (or whatever it is the group is going for), the GM can reign it in.

The bad thing is that it took me a long time to realize how important a part of GMing this is. I probably still have too much of a reluctance to overrule a rule.

 

[RFisher]

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

OK, but when someone on an RPG forum types the word "realism", they almost always mean what you mean by "verisimilitude". Might as well just read it that way, IMHO.

 

[gizmo33]

It's fun for things to feel somewhat realistic. It's a trade off where I try to maximize the fun and the realism (to whatever extent is appropriate for a fantasy game). Also, I'm not really an expert on reality, and I don't think most other people are either. So I think that claims that such-and-such a rule or situation models reality should be made with a certain amount of humility.

Also - there's short and long-term fun. It's probably no fun to keep your character sheet up to date or legible but the payoffs in the long run make it worth it IMO. Sometimes it's no fun to have to reach across the table to get dice to roll when I can just as easily make up a number. Similarly, it's no fun in the short-term to get your PC killed, but it's no fun for me to play in a game where my PC can't die.

 

[ZombieButch]

Realism schmealism. If it's going over the top, that just gives you a better view to look for a higher top. Repeat for 4-6 hours or until the beer and Cheetos run out.

 

[werk]

Fun>Realism.

D&D is a abstract game not physic 101.

---Rusty

Agreed.

See sig. Fun is RAW, reality is a house rule.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Excellent response, and I couldn't agree more.....with the exception that realism and long-term fun, IMHO, don't require you to defer short-term fun at all. The question presupposes that a "realistic" game is less fun, and I for one find that an untrue premise.

RC

 

[Midknightsun]

Fun is a definite primary concern for me, but I try to maintain a degree of plausability and order in my game world, or at least have a very good reason for a sudden "out of place" change. If robots suddenly showed up in my fanatsy medievalesque-world, I'd want a good reason why. If a jet plane suddenly flew over my PCs, I'd probably be considered a big break in that "V" word. Most people don't mind impossible, as long as it seems to fit within the world you have created for them, or the effects change markedly from one day to the next without rhyme or reason. And people base that tolerance on things they have watched and read. If you have a group with very divergent "fantasy" interests, your gonna have different levels of tolerance for anachronistic objects/items/situations/critters/organizations . . .

Of course, if your campaign is set in Limbo, just forget what I said

 

[Glyfair]

Added a note to the first post to clarify the purpose of the poll. There has been a lot of debate about a point that people are assuming the poll is making, which it isn't supposed to be making.

There is no intent to say "realistic decisions aren't fun." It's to find out which way you lean when you have to make a design choice. When a realistic choice gets in the way of the immediate fun in the game, do you go with the fun choice or the realistic choice.

Given the poll results, I think most understood that. However, looking at the discussion it's clear many didn't.

I do stand by my statement in the first post. I don't believe that realism creates fun very often. I believe that realism is about things that prevent fun.

I don't know too many occasions when I heard "that game was fun, it was so realistic." I do know of many occasions where I heard "that game wasn't any fun, it was too unrealistic."

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't know too many occasions when I heard "that game was fun, it was so realistic." I do know of many occasions where I heard "that game wasn't any fun, it was too unrealistic."

That's a very good point. Fun really means short term enjoyment. It isn't the right word for the sort of pleasure one gets from a long-term realistic game.

 

[Glyfair]

That's a very good point. Fun really means short term enjoyment. It isn't the right word for the sort of pleasure one gets from a long-term realistic game.

Also, I don't think all D&D fun is about short-term pleasure. Being beaten by the same villain time after time isn't fun. However, it does make it much more fun when you finally overcome him (unless it's something anti-climatic, like a failed save against a save-or-die effect).

However, that's a discussion for another thread on short-term vs. long-term enjoyment.