Realism vs Gameplay

[JayTee]

On a scale of one to ten, where do you stand on realism vs gameplay? Likewise why do you stand there?

One - Unless you're doing with with magic, you better damned well respect the laws of reality.

Five - The laws of reality can be ignored if they get in the way of fun, but otherwise should still be respected.

Ten - Reality? Laws? What are those?

Myself, I am around four or five. I like structure and consistency a lot, but frankly fun is more important then anything else in a game!

[admiralducksauce]

I'm about 7, I think.  And I wouldn't even term what I follow "Realism".  I'd call it following the appropriate genre, perhaps.  For example, car gas tanks explode when you shoot them in my game because it is how things are done in media, regardless of what reality, Hyneman, and Savage say.

[BumblingBear]

I run my games at around a 4.

I think part of what makes urban fantasy cool is the iota of realism in there.  Once you take that away, you have D&D set in a modern city.

[toturi]

I value consistency in both the game I play and the games I run. But consistency is not realism - the rules are consistent but reality has to conform to the particular ruleset. If within the ruleset, realism takes a backseat, then that is what it does. If within the ruleset, realism is mutable, then so be it. Therefore I'd say I am 1 only with respect to rule consistency and 10 if the ruleset so happens to throw realism out of the window.

[UmbraLux]

On a scale of one to ten, where do you stand on realism vs gameplay? Likewise why do you stand there?

I think the question presents a false dichotomy.  There's no reason verisimilitude (or realism if you prefer) can't coexist with good game play.  All that said, it is a game...playability trumps simulation in my book.

[ways and means]

I am at ten I run my games under the rule of cool.

[JayTee]

I am at ten I run my games under the rule of cool.

This.

I wish I could do that, but the inner scientist in me rages whenever something drastically violates what I know to be a law of physics/chemistry/whatever.

I think the question presents a false dichotomy.

I know, the question is less of an absolute and more of a general feel of how you like to run your games, sorry about that D:

[evileeyore]

I run from 0 to 11.

While I'm prone to things that sound cool, I have zero desire for any "OMG!  You killed that helicopter with car!" moments.  As such, even magic has to follow laws of reality where they can make themselves felt.

[Haru]

I am at ten I run my games under the rule of cool.

Seconded.

I study physics myself, and despite of me knowing better, I often find myself using my knowledge simply as a starting ground to do something ridiculously cool. Or at least ridiculous.
Once when playing shadowrun, we planed to create 2 giant coils to have an enormous magnetic field on a street where a target would have to pass, so his cyberwear would fry and kill him right there. Sadly, it never came to be, because we didn't have enough time to hollow out the buildings on opposite sides of the street to make it work. 

Consistency however should still exist, so if I "kill a helicopter with a car" (I like that image ), I could possibly do it again, though it would be boring to use the same action twice, when there are so many ways to destroy things. 

[Bruce Coulson]

All campaign worlds should be as internally consistent as possible.

However, I feel that story logic should win out over real-world reality every time.

Around a 7-8 personally; what happens should be right for the story, even if reality would be different.

[Michael Sandy]

I think there has to be enough consistency so that the really bad dangerous guy comes across as really bad and dangerous.

There should be consistency so that when the players observe events, confrontations, whatever, they will get a fair idea of what the bad guy can do, what threat level.  Yes, there can be Macguffins to help level the playing field, but there should be a sense of difficulty, or sacrifice, or something so it doesn't feel like the players are watching a movie, waiting for the Big Good to intervene and save the day.

There should be consistency, so that when players act according to their understanding of how the world works, they have a realistic appreciation of how well their gimmicky plan can work.

[toturi]

Yes, there can be Macguffins to help level the playing field, but there should be a sense of difficulty, or sacrifice, or something so it doesn't feel like the players are watching a movie, waiting for the Big Good to intervene and save the day.

I agree partially. There should be some sense that the players aren't watching a movie. But the Big Good could be the players characters that intervene and save the day.

[Richard_Chilton]

Different game systems stress different things.

The more realism in a game the deadlier it is.  If you use a dagger on a sleeping person then you're generally looking at a killing blow - death, not max damage times two and a saving throw.  If you shoot a person a couple of times with a large gun then odds are good that without a fast trip to the hospital that person is going to die.  Because that's what weapons are designed to do - kill people - and we are very good at designing weapons.

Realism = Deadly Combat, and the more realistic the game the deadlier the combat.

Boot Hill was a game like that.  You had gunfight where the loser went down after a couple of bullets.  Aftermath was like that.  Twilight 2000 was like that.  Cyberpunk was like that.  Call of Cthulhu (and most games modeled off of Chasium's Basic Role Playing) is like that.  GURPS can be like that.

And except for a couple of those games, most of them "was like that" because they aren't made anymore.  Gamers have gone away from ultra realism, detailed hit charts, weapons are deadly type games because most people hate it when a lucky shot takes out a character.  They don't want "The Longest Day" realism, they want "Rambo" style heroism.

Some game systems stress realism.  Some stress charts and accurate weapon descriptions.  Some stress story and don't care what the difference is between a 44 Auto Mag and your average 45 - both get classed as "Heavy Pistol" with the same range and damage.

And once you've chosen a system, that goes a long way in dictating the style of play.  You'll never get GURPS style vehicle descriptions in DFRPG - not without modding the system to death and if you want that level of realism then you're better off modding GURPS into a Dresden setting.

Richard

[Katarn]

I'd fall around 5, methinks- for example, I set SF at 2000, set a year for a given campaign, and try to fit actual real-world events into the context of a campaign.  And I'll let players try slightly questionable things in the question of a good game, but I do draw the line at reasonable impossibilities.

[Team8Mum]

On a scale of one to ten, where do you stand on realism vs gameplay? Likewise why do you stand there?
One - Unless you're doing with with magic, you better damned well respect the laws of reality.
Five - The laws of reality can be ignored if they get in the way of fun, but otherwise should still be respected.
Ten - Reality? Laws? What are those?

Depends on the game. On those I'm currently running;
Dresden -five- there are Wizards faerie and werewolves wandering around. Conservations of mass/ energy takes a holiday round those types. But gravity tends to stick it's head in and laws of time smack you round the head if you mess with them (well the GateKeeper does anyway so he will do)

Laundry.-one. And even magic has to follow a lot of the rules. However on trips to another dimension^tm your laws of physics may vary.

Shattered realities - this is a good 15 and climbing. But then the whole principle of the game is that the reality around you is nothing more than the collective expectations of those with in it; so rewriting it is integral for the game play. And if you are playing at SOLO level you are creating/ rewriting universes on a whim (Subject to the other solos around you 'modifying' them back whe you have stopped holding it in place.) so "There are no laws 'cept those we define ourselves" (ooo theres a cool aspect, must go and make a character based on it )

That said ANYTHING can change in a game I am running of the players suggestion makes me laugh and it should a like a fun place to take the plot. It just takes a little less justificatio. The higher up the ladder you are playing.