# Game Design 108: Realism vs. Fun



## SirAntoine (May 6, 2013)

I just read the title for this thread and I think it's a mistake ever to put realism "vs." fun.  The whole game design is about fun, including any and all efforts to make it realistic.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 6, 2013)

SirAntoine said:


> I just read the title for this thread and I think it's a mistake ever to put realism "vs." fun.  The whole game design is about fun, including any and all efforts to make it realistic.



Only replying because XP comments aren't still visible, and I'll be quoting with my XP comments from now on (unless they become visible). I said "Totally agree."


----------



## EP (May 6, 2013)

SirAntoine said:


> I just read the title for this thread and I think it's a mistake ever to put realism "vs." fun.  The whole game design is about fun, including any and all efforts to make it realistic.




I agree with the title (in that the title is meant to be eye-catching and grab your attention, but also the intention of the article). Yes, the game is meant to be fun, but there is such a thing as too much fun. I interpret the author's definition of "fun" as goofy hijinks where players are the definition of awesome and have very little to fear, versus the other extreme of being hardcore realistic where a PC can drop with just one bullet. And in that case, there is an incredibly fine line. 

It's about suspension of disbelief during play and just reading a book or watching a movie and not getting involved or interested in the story because of plot holes or what have you, it affects your enjoyment of playing. For example, WAAAAAY back in high school, I played AD&D with a group of 7th-level whatevers and they dropped an ancient red dragon in one round. Not because they cheated in the rules, but because these players didn't get caught up in the particulars and meta-gamed their way through the battle. While they found it an awesome victory, I was disappointed. It was my first time in a fight with a dragon of any kind and it was over before I had a chance to take my turn. That was not fun and so I wasn't involved in the game. If it was that easy to bring down a dragon, what was the big deal about? Yet the other players thought it was great fun because they were awesome... in their eyes. 

On the other hand, too much realism and players tend to become restricted in actions due to literal translations of the rules or become bogged down in technical matters. If your game stops because you need to find out if the dragon's breath weapon can wear down stone, it may apply for this category. 

It's a delicate balancing act. The end result is fun, yes, but you have to draw from each side to create your own balancing act. That's what I took from this.


----------



## SirAntoine (May 7, 2013)

EP said:


> I agree with the title (in that the title is meant to be eye-catching and grab your attention, but also the intention of the article). Yes, the game is meant to be fun, but there is such a thing as too much fun. I interpret the author's definition of "fun" as goofy hijinks where players are the definition of awesome and have very little to fear, versus the other extreme of being hardcore realistic where a PC can drop with just one bullet. And in that case, there is an incredibly fine line.
> 
> It's about suspension of disbelief during play and just reading a book or watching a movie and not getting involved or interested in the story because of plot holes or what have you, it affects your enjoyment of playing. For example, WAAAAAY back in high school, I played AD&D with a group of 7th-level whatevers and they dropped an ancient red dragon in one round. Not because they cheated in the rules, but because these players didn't get caught up in the particulars and meta-gamed their way through the battle. While they found it an awesome victory, I was disappointed. It was my first time in a fight with a dragon of any kind and it was over before I had a chance to take my turn. That was not fun and so I wasn't involved in the game. If it was that easy to bring down a dragon, what was the big deal about? Yet the other players thought it was great fun because they were awesome... in their eyes.
> 
> ...




Point taken.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (May 7, 2013)

Overall, a very good article.  Hitting the sweet spot for realism is a really important design goal in RPG design.  Thanks for sharing your insights.

I do have a couple of small quibbles.  

Verisimilitude is generally a better word than realism as it encompasses a greater area of design.  E.g., the design goal of Toon is certainly not realism, but it is fidelity to its source material.

As others mentioned, "fun" isn't quite the right word, though I certainly understood what you were talking about.  There's a tension between realism and creative play, simplicity, rules completeness, and speed of play which affects fun for many people.

Finally, a point that wasn't addressed is that players have very different preferences when it comes to realism vs creative play, simplicity, rules completeness, speed of play, etc.  There are people that really enjoy Harn and GURPS, which I consider relatively realistic, there are people who enjoy TOON and Paranoia, entirely at the opposite end of the spectrum, and there are people whose preferences are in between.  A game designer should keep their chosen target audience in mind when making the necessary compromises between realism and other aspects of enjoyable play.

Personally, I strongly prefer realistic games.  (Not just games with verisimilitude.)  I like the rules to define the fantastic elements of a game, and for the rest, ideally, I shouldn't have to know the rules at all.  I should be able to use my knowledge of how things work IRL to make optimal choices in-game.  This speeds things up immensely and makes a game feel like it has depth.


----------



## steenan (May 7, 2013)

I'm afraid I don't agree with the title, neither in total nor in parts. And, thus, also with most of the article.

There is no point in designing a game to be unfun. Everything that gets in the way of fun is an issue to be solved. But there are many different types of fun that players may pursue - and some of them mutually exclusive. 
There is fun in emulating a genre of books or movies. There is fun in exploring fantastic worlds. There is fun in making hard choices and facing the consequences. There is fun in planning and plotting. There is fun in acting out scenes. There is fun in tactical combat. And so on...

"Realism" is a very narrow design goal. Not just because of the level of complexity it brings (realistic system can be as abstract or as complex as a non-realistic one), but because true realism is something few people want in a game. And what is perceived as "realistic" vary widely between people - it's based mostly on books and movies, as most of us don't face any real dangers in real life.

Finally, realism and fun are not in opposition. Both realistic and non-realistic games can be fun, and the amount of fun they offer doesn't correlate with amount of realism. Having a clear vision of what the game intends to do, clearly communicating it to readers and supporting the theme with mechanics is what matters.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 7, 2013)

You know what's really fun? Realism.

Among other things of course. False dichotomy much?


----------



## Mishihari Lord (May 7, 2013)

C'mon guys.  "Fun" certainly was not the ride word, but it's pretty easy to tell what he was talking about.  There are plenty of design criteria important to "fun" that are at odds with realism.  It's an interesting topic.  How about we discuss it rather than hucking rocks at how the OP constructed his argument.


----------



## GrahamWills (May 7, 2013)

A good parallel here might be with writing science fiction; on one hand we have "hard" science fiction whose goal is to be very realistic. On the other hand there are ... well, quite a lot of other hands I guess. But I'm thinking of E.E. "Doc" Smioth style Space Opera, where the goal is "sense of wonder".

Maybe that might be a better dichotomy: realism vs. wonder. More of both is good, but at some point, they do collide to a degree.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 8, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> C'mon guys.  "Fun" certainly was not the ride word, but it's pretty easy to tell what he was talking about.  There are plenty of design criteria important to "fun" that are at odds with realism.  It's an interesting topic.  How about we discuss it rather than hucking rocks at how the OP constructed his argument.



I'd like to address his post, but if "fun vs. realism" isn't right, I'd rather him make a post that I don't have to make an educated guess at. I think that it might be along the lines of "finding the sweet spot" but I really don't want to put words in his mouth. If you have thoughts, though, of course I'll address those. As always, play what you like


----------



## Janx (May 8, 2013)

Mishihari Lord said:


> C'mon guys.  "Fun" certainly was not the ride word, but it's pretty easy to tell what he was talking about.  There are plenty of design criteria important to "fun" that are at odds with realism.  It's an interesting topic.  How about we discuss it rather than hucking rocks at how the OP constructed his argument.




I concur here.  When anybody says "Realism" in an RPG discussion I think we should consider if they meant "Verisimilitude"

In any case, Challenger took some time to write a thought provoking article on a serious topic.  I found it to be one of the better ones he's done as I didn't like the humor ones.


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 8, 2013)

Agreed, this is a false dichotomy. With realism as your juxtaposition writers will simply take you to mean connecting to the readers or players in this case. That means writing to what your audience finds "fun" as well as your self. That's a fine topic, but if that is your topic you are presenting it in a confused manner.


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 9, 2013)

Janx said:


> I concur here.  When anybody says "Realism" in an RPG discussion I think we should consider if they meant "Verisimilitude"




Completely disagree. What they usually seem to mean, in my experience, is "rules describing how things work." With rules relating from anything to how to hit someone with a sword to describing how an economy works. Very internally consistent/genre consistent rule systems that aren't descriptive are generally tossed out as not realistic by either a large or very vocal group.

EDIT: I'll note that I see the term "realism" come up a _lot_ in simulationist-themed threads, so that's where I associate the term most strongly.


----------



## Derren (May 9, 2013)

ThirdWizard said:


> EDIT: I'll note that I see the term "realism" come up a _lot_ in simulationist-themed threads, so that's where I associate the term most strongly.




And even there many people do mean verisimilitude when they say realism. A bad simulation is very often worse than no simulation at all and when someone demands more realism most often the simulation is broken or not extensive enough for them. Not that there is much a difference between realism and verisimilitude, the latter word is only needed because inevitably someone will come along and dismiss any demand for "more realism" with "There are dragons" or something like that.


----------



## Janx (May 10, 2013)

ThirdWizard said:


> Completely disagree. What they usually seem to mean, in my experience, is "rules describing how things work." With rules relating from anything to how to hit someone with a sword to describing how an economy works. Very internally consistent/genre consistent rule systems that aren't descriptive are generally tossed out as not realistic by either a large or very vocal group.
> 
> EDIT: I'll note that I see the term "realism" come up a _lot_ in simulationist-themed threads, so that's where I associate the term most strongly.




To argue Semantics here, I said "When anybody says "Realism" in an RPG discussion I think we should consider if they meant 'Verisimilitude'"

I underlined an important part.

You Completely Disagree with that?

Saying you disagree with considering what the author meant, despite what he wrote is mind-boggling to me.

That kind of thinking is what leads to internet arguments.

Now saying that you disagree that use of the word realism does not tends to be referring to verisimilitude in your experience is different from completely disagreeing that the reader should take the time to consider the author's intent and potential poor choice of word.

The difference is whether you deliberately interpret what you read a certain way and reject other consideration.  Whereas, I took the time to consider what you really might have meant.

The process doesn't mean the consideration will lead to a correct original intent of the author.  But it does tend to lead to a less extremist position.


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 10, 2013)

Janx said:


> To argue Semantics here, I said "When anybody says "Realism" in an RPG discussion I think we should consider if they meant 'Verisimilitude'"




Well sure. I guess I was being a bit too generalistic. In regards to the original post, it seems to consider abstract rules at odds with whatever he means "realism" to be, so I would venture to say that his use of the term matches my preconceived notions of how it is usually used. That is "realistic" means well-defined rules that describe how the world works, which is a very simulationist stance to take. 

_Personally_ I have little need for any of that, and don't think its necessarily important or a thing to strive toward in rules.


----------

