Comments on: Realistic Fantasy

By: World's Edge Role Player

World's Edge Role Player — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:38:04 +0000

Not sure if you’re still blogging, but found your post while searching for people interested in realistic fantasy. I’ve been playing using a homebrew system called World’s Edge, that tries to take a more realistic approach to fantasy gaming than D&D. Some of the big things are:

-Quick, but gritty combat.
-Powerful, but not nation-shaping, and dangerous to attempt magic.
-Flexibility in skills characters can acquire, rather than forcing them along the path of an archetype.

Still following the Rule of Cool you mentioned, of course. Are there other things you think would be more pleasing to a realist fantasy gamer?

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:25:27 +0000

@Ravyn: You’re right. 100% realism kills the fantasy element of any RPG from the get-go. However, there has to be some sort of balance or else things get silly IMHO.

@Tommi: Internal consistency is more of a confusing word, IMO, though verisimilitude is fairly accurate in my line of thinking. While internal consistency is important (as I use the term, making things work the same way repeatedly), I use realism only in the context that gravity should work in a way that make sense, the bad guys can’t always be the worst shots on earth, the villain knows better than to mouth off his plans, etc.

Basically, all the stupid stuff you see in movies and roll your eyes at when you see it. THAT is the realism I’m talking about

By: Tommi

Tommi — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:14:32 +0000

Internal consistency and verisimilitude are good words, realism a confusing world.

Some players will require a greater deal of internal consistency in the fictional world to be able to enjoy play. Game mastering is also easier in some ways, but harder in others, given a consistent setting.

Find a comfort level and stick with it, say I.

By: Ravyn

Ravyn — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:48:47 +0000

For me, it’s not so much realism-realism as just keeping internal consistency going. If it’s a world in which Those Sorts of Cool Things work, then there shouldn’t be a problem, right? From there, it’s just a matter of figuring out which cool things work and which are getting a little ridiculous.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:08:17 +0000

Agreed. I actually like the 4e DMG a great deal. IMHO, it’s the best DMG I’ve seen so far, as it’s more than a collection of tables, but actually helps a DM create a story rather than just dole out treasure based on a table.

Of course, the realism/cool scene debate will always depend on the group. I’ve been in groups where I’m the only one hoping for some level of realism, while others in the group expect awesome scenes, regardless of realism. However, the best sessions always came, IMO, when the DM tried to balance the two.

Tricky as hell, but worth it

By: ScottM

ScottM — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:16:33 +0000

I was impressed that the new DMG takes this bull by the horns and points out that you want consistency [like the realism you call for above] and cool scenes, and that the two can be in conflict. There’s even a little pro/con debate about each of the two influences.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:24:28 +0000

Very true, though it’s far from unique to 4e in that regard. The difference is 4e actually allows this within the mechanics, while other systems require the DM to permit this.

By: Propagandroid

Propagandroid — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:28:00 +0000

I think one of the big failings of 4e is that it has created an unrealistic framework for fantasy roleplaying. I’ve had trouble explaining to people what I mean, but it seems really important to me to maintain the illusion that our characters exist in what is *their* real world. I can’t buy a real world with so many metagame considerations going on in character’s capabilities.

–Prop