Fantasy RPG Realism & Playability (Part 1)

WARNING: GAME GEEK ALERT (Read at your own risk)

[If this fulcrum of game design,] realism versus playability, is not the burning issue that it once was, it's only because everyone has become tired of the argument - not because a conclusion was reached. The question is: How realistic (read: long and complex) can a simulation be before it becomes too long and involved to be played - before it ceases to be a game? Or, how much can be done to make a game easy to play before it ceases to be a simulation?
--Jon Freeman, The Complete Book of Wargames (1)

ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn't been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged.
--Gary Gygax, AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide (2)

Where it does not interfere with the flow of the game, the highest degree of realism has been attempted.
--Delta (3)

Realism Versus Playability. Let me start off by saying that when we put these three words together--"Realism," "Versus," and "Playability"--it creates the impression that realism and playability are opposites. While there is a dynamic tension between the two, I don't seem them as true opposites. Otherwise, realistic games would automatically be unplayable and playable games would be the most unrealistic. There are, in fact, realistic games that are quite playable and there are also many very unrealistic games that also have the unfortunate characteristic of being unplayable as well. There is, however, an undeniable inverse relationship between realism and playability in traditional fantasy role-playing games, creating an ever-present tension in game design and in thoughtful game play.

As Jon Freeman notes in the quotation above, traditional wargaming has never reached a universally satisfying answer to the realism versus playability argument. Pen and paper role-playing games of all sorts must deal with this same tension: Should a game be made more realistic? Or should it be more playable (or as EGG put it, being concerned with maintaining "the flow of the game")?

I think that each one of us will come down differently on this and I believe that is a good thing. There is an inherent flexibility and incompleteness to traditional fantasy role-playing games and this requires us to find our own way. We will each come down in a different place. However, just because we come to different conclusions does mean that the conversation is a waste of time. Far from it. Because of the open-ended nature of traditional fantasy role-playing games, each gaming group (and the GM/DM/CK/Ref in particular) is an active partner with the game publisher in creating the real game (i.e. the one played at the table). It is from this perspective that I present my thoughts (and perhaps thereby proving that free blog space is not in the best interest of an intelligent society).

REALISM

I think that the concept of realism is the starting point, as I consider it to be the independent variable of the discussion (putting it in research terms). In equation terms, we end up with something like this:

1/REALISM + (Other Stuff) = PLAYABILITY

Two notes about the equation. First, "Other stuff" is exactly that. There's all kinds of other stuff that affect playability (how the rules are written and edited, consistency, fun factor, and so on). We'll just ignore all that for now. This leads to:

1/REALISM = PLAYABILITY

Which leads to the second thing...note that REALISM is in the denominator of the fraction. This signifies that as REALISM goes up, PLAYABILITY goes down and as REALISM goes down, PLAYABILITY goes up. While this is not always true, I believe that that realism and playability do typically have an inverse relationship to each other. Attempts at realism almost always involve adding complexity. Adding complexity almost always diminishes playability.

At this point, I think it might be helpful to make a stab at defining "realism." Realism is wargaming involves several components. They are:

1. Simulation of Historical Circumstances--I used circumstances as opposed to strict reconstruction of historical events because there is a difference between historical reconstruction/reenactment and historical gaming. In a game, circumstances are simulated but players can still make strategic and/or tactical decisions that might create a number of different outcomes. This is not true with a strict reconstruction or reenactment.

2. Simulation of Combat--Self-explanatory, I think.

3. Simulation of Potential Outcomes--The outcome can be different from the actual historic event but the outcome of the game should be historically possible. Realism leaves town when the Battle of Gettysburg ends in a draw due to the impact of a comet just north of Little Round Top. Caesar winning at Waterloo? It may work with Peabody, Sherman, and the Wayback Machine, but it is does not fit within the concept of gaming realism.

With #1, Simulation of Historical Circumstances, it is easy to see that movement towards realism and accuracy creates a host of circumstantial rules. For example, with Avalon Hill's Russian Campaign, play is affected by terrain, weather, and a historically-driven Order of Battle. These all add complexity to the rules, which impacts playability in a negative way. I loved playing this game but the date and season dependent rules are not so groovy for a smooth flowing game.

#2, Simulation of Combat, also is affected similarly. The closer we try to simulate the effects of combat, the more complex our system becomes. And to confuse things even more, simulating combat is affected by different methods of abstracting different types of combat (e.g. naval versus infantry).

In Avalon Hill's Third Reich, ground combat is based on a very simple model used in most board wargames. However, air and naval combat each use much more abstract methods. The game also attempts to simulate national economies, albeit in a very simple and abstract form. Each of these game subsystems are simple in themselves and simulate reality only in their results, but add them all together and you have a very complex game for players (it is genius in terms of its design, however).

Tactical level games, such as Tobruk, Panzer Leader and Panzer Blitz are also complex, but in these games the complexity lies in their attempts at accurate simulation of small unit combat through differentiation of armor types, defensive versus offensive abilities, direct versus indirect fire, and a host of other small unit and localized factors that are "smoothed over" in higher level strategic games. The attempts at realism and accuracy create a challenging level of complexity that must be mastered before the players are adept at the game.

REALISM IN ROLE-PLAYING GAMES

I believe that realism in traditional fantasy role-playing games is similar to, but not the same as, realism in historical board and miniature wargaming. Realism in fantasy RPGs can come in any number of flavors, but I think that the following three categories cover most of it:

1. Simulation of Combat and Magic
2. Simulation of Genre Type/Subtype and Setting
3. Simulation of Role-Playing and Characterization

Each of these three relates to an aspect of RPG realism and within each aspect there is a range of possibilities. Complicating RPG realism is fact that these three aspects also impact one another in relationships of dynamic tension. Moving towards realism in combat through the use of specific targets, bleeding, detailed weapons and armor factors, etc. will reduce the ability of a game to provide meaningful and in-depth role-playing and characterization opportunities. Likewise, games emphasizing character dialogue and development tend to work better in games where combat is less emphasized. Unless one can actually be an elf 24/7 and portal to a magical fantasy realm, the various aspects of playing an elf must be abstracted. The result is that the degree to which realism is gained in one area is the degree to which realism will probably be lost somewhere else.

I would contend that no game system can do all three of these things well. Older versions of D&D and their clones are just okay all three areas and those seeking more realism in combat will find more satisfying game experiences elsewhere. The same is true for those seeking very narrow genre experiences (such as horror) or those wanting intense character role-playing opportunities. That being said, for those who enjoy some of all three, the balance and accompanying abstraction of D&D (older versions and retro-clones) seems to work well for most. There seems to be an acceptable balance along the three axes of realism. In equation form, this yields:

1/(COMBAT~MAGIC + GENRE~SETTING + ROLE-PLAYING) = PLAYABILITY

So then a big part of the challenge in finding the balance in realism versus playability is to identify where you fall within the reality triangle, as defined by COMBAT/MAGIC--GENRE TYPE/SUBTYPE--ROLE-PLAYING/CHARACTERIZATION. Within the world of RPGs, the Realism versus Playability tension is complicated by the complex interaction of factors (axes) in the reality realm.

Fortunately, you don't have think about this to play RPGs and enjoy them.

Next: Realism Versus Playability (Part 2)--Hopefully on Sunday (July 12, 2009)

(1) http://www.alanemrich.com/PGD/Week_03/PGD_Realism.htm (accessed on July 9, 2009).

(2) Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Dungeon Masters Guide. (1979). p. 9.

(3) http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/06/game-mission-statement.html (accessed on July 9, 2009).

Thanks to Delta for his insightful posts over recent weeks.