Quote from: Bren;809737Depends on the game. Typically somewhere between a fair amount and a lot.

I tend to agree. I usually like to have my fantasy like garlic in pottage: enough for a good flavour, but not all-encompassing. I like to taste the background ingredients as well.

Are the elements of realism what make a game more endearing or is it the fantastic elements?

Quote from: Wood Elf;809743Are the elements of realism what make a game more endearing or is it the fantastic elements?

I don't see that as particularly relevant to how I decide what I like about a game. I don't have much interest in playing TOON or a really gonzo fantasy game. A certain level of realism is necessary for me to enjoy the game at all.

When I run Runequest in Glorantha there is magic all over the place. All characters have magic spells and many have some type of magic item, but all that magic is integrated and integral to the setting.

Currently I am running Honor+Intrigue and so far (after ~ 140 sessions)  nothing clearly fantastic that has been seen in the game.

Actually when I think of what makes a game endearing to me I think of (1) the players, (2) their characters, (3) the setting. As the GM I can most control the setting so I spend a lot of time on that. But it isn't what most differentiates the great games from the only good games.

Quote from: TristramEvans;809741Aside from the initial caveats and assumptions of the particular fantasy world, I like actions and events to have logical consequences, civilizations and societies to function in  manner consistent with with human nature, and settings to have an implied or overt sense of history.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. In a campaign about a year ago in my homebrewed system where each character has a "miracle point" (equivalent to a "slip from death's clutches for free" card, but not guaranteed-gm discretion), my dwarven warrior missed a balance and reaction roll while traversing a narrow but deep gorge on a rotting rope bridge. I elected to allow my character to die despite having a miracle point to spend, because realistically in most instances if you plummet 400 feet onto a rock-strewn creek, you are one dead little bugger.

I've seen games where a character could survive that without miracle points or feather fall, etc. That seems a bit goofy to me and kinda kills the overall feeling.

Quote from: Wood Elf;809758I...my dwarven warrior missed a balance and reaction roll while traversing a narrow but deep gorge on a rotting rope bridge. I elected to allow my character to die despite having a miracle point to spend, because realistically in most instances if you plummet 400 feet onto a rock-strewn creek, you are one dead little bugger.

I'd probably have gone for a loose rope on the rotting rope bridge that the little bugger could grab onto.

Quote from: Bren;809757I don't see that as particularly relevant to how I decide what I like about a game. I don't have much interest in playing TOON or a really gonzo fantasy game. A certain level of realism is necessary for me to enjoy the game at all.

When I run Runequest in Glorantha there is magic all over the place. All characters have magic spells and many have some type of magic item, but all that magic is integrated and integral to the setting.

Currently I am running Honor+Intrigue and so far (after ~ 140 sessions)  nothing clearly fantastic that has been seen in the game.

Actually when I think of what makes a game endearing to me I think of (1) the players, (2) their characters, (3) the setting. As the GM I can most control the setting so I spend a lot of time on that. But it isn't what most differentiates the great games from the only good games.

Fair enough.

Perhaps I should have used a different word than endearing. I agree completely with your last point. I guess I was trying to describe more of a feeling of familiarity and believability. Do more realistic elements enhance that for you?

As a side note, I like your name. I had a character named "Bren Baramar" that I ran for about 7 years. Fun character.

Quote from: Bren;809764I'd probably have gone for a loose rope on the rotting rope bridge that the little bugger could grab onto.

My gm offered that, but it just felt right for the story too. The surviving comrades had a statue built in his honor. He was a brave and sturdy little shit... at least until he ended up splattered on the rocks.

Relastic elements enhance familiarity and believablity for me.

Genre tropes that are familiar (even though unbelievable) also work pretty well as long as they are from a genre I enjoy and the genre fits the setting. So in Honor+Intrigue - a game of swashbuckling cape and sword action - certain genre tropes are likely to occur even if they aren't fully realistic e.g. it is pretty hard to kill a Hero or a Villain by shooting them in H+I. Because in the genre, such matters are decided sword-to-sword. So black powder weapons, though deadly in general, tend not to kill the main characters.

On the other hand, the surf-board swords seen in some anime, mostly bugs me. So I find that less familiar, less believable, and less fun for me.

I like the name as well. It's from our long running Star Wars D6 game.

Quote from: Bren;809775Relastic elements enhance familiarity and believablity for me.

Genre tropes that are familiar (even though unbelievable) also work pretty well as long as they are from a genre I enjoy and the genre fits the setting. So in Honor+Intrigue - a game of swashbuckling cape and sword action - certain genre tropes are likely to occur even if they aren't fully realistic e.g. it is pretty hard to kill a Hero or a Villain by shooting them in H+I. Because in the genre, such matters are decided sword-to-sword. So black powder weapons, though deadly in general, tend not to kill the main characters.

On the other hand, the surf-board swords seen in some anime, mostly bugs me. So I find that less familiar, less believable, and less fun for me.

I like the name as well. It's from our long running Star Wars D6 game.

No shit!?!?!??? Bren Baramar was my human smuggler in WEG Star Wars d6!!
Weird. Did you ever have a character named Galador Dorthimlion? ;-)

I concur about genre tropes. It gets back to the whole consistency idea. I must agree about the anime style stuff though. Grossly exaggerated weapons and armour in particular make me twitch.
Since I make my living making real weapons and tools, I guess it is an extra shit-fit point for me. If I had a nickel for every time somebody wanted me to make some video game sword, I'd be a rich man.

Quote from: Wood Elf;809781No shit!?!?!??? Bren Baramar was my human smuggler in WEG Star Wars d6!!
Weird. Did you ever have a character named Galador Dorthimlion? ;-)

Nope. Apparently I am not your evil twin.

The avatar is Bren.

Lol. My avatar is Galador Dorthimlion, wood elven explorer extraordinaire!

Its a difficult question but I suppose if I boil it down my answer is the somewhat weasel: Whatever works. It depends entirely on the setting and genre. Some call for high realism, some don't. I value consistency more. Once the rules are established they should be followed or exceptions noteworthy events.

I am a big fan of the Rule of Cool and I'm willing to let a great deal for fun things and awesome effects. Big weapons, mecha, one guy fighting an army or actually have chance vs a giant sapient flying dinosaur that breathes fire and has a laundry list of magical powers: bring it on Its just a game.

But I've found the behavior and human interaction that seems "unrealistic" tends to bother me much faster than unrealistic physics, technology or biology.

Quote from: Nexus;809895Its a difficult question but I suppose if I boil it down my answer is the somewhat weasel: Whatever works. It depends entirely on the setting and genre. Some call for high realism, some don't. I value consistency more. Once the rules are established they should be followed or exceptions noteworthy events.

I agree, but some of it depends on the GM; I'm better with some kind of familiar (to me) source material, or just very standard fantasy conventions, than with pervasively weird worlds. The noteworthy exceptions I usually introduce with clumsy exposition from some NPC.

QuoteBut I've found the behavior and human interaction that seems "unrealistic" tends to bother me much faster than unrealistic physics, technology or biology.

But if all the inhabitants behave and interact only in "realistic" ways, the game world feels less real; some of them have to seem really strange for the game world to satisfy me.

Quote from: rawma;810124But if all the inhabitants behave and interact only in "realistic" ways, the game world feels less real; some of them have to seem really strange for the game world to satisfy me.

Wanting people to act "realistically" isn't the same as expecting them to all rationally, logically or even consistently. People aren't like that but there are limits which I admit are arbitrary.

Here's an example of something that bugs me: The Marvel Universe ubiquitous mutant hatred. Not that it exists but that its so universal and specific.

Would there be bigots that hated superhumans in a world like the Marvel universe: certainly. Would some of them make odd arbitrary exceptions (I'm okay with Gods, aliens, sentient robots, etc etc, but those Muties gotta go!"), yeah probably bigotry is rarely rational. But that its so seemingly commonplace in the Marvel Universe (which is overflowing with super beings) that people find Jubilee more terrifying and worthy of fear and hate than the Thing or the Abomination. It feels like every other person in the world would become a Purifier is asked and the other half support them.

Just seems weird and artificial.

To be fair it does seem like Marvel has dialed that back quite a bit since I was last heavily into comics.

Yeah, I always thought that was a silly element that arose gradually out of the X-books.  You're totally cool if you're a superhero and people love you, unless you're a mutant. Or Spider-man.

But the guy who can light himself on fire is totally cool, because cosmic rays.

Quote from: RPGPundit;811018Yeah, I always thought that was a silly element that arose gradually out of the X-books.  You're totally cool if you're a superhero and people love you, unless you're a mutant. Or Spider-man.

But the guy who can light himself on fire is totally cool, because cosmic rays.

I always saw the Marvel mutants as a metaphor for the gay community. Most of them can 'pass' while not being like the majority. Though it can be applied to many minority groups.