I fully realize that these are, generally, games based upon fictional worlds, events, characters, phenomena, etc. But I've always liked a higher degree of realism in my games, mostly along the lines of equipment, social structures, economics, and so forth to better engender a feeling of familiarity amongst the players, thereby making the fantastic elements that much more interesting and esoteric. To me it brings more awe to the game table and encourages more player(character) involvement in the world.

I like the weapons, armour, and other equipment to be familiar and make sense from both a design and mechanics standpoint. Maybe it is just my obsession with history and authenticity as a re-enactor/interpreter or the fact that I make medieval weapons and tools for a living, but I want shit to look and perform realistically. I'm not sure about anyone else but huge warhammers made of stone, ungodly massive swords that weigh 10 or 15 pounds, and even daggers that weigh a pound just drives me bug nuts.

So am I alone in my obsession, or are there other nutty bastards out there?

I tend the to enjoy RPGs that have a one to one correspondence between what the character can do or can be and the mechanics. That the mechanics are well designed with the minimum amount of detail to achieve this.

This is slightly different then being 'realistic' as it can be used to depict unrealistic elements like super powers.

It varies.

These days, anything with any degree of realism I tend to run with some variant of BRP/RQ, and for S&S fantasy or pulp fantasy I gravitate towards original D&D or 1e AD&D.  (I can't say I feel much pull towards "high fantasy," lately.)  Even in my D&D, though, I don't go in for 15 pound swords and ahistorical warhammers and ridiculous spiky armor and such.

I should also note that a lot of my need for "realism" need gets fed by war games, rather than RPGs.

In a fantasy setting. Depends on the setting and how near or far it is from the source.

That said. AD&D is mostly real world equipment, and to a slightly lesser degree so is 5e.

The rest really depends on what you are working to accomplish. Too much "realism" in a fantasy RPG can kill it dead for one, or enhance for another.

A more realistic setting where you only have fighters and rogues and no magic or monsters could be very interesting. Or very boring. Its been tried before many times.

And one players idea of realism may not be so realistic after all. See Pundits failure in the Dungeons thread.

I tend to favor the other spectrum,  my fantasy games need to be a bit larger than life or else 8th tends to run a bit boring. Fantastic weapons and weapon styles quickly come to mind here. Then when we get into the actual mechanics, I really enjoy more narrative direction than, say, simulation.

Now that's not saying I'm not in favor of any "realism" because I'd prefer Armor as DR and to use Vitality/Wounds instead of the abstract BP system most games use and I do expect similar weapons like longswords, bows, axes, and maces. I'm just not hung up on the mace looking exceptional or the longswords having a weird design that's maybe not practical

If I'm interested in realism, I'll be using an RPG like Rolemaster or Runequest, rather than try to make a less realistic game like DnD to be realistic.

These days, I run DnD, which is not at all realistic, but a hell of a lot of fun.

I used to run and play a lot of Rolemaster and Runequest.
The MRQ2, Legend and RQ6 edition of Runequest are the most realistic yet for Runequest, but they're much slower than DnD.
You need the right type of players to enjoy RQ in general, whereas with DnD anyone can just pick it up and play.

Internal consistancy over realism

There was a time that I was a bit obsessed with 'realism' in my gaming... but happily I've relaxed since then.
What I want now is an internal consistency... a 'unified bullshit theory' for how and why certain implausible things happen.
Like... dragons bug me because they have six limbs when most large earth critters have 4. So I need a reason, even if just in the back of my head, why they break the mold... so if I set up that they're from some other world... and there is a whole ecosystem full of 6-limbed relatives for them (and that they're not at all related earthly reptiles)... then I'm OK. I also want to keep them relatively small because of the whole wingspan/flight issue. It's not like I delude myself that I'm designing 'realistic' dragons... just that I've squelched the bits that stood out as most ridiculous to ME and let's me get on with it.
Same for magic... I want some sense of how it works... and for spells to line up with that. A feeling that there are some rules and limitations... that it's not purely wishful nonsense, while remaining mysterious and unpredictable.

I dislike the argument that just because it's 'fantasy' that such concerns should be of no concern. And like always gets said, the fantastic bits feel all that much more fantastic if the rest of it feels nailed down and believable.

Quote from: Simlasa;804277Like... dragons bug me because they have six limbs when most large earth critters have 4. So I need a reason, even if just in the back of my head, why they break the mold... so if I set up that they're from some other world...

You arent the only one to come up with the "from another world" angle on dragons. I think it was Dragon Magazine that bounced a simmilar idea around. But not just dragons. It took the idea to all the multi-legged creatures in D&D.

Dragons, Displacer Beasts, Aurumvorax all have 6 limbs. I think it included the Basilisk too which is usually depicted with 8 or legs. Possibly the Pegasus as well. All hailing from the same world where 6 was the norm rather than 4.

Quote from: jibbajibba;804276Internal consistancy over realism

Yeah, I'd go with that. I enjoy bit of sophistication and consistency in the characters (player and NPCs) motivations and actions, at least as defined by genre conventions. And it's nice when plots don't have too many holes in them.

I have little interest in historical, economic or scientific accuracy. If anything cheesy, B-Movie science enhances my enjoyment of a game.

If something exists in the real world I expect it to behave the same way in a game setting. Things that don't exist in the real world I am willing to be far looser in my standards. If a game tells me a two-handed sword weighs fifteen pounds, that bugs me.

It depends on the RPG.

I do not expect realism when I play Teenagers From Outer Space or Star Wars, internal consistency is nice though. I expect enough realism when I play Traveller that my suspension of disbelief is not destroyed.

Quote from: jibbajibba;804276Internal consistancy over realism

I like both. Internal consistency is a must, and the more realism the better, as far as I'm concerned. Not least because the latter tends to make the former easier to do, and more credible.

Things like ten pound swords and cities structured like 1890 London rather than 1290 London used to bother the shit out of me.

After 37 years of pissing into the wind, I've given up.  D&D is just a dumb game and I enjoy it for itself, dumbness and all.

For me, realism takes a back seat to Rule of Cool, Rule of Psychedelia, Rule of Weird, Rule of Gorn, and Rule of MËTAL, not necessarily in that order.

If all the above Rules are met and sufficient surrealism is thereby obtained, a sprinkling of plausibility is fine.