If you know too much about how something really works, chances are you won't enjoy a simplified layman's version. There are a lot of elements to any role-playing game that are written with the assumption that players know little or nothing about them. For example, military operations, or piloting a space craft, or Medieval sword fighting techniques. In general, role-playing game systems are designed to simulate the flavor of such things, to make it just real enough to satisfy the imagination, to make one feel as if one really were a military general or space marine or noble knight.
Ironically, it seems the same type of person who deeply enjoys RPGs is also the same type of person who tends to have a deep working knowledge of some element that RPGs are commonly built around. There are military and tactical nerds, history buffs, Medieval warfare enthusiasts, and of course the religious fans of a given fictional setting who can quote the smallest minutiae of trivia. These are the people who, in my experience, become the most dissatisfied with RPGs meant to simulate their beloved interest. Games simply leave too much out for the sake of ease-of-play. It can be doubly frustrating for such a player when they know more about a topic than the Game Master.
What both GMs and topic-enthusiast players have to realize is that, in general, the more "realistic" a game attempts to portray something, generally the less fun that game becomes for everyone else not interested in such things. Things become too frustrating for the unenlightened player because, without any knowledge about how a given element really works, the only reference the player usually has comes from literature and especially movies. And role-playing games have more in common with both of these than with any real-world simulator. The "weight," if you will, of any role-playing game tends to fall against the side of greater realism, for favor of allowing players the freedom to act in-character and engage the game's story.
Now, there is nothing wrong with a game that attempts to be as realistic as possible. Every game has it's own style, a reflection of the gaming philosophy of the designers and of the target audience the game is trying to reach. Obviously, every role-playing game has to have some level of realism in order to give everyone a common metaphysical grounding. But every role-playing game must also simplify reality to some extent. It's the difference between a game where "bullet proof vests stop bullets" and "bullet proof vests provide a degree of cushioning against ballistic impact so that it is less likely a bullet will cause fatal injury." At the end of the day, I must say as a GM and a game designer that fun has to trump realism. Games must cater to the widest possible audience, and to do that, they have to make sacrifices to make themselves accessible.
Part of the reason that Dungeons and Dragons was the introduction to role-playing games for an entire generation was that it was relatively easy to learn. Even the title tells you exactly what sort of game you're getting into. This is not the sort of game where, for example, a paladin without a screwdriver will be unable to don his armor. It is not the sort of game where every person is either a peasent or a lord, and where females have little to look forward to in life besides marrying well. That's part of the game's appeal: a fantasy game of high adventure and grand deeds, where players can feel like heroes, or at least like bad-asses. Realistic details that would make the game more historically accurate to Medieval Europe would also become a barrier to the main point of the game, especially to new players.
So if you are someone who enjoys role-playing games but is often frustrated by their lack of realism, my humble suggestion is that you find a genre of game that lies outside your field of expertise (if that's possible). That way, you can become swept up in the make believe of it without having the fun derailed when something happens that you know should happen differently. Also, be as forgiving as you can of ignorant GMs. They're doing the best they can to give you a compelling story that you can interact with and make your own, to some extent. They may not know a short sword from a bastard sword, but they just might know how to put a new twist on the damsel in distress that makes that time-worn cliche fresh and interesting again. And that is a talent.
If, on the other hand, you are someone who likes to run role-playing games but is often frustrated when your players are ignorant of setting details or real-world accurate facts, there are two things I would suggest:
1. Become an instructor. If your real passion lies in the accuracy of your game to the real world, then use the game as a medium to teach others about what you find interesting. Games were originally invented as teaching tools, not story-telling devices. If you tell people up front that you want to run a game that accuratley portrays, for example, 17th century France, then those who would be interested in learning about 17th century France are more likely to sign up to play.
2. The same suggestion as given above. Change games to find one where you are as equally ignorant of real-world details as your players. That way, everyone is operating out of the same refrence points, with all their inaccurate flaws and well-known fictional tropes. Yes, the setting may make you yawn or roll your eyes, but think of it as an opportunity to focus on telling a compelling story out of what the game gives you to work with. After all, that's what RPGs are all about: telling stories.
No comments:
Post a Comment