THE REALITY SPECTRUM

Though my personal preference is to include a higher level of realism in my games than most standard AD&D games I have seen, the level of realism for a game may go in either direction. As always, it is a matter of personal taste, and this will help determine the flavor of the individual campaign. I have had my share of people who insist on such a level of complexity and realism that it pushed the game mechanics beyond the point of fun (for me). I've always felt there was such a thing as the point of diminishing return. However, this point is different for every player. I have also played with players who felt the level the complexity and realism I put into my games was simply too much for them. At least one of them even eventually quit my game stating their reason as my inclusion of secondary and tertiary skills were "tedious beyond fun." (Fortunately for me, this has happened only once). Even though such skills were always optional and never required (and this leads me to believe they had ulterior motives for quitting), it is certainly possible some players do not care for certain things, finding them too complex or simply a waste of time. As I said, the place you find comfortable on this reality spectrum is a matter of personal preference and not necessarily one of intrinsic superiority.

The rules for weapons adjustments vs. particular forms of armor, for example, is a standard (optional) rule in AD&D which I simply do not use. It may add realism and complexity to the game, but for me it takes more away from the game in speed and ease than it is worth. Similarly, using hit locations may be more colorful, interesting, and realistic, but it may slow down the game to the point of tedium. (Personally, I liked using hit locations, but that wasn't standard in AD&D). And the introduction of fatigue points certainly makes a combat scenario much more realistic, but a lot slower as well, and this can annoy some people. This is especially true when you like a game that doesn't dwell on combat but opts for a more story driven scenario. Most likely, one's point on this reality spectrum probably just depends on which aspects of the game one prefers (such as story over combat or combat over story).

As a general rule of thumb, the more complex and realistic a game, the more bookkeeping and time will be required. Hopefully you will fall in with a group of players who have similar tastes, but this doesn't always happen. If you're lucky you may find a new appreciation for the level of complexity (or lack thereof) that you do find in a game with dissimilar players, but if that isn't the case then you have at least experienced something new. If this experience even slightly broadens your tolerance for other flavors, then it is much more likely you will find and enjoy a game in the future, and that is always a good thing.

In the way of a concrete example for game systems of differing levels of complexity, let us briefly compare AD&D to Gurps. Gurps is an acronym for the (Generic, Universal, Role Playing System). Gurps is a good game (most notably the use of 3d6 and a bell curve rather than a linear 1d20 or 1d100 to approximate reality), but I frequently find the level of complexity for other things in Gurps doesn't add enough of what I'm looking for in a game to be worth the additional effort.

It takes much longer to create a character in Gurps than in AD&D, and to make the system really work like it should, the GM (Game Master) would have to be a master rules lawyer. Critics of AD&D and proponents of the Gurps system may argue with me and claim once you learn the Gurps system it is better, faster, and more realistic than AD&D ever could be, but I have found this not to be the case (since rule #1 in AD&D allows the DM to change whatever they feel necessary to conform with whatever level of reality they desire). Despite their claims they already know the Gurps system well, I have found from personal experience it still takes these proponents longer to generate characters, to get things done in general, more time is still consumed in bookkeeping, and with so many over lapping rules concerning this skill or that, even so called experts can argue for hours about the right way to manage certain situations while they continue to reference book after book to find what they are looking for (assuming they even have the right book, and even then many argue some of the supplements are garbage). Furthermore, there is literally over a hundred supplements to the Gurps system (all in the name of realism, I guess, but to be fair you'd need perhaps only a dozen of these for the CORE rules of a good, well rounded campaign), so I personally find the Gurps system to be further along on the reality spectrum than I care to go. (And I sometimes think the only actual "time" Gurps rules may save these players is that these Gurps players simply do not stop to argue as much about how unrealistic this or that AD&D rule is, which seems to save them a lot of time).

Of course, this is not saying Gurps is worse or that AD&D is intrinsically better so much as it is a statement of personal preference. There is a lot to be said for skill based system when compared to class based systems, and also something to be said for the generic quality of the Gurps game, but for now I still feel the AD&D system, especially when sufficiently mutated into a more realistic form by your DM, to certainly be a better game for the "beginning" player and a more wide spread and known game in general for players of all levels. (Not to mention the fact that a sufficiently altered game can be as realistic as you'd like and still not get bogged down in the quagmire of rules and supplements). Thus, it will always be easier to find an AD&D game than a Gurps game, or failing that, easier to teach a novice player AD&D than to teach them Gurps.

And lest you get the idea I'm implying AD&D is free of its share of problems, let me dissuade you of that notion. Many of the very problems with AD&D stem from the fact that somewhere along the line an incomplete description or justification for some of the finer points of the rules was given, leaving many to wonder what the heck the authors were thinking about in the first place. So though I certainly prefer AD&D, it is by no means perfect.

Finally, if you still desire more complexity than AD&D offers (and your DM isn't up to the task of adding the desired complexity themselves), you should consider another system such as RUNE QUEST. It is a very good system and better than Gurps, assuming you wish to remain in the fantasy genre. If not, then perhaps Gurps is for you since its generic quality does offer more genres than my favorite genre, medieval magical fantasy.

No matter where you may fall on the reality spectrum, I find most players appreciate a more realistic game and/or scenario when the details are the responsibility of the DM and not their own. That is, even though the DM may spend hours and hours writing or thinking about and planning certain aspects of a scenario (and the players may never even discover everything prepared or appreciate the complexity and subtleties that went into the design of the scenario), they do prefer having it there compared to not having it there. Thus, even when the details which fit various story lines together are present (and ignored), that is better than the details not being present and a lack of detail becoming apparent to even the players who pay minimal attention to such things. And if I'm still not clear on this, perhaps an example will help.

In this example, I was playing in the world of my friend. He hired us (a group of mercenaries) to protect a caravan of goods going from one city to the next. As it turned out, in retrospect, the amount of money paid for the protection of the caravan was considerably more than the profit from it. If that wasn't bad enough, an NPC wizard, also protecting the wagon train, started throwing some spells around whose material components would cost more than a hundred such caravans. Furthermore, the bad guys were expending considerable quantities of cash (material components and other resources) to gain something worth considerably less. The scenario was action packed and well worth it in gold and experience for the mercenaries, but it never would have really happened. No profit.

Now, to clarify what I mean I will use the above example. When the DM takes into account the details (like the profit or profit incentives) and writes a scenario that makes sense (and conforms to a certain level of reality), even if the players never consider the economics of the situation, it is far better when the DM does consider them and incorporates them into the scenario than if he didn't and the glaring omission was offered up by a player as an indication that your scenario was ill conceived and stupid (and don't get the wrong idea here; I never told my friend his game was stupid, but I did think that). Certainly, that level of buried detail isn't likely to annoy a player who doesn't enjoy that level of detail for they either won't notice it or simply won't care if it's there or not. After all, it wasn't incumbent upon them to do anything with it if they were not so inclined. On the other hand, without that kind of detail, the DM, when faced with an observant and careful player, will either have to be a master at coming up with logical, sensible reasons when called upon to do so, or they run the very real risk of losing a good player who probably has something better to do than play in an ill conceived or stupid game. Also, if you like putting in clues to what's going on behind the scene, you will need that level of realism. If it's lacking, how can a clever player or character follow the trail of clues with those gigantic roadblocks of unrealistic problems or inconsistent actions by NPCs? They won't be able to help but get hung up on them as they try to analyze the situation. Still, there's no pleasing everyone, so you will always have to find your own level and the players who naturally rise or fall to a similar level with you.

In case you haven't figured it out, this is one of the reasons I like to sit down every now and then and write another paragraph or two on this WebPages. I do not intend it to be "great" reading, nor do I intend it to be an example of the level of detail a "good" DM must incorporate into his or her game. One need only read the section on coins to know that level of detail is way over the top for your average player (and probably an extremely boring read for most people). But I'm a student of science and since it falls within my forte, I find it useful and fun to include it and never harmful to do so. (I need only resist the temptation to force my players to look at it in an unsolicited manner). Thus, I feel the DM can never put too much detail into their game, as long as they do not insist the players find, enjoy, or even share their love for that level of realism. Being a DM is a rather thankless job, and almost any extraordinary effort you put into it will typically not be verbally acknowledged. But if your players keep coming back for more and show up to play every week (or however often you meet), you will know, at least privately, you have done a good job. Personally, this is one of the very real ways a DM can actually "win" in a role playing game.