PDA

View Full Version : I Have Trouble With Realism



Xallace
2010-09-15, 05:22 PM
It's something I've realized, as a DM.

When I make up the world from scratch - controlling every little detail - I really excel. I love coming up with how each PHB race's society works, I love bringing new life to old religions, coming up with new organizations, or seeing how much pseudo-science I can plug into the next great tech-artifact. It's so much fun for me! It's even better when the players get in on it, working together in world-building.

But, when I try to run a game set in the "real world" - or some close approximation of it - it's like I have some kind of mental blockage I can't get past. I try, but I just find myself unable to have fun with it.

The thing is, I'd really like to a run a game of Orpheus (http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Orpheus).

I have some leeway on the metaphysical stuff, which is nice, and I really dig the Ghostbusters/MIB crossover feel, but that pesky pregenerated campaign setting known as "Earth" still makes an appearance, and I don't know what to do about that. I've considered setting the game in my current city for easy reference, but other than that... I got nothing.


So, long query short, does anyone have advice for a typcially high-sci-fi/high-fantasy DM running a more realistic game? (I'll answer any questions as best I can, if it'll clarify things further.)

The Big Dice
2010-09-15, 05:58 PM
Don't run a game in your home city. Your players know it too well and the temptation to do the ending from The Gamers is too strong.

Instead, set it in a place you don't know too well. If you live in the US, set your game in London. If you live in the UK, set your game in Australia. Somewhere that's far enough away that it seems mysterious and romantic. But that Wikipedia and Google Earth / Maps can give you details on if you want to flesh things with real world colour out a bit more.

Don't try and be realistic. There are lots of books where the author has said "I apologise to the people of <city> for the liberties I have taken with their geography." Instead, be consistent.

Lord Vampyre
2010-09-15, 06:16 PM
Honestly, don't worry too much about historical accuracy. The thing to remember is that history is written by the people in power at the time. They have there own biases on how things occurred and the bias can be difficult to separate from the facts.

If your facts are inconsistent, you can always turn it into some sort of conspiracy.

I've played quite a few WoD games, which is pretty much a modern setting. Also, for a comic book reference, look at Batman. Its a modern setting in a city that doesn't exist. Just don't worry about the details too much.

lsfreak
2010-09-15, 07:24 PM
One thing to try might be to play a setting where people don't really realize where exactly you are, old enough to not have long-distance trade really. All your players know is you're in a jungle, but they haven't yet (or may simply not) figure out that they're Mayan. Pre-Roman Celtics, Indus Valley, Incan... all are cultures your players aren't likely to recognize, and you have legitimate reasons for restricting information about places farther away than a few week's walk. They become local heroes, but they have no reason to go elsewhere (unless you retcon them into being found-heroes of Alexander the Great or somesuch).

Knaight
2010-09-15, 07:29 PM
Honestly, don't worry too much about historical accuracy. The thing to remember is that history is written by the people in power at the time. They have there own biases on how things occurred and the bias can be difficult to separate from the facts.

Then there is constant analysis, bringing with it the bias of later times. Its wonderful.

DabblerWizard
2010-09-15, 09:28 PM
Xallace - I think I know what you mean.

When you play a fantasy or sci fi world, it seems as though there are fewer rules or restrictions, in terms of the concepts that can be employed. However, once you enter the "modern" "Earth" era/genre, there seem to be more rules to hold, otherwise you're not holding up that theme. And those rules become a restriction.

One reason for this experience, might be the fact that people generally allow themselves more latitude when playing non-"real-life-like" settings. This might mean that we feel it's okay to generalize hundreds of years of "Dark Ages" without worrying too much about detail.

It might also be worthwhile to note that our world, even just technologically speaking, seems more complicated than the medieval world. (This may be a grossly innacurate statement. History buffs, please feel free to correct me). We also can't appreciate the "real" potential complexity of a futuristic world, because it's beyond our comprehension.

So the type of game that seems to deserve the most attention to detail, is the realistic-esque world.

Xallace
2010-09-16, 07:56 AM
OK, so, take some liberties, find a location my players have never been, make the most of it. Cool! I guess from that point it's just figuring out fun adventures. Thanks for the advice!

Psyx
2010-09-16, 08:06 AM
I run a lot of real-world, semi-real world and historical games.
I think the key is to run somewhere that you know and have visited at least once, and have some extra material about it. If you can pick somewhere the players have a 'feel' for without actually knowing: All the better.

For example; Miami is a great place to run a modern day game. We can all tune into CSI: Miami and Burn Notice or Dexter with their penchant for panoramic shots, and get a really good idea for how the place feels. You can buy maps and tourist guides, and the culture (if you are American) is very easy to understand and roleplay in. Miami also rocks for the multicultural elements, organised crime rings, and possibilities for boat chases, of course...

Games run in your hometown can be ok - because everyone has an easy time imagining locations - but a lot of GMs aren't keen on the idea. I tend to avoid it, unless the game is set a few hundred years ago. The players know 'too much' and start trying to tell the GM what they can and can't do ("You can't jump from those rooftops: There's power lines in the way!"). That's a bad thing.

It's quite difficult to run with an 'alien' culture in a 'real' game. Frankly, it's easier to RP a town full of elves than it is to portray a fishing village in Malaysia, having never seen one. So stick with what you know. Ideally; find a part of your life that is unusual an new to other players (such as the time you spent backpacking in Italy, or life in your child-hood town) but intimately familiar to you. Then you have a great background that the others can't second guess you on: It's still 'your' world, because they don't know about it.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-16, 08:14 AM
Don't run a game in your home city. Your players know it too well and the temptation to do the ending from The Gamers is too strong.

I disagree: I have run several campaigns in my home city, and I find it really adds atmosphere. If your group is silly enough to want a The Gamers ending, you have bigger realism issues than this.

Morty
2010-09-16, 08:55 AM
I disagree: I have run several campaigns in my home city, and I find it really adds atmosphere. If your group is silly enough to want a The Gamers ending, you have bigger realism issues than this.

Indeed. What's more, if you run a game in a familiar environment - whether it's your home town or home country - both you and the players will have no trouble "feeling" the setting and reacting appropriately.

kjones
2010-09-16, 09:59 AM
I disagree: I have run several campaigns in my home city, and I find it really adds atmosphere. If your group is silly enough to want a The Gamers ending, you have bigger realism issues than this.

It gets dangerous when you are running a game set in your own house, with your players playing a group of RPG players.

(I've done this)

The Big Dice
2010-09-16, 12:07 PM
I disagree: I have run several campaigns in my home city, and I find it really adds atmosphere. If your group is silly enough to want a The Gamers ending, you have bigger realism issues than this.

I've played in campaigns set in my homw down. It wasn't fun at all, partly for reasons given by Psyx and because we did the ending from The Gamers back in about 1992 or so.

It's also really hard to take liberties with the layont, geography and people of your home town When you need a warehouse on the dock, but you don't have docks and there's a marina there instead, someone almost always pipes up and says "There's no warehouse there. There aren't any docks eitheir, come to thnk of it." And then you end up with a 5 minute break while the GM explains how he's taking major poetic liberties with that sleepy little coastal town with no industry that you all live in.

An environment you're familliar with from TV is better for gaming purposes than somewhere you know well and in fact live in, imo.

Starbuck_II
2010-09-16, 12:13 PM
I disagree: I have run several campaigns in my home city, and I find it really adds atmosphere. If your group is silly enough to want a The Gamers ending, you have bigger realism issues than this.

Gamers ending is solved by having a girlfriend remember that was how Erik the Red survived. Now he is tormented by the mere mention of The Shadow.

Xallace
2010-09-16, 03:12 PM
I'm thinking what might be best for me, actually, is taking an X-Files approach and having the PCs head out all over the state/province/country/world to wherever the action is, with a set "home base" that could be a major city or my current town or whatever else (some stuff would happen there, but maybe not too much). Of course, I don't think I could do that every time I run a more realistic game (which granted, shouldn't be often), but once it should work out just fine.

I hope.