ice-versa. When establishing a system of rules in a multi-genre game, the best way to do so is for the system to handle all possibilities. Otherwise, you wind up so overburdening the game that players find it difficult to keep the numerous rules straight anyway.

The Solution: In QoTR, I established a guided system of rules for realism relying on the option to assign bonuses in logical situations. The rules are straightforward and relatively simple, since there is a second option for considering realism—playing the character realistically.

This is, I think, among the best ways to handle the potential for bonuses while avoiding potential imbalances. Since not everyone cares as much about realism, why should the game try to enforce an unimportant topic? In QoTR, various abilities have their advantages, costs, and disadvantages, so that a player who elects not to use certain capabilities doesn’t suffer an undue advantage. Perhaps its actions are not quite as potent, but if the player is smart or has some good defensive abilities, it can claim the edge later in the battle, when enemies have

The Challenge: A role playing game is an interactive story. As such, it must have a setting. The setting is the world or realm that the story occurs in, and its nature can vary as widely as there are character types to play. However, any successful setting requires some general laws that determine how the world functions. These laws form the basis for the sixth challenge of creating a customizable and balanced role playing game: the challenge of promoting realism.

Realism in this context does not by any means indicate how closely the game world mirrors the laws of the real world. In a fantasy game, for example, there is nothing unrealistic about wizards throwing lightning, dragons breathing fire, and lone warriors taking on armies. Realism simply indicates that the world does follow certain well-known and established laws of physics, technology, and, where appropriate, magic.

However, the level of realism each group wishes to use does vary. Some players want express rules for realism in their role playing games. They want there to be statistical penalties in adverse situations and bonuses when the laws of physics indicate an advantage. They want the powers available limited by a concise set of rules that has to do with their game’s world. They want logic to win out over dice when no amount of luck could possibly change the outcome of a situation.

Other groups care less about realism, and some might not care at all. They want a game where their characters can do what they want, subject to the game rules themselves. If the fighter’s abilities allow it to block attacks, such a player might argue, why can’t the fighter block a fifty-foot radius fireball with a thrown dagger? They care about the die rolls and game rules, and don’t want these things to change subject to the game master’s discretion. And certainly, they don’t want to have to go through the hassle of learning not only the rules of an RPG, but also the rules for the world in which the game is set.

The Risk: There are a number of difficulties when considering the effects of realism in your RPG. The first, as indicated above, is the differing nature of the players. If realism is a major focus of your rules base, it potentially alienates players who don’t care about a lot of miscellaneous rules. On the flip side, if you have no base for realism in your game, players who want it will be unsatisfied and might be forced to create their own rules from scratch.

The second problem with realism is that concise rules interact poorly with a versatile role playing game and its balance. If realism is an important balancing factor in your game, a character that can get around most of the realism-based rules you place claims a significant advantage. This leads to an entirely new layer when planning and balancing potential abilities. Often, abilities that would otherwise add interesting powers become so overburdened with balancing limitations that a player who wants an effective character has to pass over them in favor of more staple combat-oriented abilities. While these miscellaneous abilities may be useful in certain circumstances, the discerning player isn’t going to waste clearly useful abilities for talents that only help in rare situations and otherwise just look good on the character sheet.

Too much realism also tends to create more abilities than are necessary, and some of these abilities may realistically adjust other aspects of the game that you don’t want to change, thus canceling the point of using realism in the first place. If, for example, the rule is that a character must perform some sort of ritual (chanting and gesturing, for example) to utilize supernatural powers, it is logical that there would be an ability that negates that requirement. But does that mean a character with that ability can work its powers more quickly? Can it utilize multiple powers at once? Perhaps not, if it requires concentration to use these abilities…but then shouldn’t there be an ability that negates that requirement as well? That would probably be unbalancing. The question can become complex, and this is for a relatively obvious comparison between game rules and realism. More subtle problems can lead to more complex difficulties.

Finally, not all game worlds will find the same things realistic. What is blatantly impossible in a medieval fantasy game might be common in a modern or sci-fi game, and vice-versa. When establishing a system of rules in a multi-genre game, the best way to do so is for the system to handle all possibilities. Otherwise, you wind up so overburdening the game that players find it difficult to keep the numerous rules straight anyway.

The Solution: In QoTR, I established a guided system of rules for realism relying on the option to assign bonuses in logical situations. The rules are straightforward and relatively simple, since there is a second option for considering realism—playing the character realistically.

This is, I think, among the best ways to handle the potential for bonuses while avoiding potential imbalances. Since not everyone cares as much about realism, why should the game try to enforce an unimportant topic? In QoTR, various abilities have their advantages, costs, and disadvantages, so that a player who elects not to use certain capabilities doesn’t suffer an undue advantage. Perhaps its actions are not quite as potent, but if the player is smart or has some good defensive abilities, it can claim the edge later in the battle, when enemies have

nuses when the laws of physics indicate an advantage. They want the powers available limited by a concise set of rules that has to do with their game’s world. They want logic to win out over dice when no amount of luck could possibly change the outcome of a situation.

Other groups care less about realism, and some might not care at all. They want a game where their characters can do what they want, subject to the game rules themselves. If the fighter’s abilities allow it to block attacks, such a player might argue, why can’t the fighter block a fifty-foot radius fireball with a thrown dagger? They care about the die rolls and game rules, and don’t want these things to change subject to the game master’s discretion. And certainly, they don’t want to have to go through the hassle of learning not only the rules of an RPG, but also the rules for the world in which the game is set.

The Risk: There are a number of difficulties when considering the effects of realism in your RPG. The first, as indicated above, is the differing nature of the players. If realism is a major focus of your rules base, it potentially alienates players who don’t care about a lot of miscellaneous rules. On the flip side, if you have no base for realism in your game, players who want it will be unsatisfied and might be forced to create their own rules from scratch.

The second problem with realism is that concise rules interact poorly with a versatile role playing game and its balance. If realism is an important balancing factor in your game, a character that can get around most of the realism-based rules you place claims a significant advantage. This leads to an entirely new layer when planning and balancing potential abilities. Often, abilities that would otherwise add interesting powers become so overburdened with balancing limitations that a player who wants an effective character has to pass over them in favor of more staple combat-oriented abilities. While these miscellaneous abilities may be useful in certain circumstances, the discerning player isn’t going to waste clearly useful abilities for talents that only help in rare situations and otherwise just look good on the character sheet.

Too much realism also tends to create more abilities than are necessary, and some of these abilities may realistically adjust other aspects of the game that you don’t want to change, thus canceling the point of using realism in the first place. If, for example, the rule is that a character must perform some sort of ritual (chanting and gesturing, for example) to utilize supernatural powers, it is logical that there would be an ability that negates that requirement. But does that mean a character with that ability can work its powers more quickly? Can it utilize multiple powers at once? Perhaps not, if it requires concentration to use these abilities…but then shouldn’t there be an ability that negates that requirement as well? That would probably be unbalancing. The question can become complex, and this is for a relatively obvious comparison between game rules and realism. More subtle problems can lead to more complex difficulties.

Finally, not all game worlds will find the same things realistic. What is blatantly impossible in a medieval fantasy game might be common in a modern or sci-fi game, and vice-versa. When establishing a system of rules in a multi-genre game, the best way to do so is for the system to handle all possibilities. Otherwise, you wind up so overburdening the game that players find it difficult to keep the numerous rules straight anyway.

The Solution: In QoTR, I established a guided system of rules for realism relying on the option to assign bonuses in logical situations. The rules are straightforward and relatively simple, since there is a second option for considering realism—playing the character realistically.

This is, I think, among the best ways to handle the potential for bonuses while avoiding potential imbalances. Since not everyone cares as much about realism, why should the game try to enforce an unimportant topic? In QoTR, various abilities have their advantages, costs, and disadvantages, so that a player who elects not to use certain capabilities doesn’t suffer an undue advantage. Perhaps its actions are not quite as potent, but if the player is smart or has some good defensive abilities, it can claim the edge later in the battle, when enemies have

r rules base, it potentially alienates players who don’t care about a lot of miscellaneous rules. On the flip side, if you have no base for realism in your game, players who want it will be unsatisfied and might be forced to create their own rules from scratch.

The second problem with realism is that concise rules interact poorly with a versatile role playing game and its balance. If realism is an important balancing factor in your game, a character that can get around most of the realism-based rules you place claims a significant advantage. This leads to an entirely new layer when planning and balancing potential abilities. Often, abilities that would otherwise add interesting powers become so overburdened with balancing limitations that a player who wants an effective character has to pass over them in favor of more staple combat-oriented abilities. While these miscellaneous abilities may be useful in certain circumstances, the discerning player isn’t going to waste clearly useful abilities for talents that only help in rare situations and otherwise just look good on the character sheet.

Too much realism also tends to create more abilities than are necessary, and some of these abilities may realistically adjust other aspects of the game that you don’t want to change, thus canceling the point of using realism in the first place. If, for example, the rule is that a character must perform some sort of ritual (chanting and gesturing, for example) to utilize supernatural powers, it is logical that there would be an ability that negates that requirement. But does that mean a character with that ability can work its powers more quickly? Can it utilize multiple powers at once? Perhaps not, if it requires concentration to use these abilities…but then shouldn’t there be an ability that negates that requirement as well? That would probably be unbalancing. The question can become complex, and this is for a relatively obvious comparison between game rules and realism. More subtle problems can lead to more complex difficulties.

Finally, not all game worlds will find the same things realistic. What is blatantly impossible in a medieval fantasy game might be common in a modern or sci-fi game, and vice-versa. When establishing a system of rules in a multi-genre game, the best way to do so is for the system to handle all possibilities. Otherwise, you wind up so overburdening the game that players find it difficult to keep the numerous rules straight anyway.

The Solution: In QoTR, I established a guided system of rules for realism relying on the option to assign bonuses in logical situations. The rules are straightforward and relatively simple, since there is a second option for considering realism—playing the character realistically.

This is, I think, among the best ways to handle the potential for bonuses while avoiding potential imbalances. Since not everyone cares as much about realism, why should the game try to enforce an unimportant topic? In QoTR, various abilities have their advantages, costs, and disadvantages, so that a player who elects not to use certain capabilities doesn’t suffer an undue advantage. Perhaps its actions are not quite as potent, but if the player is smart or has some good defensive abilities, it can claim the edge later in the battle, when enemies have

much realism also tends to create more abilities than are necessary, and some of these abilities may realistically adjust other aspects of the game that you don’t want to change, thus canceling the point of using realism in the first place. If, for example, the rule is that a character must perform some sort of ritual (chanting and gesturing, for example) to utilize supernatural powers, it is logical that there would be an ability that negates that requirement. But does that mean a character with that ability can work its powers more quickly? Can it utilize multiple powers at once? Perhaps not, if it requires concentration to use these abilities…but then shouldn’t there be an ability that negates that requirement as well? That would probably be unbalancing. The question can become complex, and this is for a relatively obvious comparison between game rules and realism. More subtle problems can lead to more complex difficulties.

Finally, not all game worlds will find the same things realistic. What is blatantly impossible in a medieval fantasy game might be common in a modern or sci-fi game, and vice-versa. When establishing a system of rules in a multi-genre game, the best way to do so is for the system to handle all possibilities. Otherwise, you wind up so overburdening the game that players find it difficult to keep the numerous rules straight anyway.

The Solution: In QoTR, I established a guided system of rules for realism relying on the option to assign bonuses in logical situations. The rules are straightforward and relatively simple, since there is a second option for considering realism—playing the character realistically.

This is, I think, among the best ways to handle the potential for bonuses while avoiding potential imbalances. Since not everyone cares as much about realism, why should the game try to enforce an unimportant topic? In QoTR, various abilities have their advantages, costs, and disadvantages, so that a player who elects not to use certain capabilities doesn’t suffer an undue advantage. Perhaps its actions are not quite as potent, but if the player is smart or has some good defensive abilities, it can claim the edge later in the battle, when enemies have

ice-versa. When establishing a system of rules in a multi-genre game, the best way to do so is for the system to handle all possibilities. Otherwise, you wind up so overburdening the game that players find it difficult to keep the numerous rules straight anyway.

The Solution: In QoTR, I established a guided system of rules for realism relying on the option to assign bonuses in logical situations. The rules are straightforward and relatively simple, since there is a second option for considering realism—playing the character realistically.

This is, I think, among the best ways to handle the potential for bonuses while avoiding potential imbalances. Since not everyone cares as much about realism, why should the game try to enforce an unimportant topic? In QoTR, various abilities have their advantages, costs, and disadvantages, so that a player who elects not to use certain capabilities doesn’t suffer an undue advantage. Perhaps its actions are not quite as potent, but if the player is smart or has some good defensive abilities, it can claim the edge later in the battle, when enemies have wasted their energy. This style of fighting also generally results in longer and more difficult encounters, which promotes faster character advancement.

What does any of this have to do with realism? It allows the player to play realistically without suffering any significant penalties. Certainly, some players will feel inclined to make full strategic use of their abilities. Others, however, can fight the way their characters would fight, and be rewarded (with faster advancement) for enduring any difficulty this results in. Ergo, when realistically appropriate, they can call upon their stronger abilities. This keeps them from running out of energy and also maintains realism.

This option is available so that the game master doesn’t feel obligated to give bonuses for every little situation that comes up. If the player is not going to put in the effort and accept the difficulty for maintaining realism, why should the referee? It’s not about punishment; it’s about relative value. Some players want to play a strategic game, and for such groups, the realism-based bonus system offers the opportunity for in-game strategies as well as stat tactics. If, however, realism itself is important to the group, the players should be just as involved in bringing it into the game as the game master.

Realism can be a touchy subject. One of the greatest advantages of a role playing game is that is can be realistic. The rules are not coded immutably in, but can be adapted to a variety of situations. However, exploitable rules for realism are just as unbalancing as overpowered abilities. By placing realism in the hands of the players, you give everyone what they want without threatening the system.