Suspension of Disbelief is the willingness of a person to accept as true the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are fantastic or impossible.

My Suspension of Disbelief is broken when encounters seem to be "on hold" until the player characters show up -- or even worse -- when players take the time to make camp, sleep, memorize spells, and then the next morning move along in the adventure only to find encounters where it seems like no time has passed at all!

My friend finds it hard to accept games where you roll to "hit" with a massively damaging energy weapon with an area of effect, but your damage roll is so low that the target keeps merrily running around.

What sort of things break your suspension of disbelief when playing an RPG?

Any discussion of theory.

-clash

When folks start argueing over a rule and start pulling out books to prove/disprove each other.  Really that's annoying.

Anytime where the resolution mechanic takes multiple rolls on different charts and a few rounds of combat seems to take up the entire night.

Quote from: flyingmiceAny discussion of theory.

We're past that part, now we're onto something useful.

When the mechanics of the game don't support the style of game being run.  

Easiest example is trying to run a Grim and Gritty game - fear the orcs etc... yet the rules support slaughtering them willy nilly with 1st level characters and little risk of death.

In answer to the question:

Many genres, unfortunately. I like an element of "realism" to my role-playing.

Player A: [Roll] "I make my save - I refuse to believe that's an RPG!"

GM: [Roll] "The RPG streaks across the field and plows into you before exploding. Take [Roll] 5,254 HP damage."

Player B: "Ewwww! Fine red mist!"

Player C: "But he made his ST! Doesn't that mean it's an illusion?"

Player A: "Wait! I thought we were off player empowerment and into SoD?"

Player B "Well, you just got SoDded, dude!"

Player D: "Wake me when it's my turn to roll. I'm a casual gamer."

Player C: "I used to be a cheetoist, but SOMEONE ate all the snacks!"

Player B: "Screw you! The GM didn't say yes, but he didn't roll the dice, so I just snarfed 'em! I got a right!"

Hilarity ensues.

-clash

100 year old elven "teenagers"

lack of a proper ecology etc. in fantasy.  the peasant town in the wilderness has  wandering monsters that, if hungry, would decimate the place in minutes.  a problem i find frequently in level-based systems.

and what clash said.

:keke:

A lack of internal consistency.

Having to avoid obvious actions because of genre constraints, where the system doesn't support the genre.  To expand, I'm fine in Buffy with beating up a vamp before going for a staking as that makes sense in game.  But in DnD I struggle to pretend to be afraid of a lone crossbowman once I'm second level or so because my character would have to be dense not to have noticed they can't really harm him much.

But lack of internal consistency is the real biggie, I can swallow dragons, psychics, whatever, but I need the game to have thought through the implications and consequences.

Contemporary sensibilities in dangerous, pre-modern settings.

If I see any of the following in a published D&D adventure:

• Orphanages


• Career women


• Temples as healing shops


• Christian charity to the downtrodden


• Snobby Aristocrats straight out of Ivy League fraternities


• Freedom-loving farmers straight out of American settler mythology


• Dwarves as grumpy Scotsmen


• Villagers with sacks of gold under their floorboards


• Druids as new-age pagans


• Teenagers

I know I'll have to do a thorough re-write.

I agree with Stuart's first example, where encounters sit "in stasis" until the PCs contact them. E.g. where you always arrive "just in time" to save someone, or you reach the control room in the big bad dude's HQ just as he's about to launch the missile. At least, usually, those sorts of things draw my attention to the artifice and detract from the verisimilitude of the game.

But you know, I think that may have to do with the fact that I'm usually playing an RPG with the expectation of interacting with the setting "as the character". Since what I'm hoping to disbelieve is that I'm not my character, those sorts of things detract from that particular belief, that I am my character. E.g., the character probably has a sense of urgency in trying to infiltrate the bad guy's HQ; as a player I can't share that sense if I know the GM is always going to have me get there in the nick of time.

If I'm not looking to fool myself into thinking I'm my character, artifice along those lines probably won't be as harmful to disbelief. But it might still break my suspension of disbelief if other expectations were violated. Like e.g. a genre clash where one player sees the narrative in terms of complex jockeying for power among competing interests, and another sees it in terms of a black & white conflict between good & evil, the triumph of the latter view may be jarring to the first player.

The same goes for bad characterization and incoherent motivations. These are sometimes a symptom of the same metagame motives that are distracting to "character immersion", since they may be a result of trying to force a conflict or draw things out. But other times they're just a mark of inexperience, lack of skill, or a simplistic or stereotyped conception of human nature.

Having written all that, though, I wonder if this thread is focused too much on the negative. Shouldn't we also ask what supports your suspension of disbelief in RPGs? I sure know that there are stories--often satire or comedy--which do a lot of things we might think of as breaking SoD, but they get away with it for other reasons. E.g., The Princess Bride.

Settings that seem to have developed like Medieval Europe (or, really, just about any real world era and location), despite the fact that the presence of magic and magical creatures would have had a profound impact on the world.

A corollary to this is any setting which seems to have become "stuck" in the Medieval period, no matter how long civilization has existed.

Quote from: BalbinusHaving to avoid obvious actions because of genre constraints, where the system doesn't support the genre.  To expand, I'm fine in Buffy with beating up a vamp before going for a staking as that makes sense in game.  But in DnD I struggle to pretend to be afraid of a lone crossbowman once I'm second level or so because my character would have to be dense not to have noticed they can't really harm him much.

Yes, having to pretend that things work in a way completely at odds with what the system tells me, is really jarring to SoD. Or wanting to pretend same. If I want to pretend I'm a great hero, I don't think I want to play a 1st level Basic D&D character. Either I need to adjust my expectations to the rules, or pick a different set of rules.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut it might still break my suspension of disbelief if other expectations were violated. Like e.g. a genre clash where one player sees the narrative in terms of complex jockeying for power among competing interests, and another sees it in terms of a black & white conflict between good & evil, the triumph of the latter view may be jarring to the first player.

I think this is an important point.  

One of the strengths of classic RPGs is that they can support a wide variety of playstyles.  However, if the players are competing to move the game in different directions (and the GM goes along with one or more of them) then you can have the game breaking the genre conventions for some of the players.