Do you like "off screen" events to be rules-plausible?

There was an extended discussion over on the 4e forum, about whether DMs should feel constrained by the rules of the game when establishing off screen background information. One of the examples given (and used ad nauseum) was of a warrior king who had heroicly slain a dragon at one point in his career dying by falling from his horse on a hunt and breaking his neck. The two basic point of view boiled down to :

1) Anyone could die by breaking their neck in reality, and the rules which prevent that from happening "in play" don't effect what is possible in the gameworld unless the PCs are directly involved in the scene.

or

2) The rules for what happens to every PC who falls off a horse or every opponent who the PCs knock off their horse form a part of the reality of the gameworld, and the players and characters should see something as "up" if someone as powerful as themselves dies from something they know could never kill them.

Now, I'd like to leave aside the "should" of the situation, and the feelings of DMs and ask what players like. (Not expect, not have a right to, not demand, so let's not go there.) Do you like it better when off screen events are implausible within the rules, or do you dislike it? Assume that the particular situation is something that you notice the rules implausibility of.

I think it's an overstatement to say, "I like to play in systems where nothing is rules implausible," but the basic idea is correct, that I prefer a flexible system that can reflect the oddities of real life, which is really, really random.

Rule 0: the DM makes the rules.

So long as it doesn't immediately effect game play, I think the DM has the right to use "storytelling" situations in any way that advances his needs. I'd be very hostile to anyone telling me what can and can't happen in my world "because the rules say it can't" when it isn't an on-camera affecting-the-PCs situation.

These days, I find myself leaning more towards the philosophy of "The rules define how the world interacts with the PCs" than "The rules are the physics of the world". While I would still prefer off-screen events to be rules-plausible, it's not as strong a preference as I used to have.

The more rules-plausible off-screen events are, the more likely your players will be engaged by them, imho.

example:
DM: The evil drow wizard slain, you realize he was trying to create a planar fusion with the plane of shadow, permanently blocking out the sun.
Players: Well heck, thats kind of cool actually. We want to continue the ritual.
DM: Uhhhh, sorry. All his notes um, got destroyed.
Players: Speak with dead.
DM: Um, the spell fails. You don't know why.
Players: I see. Well, what do we need to roll to decipher how to finish this?
DM: Um, you can't. Its in drow.
One Player: I have that!
DM: Um, and its in code. yeah, very complicated code. You probably could never figure it out.
Players: I see. Well, we'll just stay here and study it till we figure it out.
DM: You can't. Everything blew up.

If you have any really interesting "offscreen" stuff, and your players can't duplicate or at least meaningfully engage in it, the immersive experience suffers, imho.

darthkilmor said:

The more rules-plausible off-screen events are, the more likely your players will be engaged by them, imho.

example:
DM: The evil drow wizard slain, you realize he was trying to create a planar fusion with the plane of shadow, permanently blocking out the sun.
Players: Well heck, thats kind of cool actually. We want to continue the ritual.
DM: Uhhhh, sorry. All his notes um, got destroyed.
Players: Speak with dead.
DM: Um, the spell fails. You don't know why.
Players: I see. Well, what do we need to roll to decipher how to finish this?
DM: Um, you can't. Its in drow.
One Player: I have that!
DM: Um, and its in code. yeah, very complicated code. You probably could never figure it out.
Players: I see. Well, we'll just stay here and study it till we figure it out.
DM: You can't. Everything blew up.

If you have any really interesting "offscreen" stuff, and your players can't duplicate or at least meaningfully engage in it, the immersive experience suffers, imho.

Click to expand...

Check. Putting everything in the same set of rules means that the PCs can go anywhere and do anything (or at least, anywhere and anything you've statted) without having to back off for plot reasons.

Here's what I've discovered; players don't like hearing that their idea, which is supported by the rules and has a good chance of success, fails because you wanted it to. Obviously, they didn't.

darthkilmor said:

If you have any really interesting "offscreen" stuff, and your players can't duplicate or at least meaningfully engage in it, the immersive experience suffers, imho.

Click to expand...

While I generally do believe that most "offscreen" stuff should be plausible (or at least theoretically possible) under the rules, I do see that in some rare cases special exceptions should happen.

An example from a campaign I ran: I wanted to put a Philosopher's Stone in-game for the PC's to find, but I wanted there to be an explanation for where it came from. In a huge goblin's lair, there was a set of a few rooms crammed with alchemical apparatuses and charts and racks of supplies. I knew my PC's had a "kick in the door and chuck a fireball" attitude towards clearing out places like this, so I set up a bit of a trap for that mentality.

They kick open the door and see an elderly goblin in robes with some flasks in his hands standing at a workbench. They immediately think it's a spellcaster (true, but he was an Adept) and throw a fireball. He was wearing a Necklace of Fireballs, and one massive explosion later he's history, and most of his lab went up in the blast as well (too bad he had a stockpile of Alchemist's Fire as well, lots and lots of fire). In the rubble the only thing they could salvage was a quartz flask containing a sooty rock. Some skill checks later, they realize he had created a Philosopher's Stone. . .and they blew up the lab where he did it and completely destroyed the notes. Speak With Dead wasn't much help. . .the alchemist was himself relying largely on notes handed down from his deceased master that he had been working for decades to decipher and perfect.

So, while there are no rules for creating artifacts, one happened offstage in a way that was completely unduplicatable by PC's but there was a solid explanation for why they couldn't do it.

FireLance said:

These days, I find myself leaning more towards the philosophy of "The rules define how the world interacts with the PCs" than "The rules are the physics of the world". While I would still prefer off-screen events to be rules-plausible, it's not as strong a preference as I used to have.

Click to expand...

That's become my take after several years of trying to shoehorn cool ideas into the 3.x ruleset.

What I've discovered is that limiting my world to the rules takes much of the specialness from it. Whether as player or GM, I want some things to be inexplicable. Not arbitrary, such as the drow example above, that's just bad GMing. But one of the things that most attracted me to roleplaying in the first place was the sense of wonder, the idea of discovering new things through play. If everything has to fit into the rules, a lot of that is lost.

YMMV, but I want the GM to pull stuff out of left field, even if it's not *technically* in the rules. The GM's job is to make sure everyone has fun, not to simply implement rules.

FireLance said:

These days, I find myself leaning more towards the philosophy of "The rules define how the world interacts with the PCs" than "The rules are the physics of the world".

Click to expand...

Word.

robertliguori said:

Here's what I've discovered; players don't like hearing that their idea, which is supported by the rules and has a good chance of success, fails because you wanted it to. Obviously, they didn't.

Click to expand...

True, which is why one good response to the drow example above is to allow the players to pursue the project, requiring that they research the ritual, acquire the necessary ingredients, perform the ritual at the right time in the right place, etc. None of that is outside the rules, as there are no rules for combining planes.

Maybe it works. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe they give up half way through, or realize it will destroy the world, or realize it won't destroy the world. Maybe they destroy the world. Whatever. The rules have nothing to do with where this particular plot idea goes - the GM and players do - or, at least, they should.

Rules are necessary to a good game (IMO), but they're just a tool. As is imagination, and spirit of cooperation, and a lot of other things. Rules shouldn't trump everything else.