ThirdWizard said:
That would probably convince the pure simulationists.
I don't mind being labeled a pure simulationist, given how flexible and slippery the term is.
Philosophically, I agree with you that the PCs know all about these things, and if the Player chooses to take advantage of something like the ogre only getting 1 AoO per round, I do not consider that metagaming. On this we agree, but after that we diverge.
I'm very pleased. I too think we've actually reached agreement.
Why?
It's my PC. Your way might be fun for you, but I can't help but see it as running a bunch of PCs by committee with each person having veto power over one PC.
I see what you are saying here. But, to be fair, nobody but the player in question makes the final decision for their PC in any game I've seen. Nevertheless, I do see where you are coming from. Your emotional reward from play works differently than mine. You feel that the involvement of others in decision-making about your PC cheapens your achievements with him.
Now that I understand that this disagreement is just a matter of priorities, I'm happy to let it rest. Thanks for participating and allowing me to make sense of your position.
Lanefan said:
Physics. It's just plain easier to assume that basic physics, gravity, geology, etc. work the same in the game world as on earth (unless there's house-rules otherwise), with magic kind of overlaid on top. That way, if people want to spend the time to figure out such things there's a useable basis to work from. Players will know more than their PC's about such things in almost all circumstances, but I can live with that.
But then you end up with a totally incoherent system. What makes more sense? (a) The rules in the PHB and DMG are the major physical laws of a D&D universe? (b) The rules in the PHB and DMG are a gigantic inventory of exceptions to the major physical laws of a D&D universe?
Your theory is like the Ptolmaic astronomers debating Galileo by adding epicycles and various other eratic motions to the stars because they want to preserve a model in which the earth is at the centre of the universe. There is nothing easy about assuming that D&D physics = our world's physics except where the rules state otherwise because virtually every statement about physical laws contained in the rules contradicts the physical laws of our universe.
I would rather operate with a clear self-consistent system that is different from my reality than a self-contradictory system that purports to represent something it does not. How do you propose to do modern physics when the RAW states there are four elements not 100+? How do you reconcile that? If water is an element, how can oxygen be an element?
Nearly everything detailed in the rulebooks is a violation of our universe's physical laws. In your model, our universe's physics cannot be used as a model to explain anything. If I believe earth is an element, I can tell you what a Xorn is and how it works. If you use our physics as the explanatory framework, you lose the ability to explain elementals, outsiders, magic items, deities, spell casting, dragons, etc. etc. What good is a system of physics in a setting if it does not have the power to explain the powerful forces in the world? What is it for at that point?
I understand that this idea of the rules as a list of exceptions to the rules of the universe rather than a list of the rules of the universe is popular but it sure makes my head hurt. For me, a world doesn't become believable by being more like my reality; it becomes believable by being more consistent with itself.