Raven Crowking said:
This is, of course, true of real-world physics as well. Tests under controlled circumstances are what is "on camera"; arguably, nothing can be said about what happens when you are not looking.
Just to clarify, what I mean by "on-camera" is what happens during the game sessions to the PCs or the beings they are interacting with. A tiny and typically extraordinarily anomalous subset of "All events that happen in this reality."
Raven Crowking said:
In the case of underlying-rules-of-reality type physics, demonstrate a case where the events of the game world do not follow the Rules As Used. Please note how this differs from the Rules As Used.
I'll give this a shot. Bear with me if I misinterpret the distinction.
I'm envisioning that the Rules as Used apply to PCs and their opponents during the combats. I might not use the insta-kill variant (consecutive 20's confirmed) in the game, but use it for other events of the game world (such as backstory). A dragon slain by a single arrow in a weak point; a skilled samurai killed by a single musket shot. If the players were to ask "Well, why can't we insta-kill things?" I could respond "Look, if you want me to use the insta-kill variant, fine, but it'll generally work against you." The result is that it only applies off-camera, and the Rules as Used are modified from the underlying reality in order to make the game more fun. Same for crippling injuries, a 3000' fall killing a frost giant, NPCs leveling by fiat, frequency of wandering monster encounters for a typical hamlet, and so on. The "off-screen" rules aren't the same.
Raven Crowking said:
In the case of predictive model type physics, demonstrate a case where the players should not use the RAW (including house rules) as their predictive model. Please state the predictive model that should be used instead.
From the character perspective, I'd expect PCs to apply a predictive model consistent with whatever I've expressed to be the prevailing "natural philosophies" of their cultures, unless they have enough knowledge to think otherwise. Suppose it's Dark Ages Europe tech level with rare magic. Basic mechanics and simple machines are fairly well known, some concepts of aerodynamics, little understanding of disease, etc. Magic is not the rules, magic is a very rare thing that breaks the rules. It's always an exception, always an anomaly. No predictive model accounts for it or explains it. Now, if I've tried to establish a feel for the world as mostly realistic, the PCs can try to use real-world physics. I'll house-rule something if the RAW are in egregious and *immediate* disagreement with real-world physics -- not plate tectonics but something like falling damage for a mouse familiar. But they can only use physics to the degree that their PC would have understood it. Using a lever to move a heavy rock, sure, that would work (although perhaps not in a dreamscape or the Faerie Realm). Another PC tries to use Polymorph Any Object to create antimatter, appealing to the RAW for his definition of reality (the DMG has antimatter rifles). Nope, sorry, doesn't work.
Many actions involving PCs *do* allow the rules to be used as a predictive model because the PCs are "on-camera." They have tons of experience with the flukey things that defy every scholar's expectations, and they may come to rely on the game mechanics and actually believe that reality more. That ends up being like Last Action Hero; he *expects* that cars will blow up when he shoots them because that's the RAW of his world when he's on-camera. This is the situation in which PCs *know* they can jump off a 3000' cliff and survive. Some players won't apply that level of metagaming, some will. That, I think, is a player decision -- however, they certainly can't apply this model to things that happen off-camera. They should never ask "Why didn't the king just jump off the cliff, take the HP damage, take 10 on his Swim checks, and get away?"
Raven Crowking said:
Yes, but given time to consider it, wouldn't you agree that if The Buzz and The Quickening do exist, they are indicative of an underlying reality that differs from our Standard Model of physics?
And if so, wouldn't you agree that this different underlying reality is there whether you consider it at the time or not?
I think it's a few anomalies slapped on. Everything we know is the same, except for this thing, which is not. It's not explained, it's not defined, it just exists. It's a kind of magic.
Personally, that's how I like to use magic. Not as part of reality, but as an exception to reality. That's what makes it magic and not technology in my mind -- and I try very hard to make it seem as unreal as possible. The spells Solipsism and There/Not There from the 2e Tome of Magic were among the best illustrations of what I think magic should be.
I was at the NC Museum of Art the other day, and there was a Mona Lisa made up of spools of thread hanging on wires. A black spool here, a brown spool here. From far enough away, it's the Mona Lisa. Look real close, zoom in one one spool, and all you see is some black string. D&D rules, like movie/TV conventions, work fine as long as you don't look real close. I don't think they hold up under scrutiny or attempts to use them as a predictive model, though I imagine it could be done with a great deal of work. I'd be very curious to see, say, Fusangite's interpretation of what a world *does* look like when you use the RAW as your underlying rules of reality.