Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Imban]

Perhaps I didn't put it the right way then. Let me try again.

"It is fundamentally impossible for the rules of any RPG to accurately and completely model the physics of the game world, and thus any rule set will always be a rough simulation. You're just fooling yourself if you think they do."

That's certainly true. However, as Kamikaze Midget replied, there are those of us who reject the first, second, and fourth "failures" you mentioned, because the rules of the RPG *directly* say it isn't so. It's a rough model in that it cannot accurately and completely model everything, nor should it try to, but we prefer to accept that the rules accurately model the physics of the game world that they cover, and prefer rules that are designed to accurately model the physics of the game world that they cover.

For example, with the HP system as it is in 3e, Drizzt do'Urden could not die from taking a long walk off of a short cliff. The position of those who enjoy game rules as physics of the game world would be that this is just simply the case - extraordinary circumstances would have to be present, period, for Drizzt to have died from falling off a cliff.

 

[Wolfwood2]

For me, a lot of these are unsatisfying at the table, and break apart my suspension of disbelief.



If he dies just because it's narratively convenient, this strikes me as exceptionally lazy storytelling, and it robs all sorts of interesting potential from the scenario.

(snip)

If the wizard does it just because it's narratively convenient, that, again, strikes me as lazy and as robbing all sorts of potential interesting adventures from it.

(snip)

The rules of gravity and magic are not usually so subjective.

(snip)

If he becomes extra deadly just as a matter of narrative convenience, again, it seems lazy and robs the cool potential of many other explanations from the world.


Then it appears lazy and devoid of imagination to not provide us rules for how that happens.

I consider it lazy and devoid of imagination to assume that there must be a rule covering everything that could possibly happen in the game world.

Something are not worth including in the simulation provided by the rules, because it is not desirable for them to happen by random chance. Some things are not worth including in the rules because they are so rare and freakish that it's simply not worth the time to model them and they'll only happen if the DM wants them to happen.

Nobody wants to roll a 1-in-a-million chance for a high level fighter to fall off a horse and break their neck whenever they go for a ride. It's a waste of time, and not desirable as a random outcome anyway. That does not mean that it's impossible for a high level fighter to fall off a horse and break their neck, entirely bypassing the hitpoint simulation.

Substitute any other freak accident for falling off a horse.

 

[Wolfwood2]

That's certainly true. However, as Kamikaze Midget replied, there are those of us who reject the first, second, and fourth "failures" you mentioned, because the rules of the RPG *directly* say it isn't so. It's a rough model in that it cannot accurately and completely model everything, nor should it try to, but we prefer to accept that the rules accurately model the physics of the game world that they cover, and prefer rules that are designed to accurately model the physics of the game world that they cover.

For example, with the HP system as it is in 3e, Drizzt do'Urden could not die from taking a long walk off of a short cliff. The position of those who enjoy game rules as physics of the game world would be that this is just simply the case - extraordinary circumstances would have to be present, period, for Drizzt to have died from falling off a cliff.

Why couldn't he? Is his flesh impervious to being hit with great force at the bottom of the fall? Is he physically different in some way from a 1 HD dark elf?

Under the game simulation he won't die, because it's a heroic simulation where he'll somehow land just right or catch a bush on the wya down to break his fall. That doesn't mean he or anyone else in the game world should assume they won't die, though. And if he jumps off a cliff every day, I'll argue that the second or third time the DM should rule that the hitpoint model has been bypassed entirely and he dies. His luck has run out.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Uh, because Risk is a board game and we're playing the straight rules of the game. What they represent is totally abstract and totally unaddressed.

D&D's rules are abstract too, just like Risk. "The math" required to very accurately simulate falling, or being hit with a sword, or being breathed on by a dragon, can be quite complex. Super-computer complex.

I see no reason you shouldn't take d20 Modern's rules as the physics of the game,

For the very reasons stated in this thread. And the fact that the designers have said "These rules do not supplant, replace or claim superiority to Newtonian physics." They are simple models for determining outcomes to situations you often encounter playing this game.

there are those of us who ... prefer rules that are designed to accurately model the physics of the game world that they cover.

You may think you prefer it, but I don't think you actually would have fun with that game. I've played more "realistic" games, with weapon and armor damage, to-hit location tables, complicated feinting and shield maneuvers. etc. etc. It was basically a tabletop version of a super-realistic Mortal Kombat. It wasn't really that fun. I sure prefer the more abstract D&D model, and I know that if WotC went with a "realistic" combat model I'd probably play something else.

 

[Imban]

I consider it lazy and devoid of imagination to assume that there must be a rule covering everything that could possibly happen in the game world.

I do not consider it lazy or devoid of imagination to assume that things the rules directly imply cannot happen in the game world, however, cannot happen.

 

[Imban]

D&D's rules are abstract too, just like Risk. "The math" required to very accurately simulate falling, or being hit with a sword, or being breathed on by a dragon, can be quite complex. Super-computer complex.

Irrelevant. I was saying that Risk was 100% "the rules" and 0% a simulation of anything - there's no story, no characters, no world.

You may think you prefer it, but I don't think you actually would have fun with that game. I've played more "realistic" games, with weapon and armor damage, to-hit location tables, complicated feinting and shield maneuvers. etc. etc. It was basically a tabletop version of a super-realistic Mortal Kombat. It wasn't really that fun. I sure prefer the more abstract D&D model, and I know that if WotC went with a "realistic" combat model I'd probably play something else.

Saying that you know my preferences better than I do is amazingly arrogant. Regardless, you misjudged my preferences, so that's irrelevant: I don't at all want some sort of crazy super-realism, but I can't have fun playing a traditional RPG unless the rules of the game - the rules the PCs have to live and die by - are being played as the rules of physics. They might not be our rules of physics, and there's certainly room for expansion beyond them and DM judgment calls, but in my games Drizzt do'Urden really doesn't have anything to worry about if some idiot puts a crossbow to his back and tells him to drop his weapons. It won't do that much damage anyway.

Basically, in games I enjoy, any rule that sets down a truth about the system sets down a truth about the game world. If no healthy heroic mortal can possibly die from licking an arrow frog once in Exalted (which is the case), I don't expect to hear of it happening without an explanation that works within the rules that define how the game world operates.

 

[Victim]

Is he physically different in some way from a 1 HD dark elf?

Well, deriving from XP costs for spells and level drains, the higher level character has more 'life force.' So he's METAphysically different. In a setting with explicit dieties, afterlives, alignment, etc, that's probably more important.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I do not consider it lazy or devoid of imagination to assume that things the rules directly imply cannot happen in the game world, however, cannot happen.

I fundamentally disagree. The rules may say something cannot happen, but that doesn't mean a situation can't arise where it wouldn't happen anyway if it makes sense within the context of the game world.

Or in other words, fluff trumps crunch. Always. The fluff is that Drizzt is a flesh-and-blood elf who escapes death through superior skill, quickness, and luck. Therefore it is possible for him to die from falling 30 feet, no matter what the crunch says.

He won't in fact die, unless a specific decision is made to discard the crunch result, but the possibility is there within the reality of the game world.

 

[Imban]

I fundamentally disagree. The rules may say something cannot happen, but that doesn't mean a situation can't arise where it wouldn't happen anyway if it makes sense within the context of the game world.

Or in other words, fluff trumps crunch. Always. The fluff is that Drizzt is a flesh-and-blood elf who escapes death through superior skill, quickness, and luck. Therefore it is possible for him to die from falling 30 feet, no matter what the crunch says.

Well, now we're just going to say "nuh-uh" at each other. For me, the fluff has to follow naturally from the crunch, or it looks to me like someone just plain didn't think things through.

So, er, nuh-uh.

 

[Oliviander]

basically right

Perhaps I didn't put it the right way then. Let me try again.

"It is fundamentally impossible for the rules of any RPG to accurately and completely model the physics of the game world, and thus any rule set will always be a rough simulation. You're just fooling yourself if you think they do."

Basically I'm totally your opininion,
and so far I have only one rule of 4E discovered in the previews, which totally fails to
represent a believable simulation in even a very roughly manner:

A diagonal movement counting as 1 says that a Character can move up 40% faster
in a specific direction.

Not even plausible !

Unless you assume the following.

Such a rule implies that there happens to be a strange metric System in the world,
where all points with the same distance of one single point are a square not a circle.

This would result in cubic Fireballs.

Ok funny but:

When you approach foes from afar
and you set up the battle grid,
it will depend on the direction of the grid whether you can Charge a foe on sight
or not !

Not good in my opinion,
(ok you can rule that the winner of initiative can lay out the grid
but not really good too)

I think the old rule was a good and easy.

The new rule is easy only but only a suiting simulation of Limbo

(but not even that regarding that you
can go diagonal round a wall with your first square move but not your second)