A Thought

[Quickleaf]

Actually,
Though often many discrepencies between reality and RPG come about either because the designer/author doesn't know what he's talking about, or because he felt like cutting corners.

Tell me about it! I just found out that the adventure I'm writing is totally unrealistic. I mean, how was I supposed to know manitcore don't exist? I'd better think more carefully about who I trust at the San Diego Zoo...

And as for naming the goblins we slay and steal from, I'm all for it!

I get the feeling you think True20 is more conducive to viewing the game as a world/setting instead of a set of rules? In that case, I agree. Which is ironic, cause it was published without a game setting... Though I hope to enter an Arabian Adventures themed setting into the search contest!

 

[Jdvn1]

The rules in an RPG are not there to tell the players what is and is not allowed in game play, the rules in an RPG are there to describe how the world the players' characters live in works.

I think it's a little of both. At least in D&D, when someone's turn comes up, you want the player to tell you one round's worth of actions, or actions divided into rounds. That means you expect the player to know what a round is and what can be done in that time period.

Also, depending on the world/setting/game, it's useful to know the scope of what can/can't happen.

 

[Templeton580]

The rules in an RPG are not there to tell the players what is and is not allowed in game play, the rules in an RPG are there to describe how the world the players' characters live in works.

Interesting. I both agree and disagree.

I think the rules are there to give players an idea of what they can do (in combat, most often, but skills too), but they also describe how the world works (i.e. should act as a template for the GM to adjudicate events not specifically covered by said rules).

However (and this is where I'm most in agreement) the rules shouldn't be considered the only things a PC can do. I've seen lots of players go through the combat chapter as though it was a list of possible actions. It is, of course, but it doesn't cover all possible actions.

In short (before I get too incomprehensible), I wish players would first imagine the actions they'd like to take, and then allow the GM to figure out how the action jibes with the rules. Instead, players limit themselves to a closed set of possible actions that, when it constitutes the whole, can cause a game to get kinda stale.

 

[tonym]

Actually, TonyM, methinks you're missing the point here (and/or being silly, but I'll assume the first for demonstration's sake).

You guessed right, I am missing the point. I thought you meant one thing in your original post, but you meant something else, something which I'm not quite absorbing.

I do agree with Cutter XXIII completely, though.

Tony M

 

[mythusmage]

Interesting. I both agree and disagree.

I think the rules are there to give players an idea of what they can do (in combat, most often, but skills too), but they also describe how the world works (i.e. should act as a template for the GM to adjudicate events not specifically covered by said rules).

However (and this is where I'm most in agreement) the rules shouldn't be considered the only things a PC can do. I've seen lots of players go through the combat chapter as though it was a list of possible actions. It is, of course, but it doesn't cover all possible actions.

In short (before I get too incomprehensible), I wish players would first imagine the actions they'd like to take, and then allow the GM to figure out how the action jibes with the rules. Instead, players limit themselves to a closed set of possible actions that, when it constitutes the whole, can cause a game to get kinda stale.

If I'm getting this wrong go ahead and correct me, but I see that you view the rules as setting down how the game is to be played. I rather use the rules to show what sort of world the characters live in. To show what is possible to do and how to do it.

I do agree that when the rules don't cover a subject you will have to improvise. However, there are those who either cannot or will not improvise. If it's not laid out in some fashion it plays no role in their game. The trouble is, a world is too complicated a beast for this to work for any great length of time. There will always be situations where one must wing it.

What it gets down to is how you see the rules determines how you handle the game. You see the rules as being prescriptive/proscriptive you will tend to run a session as a traditional game. You see the rules as being descriptive then how you run a session will change dramatically. One way you see things in terms of success/failure, the other way success and failure still matter, but the dramatic (comedic, tragic) possibilities open up. It's a matter of perception. Seeing it as a game limits your options. Seeing it as ungoing events in the lives of the characters opens up endless possibilities.

 

[fusangite]

The rules in an RPG are not there to tell the players what is and is not allowed in game play, the rules in an RPG are there to describe how the world the players' characters live in works.

Thanks mythusmage. This is what I say all the time. Rules=physics. Vuirtually every controversial thing I say about D&D proceeds from this premise.

The rules function as the physics (ie. rules of physical cause and effect) for the characters; that's what they do. There can be no argument about that. When people try to run a system of physics not embodied in the rules in parallel to the rules, chaos ensues, or rather, irrational double standards in which the physical laws governing events near the characters are different from the physical laws governing events not near the characters.

Often people make the mistake, when they encounter an event the rules don't cover, of assuming the event is governed by the laws that govern it in this world without regard to whether this is compatible with the physical principles delineated in the rules. This leads to inconsistency and, ultimately, a lack of believability. For instance, many people assume that even though there are only 4 elements in the rules, that there are 108+ in any situation not covered by the rules. In D&D games I run, there is no way to deplete the air in oxygen because there is no such thing as oxygen. If there were, air elementals wouldn't make any sense.

 

[Storyteller01]

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but I will.

Seems like, while the rules are designed to tell you how the world operates (I agree on this), some things are let out. I'm guessing this is due to their relation to our own physics (the wirters assume a certain similiarity that doesn't need to be stated). This gets nasty when these situations are treated more as a game rule and less as a (dare I say) common sense or world based mechanic.

A good example is the Flaming Whip thread that has recently slowed down. 9 pages of debate about whether the flaming aspect of a flaming whip will do damage when the whip itself cannot. It broke down to rules interpretation, since neither side could find a quote in the RAW to back them fully.

 

[Storyteller01]

In D&D games I run, there is no way to deplete the air in oxygen because there is no such thing as oxygen. If there were, air elementals wouldn't make any sense.

But this is where things get fun, since the rules don't say one way or the other. To me, it's not so much that oxygen exists/doesn't exist as players using this knowledge when their characters would not have it. It also gets annoying when players attempt to add such complexities to the world just because they feel they can (much like an example on another board of someone wanting to invent gunpowder simply to gain an edge in the world they live in).

As for removing O2 around an Air elemental; you can try. Houseruled solution: the elemantal is a spiritual embodyment of air (kinda like an avatar). Just because the air has O2 doesn't mean something representing concepts will, or that it will be effected.

 

[fusangite]

But this is where things get fun, since the rules don't say one way or the other. To me, it's not so much that oxygen exists/doesn't exist as players using this knowledge when their characters would not have it. It also gets annoying when players attempt to add such complexities to the world just because they feel they can (much like an example on another board of someone wanting to invent gunpowder simply to gain an edge in the world they live in).

As for removing O2 around an Air elemental; you can try. Houseruled solution: the elemantal is a spiritual embodyment of air (kinda like an avatar). Just because the air has O2 doesn't mean something representing concepts will, or that it will be effected.

You miss my point here: air is an element in D&D. That is a scientific fact. Earth, air, water and fire being elements is incompatible with oxygen being an element. Either air is an element or oxygen is an element. Both can't be elements at the same time. An element cannot be constituted of other elements; something constituted of multiple elements is a compound. Either air is some variety of compound or it is an element.

 

[tonym]

The rules function as the physics (ie. rules of physical cause and effect) for the characters; that's what they do.

That's what I thought mythusmage meant, until he elaborated.

Is that what you mean, mythusmage?

Tony M