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

[S'mon]

I'll raise a glass to the little gentleman in black velvet.

I'm an Ulster Unionist, you're lucky I don't report you for Politics.

 

[Piratecat]

We may be asking the wrong question. What CR were those horses?

"The King fell off his horse and died! Mind you, his horse was a wildshaped druidic assassin using natural spell to cast multiple finger of death (hoof of death?) spells while in horse form. But still..."

 

[Andre]

I was with ya 'till this point.

I don't think that the assumptions in the rules destroy a believable world. They may destroy a realistic world, but not a believable one, where some people are Heroes and some people are Mere Mortals.

(emphasis added)

I agree completely. Realistic is a slipperly concept anyway, as no fictional world can be 100% realistic, nor should it be (this is a game, after all). A game world just has to hold together enough to allow the players to suspend disbelief, which is a much lower standard. And good rules will contribute to the suspension of disbelief.

But it seems to me there will always come a point where the rules are not sufficient. Where, taken too far, they lead to absurd results. Or where the limitations in the rules restrain too severely the GM's and players creativity. In those instances, I would rather the GM judiciously work around the rules. Good, reliable rules can serve as a solid framework for the game, but there's always a danger of them becoming a box we're not allowed to step out of.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

"The King fell off his horse and died! Mind you, his horse was a wildshaped druidic assassin using natural spell to cast multiple finger of death (hoof of death?) spells while in horse form. But still..."

Oh, that's what the royalists would like us to believe, now isn't it! We all know the truth - that the "king" who died was a polymorphed pageboy standing in on the hunt while his highness was exercising the royal prerogative with a lady of good standing in the court. They can't reveal the truth for fear of scandal and outlying lords challenging whether it was the real king who signed various agreements they would like to renegotiate early....

 

[S'mon]

FWIW, it's not at all uncommon in heroic fantasy literature for non-protagonist/offscreen heroes to die anticlimatic deaths. Eg: Isildur (hero) defeated Sauron (demigod) in close combat, then got killed by some orcs (mooks). It makes for good backstory, but would be poor story. Likewise it's fine for the NPC hero to slay the dragon, then later (at full health) die from falling off his horse. It probably wouldn't be fine for that to happen to a PC, which is why we have rules, and hit points.

 

[mmadsen]

FWIW, it's not at all uncommon in heroic fantasy literature for non-protagonist/offscreen heroes to die anticlimatic deaths. Eg: Isildur (hero) defeated Sauron (demigod) in close combat, then got killed by some orcs (mooks). It makes for good backstory, but would be poor story. Likewise it's fine for the NPC hero to slay the dragon, then later (at full health) die from falling off his horse. It probably wouldn't be fine for that to happen to a PC, which is why we have rules, and hit points.

I think that's an argument for giving PCs hit points (or "plot protection" points) that NPCs don't get.

 

[Midknightsun]

I don't see the need for all off screen stuff to be rules plausible. Fortunately, my players aren't the type who start making assumptions based on those events either, or are bothered by it. Nor do I use such techniques with great regularity.

All in all, I would agree that the rules are for PC interaction, and my NPCs don't necessarily need to follow those guidelines.

My game universe has yet to implode, so I guess its all good

 

[Hussar]

Listen to Firelance, for he is wise.

I have zero problems hand waving stuff that happens off screen. The rules already specifically, and quite distinctly, differentiate between PC's and NPC's. Different wealth standards, xp gain, etc.

Or, if a family survives a tornado flattening their house, do they gain xp as if they had a CR 10 encounter? A single tornado would bump them almost to third level. Suddenly that 5 year old, by virtue of surviving a tornado, is almost a 3rd level commoner? Heck, chuck in a couple of dust storms and everyone in the village is now 5th level.

But, hang on, that completely violates the guidelines on settlements. How could you have 1st level NPC's if every bit of nasty weather can gain you xp? A fire is CR 6. Tornado is CR 10. Dust storm is CR 3. I'm sure there are more in the environmental books as well.

But, we don't advance people that way. Why not? Because these events happen off screen and have nothing to do with the party. The rules differentiate between PC and NPC at very basic, fundamental levels.

The idea that something so sparse and full of holes as the game mechanics of D&D could simulate a functioning reality is laughable.

 

[S'mon]

I think that's an argument for giving PCs hit points (or "plot protection" points) that NPCs don't get.

If the PCs interact with Isildur he's not going to have 5 hp. He'll be bad-ass, same as Sauron.

 

[Jdvn1]

I prefer them to be plausible, but it's not a deal-breaker for me.