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

[BryonD]

This is the sort of problem that arises when you try to model million to one chances (plucked from the air - I'm not sure what are the actual chances of dying when you fall off a horse) in a game.

I agree.

I think the problem is that the question is set up as an either/or scenario and, frankly, that sucks.

I am very strongly in the "rules model the physics" camp. But I am also very strongly in the "don't let the rules use you camp." But it appears I am in a minority of people who see how these need not be contradictory.

Expecting the rules to define the physics of the world does not require that every far flung unlikely event be explicitly covered. There is nothing against the rules to simply state that the precise circumstances of the king's fall made his striking the ground become in effect a save or die trap and he failed to save. And the DM can do the exact same thing to a player. If he is a good DM he will make it fun and the players will be glad it happened.

If you want you can roll 6d10 every time anyone goes more than 1/4 mile on horseback and every time it comes up all 0s you declare the trap is encountered and the character, PC or NPC, must make a ride check to not fall and, if they fall, a Fort save or die. But it makes a whole lot more sense to forget the d10s and just state that when it works for the story the horse will stumble at this point. That is no more unreasonable than simply declaring that a Troll has an ambush set at the bridge. And it is completely within the rules. There is nothing rules-implausible about it.

For the drow apocalypse scenario, I'd let the PCs potentially be able to figure out the ritual. But it may just turn out that the first step in completing the ritual is bathing in the blood of 100 virgins and then gaining the blessing of a major demon by selling your soul to it. The players are permitted to proceed. In my own game the characters would become npcs in this process, but nothing in the rules prevents the characters from doing something someone else could do. And if some other DM wanted to let the characters continue as PCs right through the end, then cool, I hope they have fun.

But everything that happens should be rules-plausible. And in D&D, that isn't hard to achieve.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Things that happen off screen should most of the time be rules plausible.

High level NPC fell off of horse and died?
Maybe he was low on hit points and hadn't had time to recover dropped to negative hit points after falling and bled out (or horse trampled him).

On the other hand it isn't so bad to say he was going out for a ride one day fell off and died. Though most characters should be suspicious of foul play in such an instance.

Of course ideally a system should exist where nothing was implausible. But it would either be too rules lite or rules heavy and would then suffer from this. I don't see a way to maintain balance and have everything rules plausible.

 

[prosfilaes]

But it makes a whole lot more sense to forget the d10s and just state that when it works for the story the horse will stumble at this point.

I disagree; when something that happens fairly randomly in real life happens only when it serves to further the story in the game, it feels contrived. Randomness (or at least arbitrariness) is good because it makes the world feel realistic.

That is no more unreasonable than simply declaring that a Troll has an ambush set at the bridge.

First, horse stumbles are real life things and are fundamentally undramatic. It feels very contrived when they're used just to further the story, unlike troll ambushes. On the other hand, if troll ambushes are common, I would feel it contrived if they all furthered the story, unless there was one unifying story logically linked into the trolls being there that it was furthering.

There is nothing rules-implausible about it.

If the DM tells my character a 15th level fighter King with umpteen ranks in Ride (Horse) just fell off his horse one day and died, I'm going to assume that the DM wants me to understand that this was not just an accident, because 15th level fighters with umpteen ranks in Ride (Horse) don't just fall off their horse and die in the world I've played in.

Your statement that it's not rules-implausible strikes as defining away the discussion. The question is how closely the events of the world should follow along the rules of the table, and there is a real group of people who would find that event wrong and annoying, no matter what you call it.

 

[MonkeyDragon]

If the DM tells my character a 15th level fighter King with umpteen ranks in Ride (Horse) just fell off his horse one day and died, I'm going to assume that the DM wants me to understand that this was not just an accident, because 15th level fighters with umpteen ranks in Ride (Horse) don't just fall off their horse and die in the world I've played in.

This is the crux of it for me. Although I don't mind if off-stage events are told in a way that's more dramatic and bends the rules a bit, if something happens that seems very out of whack, It will make me think that something funny is going on.

There are plenty of times as a DM that I have had things happen that appear entirely against the rules, or in some other way just doesn't jive with what the players expect. This is generally a clue to them that something out of the ordinary is going on, and they should chek it out.

The drow example to me is just railroading. The King example, I might buy, depending on how it's described. As a PC I would investigat the matter quite carefully if I was able, looking for some sort of explaination. If NPCs (or the scene of the death, if I was able to see it myself) can tell me that it was a tragically unlucky accident, ok. The horse spooked at a snake, threw the king, he hit his head on a rock and died. Sucks. I can reverse engineer that situation to fit the rules, mostly with what was mentioned above, such as a failed massive damage save. However, if all I get is "we don't know how this could have happened, he's an accomplished horseman and there was nothing around to suggest that anything weird happened!" then Something's gotta be up.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

As a player it's fine if things happening off- or ON screen are not plausible by the rules. So long as the DM is able to avoid having it cause unintended misdirection and doesn't wallow in having all manner of "impossible" stuff happening I don't have a problem with it. The king dies by falling off his horse and breaking his neck? Nothing wrong with that - just don't have that information go hand in hand with, "but the king was the most awesome horseman in the world - hmn...". The PC's find an old man and are in the midst of pumping him for information when he dies of an aneurism or heart failure before answering all the questions and healing won't bring him back. Not an issue for me - unless the DM then takes perverse delight in watching the players waste potions, spells, time, money, and effort to revive him and then get upset when they try to question his corpse instead.

Players MUST, for the most part, play by the rules or the DM slaps them down. The DM has no such restriction - and that's a good thing. But not if the DM is using this advantage to mean-spiritedly (or thoughtlessly) exploit the players DISadvantage.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

That's a reasonable philosophy -- but it would be nice to have explicit rules for PC rule-breaking. With just one set of rules, which is really for PCs, we don't have good guidelines for how the rest of folks in the world operate.

That, my friend, is what the DM is for.

 

[Brian Gibbons]

Do you like it better when off screen events are implausible within the rules, or do you dislike it? Assume that the particular situation is something that you notice the rules implausibility of.

There are two very different situations being mangled and merged together here:

- Situations where NPCs are able to do things that PCs cannot.

- Situations where events happen in a manner different from the way they would happen if PCs were involved, but the GM wants the events to be seen as normal.

The first is easy. A spell works differently when an NPC cast it? He researched a variant, or made a pact with a demon, or is under some other high-level magical effect or...

The extraordinary can always be extraordinary. As long as you don't go to the "A wizard did it!' toolbox too often, that's fine.

The problem is when the GM wants the extraordinary to be ordinary.

A man described as an experienced fighter of many years falls off his horse and breaks his neck? Perfectly fine, so long as there's an explanation--perhaps he was under a curse, or he wasn't really an experienced fighter or he was in ill health or that wasn't what really happened and the witnesses are lying/mistaken. Or, maybe you've changed the rules so that this is the way the world works in your campaign (e.g., falling damage is done with an open roll, with 6's re-rolled, so even a small fall can kill you).

It's when you want there to be no explanation, that this is simply an ordinary event for NPCs (even though it doesn't work that way for PCs), that a potential problem develops.

Players have a very narrowly-constrained view on the totality of the campaign world. Their grasp on what is possible is largely shaped by the rules. If that is suddenly invalid, and the rules provide no guidance on what is and is not possible, that you risk severe loss of immersion.

That's not necessarily fatal to your campaign, of course. It just means that your players will lose interest in game-based mysteries and cease trying to deduce what's going on in a campaign, because they've lost any reference points for what is and is not possible.

It is theoretically possible to replace that sense of the possible with a strong tie to realism simulation (i.e., things work the way they do in the game world they do in the real world), but that's likely to be problematic unless your game is incredibly non-combat focused.

 

[BryonD]

I disagree; when something that happens fairly randomly in real life happens only when it serves to further the story in the game, it feels contrived. Randomness (or at least arbitrariness) is good because it makes the world feel realistic.

Out of context your position is quite admirable.
But if you want to roll for every single item that can be thought of which might happen 1 in 1,000,000 times, then you won't ever get to play a game.

A troll ambushing a bridge is random, but the DMing saying it is so is not contrived.

First, horse stumbles are real life things and are fundamentally undramatic.

Which is why in over 20 years of gaming I've never used one. My point wasn't that they should be used. My point was that they are both plausible and within the ruleset.

It feels very contrived when they're used just to further the story, unlike troll ambushes. On the other hand, if troll ambushes are common, I would feel it contrived if they all furthered the story, unless there was one unifying story logically linked into the trolls being there that it was furthering.

Again, outside of the context of the topic, I agree.
But the context remains relevant.

If the DM tells my character a 15th level fighter King with umpteen ranks in Ride (Horse) just fell off his horse one day and died, I'm going to assume that the DM wants me to understand that this was not just an accident, because 15th level fighters with umpteen ranks in Ride (Horse) don't just fall off their horse and die in the world I've played in.

Well now you are throwing the basis of the conversation out the window.
It most certainly COULD be that it wasn't an accident. But the point is that it still could be an accident and remain rules plausible.

Your statement that it's not rules-implausible strikes as defining away the discussion. The question is how closely the events of the world should follow along the rules of the table, and there is a real group of people who would find that event wrong and annoying, no matter what you call it.

You seem to have missed the point.
I have defined a scenario where a high level character can die from a fall from a horse and still remain fully along the rules of the table. It is only annoying and wrong when the players bring additional baggage of their own to the rules and try to constrain the game that way. And yeah, that is going to reduce the fun.

But, quite simply, it isn't rules implausible.
If the discussion is predicated on the assumption that it isn't then, yeah, I'm defining it away.
If the conversation was on how hard a human needed to flap his arms to fly on earth and the assumption was that it was possible, then I'd define that away also.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The king dies by falling off his horse and breaking his neck? Nothing wrong with that - just don't have that information go hand in hand with, "but the king was the most awesome horseman in the world - hmn...".

The problem is that if the king is high-level (20th level fighter is the now-textbook example), the DM *is* expressly stating that the king was an awesome nigh-invulnerable near-god, and also that he died by a common accident.

The counterpoint is basically saying that 20th level fighters only have the properties of 20th level fighters when it's convenient for them to have those properties for the narrative, but this counterpoint doesn't satisfy me.

The PC's find an old man and are in the midst of pumping him for information when he dies of an aneurism or heart failure before answering all the questions and healing won't bring him back

And for me, this seems contrived, limited, and ultimately not very much fun for me (and causes me to loose faith in the DM).

Now, if the PC's are in the midst of pumping him for information, and he's just an old man (1st level commoner) and suddenly an arrow sprouts from his head (fired by a nearby assassin), and he doesn't want to come back from his hard-earned reward in the afterlife (he chooses to not answer resurrections, he's happy there), I can probably buy it.

But that creates a lot more interesting possibilities than this, which seems heavy-handed.

That, my friend, is what the DM is for.

"Make Stuff Up" sucks as a rule.

A man described as an experienced fighter of many years falls off his horse and breaks his neck? Perfectly fine, so long as there's an explanation--perhaps he was under a curse, or he wasn't really an experienced fighter or he was in ill health or that wasn't what really happened and the witnesses are lying/mistaken. Or, maybe you've changed the rules so that this is the way the world works in your campaign (e.g., falling damage is done with an open roll, with 6's re-rolled, so even a small fall can kill you).

It's when you want there to be no explanation, that this is simply an ordinary event for NPCs (even though it doesn't work that way for PCs), that a potential problem develops.

Yes.

There is nothing against the rules to simply state that the precise circumstances of the king's fall made his striking the ground become in effect a save or die trap and he failed to save.

This strikes me as just as contrived as simply declaring him dead. A save-or-die trap from falling off a horse with a DC that a high-level fighter couldn't easily make?

The logical conclusion my characters would draw from this?

OH MY GOD, HORSES ARE THE MOST DANGEROUS THINGS ON THE PLANET. Dragon bites don't have that chance! Giant's clubs don't have that chance! Horses kill heroes! EVERYBODY PANIC! And open a glue factory!

 

[BryonD]

First, horse stumbles are real life things and are fundamentally undramatic.

If the DM tells my character a 15th level fighter King with umpteen ranks in Ride (Horse) just fell off his horse one day and died, I'm going to assume that the DM wants me to understand that this was not just an accident, because 15th level fighters with umpteen ranks in Ride (Horse) don't just fall off their horse and die in the world I've played in.

I think another major problem with the argument is a double standard in these two statements.

Who is a real world equivalent of a 15th level character with umpteen ranks in Ride? And can you name someone who meets this standard and has died from a simple fall just riding around?
If so, what were the circumstances?
Was he not paying attention and thus at a -15 circumstance penalty? Or not allowed to make a riding check at all?

I'd say it is safe to state that the position of the discussion is that the king was not making any great jumps or anything.