Faeries teleport?

[Mallus]

Replacing logical default explanations with something that better fits my campaing/tastes, I like.
Having to come up with far fetched explanations for mechanics that weren't meant to have one in the first place, I don't.

How are the two different? Either you use the explanations given or replace them with your own. Why does material you've decided not to use matter?

And why assume the replacements have to be far-fetched? My rapidly dashed-off examples were genre appropriate, no more far-fetched than any explanation of how faeries, umm, teleport.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It's a bad idea. Rules modeled on physics cause a really bad game(In real life, people die when stabbed by a sword. He stabs you, you die).

I have to disagree with your general principle - Runequest was arguably more concerned with physics - if someone stabbed you with a sword and you were not wearing any armour, you probably would die! And RQ2 was a far more exciting and involving game than any game of D&D I've ever played.

Even in D&D, I think it is a stretch to say that attempts to model physics over the last thirty years have necessarily led to a bad game. Hit points have always ignored physics, but plenty of other aspects of D&D had rules modeled on physics and were a foundation for fun and interesting games.

I'm seeing the argument made quite a lot now that "rules modeled on physics cause a really bad game", but it seems to me that is often a defensive position taken necessarily because 4e has moved away from a simulationist approach - not one that reflects the reality of 30+ years of fun in various rules systems.

Cheers

 

[Scribble]

I'm seeing the argument made quite a lot now that "rules modeled on physics cause a really bad game", but it seems to me that is often a defensive position taken necessarily because 4e has moved away from a simulationist approach - not one that reflects the reality of 30+ years of fun in various rules systems.

I would argue that rules modeled on physics doesn't automatically = bad. I'd say in my experience they tend to add in extra hassle/steps to ultimately arrive at the same place.

They also in my opinion tend to remove a little of the wonder/excitement out of the game. When I see an effect in a game that swings more "simmulationist" it tends to boil down to "oh that's X effect that's achieved through X + Y + x. We can counter it with K power."

I preffer the "gamist" side because in my opinion it feels more realistic and exciting to me. In reality stuff happens all the time in various different ways that I can't always explain. I make choices the best I can, but sometimes it's a shot in the dark and I'm hoping it works.

 

[Rechan]

Could this physics tangent be directed to a new thread, so we can still talk about faeries?

 

[Pbartender]

I'm seeing the argument made quite a lot now that "rules modeled on physics cause a really bad game", but it seems to me that is often a defensive position taken necessarily because 4e has moved away from a simulationist approach - not one that reflects the reality of 30+ years of fun in various rules systems.

I look at it the same way I look at "science" in movies...

If a movie is obviously not really trying for Good Science, then I can ignore any Bad Science that crops up and still enjoy the movie. But if a movie is ostensibly trying to get the Science right, but fails to, it bugs the hell out of me.

It's the same with RPGs. If a game is trying to be simulationist and does it poorly, it gets on my nerves. But if the RPG has a gamist approach, then the reality fudging doesn't bother me in the slightest.