D&D General Game Rules and the World

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I just finished a very interesting discussion about Beasts of the Earth and their place in game world.

One poster seemed to be to be arguing that the in-game beasts originated from the stat block, whereas I would say that the stat block is a simplified representation of an in-game element.

Now I'm curious how other players and DM see and interpret the interplay between the rules and the fiction.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I allow quite a bit of re-fluffing. But anything with mechanical or in-game consequences is a DM's call.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world. If you want to represent a different sort of reality, then those differences would be reflected with different rules.

Rules, alone, are meaningless. The only point of rules is to describe something that exists within the game world. If you start with the rules, and try to extrapolate a reality based on that, then you're very likely to get it wrong.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

To understand Primal Beasts, you must first understand the design of the beastmaster. There are some interviews about it that you should look at. When the beastmaster was first designed, the designers where worried that all beasts where not equal - some players might hit upon extremely powerful options (such as armed and armoured apes, or beast that where not in the game at launch). Thus, they deliberately made the beastmaster weak to compensate for the potentially unknowable strength of the animal companion.

In order to strengthen the beastmaster, it is necessary that the companion's stats be known - I.e. fixed. Hence the Primal Beast, which is based on, and follows similar rules to the Battle Smith's Steel Protector. In order for this to function there has to be a degree of suspension of disbelief to allow for the game mechanics. The steel protector simply appears out of thin air when the artificer hits level 3. Whist usually depicted as a robo-dog it could be humanoid, which means you could hypothetically put it in armour. However, it's AC is always 15 using 5e's parallel AC calculation rules.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

To understand Primal Beasts, you must first understand the design of the beastmaster. There are some interviews about it that you should look at. When the beastmaster was first designed, the designers where worried that all beasts where not equal - some players might hit upon extremely powerful options (such as armed and armoured apes, or beast that where not in the game at launch). Thus, they deliberately made the beastmaster weak to compensate for the potentially unknowable strength of the animal companion.

In order to strengthen the beastmaster, it is necessary that the companion's stats be known - I.e. fixed. Hence the Primal Beast, which is based on, and follows similar rules to the Battle Smith's Steel Protector. In order for this to function there has to be a degree of suspension of disbelief to allow for the game mechanics. The steel protector simply appears out of thin air when the artificer hits level 3. Whist usually depicted as a robo-dog it could be humanoid, which means you could hypothetically put it in armour. However, it's AC is always 15 using 5e's parallel AC calculation rules.

I'm not the beast master or beast .of the earth specifically, which is why I started a new thread. I find your perspective of rule => game world interesting.

I have always seen the game rules as an approximation of the world, made simpler by necessity. The rules cannot, of course, full simulate the world, which is where the GM comes in. It is the GMs job to make rulings and minor rules changes to ensure the rules conform to the game world and the fiction.

You seem to take the opposite approach, and prefer the game world to reflect the rules. As a player, I would this very frustrating, but it seems to work for you.

Now I'm curious to see how other players & DM interpret the interplay between the rules and the world. I'm sure there are multitudes of perspectives.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I take the view that the game rules do an inadequate job in representing the reality of the game world, and are often simply wrong. Others see the rules as the laws of physics of the game world.

 

[Aldarc]

Stat blocks are just a model for the fiction of the game world.

 

[dave2008]

One poster seemed to be to be arguing that the in-game beasts originated from the stat block, whereas I would say that the stat block is a simplified representation of an in-game element.

I agree with the bold part in general. Stat blocks for monsters and NPCs are generalized descriptions of an in-game element. Therefore, a monster can do more than just what is in the stat block.

However, that gets a a bit muddy when you consider magic and all the recent summing / conjuring spells. I would have to look at each spell carefully, buy many are just magicked creatures similar to real creatures. I which case they are much more limited. Magic does what it says it does in the spell description. Nothing more or less. If a stat block is included in that description, I think its ability outside that magicked stat block is fairly limited.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I agree with the bold part in general. Stat blocks for monsters and NPCs a generalized descriptions of an in-game element. Therefore, a monster can do more than just what is in the stat block.

However, that gets a a bit muddy when you consider magic and all the recent summing / conjuring spells. I would have to look at each spell carefully, buy many are just magicked creatures similar to real creatures. I which case they are much more limited. Magic does what it says it does in the spell description. Nothing more or less. If a stat block is included in that description, I think its ability outside that magicked stat block is fairly limited.

what do you mean by this?

That I can't summon an angel to negotiate with another on my behalf (why I hide around the corner)? Things like that?

 

[Fanaelialae]

As I see it, the game rules are the interface through which the players (including the GM) interact with the game world. They are not the "physics" or even a truly accurate representation of the game world. They are simply there for a game of adventure.

Assuming that those rules apply to the world as a whole leads to some very odd assumptions IMO, such as everyone in the world being able to shake off grievous life-threatening injuries with only a night of rest, like an action hero. I'm not suggesting badwrongfun if that's how anyone prefers to play, but to me it makes far more sense that those rules apply primarily to the action heroes of the game (the player characters). IMO, the recovery of non-action-hero NPCs is not covered by the rules and is left to the DM, which makes far more sense to me than assuming a world where everyone recovers from injuries like an action hero.