Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Wolfwood2]

Picking up on something from the "Stephen Radney-Macfarland" thread that I thought deserved its own discussion.

I offer this up for debate: Game rules are not intended to model the physics of the game world. Rather, game rules are intended to offer up a rough simulation of the game world that will yield useful narrative results. There are and should be occasions in the game universe where things happen that appear to break the rules, because the story has gone to a place the simulation fails to adequately cover.

This is something seen often in real life. We frequently create simulations of complex systems that yield results "close enough", even though real life will occasionally throw results inconsistent with the simulation. An example most people will be familiar with is Newtonian physics versus Einstein's relativity theory. Newton yields results close enough to the real world that it's useful and taught in classrooms, but ultimately it's just an estimate for how the real world works.

Examples for places where D&D rules might fail.

1. A strong, skilled, and uninjured fighter might fall from a horse, break his neck, and die. It would be a million to one, but it could happen in the game world even though the hitpoint model says it can't.

2. A (by the game rules) 3rd level wizard might be able to cast a planar binding spell and accidentally call an efreet. Maybe he fumbled his way through with his master's spellbook as aid and accidentally got it right. The game rules say this could never happen, but the game rules are merely a guide to probable outcomes. There's nothing physically preventing him from managing the right gestures and words.

3. You might be able to sell a magic item for twice the gold piece value listed in the DMG, though the rules say you'll only give half value. This is a "physics" that most DMs seem to have no trouble ignoring, though it's no more or less a part of the game world physics than either of the examples above.

4. A fighter might study with a fighting master and be extra deadly with a weapon, though the rules say he's not high enough level for weapon specialization.

Anyway, the point is that a lot of things in the game world do not and should not follow the rules set forth for the PCs. 4E seems set up to acknowledge this in a way that 3E does not. That's why monsters and NPCs are treated differently, because it's more useful to use a slightly different (and simplified) simulation for them than the simulation used for PCs. Neither simulation really captures everything that's going on in the game world. Both simulations are expected to yield results that make sense enough to then be sensibly described in the context of the game world.

Now, I think the reason that this frustrates a lot of people is that player characters generally do follow the rules. They have to live with the results of the simulation, because this is a game and we want characters to be on even footing. One complaint I saw on another board was (paraphrased):

"What if I have a wizard character with an NPC mentor who has powers built using the NPC rules? Suppose that mentor dies and my PC studies his notes to learn his powers. If both characters are human, it makes no sense to me that my PC could never learn those abilities. It would break my suspension of disbelief."

The answer, of course, is that within the context of the game world it is possible for the PC to learn those powers. However, to do so requires stepping outside the standard rules simulating the game world. You have to move to realm of the narrative and have a talk between the player and the DM to see if it is appropriate to break the simulation in this case and still have a fun game for everyone.

And that is why I think it is a mistake to equate the rules to the physics of the game world. In the game world, 1 out of 20 swings do not miss and 1 out of 20 swings do not always hit (for given value of "swing, which could be several attacks). It's simply a convenient assumption for the simulation.

 

[HeinorNY]

And that is why I think it is a mistake to equate the rules to the physics of the game world.

I think this discussion came up in at least 3 or 4 thread recently, which is a good thing of course, so I'll give my impression regarding all the talking so far.

There is a difference between equating the rules to the phsysics of the game world and having an in-game rationalization for every rule. I believe most people that are in the "simulationist" side really don't care about the previous and is actually looking for the later.

Personally, I don't care if the town guard has only 4 stats, AC, HP, Attack roll and damage, but if his AC is 19 and he is wearing a leather armor, I'll want to know where that AC comes from.
I'm really satisfied with an answer like "town guards in this city train more defensive combat than offensive, so his attack roll is low but AC is good". But I won't accept an answer like "because that's the number for an average level 6 NPC soldier", I'll just leave the game table.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Examples for places where D&D rules might fail.

For me, a lot of these are unsatisfying at the table, and break apart my suspension of disbelief.

1. A strong, skilled, and uninjured fighter might fall from a horse, break his neck, and die. It would be a million to one, but it could happen in the game world even though the hitpoint model says it can't.

If he dies just because it's narratively convenient, this strikes me as exceptionally lazy storytelling, and it robs all sorts of interesting potential from the scenario. Perhaps he was cursed by a warlock? Perhaps his horse was as tall as a 30-story building? Perhaps he was a braggart with little true skill? And in each instance, I'd expect the rules to reflect that so that the PC's can have interesting and narratively appropriate adventures. If he was cursed, perhaps the PC's can brave similar cures to put an end to the black magic. If his horse was immense, perhaps the PC's can find this land of enchanted gigas-mares. If he was really a braggart, perhaps the PC's can find out who actually was accomplishing those great deeds, and why they decided to remain silent.

2. A (by the game rules) 3rd level wizard might be able to cast a planar binding spell and accidentally call an efreet. Maybe he fumbled his way through with his master's spellbook as aid and accidentally got it right. The game rules say this could never happen, but the game rules are merely a guide to probable outcomes. There's nothing physically preventing him from managing the right gestures and words.

Eh. It'd be a lot cooler if we had rules that let a wizard try and cast a spell beyond their capability. In fact, scrolls already include such a mechanic, and I'd say that rituals, in the next edition, could and maybe should, too. If the wizard does it just because it's narratively convenient, that, again, strikes me as lazy and as robbing all sorts of potential interesting adventures from it.

3. You might be able to sell a magic item for twice the gold piece value listed in the DMG, though the rules say you'll only give half value. This is a "physics" that most DMs seem to have no trouble ignoring, though it's no more or less a part of the game world physics than either of the examples above.

Economy's a funny thing. When you get money involved, it becomes subject to the whims of relative demand, and sometimes, something is specifically in high demand.

The rules of gravity and magic are not usually so subjective.

4. A fighter might study with a fighting master and be extra deadly with a weapon, though the rules say he's not high enough level for weapon specialization.

There's other ways to model 'deadly with a weapon.' And it would be more interesting if he obeyed the rules and gained power under this fighting master, gaining levels while the rest of the PC's do. If he becomes extra deadly just as a matter of narrative convenience, again, it seems lazy and robs the cool potential of many other explanations from the world.

The answer, of course, is that within the context of the game world it is possible for the PC to learn those powers.

Then it appears lazy and devoid of imagination to not provide us rules for how that happens.

I think 4e will at least give solid nods to DMs who demand and enjoy a bit more rules, and a bit less advice just to make stuff up.

 

[robertliguori]

I'm not seeing the issues mentioned. If you feel that it should be possible for a high-level fighter to die from falling off a horse, then falls from horses should be capable of dealing in excess of 50 damage. If you think that it should be possible to accidentally Call a 10-HD outsider with a second-level spell, include rules for that. If you don't think that Weapon Specialization should have a minimum fighter level, remove the minimum level.

Do you think it is important for the GM and players to share assumptions about what is possible within the confines of the rules? If not, how do you expect the characters to act meaningfully?

Do you start from the assumption that there should be laws of physics in the gameworld, which the GM is obligated to follow regardless of the drama of the situation? If so, why are the examples given particularly problematic? Play simply happens to take place in a universe where there is a hard limit on how badly apprentice mages can flub up on their own, in which high-level fighters can not only survive falls from horses but can shrug off direct hits from lances, and which certain martial techniques are only available to people who are of a certain level of experience and accomplishment. It is assumed, if you're playing D&D, that these are shared expectations. If you don't share these expectations, feel free to communicate your new expectations to the players, and even feel free to announce that you intend to communicate your new expectations solely through non-precedent-setting encounters in the game world, and that in these cases, anything, regardless of the rules, can happen. Some players like having a story told to them. However, the majority of the hobby like, when they play RPGs, to be playing a game, and games have rules.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

I disagree partialy - rules of a game TOUCH Physics in parts.

Look by example at the strict limitations magic have in Shadowrun - you can't create matter from absolutly nothing, no teleportation, no resurection.... It's tied to natural laws.

 

[Roger]

I offer this up for debate: Game rules are not intended to model the physics of the game world.

This is problematic for a number of reasons:

1. It's very difficult, perhaps impossible, to determine what game rules are intended to do, even if we manage somehow to answer the question of intended by whom.

2. It's not at all clear that the intentions that some people may or may not have with respect to some game rules have any relevance.

3. With respect to 4E, even the game rules themselves are not generally known.


These factors make it very difficult to derive any sort of value from the debate.


Cheers,
Roger

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Look by example at the strict limitations magic have in Shadowrun - you can't create matter from absolutly nothing, no teleportation, no resurection.... It's tied to natural laws.

Not really. If it related to any law of biology or physics, resurrection would be eminently possible. People who've been "dead" in every measurably way (in very cold water) for really considerable spans of time have been brought back to life, and if magic can knit together horrible shotgun injuries my SR character has sustained, then, well I don't see it doing anything that couldn't bring someone back to life unless you're claiming the spirit leaves immediately or whatever (which again, directly contradicted by reality, and real cases of science bringing people back to life after longer spans).

I think all three of those rules are in place to control the gameplay, rather than to "simulate a magical reality".

As to the OP, well, sure, but I kind of liked it when that WAS what they were, like in 1E/2E.

 

[Xyl]

How come these arguments never spring up about, say, Risk?

Or to take an RPG example, what about D20 Modern? It's set in something close to the real world - should its rules be taken as the physics of the game?

 

[Wolfwood2]

This is problematic for a number of reasons:

1. It's very difficult, perhaps impossible, to determine what game rules are intended to do, even if we manage somehow to answer the question of intended by whom.

2. It's not at all clear that the intentions that some people may or may not have with respect to some game rules have any relevance.

3. With respect to 4E, even the game rules themselves are not generally known.


These factors make it very difficult to derive any sort of value from the debate.


Cheers,
Roger

Perhaps I didn't put it the right way then. Let me try again.

"It is fundamentally impossible for the rules of any RPG to accurately and completely model the physics of the game world, and thus any rule set will always be a rough simulation. You're just fooling yourself if you think they do."

 

[Imban]

How come these arguments never spring up about, say, Risk?

Or to take an RPG example, what about D20 Modern? It's set in something close to the real world - should its rules be taken as the physics of the game?

Uh, because Risk is a board game and we're playing the straight rules of the game. What they represent is totally abstract and totally unaddressed.

I see no reason you shouldn't take d20 Modern's rules as the physics of the game, on the other hand. It's just likely to produce an unsatisfying experience, because neither people's assumptions that being shot is quite bad for you nor their assumptions that engaging in fisticuffs with a huge demon is unwise hold.