Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Celebrim]

Does that clear up my position?

Well, 'yes' and 'no'.

"Yes" in the sense that it is a clear and detailed description of your position, but "no" in the sense that the given description completely accords with what I already believed it to be and as such doesn't change my critique of it in the slightest.

That criticism being that in actual application, the two groups were doing functionally the same thing and hense the distinction was meaningless. For example:

So when the PCs are involved, Group A uses the rules to resolve those interactions, in order to offer a consistent game experience. Similarly, no NPC who's interacting with the PCs is going to have anything happen to him that won't happen to a PC as long as he's "plot-relevant." However, that restriction no longer applies when said NPC is either "offstage" or when he becomes "plot irrelevant."

But this is exactly what the 'Group B' players would describe as well. In particularly, it is a stance much closer to 'Group B' than even my own stance is, in so much as I wouldn't always use the rules to resolve interactions between the players and thier environment if I had reason to suspect that the results of applying the rules would be (IMO) 'silly'. Your stance as you describe it is not even that distinguishable from 'Group B'.

By way of distinguishing the two you are noting that actions involving offstage NPC's are not resolved under the rules, but rather by DM fiat. In practice though, no matter how grand of a simulation they desire, do you actually think there are any group B DM's who resolve all offstage actions by playing them out under the rules? Of course not. Rather I think you are suggesting that the 'group b' DM's will insist that all offstage actions could have been resolved according to the rules. And this is true, but whether you insist on it or not, you are too!

I'll give you some examples, not so much because they in and of themselves are pertinant, but rather that they illustrate the problem. Earlier I mentioned that I thought low level wizards ought to be able to try to cast spells normally beyond thier ability. The rules certainly imply that this impossible. But supposedly if we are 'Group A' players that should not concern us if the events were to occur offstage. We could simply explain that it happened. But, if we did, then this would create a problem, in as much as you are thereby informing your players that under certain conditions a 3rd level wizard can attempt to cast a 5th level spell. Maybe its foolhardy to attempt it, but your narration is implying that its possible. In effect, your offstage narrative has created the need for a rule, and suddenly we find that one way or the other the rules are indeed the 'physics of the universe'. We find that we aren't really that different from a 'Group B' referee at all. And in particular, I'm claiming that unless the rules existed, neither the 'Group A' nor the 'Group B' referees would probably think to have a narrative involving an apprentice casting spells beyond his ability because we'd be stuck in the paradigm dictated by the rules. And if either thought to do this, they'd both find that the creation of narrative and of rules was so intertwined that you couldn't really separate the two.

Similarly, its frequently been mentioned in this thread that we should not forgo the ability to insert a maimed vetern into the story despite the fact that the rules do not explicitly allow for PC's to be maimed. The claim is that 'Group A' referees would do so, but that 'Group B' referees wouldn't. But this isn't true, and in fact ultimately both referees would find themselves doing the same thing. If a 'group A' referee placed a maimed NPC into the story, if the status of his being maimed was anything but a prop he'd need some ruling on what it meant. At that point, his narrative is creating rules. If a 'group b' referee placed a maimed NPC into the story, if the status of being maimed made any difference in the game at all, he need some rules to cover what it meant to be maimed. You might claim that the 'group b' referees would never think to put maimed characters into the story. But this is a fairly easily dismissed complaint, in that the rules do provide for characters to have different Dexterity scores and more to the point do allow for permenent ability damage. The only thing that might be true is that the 'group b' referees are more likely to think that permenent ability damage, being the tool that is available, is more likely to be an adequate description of a character maiming. And I'm not even sure that is the case either, since I think it likely that 'group a' referees are likely to turn to the same rules to describe what it means to maimed.

I feel quite free to describe limps, scars, and one-eyed NPC's by interpreting that there low dexterity, wisdom, strength, charisma or whatever describes these things, or alternately that thier limp, scar, or single eye describes low dexterity, wisdom, or strength. I see no functional difference, and since its possible that I could start with either a description or stats and work in the other direction depending on which I happened to have first to work with, what exactly is the functional difference?

As another example, I'd never cut off a PC's arm, or put out his eye. But if a PC scores a critical hit on a goblin that puts him out of the fight, I, as DM, reserve the right to rule that the blow chopped off said goblin's arm or leg, put out his eye, or whatever other grisly injury I see fit.

If the goblin (or PC) is dead or at least 'out of the fight', then whether or not the goblin has been maimed has no mechanical effect at all. In this case, I think it quite likely that referees you are classifying as 'group b' would have no problem describing lethal wounds in any fashion that they chose without feeling they are violating the letter of the rules, and likewise that restoration from the dead cures completely any extra fluff as well. You are only doing something different if the two groups treat there 'fluff' as having some mechanical effect, and for that, see the above discussion.

 

[Celebrim]

Again, to suggest that any non-simulationist ruleset will produce feelings of having been cheated is, in my view, ridiculous.

Any discussion of this that stays purely theoretical is, in my view, ridiculous posturing by the participants.

Are you claiming that there is no situation that a non-simulationist ruleset could produce in which you wouldn't feel cheated by the outcome? For example, are you claiming that its impossible to produce a critical hit system which wouldn't seem to ridiculous? Or, for example, are you claiming that there is no division between NPC resolution of action and PC resolution of action which you would not ultimately feel cheated by?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I am in the group which says that the rules do to a large extent describe the gameworld. If a DM introduces something in a story background that doesn't seem possilbe within the rules of the game, the two options for me are that this is a DM working under a philosophy I don't agree with and probably won't enjoy, or there is Something Mysterious happening here that investigating and resolving will be part of the game. In the story of the seemingly "high level" king who died casually from a fall - there are a lot of interesting possibilities that emerge from the game rule / game world inconsistency. Curses or other assassination? A stand in who was covering for the king while he was involved otherwise and now the king can't return without making some very delicate explainations? The real story of his past "heroics" coming to light? All potentially fun. A high level fighter who dies in a way high level fighters can't die just because? No thanks.

One exception I make is in XP gain and level progression. The standard rules are used to lend pacing to the power curve of the game, imo, and level determines power, not necessarily experience. In the case of the planar summoning apprentice, perhaps he was a 1st level wizard, but a high level "latent" sorcerer. On the other hand, I'm ok with new characters brought in at higher levels describing their background power curve in whatever way they like, so thats more of an overall house rule than anything.

 

[Celebrim]

I started a thread awhile back in the Rules Forum on how 3e would handle baseball, just as a test to get in the habit of extrapolating d20 you understand. Sadly I had no takers. Constructing the initial post though was eye opening on just how many basic physical actions simply aren't covered under d20 and are never thought twice about. I prefer the motto: "You can try anything. But I can't guarantee it'll work how you think it will."

You seem to be thinking about this in the right fashion. I make a point of saying that because there have been multiple occassions on these boards where people have passionately argued that the D20 system is universal and that there isn't anything you can do that isn't covered by the rules. These same people accused me of being mentally or morally defective for claiming that sometimes house rules needed to be made up on the spot. You at least seem to realize that there are alot of things that average 5 year olds can do that either aren't in the rules, or else are forbidden to you unless you take special feats to gain that manuever.

My main point is not that a bad rule is better than no rule. I also stated in the post that a bad rule often had the same effect as no rule in stiffling the event from ever occuring. A bad rule is better than no rule only in so much as its more likely to spark interest in the event and perhaps the referee to create house rules more likely to be agreeable to the participants.

My main point is that whether you are what is being called a 'group a' player or a 'group b' player, you are no more likely to believe that baseball is or isn't occuring offstage and if it occurs to you to have it onstage, we can't really predict how you will choose to resolve the action. My main point is that narration and rules are so closely intertwined in RPGs that its nonsense to state that the games rules aren't defacto the physics of the game world. You may theoretically hold the position that they are not, and indeed in theory I hold the position that they are not, but in practice since I generally rely on them to resolve cause in effect my theoretical position doesn't IMO usefully distinguish me from someone that doesn't have it.

As I endeavored to demonstrate, it has no real effect on how 'out of the box' you do or are able to play. The only difference might be that the 'group b' players probably will more closely consider what rules they need before they put something 'on stage', but in that - since I just about never put something onstage without rules for it - I could be considered a 'group b' referee even though I agree with 'statement a'.

 

[Primal]

You have an incredibly unreasonable perspective. Frankly I would consider you a bad player and eject you from my game.

What you ask is tantamount to asking the DM to not have any fun. To be bound to some mindless set of rules instead of his own imagination. You're also asking for every other player in the game, unless they happen to share your rigid expectations, not to have any fun.

Because, and this might shock people here who claim a DM who does anything not explicitly described in the rules is abusive, DM's discretion works in the player's favor and the character's favor.

As a GM, I see my objective as "Ensure everyone has fun", which typically means figuring out what a given player wants out of the game and providing it. I count as a player, though, and what I want out of a game is to see a rousing good story emerge from play. I will break, ignore, or modify any rule at any point for any reason if I think it'll make the game more fun for everyone involved.

And if providing fun for you means I can't do that to provide fun for myself or for the other players, then you can walk away. The rules are a tool. They serve at my pleasure, and in a wider sense at the pleasure of the group. We do not serve the rules.

While I appreciate your opinion of rules just being tools for narrative, I also believe that players should feel that they are always in control of their characters' fates -- whether that's merely an illusion or not (because the DM *is* the ultimate authority over what happens in the game). I've participated in games in which a DM's "temporary lapse of judgement" (for example: "You know, I'm think I'm gonna houserule these Climbing rules now, because it becomes more dangerous that way... oh, you wouldn't have tried it if you had known? Too bad -- your character's already descending!") in the form of sudden "judgement calls" have resulted in TPKs. Needless to say, it really didn't serve the story in an way.

Like I already said, the rules should exist to prevent that, to give some mechanical way for the players to have an impact on what happens to their characters and to model the "physics" of the setting as accurately as needed. Yet I also agree with you and some of the posters that sometimes story (or "common sense") should govern over the mechanics -- if your character intentionally leaps off a cliff for no reason at all, he probably should die. However, if your character does that to escape a horde of orcs, he should know that he has at least a chance to survive. In the latter case I would walk out if my DM declared me automatically dead. Yet if I for some reason thought that my character's "automatical" death would serve a purpose or role in the story, the DM should respect my wish.

This is why I like Indie RPGs, because in most of them the rules specifically strive (mechanically and thematically) to enhance and drive storytelling over simulation while still managing to retain the *relevant* (in light of the game's premise and thematic emphasis) mechanics for the players to have an impact over pretty much everything that happens in the story. Using that "high-level fighter falling from saddle" example: did someone think that it'd be a cool event in the story and frames a scene in which he is in danger of breaking his neck? Or is the result of a failed roll in a conflict and whoever has the storytelling rights narrates it that way? Here's the thing: in both cases the player has the mechanical ways (in many Indie RPGs, anyway) to prevent this from happening. if the player will not enter into a "conflict" over this, or does not "bet" on the 'storytelling rights' after a failed roll, it's his choice. He is effectively signaling that he does not care much what happens to the protagonist in the story, and leaves the fate of his unfortunate protagonist to the storyteller. I see it being almost equivalent to leaping off the cliff.

In D&D, you *could* ask your player to roll a Riding Check during a simple riding session, but that's hardly fair. In combat, he actually might fail a Riding Check, but unless he'd be out of HPs, a fall from saddle would not hurt him at all.
So how to add some "realism"? I tend use a houseruled system in which rolling a "1" is not an automatic fumble, but if your "Fumble Confirmation Roll" is also a "1", something bad happens (the odds are 1/400). Maybe the horse breaks his leg, or maybe you fall from the saddle, and hit your head, falling unconscious. In any case, unless the PCs are in the middle of an adventure, this is usually a "Story Event" (Ars Magica -style) which has potentially tragic (but not automatically deadly) consequences for the PCs (e.g. it might even spring an instant adventure, as your unconscious fighter went riding alone and is found by trolls and dragged to their lair, so it's up to the other PCs to rescue him). Or, during a furious fight in a town a wizard who fails his Spell Penetration Check with a Fireball (rolling two "1s" in succession) against, say, a Marilith, might see his spell deflected by the demon's defenses and hitting a nearby inn (obliterating some of the patrons and the friendly innkeeper). Shortly put: it is a fairly rare event (to roll two "1s" in succession), but occasionally it does come up in play, so I use it to implement all sorts of touches of "realism" and story elements which are not covered by the rules.

 

[apoptosis]

This is why I like Indie RPGs, because in most of them the rules specifically strive (mechanically and thematically) to enhance and drive storytelling over simulation while still managing to retain the *relevant* (in light of the game's premise and thematic emphasis) mechanics for the players to have an impact over pretty much everything that happens in the story. Using that "high-level fighter falling from saddle" example: did someone think that it'd be a cool event in the story and frames a scene in which he is in danger of breaking his neck? Or is the result of a failed roll in a conflict and whoever has the storytelling rights narrates it that way? Here's the thing: in both cases the player has the mechanical ways (in many Indie RPGs, anyway) to prevent this from happening. if the player will not enter into a "conflict" over this, or does not "bet" on the 'storytelling rights' after a failed roll, it's his choice. He is effectively signaling that he does not care much what happens to the protagonist in the story, and leaves the fate of his unfortunate protagonist to the storyteller. I see it being almost equivalent to leaping off the cliff.

Though most of the people who argue against Phobos would probably not like the narrativist aspects of Indie games. They have generally said they dislike the meta-gaming element that pretty much is required to exist in those type of games.

So unfortunately this is not a solution to this potential disagreement (i say unfortunately not because of judgement of what type of game over another but of trying to resolve an issue)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Shortly put: it is a fairly rare event (to roll two "1s" in succession), but occasionally it does come up in play, so I use it to implement all sorts of touches of "realism" and story elements which are not covered by the rules.

Not that I care one way or the other about this, but you should keep in mind that 40 d20 rolls per player per session is not unreasonable. With 5 players making 40 rolls each, it means that a "very bad thing" happens once every second session to at least someone in the party.

This is WAY too often for my liking.

 

[IanB]

And this is fundamentally unsatisfying for me as a player and as a DM. If the DM doesn't adhere to the rules, they feel meaningless. The DM can change the laws, but he cannot be above the laws. "NPC" isn't a distinction my character knows. It's an artificial construction of the game, and to have NPC's break their necks randomly at DM decree means, to my character, that people break their necks falling from horses, even when they're powerful knights of the world who should know how to ride horses, and thus I should never ride a horse, because they slay heroes.

Which is absurd to me, as a player, and breaks the believability of the world.

I probably am somewhere in the middle when it comes to this argument, but I find the logic here baffling. Saying that "because sometimes people die falling off of horses, my character would clearly avoid riding horses" to me is an awful lot like saying "because sometimes people die riding in automobiles, I will never ride in a car."

I mean, I'm sure there are occasionally people who do make that choice for that reason, but presenting that as a clear-cut logical choice for a character seems really off to me.

A lot of this argument to me seems to be rooted in what are bad parts of the 3E ruleset, I guess. Arguing "he can survive immersion in lava, he shouldn't die from falling off a horse!" to me is just another way of saying "the rules for immersion in lava are terrible."

Anyway, to add a little fuel to the fire:

Should a D&D game be able to simulate or emulate the world of George Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire? It has dragons coexisting with all sorts of accidental death and maiming, after all? What about the Black Company novels?

And some ignominious deaths of mythic and/or fictional figures:

Hector, dies to one spear-thrust by Achilles (although he does have a long conversation while he's dying)

Achilles, shot with a single arrow in the heel, by someone who is clearly not a trained fighter

Sigurd, killed in bed

Theseus, died by being pushed off a cliff

Isildur, badass enough to have cut the One Ring from Sauron's finger, shot to death by a random encounter

Basically, for every Boromir or Roland, there's a Jason (killed by a falling piece of ship) or even an Aesclepius (struck by a bolt of lightning by Zeus - the ultimate in DM fiat).

I feel like D&D should probably be able to accomodate both of these things.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Should a D&D game be able to simulate or emulate the world of George Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire? It has dragons coexisting with all sorts of accidental death and maiming, after all? What about the Black Company novels?

Well, the should in there seems odd, but D&D, by RAW imo cannot emulate those settings. You would have to heavily home brew and houserule it to make the rules actually create the outcomes that set the tone.

 

[Professor Phobos]

The issue is that for my character, this distinction does not exist, and thus in playing the role of my character, I cannot allow this distinction to exist in thier mind (or else I feel like I'm metagaming too much and it removes me from the game). This means that my character has to fear the mundane more than the epic, that a fall from a horse, to my character, is more deadly than the jaws of the great wyrm Galgathraxas, because an old country nag can succeed where Galgrathaxas has failed.

This makes no sense. The dragon is much more likely to kill you than a random accident. People ride horses all the damn time in fantasy settings!

And if the DM doesn't play by the rules, then it means less when my PC does.

Sigh. Nothing anyone is saying is sinking in, is it? You continue to define your terms the way you want and expect us to abide by them.

I'm not interested in gaining that at the gaming table.

Neither am I, you straw-man lover, you.

I give up. This is anti-logic. More power to you, have fun, whatever floats your boat, but I think your position is irrational. And I think you've been disingenuous throughout this entire discussion.