pemerton said:
That claim entirely begs the question against the competing contention, that hit points can be interpreted as a type of plot protection (ie a metagame device introduced for narrative convenience).
And I believe I've made clear why that's unsatisfying to me. Sure, go for it, have fun, don't tell me I'm wrong for not liking that.
Asked within the gameworld, the answer to the question "Why did the NK die?" is "Something point was stuck in its guts." Asked at the playing table "Why did the NK die?" the answer is "Because it was something that the players and/or GM cared about."
The latter answer feels hollow to me, because 'something pointy stuck in his guts' is performed, in the game world, by (for instance) rolling an attack roll, not by narrative contrivance. If you ignore the rule for the sake of expedience because it's offscreen, then it feels much less significant when my character obeys the rule to slay the next NK.
Now, I'm fine with 'assuming background rolls,' meaning that the DM doesn't actually have to roll the attack roll for the 20th level fighter vs. the NK, but the record of what happened has to, for me, fall within the capacity for the rules to describe.
This basically boils down to the aforementioned point of things that are impossible in the rules (20th level fighters dying from falling off of horses) are still impossible when the rules are being glossed over for the sake of convenience, because for my enjoyment of the game to remain intact, it's important that those rules still are being followed.
At the table, "Why did the NK die?" is answered by "Well, obviously the 20th level fighter did damage to him. Perhaps if your characters are facing his successor you should try to get your hands on the sword that killed him, it might be magical. Or perhaps you should see the witch that blessed him, she might be able to help you. These are the mechanisms in the game world that NPC used to do this deed, and they still exist for you to do your deeds."
The issue is this: ought the character build mechanics and/or action resolution mechanics be regarded as the total account of how people and their endeavours unfold in the gameworld? or ought they to be regarded as purely metagame conveniences for resolving a subset of the gameworld (namely, the PCs and their adventures) that is of particular interest to those at the gaming table?
The former is closer to my position; the latter is unsatisfying to me for reasons I think I've made abundantly clear.
I am saying that the rules may be different when the PCs are not implicated. In particular, the rules may take the form of strictly metagame allocations of narrative control, rather than the randomised action resolution mechanics and strictly determined character build mechanics that govern the PCs and their doings.
It harms, for me, the believability of a game, to follow inconsistent rules for when the PC's are implicated and when they are not.
Inconsistent rules like "high-level characters die when I declare it to be relevant," rather than "high-level characters die when they've taken X amount of damage."
These often work together -- high level characters die when I declare them to have taken X amount of damage, and the rolls don't really matter, because the results are consistent with what the PC's face.
In the example of the knight and the horse, they don't. Superman dies in a car crash. This is inconsistent. It thus harms the believability of the world.
But in my view you do not help your explanation of your experience of RPG immersion by, in various ways, framing the discussion so as to fail to capture what is at stake, and also (inadvertently or not) so as to paint those with whom you are discussing in a pejorative light.
Prof Phobos had often accused my dislike of this to be irrational, boring, badwrongfun, and me of being disingenuous. I felt like it was important to my case to establish that, no, I really and honestly
do dislike this, and I described what it felt like
to me when such actions occur. Indeed, the OP seemed, in part, to be saying that this is the way the game has and should work. I disagree, I dislike it when it works that way, and my dislike is an entirely valid position. You can disagree with my feelings on the matter, but accusing my feelings of being irrational and inconsistent means that I need to show you why I feel that way.
So my description of this as "cheating" and "breaking the rules" was intended to convey my subjective emotional judgment of it, to hopefully show that feeling that way is an entirely valid position, and that thus, the OP and Prof Phobos are incorrect if they think that their way is the best way for the game to work. For me, it's not.
I must confess I can't interpret your position as gamist, because the question of how NPCs resolve their interactions when PC protagonism is not implicated is not something that I can relate to gamist play priorities. How would this affect your capacity to use your PC as a vehicle for "stepping on up" and overcoming challenges?
Your motivation - namely, preservation of immersion in the gameworld - seems to be precisely the sort of motivation that epitomises simulationist play (in the Forge sense of that term).
But what brings me out of that immersion is the sense that there is no game.
By using the rules only when the PC is on the stage, you confine the "game" to only when the PC is on the stage, and when the rest of the world is existing, there, for me, is no 'game,' because it is handled by fiat with no nod to the way the rules work in the context of the PC's on stage.
In monopoly, in poker, in scrabble, the idea of 'protagonism' is entirely alien. In D&D, it is, for me, as well. When it is not my turn as a player (when other people are doing things that I would need to react to -- when the DM is running the world behind the scenes), I still expect the other players to adhere to the rules.
When they don't, I don't see the point in playing.
If the DM doesn't use the rules 'behind the scenes,' I can't legitimately step up and challenge the things he throws at me, because these things arise from a place that, to me, is unwelcomingly arbitrary. It would be similar to being in a Scrabble game where one player got to make up words, or didn't have to use vowels.
My goal isn't the exploration of a world, of a system, or of a theme. My goal is to play the game, not for any greater purpose than to simply play the game. To do that, the rules need to be in force when it's not my turn, or it seems brazenly unfair to me.
If the game remains and is consistent for all players, I'll enjoy any story you tell with it, any world you want me to explore, but when the game is compromised because the rules are suspended for one player, I can't really enjoy anything about it.
Though I agree with Celebrim that most people, myself included, average out to "Neutral" on that axis.
