Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[GoLu]

I also agree with you about D&D (if I've understood you right) - that 3E is the most simulationist/rules complete approach to D&D we've had (although, perhaps paradoxically, also the most gamist).

It sounds like you've understood me perfectly well. And your point about 3E also being the most gamist is weird. I don't think it's wrong, but it's just weird to think about. Early D&D seemed so gloriously gamist that it hurts my brain a little to think about how the far more simulationist 3E is possibly even more gamist than it ever could be.

But, Lanefan, it doesn't matter if you or I agree with the rules. That's entirely besides the point. The point being made here is that a D&D world functions as a result of those rules. That the RAW defines the physics of the world. That you think the rule is stupid or bad is irrelevant.

I'm presenting how the RAW actually works. I'm not making anything up. This is what the RAW specifically states will happen. Full stop. That's why RAW doesn't function as the physics of the world because it would be utterly unbelievable if it did.

The rules = physics discussion is somewhat separate from this. That is, house rules are still rules (and often still written) and can be treated as in-game physics just like any other rule. However, I suspect that a lot of house rules get started because the game = physics thing doesn't work perfectly in the ruleset as published by WotC (but it works well enough that it seems like it should work the rest of the way), and so additional (or alternate) rules are created to bridge the gap.

Of course, in this line of thinking, you are first deciding how you want to play (rules = physics?) and then altering the game rules to suit your preference. I'm not entirely sure that it works in that order.

 

[Hussar]

GoLu - I agree that you can write rules to the point where they might begin to start looking like the physics of a world. But, that's not what even 3e managed to do. You'd need a large pile of house rules before you could even begin to assume that a world worked the way the rules say in everyday life.

Heck, even the generation of people is split between PC and NPC. PC's have a multitude of options for chargen. NPC's get either standard or elite arrays.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm really starting to get annoyed, so I'm not going to respond to anyone in particular.

1) No one, least of all me, is saying that you can't play an RPG where the rules aren't adhered to for events 'off stage'. Of course you can. In fact, you could play an RPG where the rules aren't adhered to on stage either.
2) No one, least of all me, is saying that if something that if there isn't an explicit rule for something, that it can't happen.
3) The objection, 'well, if the rules were adhered to then the rules would be unrealistic', doesn't really bother me at all, and is certainly no argument against my claim. The game universe being simulated by the rules doesn't have to be realistic, and in fact in many cases its lack of realism is precisely what makes it attractive. If in fact what bothered me about the rules was that they were unrealistic, it would stand to reason that I'd be far more bothered by the fact that they allowed for highly unrealistic on stage events than highly unrealistic off stage events.
4) The objection that most NPC's don't use the same rules as PC's in specific cases isn't really relevant either. If heroes tend to suck up the experience and treasure when they are around, then that describes how the world actually works. We can worry about why that might be the case, or we can say, "No, I'd rather the world didn't work like that." If the world works that way on stage, we may presume that it works that way off stage. Some particulars:
4a) The leadership doesn't treat NPC's differently from PC's, except that it implies that PC's can't be cohorts. It certainly doesn't say that NPC's can't have the leadership feat. It does treat cohorts and followers differently from non-cohorts and non-followers, but that is a very different thing. Why it treats them differently is something we could speculate on, but isn't really relevant.
4b) A rule that says PC's have action points and most NPC's don't doesn't treat PC's differently from NPC's. It treats heroic characters differently from ordinary characters, which is again, a very different thing.
4c) Ditto for average wealth levels. In fact, NPC expected wealth levels doesn't even rise to the level of a rule, since nothing in the text implies NPC's (or even PC's) can't have different levels of wealth than expected, any more than NPC's can have different ability arrays than 'elite' or nothing, or that each encounter must have the same EL as the parties average level. That is to say, 'unexpected' wealth levels aren't against the rules. Presumably, the PC's are expected to live lives that are 'unexpected'. Hardly surprising.
4d) Nothing prevents hypothetical rules from saying, 'PCs suffer 1d6 damage from falling off a horse, and NPCs suffer 1d100 damage'. I personally wouldn't think that these are good rules because they don't describe the sort of world I want to play in, but I would point out that even so, the game rules would still be the physics of the described game world. It would just be a 'wierd' world where certained people of special destiny fall off horses with less violence to thier persons than everyone else. NPC's in that world would probably very quickly stop riding horses, to the extent that if they saw someone on a horse that would immediately assume that person was one of those special heroes of reknown and say things like, "Is it true that you can be thrown from your horse without breaking your neck?"

I guess I shouldn't expect people that argue that logic and consistancy aren't important to show much logic or consistancy.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me. But when they think that they are disagreeing with me, it would at least be nice if they were.

 

[Celebrim]

I hate going in circles, but back to the beginning.

Imagine I have a new game system: 'd2'. D2 is the most simple game system ever devised. It has at its heart one conflict resolution mechanic.

"For any proposition, determine the success by flipping a penny. If the penny comes up 'heads', the proposition succeeds. Otherwise it fails."

With a few additional rules (mostly to describe what the above words mean, particularly 'fails'), that's a complete game system.

It does not however describe a world that has physics anything like the real world. In fact, the world described by D2's rules is so much different from ours that not only is it probably unplayable, but it is probably unimaginable.

To see this, consider the following propositions:

a) I try to jump over the child's building block.
b) I try to jump over the 10' wide trench.
c) I try to jump over the Empire State Building.
d) I try to jump to Mars.

All of these are valid player propositions. They are in fact valid propositions in the real world. I can try to do any of these things in the real world, and the real world physics will determine my chance of success for each thing I try to do. In the universe described by 'd2', the real physics are, 'You get where you are going half the time, regardless of distance, interveening obstacles, or local gravity'. Moreover, in d2, the fact that the proposition 'I try to jump to Mars', had for that player's character the resolution, 'Ok you are now on Mars', doesn't imply that the proposition 'I try to jump over the child's building block' is likely to succeed. Rather, its just as likely to invoke a failure mechanic as jumping to Mars.

In short, 'd2' describes a universe where time, space, mass, energy, and so forth have no real meaning. Even if this isn't explicit in the rules, it will eventually be explicit in actual play - especially when the player realizes that his character is not constrained to behave in ways that would be valid in the real world. If the poor game referee of 'd2' didn't realize to start that the 'd2' rules described a universe without time, space, mass, energy, or anything else as we know them, and had set about trying to recreate a gritty historical drama, he's probably going to be really frustrated and complain about either a) the system, or b) the poor job of roleplaying by his players.

But really, the main problem is that the universe described by the rules of d2 bears absolutely no resemblence to the universe described by the rules of the real universe. They aren't even close enough that the we can get by with not looking too closely. And if you think about it, what would you expect? The rules of d2 are so simple that naturally they can't possibly describe all the nuance and sophistication that you find in the real world. To approximate that, we are going to need more robust rules.

So far I haven't addressed whether the rules of D2 apply to NPCs offstage as well. In theory, the referee could in fact assume that the rules of this universe governed NPC off stage behavior as well. That is, you could assume that everywhere the PC's went the universe behaved as described by the rules, but elsewhere for the purposes of story things worked like the real universe. But the problem of course with this description is that it runs into huge problems whenever an NPC makes an active proposition concerning the PC's. That is to say, if the NPC's can shoot back, the idea that they off stage lived in something that looks like the real universe, whereas onstage the PC's observe that time, distance, space, mass, energy and the like have no real meaning is going to create distinctly conflicting descriptions. We could probably try to get around that in the fluff, by saying that perhaps only the PC's (and maybe a few others like them) are actually aware of the real nature of the 'd2' universe, and then leave it up to the DM to decide what 'realistic' means. For a game as silly as 'd2' is, we might even get away with it (because its going to drive anyone with the slightest gamist inclination away eventually anyway).

Either the physics of the d2 universe are inescapably created by the rules.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It has nothing to do with wrongbadfun and I certainly never claimed anything of the sort. My point is that you are taking a completely indefensible position and trying to say that it works. It doesn't.

It's weird that you seem to be able to say that without the slightest hint of irony.

If it doesn't work, then how have I been having perfectly amazing games for 8 years under 3e and have only now, in the edition's final bow, have had anyone say that the way I play, the way I and my players enjoy playing, is somehow "indefensible?"

I'm perfectly willing to admit that the core rules for 3e allow you to validly and constructively have rules only when the PC's are "on-stage." I'm saying that's not a fun game for me, but I can see how a sane, logical, rational human being could see the rules, go that route, and have fun with it. There are a lot of situations where the rules imply that you shouldn't think too hard about what the rules imply because it doesn't matter very much. In general, I agree with this principle, and think that 4e can better accomodate these DMs and groups by embracing it a little bit further (we don't need 4 different NPC classes, we don't need detailed demographic generation rules, we don't need a cohesive economics system, ad nauseum).

But 3e, as is smart, tries to take a middle ground, and there are many places where the rules imply that you can or ought to think about what the rules imply because it creates certain setting and world assumptions that are part-and-parcel of D&D. Having NPC classes at all, let along being supplied with detailed town-generation mechanics, and being told how NPC's gain XP, and being told expressly in the rules that NPC's and PC's should, generally, follow the same rules, and having examples of NPC's following those rules off-camera...all these, everything I cited above, and having monsters with skill points and feats, is how the rules currently support my playstyle.

And to suggest that they don't, that my position is indefensible, and that I am basically just making stuff up for SOME reason, is to suggest that my way of playing the game is wrong, that I'm not actually having fun doing what I do, and that rules like the ones I'm citing aren't there to create a believable, heroic world, and don't have NPC's obeying the same rules as PC's do off-screen.

And that is really very wrong. Celebrim went a bit point-for-point against you above, showing quite well how nothing you cite forces anyone to play the game your way or break the rules or have a bad game.

Your way isn't the One True Game anymore than mine is. And all I'm asking is that 4e don't tread (much) on me.

It works. I've defended it, others have defended it, it is defensible. I've played it, others have played it, it is fun.

Stop trying to tell me I'm some sort of hypocrite or horrible person for enjoying D&D in a way you don't. It. Ain't. Gonna. Stick.

 

[allenw]

It's weird that you seem to be able to say that without the slightest hint of irony.

If it doesn't work, then how have I been having perfectly amazing games for 8 years under 3e and have only now, in the edition's final bow, have had anyone say that the way I play, the way I and my players enjoy playing, is somehow "indefensible?"

It appears to me that Hussar was referring to your (perceived) position regarding the extent (if any) to which NPCs differ from PCs in the RAW, rather than your playstyle or your personal preferences.

 

[LostSoul]

I hate going in circles, but back to the beginning.

Imagine I have a new game system: 'd2'. D2 is the most simple game system ever devised. It has at its heart one conflict resolution mechanic.

"For any proposition, determine the success by flipping a penny. If the penny comes up 'heads', the proposition succeeds. Otherwise it fails."

With a few additional rules (mostly to describe what the above words mean, particularly 'fails'), that's a complete game system.

Sounds similar to Prime-Time Adventures' conflict resolution system.

That system is: you get a number of cards based on 1) your PC's importance to the story in this session; 2) any relevant traits you want to bring in (you can only use them once a session, and you only have three); 3) any fan mail you spend (fan mail is a metagame resource).

Other players can spend fan mail on the conflict even when their PC is not involved.

The GM gets a number of cards equal to the amount of budget (a metagame resource) that he wants to spend.

Whoever gets the most red cards wins; whoever gets the highest card gets to narrate.

It does not however describe a world that has physics anything like the real world. In fact, the world described by D2's rules is so much different from ours that not only is it probably unplayable, but it is probably unimaginable.

I've played Prime-Time Adventures, and you are wrong. The game we played was in the real world, with our physics, very imaginable, and very playable.

 

[Celebrim]

I've played Prime-Time Adventures, and you are wrong. The game we played was in the real world, with our physics, very imaginable, and very playable.

???

Huh?

LOL.

LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL!

You played 'Prime-Time Adventures', and therefore I am wrong? No, not just wrong... wrong.

I give up.

I've been to Disney World, so therefore lazy tea is not pink. So there!

 

[I'm A Banana]

It appears to me that Hussar was referring to your (perceived) position regarding the extent (if any) to which NPCs differ from PCs in the RAW, rather than your playstyle or your personal preferences.

The RAW does support my position that the rules should be enforced equally offscreen as well as onscreen, as I've gone over (and over) above. The RAW does support the position that the rules can be suspended or changed when "offscreen," in many places as well.

My choice to emphasize that part of the RAW in having off-screen events conform to the expected rules-results is a playstyle/personal preference descision, just as others' choice to NOT have that occur is a playstyle/personal preference descision.

Because just like it doesn't ever say "20th level NPC's should never die from falling off of horses," it also doesn't ever say "What happens to the PC's is not how the world beyond the PC's works." Neither of our positions are expressly supported, both have things which support them in the RAW, leaving one person's choice to never kill 20th level fighters of any sort with horse accidents, or another person's choice to murder epic-level wizards with heart attacks largely a matter of what kind of game you're going to enjoy. The RAW strives, as is smart, for a balance, but often in 3e errs on the side of 'too much detail for non-PC-related activities.'

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've played Prime-Time Adventures, and you are wrong. The game we played was in the real world, with our physics, very imaginable, and very playable.

Well, you broke Celebrim, but I'll go out on a limb and say that what you are describing with P-TA isn't what he's talking about with the coin flip game.