Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Lanefan]

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.

Yes it does matter if you or I agree with the rules, because if we're the DMs and we don't agree with them we're gonna start making changes; at least in our own games.

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.

So change the RAW until it *does* function as at least a modicum of a believable in-game physics model.

Yup, read them. Where does it say anything about how those NPC's got those levels? Oh, right, it doesn't. It says pretty much - give them the levels you think they should have to fit in the adventure. Oh, and if you want to make a town, here's how to do it so that you have a nice spread of levels. At no point do you ever advance those NPC's by having them go through off camera adventures. No NPC ever dies before becoming the planned level of your adventure.

Fine. But let's at least assume there's a mechanism in place for those levels to be gained, and if there isn't then build one. Even if we never functionally use it, at least it exists; and that's important. If a DM doesn't have an internal consistency within her game that runs far deeper than what the players ever see, it eventually shows through...and the players notice, to the detriment of the game.

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. The RAW doesn't say what you claim it says. The RAW differentiates between PC and NPC in significant ways. Changing my examples doesn't make you right. If you cannot defend your position without distorting the situation, that means your point is wrong.

All I'm claiming is that if the RAW differentiate between PCs and NPCs in the fundamental ways you note, then the problem lies in the RAW: they are wrong, and need to be changed.

XP - PC's and NPC's gain xp differently, in that NPC's only gain xp when on camera. Off camera, an NPC never gains xp, or you would have entire towns gaining levels after a tornado. People living in Kansas would all be seventh level by the time they were twenty years old.

So ignore the RAW. Off camera, an NPC does whatever it does, and if that leads to gaining some ExP, so be it.

Wealth - PC's have twice the wealth of an NPC. Why? Because PC's are better investors? Ballocks. It's because an NPC is meant to be a challenge against 4 PC's. To bring the classes up to speed against the party, classes need magical bling. Also note, monsters actually don't get as much treasure. A 7th level PC has 19k gp, a 7th level NPC has 8500 and a CR 7 monster has 2600 gp. Despite the fact that they should all be equal. A 7th level NPC fighter is a CR 7 encounter. Why does he have just about 4 times more bling than a Hill Giant?

Not sure where this is trying to go...there is no reason for them to be equal, but they should be random. One Hill Giant might have next to nothing, the next might have a sackful of gold...it all depends how good the raiding has been lately and whether their little pea-sized brains can recognize wealth for what it is. As for opponents, magic-ing up opponents to make them better challenges for the PCs only leads to the PCs wealth-by-level going out the window once they win some of those fights. Better perhaps just to give the opponents a few more raw levels (or funky abilities) to make up the difference, and ignore wealth-by-level completely.

Action Points. I brought this up before, and it was brushed off, but, other than very rare NPC's, only PC's gain action points. Why? Because it would be too complex to give action points to everyone. Pure gamism.

Action points don't exist in 3.x core, do they? In any case, they *are* purely gamist, and thus will never appear - for PCs or anyone else - in my games.

That's just a few examples of how the rules differentiate PC from NPC. Never mind the bag full of rules that make absolutely no sense from a world building perspective. Unless your world is full of extremely skinny insomniacs that is.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here...skinny insomniacs? (or are you mixing up the characters and players...skinny insomniac *players* are something I've encountered before...)

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe that Falling Damage does not represent the physics of the world but, instead, is the way the game handles adjudicating the consequences of falling for a PC. Under casual circumstance it could also be used for NPCs, since it allows for quick and easy adjudication, but I believe that this is not necessary. Since, IMO, the rules do NOT reflect the physics of the world, but are in place to provide a fun heroic fantasy game for the players, I think that it is much more appropriate to not use the rule and instead adjudicate the situation in a way that MORE CLOSELY REFLECTS the physics of the game world.

I think that this is pretty consistent with what I've been saying about how the mechanics can be separated from the ingame physics. So agreed!

 

[Hussar]

Answering things a bit backwards:

Not quite sure what you're getting at here...skinny insomniacs? (or are you mixing up the characters and players...skinny insomniac *players* are something I've encountered before...)

There are no mechanical penalties for not sleeping in 3.x. None. Nowhere does there appear any penalty. So, I can, by RAW, never sleep and never suffer any ill effects. The only people who actually DO have to rest are casters, and that's only if they need to get spells back.

By RAW, I only need to eat one meal every three days to stave off the effects of starvation.

Thus, I was making a bit of a joke about why using RAW to model reality doesn't really work. RAW allows me to be a very skinny insomniac. A poor joke perhaps, although it was funny when I first read it in OOTS in Dragon.

Lanefan - you are assuming that I'm out to change things. I'm not. I'm simply trying to debunk the idea that RAW can be used as a set of physics for the gaming world. Yes, I realize that you can continue to refine the rules, add more rules, whatnot to try to make a more consistant world. True. Harn makes the attempt quite nicely.

D&D doesn't. IIRC, there is a quote in the 1e books about anyone trying to use D&D to simulate reality is doomed to failure. While I frequently disagree with Mr. Gygax on a lot of things, this is one place where I do strongly agree.

So change the RAW until it *does* function as at least a modicum of a believable in-game physics model.

But, where do you stop? The amount of work you would need to do in order to even remotely simulate a real world is enormous. Vast swaths of the game exist for the sole purpose of letting us pretend to be elves, killing crap and taking their stuff. Large amounts of the game have nothing to do with trying to model reality.

For me, that's a good thing. I don't want a reality simulator because I recognize that that's virtually impossible for a game like D&D. Even Harn barely scratches the surface. GURPS doesn't even come close. Good grief, Civilization IV barely scratches the surface.

I don't want rules that let me make some sort of Sim Fantasy World. I want rules that tell me what happens when I stick a sword in something. Not in too much detail either, thanks.

 

[Celebrim]

Frankly, I find the proposal that an set of RPG rules could be used as a full description of a gameworld's in-game physics to be a little disconcerting.

To truly achieve this, the game system of any world where we assume that the protaganists are biological organisms with complexity remtely approaching that of a human being, where there is an ecosystem of sufficient diversity to provide an engaging variety of flora and fauna, and where at the very least the Newtonian laws of Physics apply, would require a game system so complex that it would comprise several hundred rulebooks and a supercomuter to calculate results in real time. And that's before we add any rules for magic/psionics/pokemon/whatever.

The thing you are overlooking is that the in game characters generally aren't complex biological organisms, the in game universe generally doesn't have complex ecosystems, and so forth.

Newtonian laws of physics apply, but only in the vague 'assume for these purposes that the arrow arced in a reasonable ballistic trajectory'.

"No playable system uses a full simulation of gameworld natural laws. What the do is present a simulation model."

No in game world is actually as complex as you are pretending. The in game world itself is actually a simulation model. Consider the case of a computer RPG like 'World of Warcraft'. Blood doesn't actually circulate in any of the creatures. We can make a pretence that it does, but the circulation of blood plays no real role in the physics of 'World of Warcraft'. Neither is there a complex ecosystem. Trees don't actually transpire, don't actually photosynthesize, and don't actually exchange carbon dioxcide for oxygen. In fact, oxygen doesn't actually exist, and most of the time no one is even making a pretence that any of these things are happening. No one is simulating any of this even in thier imaginations. The game universe is actually very simple. The rules are not an abstraction of the game universe, because the game universe is less concrete and real than even the rules. We pretend that the game universe is complex, but it really isn't. It is exactly what you'd expect to be the product of simulation model.

Some people are claiming, "Well, but offstage its more complex and real than on stage." Hogwash. Offstage, it is less complex and less real and less concretely imagined than one stage. That's one of the reasons why I suggest using the rules offstage. It encourages you to imagine that reality in more detail than merely handwaving away the game simulation.

For example, most of them do not do is simulate weather patterns, extinction of species, geographical formations, economic systems etc. Rules that do attempt to do this are usually either gross simplifications (e.g. random tables) or else so cumbersome that they are rarely invoked during a game session.

But that's the thing. Most games I've played in don't have weather patterns, extinction of the species, geographical formations, or economic systems. It's a rare DM that even imagines that his world has these things or thinks about it. Most game worlds I've been in don't have any weather to speak of, and the only time anyone even thinks about it is when the DM is using it as fluff to say, "There is trouble in the state of Denmark." or "This scene is going to be explicitly 'man vs. nature'. They certainly don't have geographical formations unless the DM is a geologist. (I'm a member of the NSS, so my games actually have caves, but I wouldn't claim that they have any other sort of geology.)

The only time I've been in games that have these things on any sort of a regular basis is with DMs that took the time and effort to create a simulation model of these things, because otherwise they simply would never be reminded that these things were going on. I take the trouble to roll up the weather every day, because I know if I didn't the game universe would never have any weather to speak of.

The point of contention here is that there appears to be an assumption in the D&D system that PCs will not suffer injuries such as sprains or broken bones. The hit point system lets PCs and NPCs alike function at full efficiency until their condition becomes life-threatening. Why was this assumption made? Presumably becasue although such outcomes of even minor injury are indeed possible, being forced to play the results of such is not widely considered as fun. (Yes, I know. Go figure!)

So the rules do not model broken bones or sprains, because the assumption is that such things will not be required to result from combat involving PCs.

No, PCs suffer injuries like sprains or broken bones. What do you think 'ability damage' is? In fact, 'sprain' is a result on my house rule fumble table, so my characters really do suffer these sorts of injuries. But in other game worlds, they really don't happen. Be honest. Whens the last time your BBEG entered combat with a sprained ankle or a strained muscle?

I appreciate you attempt to propose a house rule to allow the story to progress, but I find your house rule very vague and arbitrary. It is also unnecessary. I've previously provided a story that works very well under both the RAW and my own house rules explaining how the death of an important high level NPC was caused by a fall from his horse. (Relevent post here.) Moreover, my story makes a far better 'evil omen' story than the one you proposed IMNSHO. Again, sticking by the rules forced me to create something more interesting because I needed to provide more detail to explain the event. And, sticking by the rules made sure that the world was more emmersive and believable, because what happened offstage fit the players conceptions of what should happen based on thier on stage experiences. So, yes, in theory I could have broke the rules and probably got away with it, but by not being 'lazy' about the story I avoided pitfalls and still told the same story but IMNSHO told it better for my game world.

My final question is: does anyone prefer this houserule to just accepting that a DM can make judgement calls on situations not covered by the RAW?

Once again, we are confusing the situation. I've never once claimed that the DM can't make judgement calls on situations not covered by the RAW. I've even allowed that the DM can if he deems it necessary break the rules. But this is a situation covered by the rules as written, and he loses something and gains nothing by breaking the rules. Hense, he is best adviced to stick to the rules. It's not 'wrong' to not stick to the rules, but it is (at least in the cases thus far discussed) better to do so IMO.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't want rules that let me make some sort of Sim Fantasy World. I want rules that tell me what happens when I stick a sword in something. Not in too much detail either, thanks.

You are still making unnecessary assumptions. I don't think you necessarily need any more rules than that as long as all that happens in your game world is mostly sticking swords in things.

But let's consider the case of the rules on sleep deprivation and starvation. Suppose the PC's begin to start abusing the rules, not sleeping and not eating except the bare minimum required by the rules. What are you going to do as a DM?

a) You can start punishing the PCs anyway. If you do this, you are effectively changing the rules. If you want the game universe to be one where you can't be a healthy anarexic insomniac, that's the only real approach. You can do it with ad hoc rulings (though human nature being what it is, these will tend to become informally codified) or with an actual new written house rule. But either way is essentially 'a rule'. Now, the game universe actually works the way you always wanted it to work, but it in fact, according to the rules, didn't.
b) You can assume the universe does work like that. NPC's now follow the PC's lead and don't sleep or eat except as required by the rules. What you are essentially asserting now is that these rules are realistic for the universe being simulated. In the game universe, people don't really need to sleep or eat as often as they do here, and push comes to shove, they don't.
c) You can ignore the problem, pretend that the universe works like this one, even though the PCs are doing something flagrantly impossible in this universe. And if you do, you'll probably be a very unsatisfied DM, and the players will probably continue to feel like they are 'cheating' by taking advantage of a bad rule, and will be continually reminded that this is only a game. This is not the idea solution.

 

[Hussar]

Celebrim - I actually agree with this bit very much:

Once again, we are confusing the situation. I've never once claimed that the DM can't make judgement calls on situations not covered by the RAW. I've even allowed that the DM can if he deems it necessary break the rules. But this is a situation covered by the rules as written, and he loses something and gains nothing by breaking the rules. Hense, he is best adviced to stick to the rules. It's not 'wrong' to not stick to the rules, but it is (at least in the cases thus far discussed) better to do so IMO.

And I think I got stuck into an argument that actually wasn't being made.

As far as A, B, or C goes, I'd prolly have to go with A. But, that was my point all the way along.

I thought, and perhaps this was wrong, that KM was making a blanket statement that the rules of the game are the physics of the world. Always and forever. My point was that they couldn't be. They are simply too many holes and contradictions for that to be true.

Trying to plug those holes would be like sticking fingers in the dike. Eventually it's all going to come crashing down.

My sense of disbelief being pretty healthy, I'd much rather just not bother and realize that the rules work as an approximation of the action in the world and leave it at that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe that Falling Damage does not represent the physics of the world but, instead, is the way the game handles adjudicating the consequences of falling for a PC. Under casual circumstance it could also be used for NPCs, since it allows for quick and easy adjudication, but I believe that this is not necessary. Since, IMO, the rules do NOT reflect the physics of the world, but are in place to provide a fun heroic fantasy game for the players, I think that it is much more appropriate to not use the rule and instead adjudicate the situation in a way that MORE CLOSELY REFLECTS the physics of the game world.

I think that a player who thinks that this is impossible because his character has survived much more dangerous falls is kind of metagaming. The character was "lucky" (partially what hit points represent) and should think that he barely escaped with his life--not conclude that every hero of his skill (level) can leap from tall buildings.

I do believe you get it.

For me, the stronger implication, rather than physics, is that by having a rule, the game expects you to use it for all situations that rule covers, not just for the situations that the PC's are involved in. In my mind, this is out of DM/Player fairness and improves my immersion, both. This implies that the rules are the physics, because every time it happens, the rule comes into effect (unless the rule is changed). The kind of self-conscious metagame distinction between heroic PC's and heroic NPC's doesn't exist for me, and if I was forced to realize it, I wouldn't enjoy the game as much. Chalk it up to acting, knowing that even though I'm playing a role, the role doesn't know that.

For me, the "heroic luck" in the game world is vaguely quantifiable in-character. If you can cast fireball, chances are good that a lone goblin with a knife won't kill you. This is regardless of if you're a PC or NPC -- people who possess such skill are greater than most mortals, and they need similarly heroic enemies to challenge them, not goblins with knives. Such a character can be flippant and showcase bravado to the goblin with the knife, and still expect to come out ahead, secure in their arrogance, humiliating the creature with their heroic ability.

This creates a very satisfying, evocative implied setting for me. I'm pretty sure a D&D game wherein my character is just absurdly lucky wouldn't be to my tastes, but that's just my high demands for the game.

 

[AZRogue]

KM, I think we could play together without any problems. The scenarios we've all been discussing are pretty extreme and, in reality, we wouldn't run across them often. When push comes to shove, we would lean in different directions on the issue, but the likelyhood of it happening is remote.

Anyway, I'm glad that this thread is here. Some very interesting discussion.

 

[robertliguori]

Celebrim - I actually agree with this bit very much:



And I think I got stuck into an argument that actually wasn't being made.

As far as A, B, or C goes, I'd prolly have to go with A. But, that was my point all the way along.

I thought, and perhaps this was wrong, that KM was making a blanket statement that the rules of the game are the physics of the world. Always and forever. My point was that they couldn't be. They are simply too many holes and contradictions for that to be true.

Trying to plug those holes would be like sticking fingers in the dike. Eventually it's all going to come crashing down.

My sense of disbelief being pretty healthy, I'd much rather just not bother and realize that the rules work as an approximation of the action in the world and leave it at that.

What do you mean by contradictions? Does it interfere with your suspension of disbelief for a wizard to wiggle his fingers and then be able to fly, despite this not having an analogue in reality?

How about a gold dragon doing the same thing with its wings?

As a thought experiment, imagine that every single corner-case ruling was supported by fluff. Not with "This is why people don't need to eat but every three days.", but "People don't need to eat every three days." This is a world that, even in its mundane components, works differently than our world. There's no holes to be filled, no endless list of rationalizations; the world is just different. Why can dragons breed with everything? Well, we can posit strange things about dragon gametes and chromosomes, or we can say "The nature of this universe is such that sentient manifestations of planar energy can get it on and have babies. Obviously, genetics as we understand it does not apply to this universe."

Running a game like this requires a strong level of unconscious rules mastery. In our world, we have lifetimes worth of experience telling us that falling from horses is generally bad, and that people who claim to be able to strike us down with an unerring missile of magical energy can't back up their threats. If the D&D rules were meant to be a simulation of our world, then allowing for either always-nonlethal falls or magic missile would indicate that it is a bad simulation. Because of this, intuition and common sense are poor judges of how the rules system of D&D will behave.

Moreover, there is no guarantee that your players will share your assumptions about how the world should behave. If I imagine a level-20 fighter to be a (not-D&D-term-of-art) demigod akin to Hercules, who actually can transcend the limits of our universe just like the magic brigade, and another player imagines him to be just a man, then the problems of this thread arise. How are the players supposed to know what to expect to behave as akin to our world, and what not?

Now, if these expectations aren't a problem, because you don't mind telling your players "It's plot. It's not supposed to work like the rest of the world. Oh, yeah, none of your characters find it at all odd or incongruous.", this isn't a problem. However, if players value a consistent world over a dramatic story, and value their ability to interact with and shape the story through in-game world-supported action, you pretty much need new players.

 

[Lurker37]

Thanks for replying Celebrim. I'll admit that I'm trying to draw you and people like you out on this topic so I can better deal with players like you in the future. By responding in detail to the points I've made, you're helping to understand what you want from a game. I'm never going to agree - that's a matter of personal preference. But it will head off arguments and ill feeling if I can anticipate what such players want.

The thing you are overlooking is that the in game characters generally aren't complex biological organisms, the in game universe generally doesn't have complex ecosystems, and so forth.

Except when such things become plot relevant. When a PC is stabbed, they bleed. Ergo they have cardiovascular systems. A victim of a grisly murder could have their entrails strewn across the room. No player is going to stand up and declare that since there are no rules for digestion, characters in this gameworld don't have intestines. (Are they? )

And I seem to recall that there are indeed bleeding rules, which would be an attempt to model the effects of blood loss on significant characters - generally PCs. ( Monsters generally are assumed to die at zero. Let's face it, in 99% of cases no-one's going to stabilise them. ) So I'd actually argue that although there are no rules for blood circulation, the rules do point to circulation systems existing. And I point to that of an example of the game world being more complex than the rules would otherwise appear to imply.

The game universe is actually very simple. The rules are not an abstraction of the game universe, because the game universe is less concrete and real than even the rules. We pretend that the game universe is complex, but it really isn't. It is exactly what you'd expect to be the product of simulation model.

Taken to an extreme, that could be mistaken to imply that when a PC's blade cleaves a kobold in two, there should be no blood or guts. That all biological organisms are some sort of homogenous matter clad in skin, scales or fur. When a commoner loses an arm in a sawmill accident, they have a clean flat flesh-coloured stump with no bone, no muscle, and no bleeding. That if you walk too far from the village you're going to reach a flat expanse of nothingness where the published maps end and the DM hasn't made anything new. I know that's not what you're saying, but I'm using extreme examples to point out that every game assumes that the game world is at least a little more complex than what is explicitly spelled out in the rules. The only argument is about where you draw the line.

My position is that the rules do not model the gameworld. They present a model for the players to interact with the gameworld. There are no rules for many aspects of the gameworld because the model assumes that such things will not be plot relevant, and therefore makes no attempt to handle their impact on the PCs, or vice versa. If that assumption fails, then the DM has two options: fiat, or house-rule.

Some people are claiming, "Well, but offstage its more complex and real than on stage." Hogwash. Offstage, it is less complex and less real and less concretely imagined than one stage. That's one of the reasons why I suggest using the rules offstage. It encourages you to imagine that reality in more detail than merely handwaving away the game simulation.

Actually, offstage is where the model breaks down, IMO. When's the last time the DM ran three succssive NPC vs Monster battles because the players' party was the fourth group sent to deal with the ogre problem?

But that's the thing. Most games I've played in don't have weather patterns, extinction of the species, geographical formations, or economic systems. It's a rare DM that even imagines that his world has these things or thinks about it. Most game worlds I've been in don't have any weather to speak of, and the only time anyone even thinks about it is when the DM is using it as fluff to say, "There is trouble in the state of Denmark." or "This scene is going to be explicitly 'man vs. nature'. They certainly don't have geographical formations unless the DM is a geologist. (I'm a member of the NSS, so my games actually have caves, but I wouldn't claim that they have any other sort of geology.)

The only time I've been in games that have these things on any sort of a regular basis is with DMs that took the time and effort to create a simulation model of these things, because otherwise they simply would never be reminded that these things were going on. I take the trouble to roll up the weather every day, because I know if I didn't the game universe would never have any weather to speak of.

And here again this is a difference in our styles of play. In most games I've played in, the assumption is that these things indeed do exist, but are either static enough that there is no need to describe how they change, or so complex that no rules could model them to the DM or player's satisfaction. Taking the example of weather, most DMs I've played with at least take the time of year in-game into account when describing the weather, but do not roll on charts. And weather is rarely described in more then a terse fashion (cool, and overcast) unless something is happening that would give it plot significance. EG, the players are trying to evacuate the villagers to the other side of the river before the rain starts and the river floods.

No, PCs suffer injuries like sprains or broken bones. What do you think 'ability damage' is? In fact, 'sprain' is a result on my house rule fumble table, so my characters really do suffer these sorts of injuries. But in other game worlds, they really don't happen. Be honest. Whens the last time your BBEG entered combat with a sprained ankle or a strained muscle?

Good for you on the house rule! I approve! Unfortunately my experience is that ability damage is far more often the result of disease or poison, neither of which lend themselves to a description of 'sprain', so I never made that leap of intuition. *yoinks house rule*

I appreciate you attempt to propose a house rule to allow the story to progress, but I find your house rule very vague and arbitrary. It is also unnecessary. I've previously provided a story that works very well under both the RAW and my own house rules explaining how the death of an important high level NPC was caused by a fall from his horse. (Relevent post here.) Moreover, my story makes a far better 'evil omen' story than the one you proposed IMNSHO. Again, sticking by the rules forced me to create something more interesting because I needed to provide more detail to explain the event. And, sticking by the rules made sure that the world was more emmersive and believable, because what happened offstage fit the players conceptions of what should happen based on thier on stage experiences. So, yes, in theory I could have broke the rules and probably got away with it, but by not being 'lazy' about the story I avoided pitfalls and still told the same story but IMNSHO told it better for my game world.

Yes, but your post requires a ravine. I deliberately presented a case where the local geography was well known, and no such ravine existed. I live in an area where we tend to have gentle hills rather than steep slopes and ravines, and I think that may be why most of our homebrewed geography tends to also omit them. Sadly, I think most players I know would have more problem with the sudden appearance of a deep and dangerous ravine than with the original death from the short fall!

Once again, we are confusing the situation. I've never once claimed that the DM can't make judgement calls on situations not covered by the RAW. I've even allowed that the DM can if he deems it necessary break the rules. But this is a situation covered by the rules as written, and he loses something and gains nothing by breaking the rules. Hense, he is best adviced to stick to the rules. It's not 'wrong' to not stick to the rules, but it is (at least in the cases thus far discussed) better to do so IMO.

I think I'm beginning to understand now. In your view of the game, game systems such as hitpoints and dice of damage are absolutes, and the gameworld conforms to them no matter how many minor incongruities that introduces. I'm struggling with this concept because every game I've played in the GM and players have either all assumed that the gameworld defaults to the real world, and the rules are an attempt to simplify that world for play, or a situation of this type has never arisen to reveal which opinion people at the table hold.

It's also clear that someone who holds the one opinion is unlikely to be persuaded to the other.

So I have two final questions:

1) Has anyone ever played with a group where the difference in opinion on gamerules as gameworld physics became an issue, and how was this handled?

2) Who be able to enjoy a game where the DM held the opposite opinion, and what, if anything, would facilitate this? (e.g. announcement at the start of the game which philosophy was being followed)