Celebrim
Legend
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?
I can't recall ever arguing over rules as physics explicitly. But I can remember seeing innumerable argements over physics as rules where the player and DM were arguing over what should the resolution be based on differing notions of what is 'realistic'. I think I can imagine the reverse, a DM arguing for physics as rules in a way that impacts the PC (say having an NPC that the PC is invested in die from falling off a horse, D&D as 'Gone with the Wind'), and having the player respond negatively from a rules as physics stance that what the DM narrated was impossible because the character had 7 hit points (or something of that sort). But I cant' ever recall seeing the reverse.
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)
I'm perfectly content to play at a table where the DM holds a contrary opinion. I was talking about the art of DMing, not the art of being a good player. I would think though that if it ever came up, that it would break versimiltude for me. I would hold my tongue about it, but depending on how the DM had his version of 'realism' trump the rules I'd feel he made a mistake. I'd also have a small peice of me wondering whether in the future, this would be a trend and 'realism' would trump rules next time I offered a proposition.