Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Irda Ranger]

I do not consider it lazy or devoid of imagination to assume that things the rules directly imply cannot happen in the game world, however, cannot happen.

I'm not sure it's lazy to assume this, but it is devoid of imagination. Rule 0 comes before all the other rules for a reason. The DM is expected to use his god-given natural intellect to recognize when the rules (which are a short-hand, abstract resolution mechanism) do not produce a sensible outcome within the game's internal narrative/context.

 

[IanB]

I don't think he literally meant physics, as in what you learned in physics class, and I feel like I see a lot of people making that assumption in the threads on this topic.

When he says "physics of the game world" I think he is talking about how things work in the game world in a more metagame-y sort of sense: the idea that the characteristics, society and behavior of NPCs in the game world is actually determined by the ruleset, instead of using the ruleset to represent the game world.

 

[Roger]

"It is fundamentally impossible for the rules of any RPG to accurately and completely model the physics of the game world, and thus any rule set will always be a rough simulation. You're just fooling yourself if you think they do."

I'd suggest that the authors of Neverwinter Nights would disagree.


Cheers,
Roger

 

[Professor Phobos]

I'm not sure it's lazy to assume this, but it is devoid of imagination. Rule 0 comes before all the other rules for a reason. The DM is expected to use his god-given natural intellect to recognize when the rules (which are a short-hand, abstract resolution mechanism) do not produce a sensible outcome within the game's internal narrative/context.

Not only that, but the god-given intellect of the GM allows him to recognize when the provisionally applied abstraction of the rules does not produce an enjoyable outcome within the metagame context.

For example, a thousand climb checks just to get to the top of a mountain, instead of just one damn climb check for the whole bloody thing...

 

[Wolfwood2]

I'd suggest that the authors of Neverwinter Nights would disagree.

What do you call everything that happens during cutscenes if not fluff over rules?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I consider it lazy and devoid of imagination to assume that there must be a rule covering everything that could possibly happen in the game world.

That's fine. I'd say it's foolish, myself, but the point is that neither of us want such a thing.

Something are not worth including in the simulation provided by the rules, because it is not desirable for them to happen by random chance. Some things are not worth including in the rules because they are so rare and freakish that it's simply not worth the time to model them and they'll only happen if the DM wants them to happen.

In both cases, such things happening in the game reek strongly of DM Fiat. And if there's no way the PC's can interact with such a thing (using the rules), then it really is largley equivalent in feeling to saying "Rocks fall, everyone dies." The DM just took a big ol' broom and swept away any feeling like I, as a player, have any true influence over the world. After all, if the DM decides, I could just fall off a horse and die. So if it's all in the DM's hand, why bother having rules at all? Why bother having a game? The DM can just sit and tell us his story, because he gets to dictate what happens without rules anyway.

I mean, that's hyperbolic, but it's the feeling I get when the DM breaks with the rules of the game so dramatically just to justify some sort of narratrive contrivance that, 9 times out of 10, a little imagination could have worked within the bounds of the rules to create something the players COULD interact with, and thus could have added to the game, rather than made me feel like I was just along for the DM's ride.

Nobody wants to roll a 1-in-a-million chance for a high level fighter to fall off a horse and break their neck whenever they go for a ride. It's a waste of time, and not desirable as a random outcome anyway. That does not mean that it's impossible for a high level fighter to fall off a horse and break their neck, entirely bypassing the hitpoint simulation.

Sure it does. I don't know of once in all the tales of epic heroes where someone fell off their horse and died. That's not heroic fantasy at all. That's the cold, hard, jagged stone of unnecessary realism cutting to ribbons my little fantasy world where heroes make flying leaps from falling dragons and land on the backs of their trusty steeds.

A one-in-a-million chance doesn't, effectively, from the POV of the table, ever, really, truly exist. And if the DM calls it in, it blows my suspension of disbelief right out of the water, because no longer does my character adhere to the heroic archetype I thought she was. Now, she's as vulnerable as a peasant just, out of the kindness of the DM's heart, lucky.

That's immensely unsatisfying for me.

 

[hobgoblin]

can someone say bastardized rpg theory?

 

[pawsplay]

I agree with the central premise of the original post (game rules are not physics) but disagree with the conclusions made by the OP. To me, rules are designed to drive the game. Thus, if you want an appreantice summoning an efreet, some construct should be in place for that. Handwavium is ok, but that should be set forth in the governing rules of the game. For the most part, i prefer a simple, generally useful rule to handwaving, even if I have to adjudicate special cases of the rule from time to time.

 

[Professor Phobos]

I mean, that's hyperbolic, but it's the feeling I get when the DM breaks with the rules of the game so dramatically just to justify some sort of narratrive contrivance that, 9 times out of 10, a little imagination could have worked within the bounds of the rules to create something the players COULD interact with, and thus could have added to the game, rather than made me feel like I was just along for the DM's ride.

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.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I dunno, I don't think it's too much to ask that all the players (including the DM) follow the rules of the game. And I think those specific examples above would shatter my suspension of disbelief about my character and the game world, and make me feel like I was just along for the DM's ride.

That's what happens when the DM violates the trust of the players: it no longer feels like a collaborative game, and it instead feels like the DM's story that the players are just along for the ride for. People will have different breaking points for that. Mine comes at about the point that the DM is killing high-level knights with accidental falls from horses. It jerks me out of heroic fantasy very roughly, and I become very suspicious of such blatant manipulation of the world.

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.

In an ideal situation, sure. But DMs are not infalliable, and a DM who would pull almost any of the tricks mentioned in the OP would be ruining my fun right quick, and obviously not taking into consideration the fact that some people's fun comes from playing a game, not watching the DM describe events that are out of my control, as a player.

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.

The examples in the OP don't make the game any more fun for me, though. So if you were to do those, you'd be failling your job as a DM, because it wouldn't be fun for me.

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.

The rules are the shared common ground of the game. If you're not going to use them, I'm not sure I should, either, as a player. Perhaps I should just choose the outcome that I think is the most adventurous. There are many systems that agree with this sentiment. D&D is not one of them.