Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Celebrim]

Celebrim, just out of interest, are you the same Celebrim who used to post on Strategy Page fora?

Yes, this is the one-and-only-original-still-going-after-20-years Celebrim and not a cheap trollish knock off.

Time was that whenever you saw a Celebrim, it was certainly me. Then some guy from Portugal got in on the act about eight years ago, and a few other people started using it, and now it seems like half the time I try to create an account somewhere the name is already taken.

But if it looks like me and it sounds like me, then chances are it is me.

 

[JohnSnow]

Actually, this is slightly disengenuous. If you want a high-level NPC to be able to die from falling off a horse, you, as a DM, need to justify that. There are pretty much unlimited justifications for it, including making a rule, but also including making them suffer a warlock's curse or have them fall off a horse, and then off a cliff, or just making them a 1st level Aristocrat since they don't really need to be a high-level fighter anyway, or having them die by being pulled off their horse on a hunting expedition by the terrasque, or just by having them disappear mysteriously into the forest for unknown reasons.

In other words, you have to figure out exactly what you want to accomplish, and use the quickest, easiest path to get there, and not be too married to your idea of falling off a horse and dying.

Or, if you want horses to be threatening, make rules for that.

But don't tell me that my character can stand tall against a dragon's most powerful flame, but dies the moment it's convenient and he's not exciting anymore. That blows my believability away.

Again. We're not talking about your character, or anyone's character. We're talking about a NPC that the DM created for a plot. This ruling doesn't affect players. It will NEVER affect players.

As a DM, I refuse to jump through the hoops of the game rules to kill off an NPC for a plot point. And if my players start making whacko assumptions about curses and monsters being involved just because my backstory says the NPC killed a great wyrm 30 (or 40) years ago, I'm going to smack them.

Though Batman isn't really heroic fantasy the way that Superman is (Batman is still a normal person in a realistic world, -ish, especially in his darker conceptions), I still don't know of any instance where Batman dies by slipping on a wet floor after getting out of the shower (the 20th century equivalent to falling off a horse?), or by getting intestinal cancer.

Okay. But Batman hasn't died because, basically, killing Batman would mean you couldn't make any more Batman comics. Would you accept a few examples from the folks over at Marvel, who seem more willing to shake up the status quo?

Captain Marvel (the Kree Mar-Vell), a character closer to Superman's class than Batman's, died from cancer, while surrounded by his friends and family.

Captain America was killed while being escorted into a jailhouse. He took, I believe, two bullets.

Tony "Iron Man" Stark was paralyzed by a disgruntled ex-girlfriend wielding an automatic pistol. I admit he didn't "die."

And, moving back to Batman comics, Barbara "Batgirl" Gordon was permanently paralyzed by a ONE bullet from the Joker's gun. One bullet. Granted, it's not "dead," but it's a pretty ignominious injury for a hero who's been shot at 100 times.

For the record, I've learned something from this thread. Clearly, it's very important that Group A people and Group B people never game together. Fortunately, all the people I know and am likely to game with are Group A, like me.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't want to play in a "D&D Rules are Laws of Physics" universe. That would be an incredibly dumb world of completely ridiculous events and facts of life. As a player, I want to play in a world that's more complicated than a simple, abstracted rules system allows- because I want good stories, a good world, as much as I want a good game. I don't want to play in a world with no maimed veterans or accidental deaths. That kind of world is extremely dull and unbelievable. It lacks complexity, depth, nuance, verisimilitude...

...In the game I'm currently playing, there were some skeletons. These skeletons could never possibly defeat us or cost us any meaningful resources. But we still had to smash them, because the DM couldn't bring himself to just say, "Okay, you smash them." I advocated for it- I said, "This has no bearing on the story and we can't possibly lose. Let's just skip it. I have to leave early tonight and I want to kill something that gets me XP before I leave." But alas...

(emphasis mine)

I can't help but feeling that the contrast between the first and second paragrah create loads and loads of irony. It seems to me that a strict reading of what you wrote suggests that you feel more obligated to your time than you do to complex, deep, nuanced and believable story. Maybe that's not what you meant, but its how I read what you said.

'Something that gets me XP before I leave'??? Hows that for the rules of the game world not creating the story???

 

[I'm A Banana]

Again. We're not talking about your character, or anyone's character. We're talking about a NPC that the DM created for a plot. This ruling doesn't affect players. It will NEVER affect players.

That distinction doesn't exist in the game world, though. As far as my character is concerned, that could be/would be/should be my character. It might as well be my character. My character is thus just as vulnerable as that. Which means that this 20th level hero actually isn't better than your average person. Which takes a hammer to my suspension of disbelief, because average people cannot do what a 20th level hero can do.

As a DM, I refuse to jump through the hoops of the game rules to kill off an NPC for a plot point. And if my players start making whacko assumptions about curses and monsters being involved just because my backstory says the NPC killed a great wyrm 30 (or 40) years ago, I'm going to smack them.

And as a DM, I refuse to cheat just to get a narrative contrivance out of something that is, just a game. And if a player expects me to make things easier on them because they think it'll make a better story, I'll laugh and say "Go write it then."

And as a player, I won't trust a DM who cheats just to get a narrative contrivance out of a game. Because for me, that goes against exactly what is fun in D&D for me -- playing a game.

Really, this whole track started because apparently the fact that I won't do that shocks and horrifies Professor Phobos.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think this is just an issue of difference of opinion at this point. We've essentially got two groups, or maybe 3. I'll call them A and B, with a nod to the possibility of a third.

Group A includes Wolfwood2 (the OP), Professor Phobos, Mallus, Hussar, myself, and several others. We hold that the game rules are just a useful abstraction for game purposes, and that they do NOT represent what is possible and impossible in the game world. What they DO represent is what is likely and unlikely when PCs are interacting with the game world.

Group B holds that the rules of the game define the physics of the game world. That group includes (near as I can tell) robertliguori, Kamikaze Midget, Imban, KarinsDad and (I'm sure) others. The way I understand it, Group B believes that the physics of the gameworld are determined by the rules, and that nothing should happen in the entire game world that contravenes those rules. All "exceptions" should be explained in the context of the existing game rules or (and this is the fuzzy case for me), the DM should write a new rule that applies universally to account for any changes he wants to make.

I consider myself in Group C. Leaning towards Group B, but not stifled to never allow fiat. It should be allowed in moderation. But for the most part, the rules are the rules and should be played that way.

Adding new rules once in a while to cover an uncovered situation or possibility is fine.

Changing the rules because the DM wants a different outcome (regardless of "fun" or "story" motivation) is lame. To me, that's "DM cheating" and it is not why I as a player play the game.

And "DM cheating" can go beyond just the rules. Changing the situation ad hoc is lame too.

DM: "I want my BBEG to get away, so I suddenly give him a Scroll of Teleport". Lame.

or

DM: "I want the PC to survive, so I suddenly have him take 12 points of damage instead of 23". Lame.

And as a DM, I refuse to cheat just to get a narrative contrivance out of something that is, just a game. And if a player expects me to make things easier on them because they think it'll make a better story, I'll laugh and say "Go write it then."

And as a player, I won't trust a DM who cheats just to get a narrative contrivance out of a game. Because for me, that goes against exactly what is fun in D&D for me -- playing a game.

Yup, more or less.

 

[JohnSnow]

And as a DM, I refuse to cheat just to get a narrative contrivance out of something that is, just a game. And if a player expects me to make things easier on them because they think it'll make a better story, I'll laugh and say "Go write it then."

And as a player, I won't trust a DM who cheats just to get a narrative contrivance out of a game. Because for me, that goes against exactly what is fun in D&D for me -- playing a game.

Really, this whole track started because apparently the fact that I won't do that shocks and horrifies Professor Phobos.

Emphasis mine.

This whole track started because of the loaded language you use to describe a different playstyle from your own. Nobody's calling you names because you insist on adhering to the game rules in contravention of all common sense.

Yet you insist on calling DMs "cheaters" who assert that the game rules are an abstraction to enable play and conflict resolution. That may not be your interpretation of the purpose of the rules, but it's a perfectly valid interpretation.

You're certainly entitled to your own interpretation, but it's insulting and rather disingenuous to accuse people of cheating because they decide the game rules only apply when the game is being played, which means "when PCs are involved."

Your real objection is that it interferes with your "suspension of disbelief." And that's a wholly subjective criteria.

 

[howandwhy99]

I agree with the OP, but I think d20 has folks thinkings backwards. It's just like choosing your class abilities first and then deciding on your character design/description second. Sometimes description is so ignored, characters can hardly be called that. What it does is focus on the rules rather than the imagination.

D&D has never been anything more than a beer & pretzels fantasy adventure game IMO. That means it has some light simulation like any wargame, but it doesn't get too deep. It's not ASL for goodness sake. We don't need dozens of books to play. Everything else is just gravy.

But what's going on is: instead of having a ruleset expand as needed based upon character play, we get restricted imagination blindspotting itself to anything not covered by the rules. In an open ended universe, I don't believe rulesets can ever be complete without resorting to unsatisfying coin flip like mechanics.

So, I guess I'm trying to say, it's not about the rules being the physics of the world, those are being simulated too when necessary, but that the rules are dictated by the imagined world, not vice versa. I'm glad they're getting rid of some of the pseudo-physics in the game. Who comes to this game to endlessly compute?

 

[Celebrim]

But what's going on is: instead of having a ruleset expand as needed based upon character play, we get restricted imagination blindspotting itself to anything not covered by the rules.

I tend to agree with your point, but think that it works the other way as well to an extent you aren't really considering. It is certainly true that a ruleset tends to restrict the imagination, to the extent that the players become blind to anything not covered by the rules. And it is certainly true that you should struggle to avoid that because adherence to the rules themselves isn't the most important thing.

But the fact is that it tends to happen that way because rules are also empowering and imagination inspiring. If you have players that know the rules system, and know that the rules system doesn't cover grappling (or covers it in a way that discourages you from doing it), then you will tend not to have any grappling because the players won't offer that as a proposition. It doesn't matter how open the DM is to the prospect of players doing something not covered by the rules, if the players never offer up the proposition then it never becomes a part of the story. Effectively, the lack of detailed (or sufficient) rules has wrote the event write out of possibility. I know this from experience. In 1st edition there was a grappling system. It's just that none of the (quite experienced) players really knew it. It wasn't until NPC's started using it that players realized that I would accept 'I grapple X' as a valid proposition or even considered that 'I grapple X' was something that could happen. In fact, it wasn't even the first time that the NPC's did that the idea 'clicked', because the first couple of times the players just assumed that whatever was happening only applied to NPC's.

I'd go further. If some sort of grappling system hadn't existed, it might have been a very long time before I thought of it as a valid proposition that NPC's could do. And even when I did think of it, it might be quite a long time before I realized that it wasn't something special to a particular NPC or class of NPC's - something that they did with special rules that only applied to them - rather than something that applied, generally, universally, 'scientifically' if you will, to the whole game universe.

To this extent, even bad rules for something are better than no rules at all - especially if no one at the table is gifted as a rulesmith. (And I tend to think that gifted 'pull rules out of the air' rulesmiths are pretty rare.)

I personally feel that everything that you want to happen in a game world needs some sort of rules set, otherwise the tendency is for it not happen. For example, I think that in fantasy worlds, young apprentices ought to be able to attempt to cast spells well beyond thier ability - and often then have 'bad things' (tm) happen. It's a staple of fantasy literature. But if the rules say you can't, or are silent on the matter, then it just won't happen. You'll be completely blind to the possibility in the game. When is the last time your 3rd level wizard tried to cast a 5th level spell, and what's the likelihood that - outside of this current context where I'm bring it up - that anything interesting one way or the other would have happened even if some new player 'that didn't know any better' made the proposition?

 

[Celebrim]

For the record, I've learned something from this thread. Clearly, it's very important that Group A people and Group B people never game together. Fortunately, all the people I know and am likely to game with are Group A, like me.

From my experience, 'Group A' and 'Group B' is not a useful distinction. In practice, the two groups can be and often are behaving in exactly the same way. The distinction tends to actually be most important in fact only in theoretical discussions.

That's because even if you hold 'A' as your nominal position, and I would say that I do, in practice you end up holding 'B' as your actual position as often as not. Because in practice, you are reutinely turning to the rules to resolve the question of cause and effect. You only continue to hold 'A' as a strict position if you have no rules at all, and that turns out not to work either because its easier for the referee to resolve propositions according to the same ad hoc standards he used last time - at which point they stop being ad hoc.

Likewise, if you are nominally 'Group B', but you ever feel the need for some new rule on the spur of the moment because the rules are silent on the matter and you don't have the inclination to resolve the situation by fiat (almost by definition this is true) then in practice you are acting just like a 'Group A' person.

Beyond that, mainly the difference is pure 'tribalism', whether you call it 'group a' or 'group b' or 'gamist' vs. 'simulationist'. In point of fact, the two theoretical positions can't and don't play out 'pure' when actually applied.

 

[Professor Phobos]

(emphasis mine)

I can't help but feeling that the contrast between the first and second paragrah create loads and loads of irony. It seems to me that a strict reading of what you wrote suggests that you feel more obligated to your time than you do to complex, deep, nuanced and believable story. Maybe that's not what you meant, but its how I read what you said.

'Something that gets me XP before I leave'??? Hows that for the rules of the game world not creating the story???

What? I was just being irreverent, because being Somber and Serious in examples is boring. Besides, in actual play there are a whole host of issues beyond my theoretical gaming preferences- as much as I love a good story, I love to kill things and take their stuff as well. I have varied tastes. I am large, I contain multitudes.

But, yes, I am much, much more obligated to my time than to the story. It's a leisure activity. Everything else takes precedence over it. Period. But when I have the time to devote to this leisure activity, I want to devote a good portion of that time to story.

This whole track started because of the loaded language you use to describe a different playstyle from your own. Nobody's calling you names because you insist on adhering to the game rules in contravention of all common sense.

To be fair, I was also rude.

That distinction doesn't exist in the game world, though. As far as my character is concerned, that could be/would be/should be my character.

Yeah, but you are a player. You are not your character. Surely you can keep the two distinct?

Again, Batman acts as if his neck can be broken. But we all know his neck will never break falling off a horse. But Batman doesn't know that. And we expect Batman not to act as if he knows. With the exception of She-Hulk, Deadpool, the Discworld, Jack Slater and Ambush Bug, we don't expect fictional characters to recognize that they're fictional and act accordingly.

Basically, I cannot understand the idea behind building a car but never driving it. If the only interaction you want out of a given session is through the mechanics, why not just play a CRPG or a MMO or a miniatures game? Why have a roleplaying game without the roleplaying?

Ah, you say, that's an unfair question! It's no less fair than asking, "If you want story so bad, go read a novel!"

RPGs have the unique distinction of serving multiple purposes. It's a hybrid sort of leisure activity. There is storytelling, there is world-building and there is straight-up gaming. RPGs are a mixture of the three.