Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[I'm A Banana]

3e has lots of different rules for NPCs - NPC class, different wealth by level guidelines, nonelite and standard arrays.

So its rules don't present a consistent world.

In that instance, you have a distinction between the 'heroic' and the 'nonheroic,' which is entirely following the model of heroic fantasy. Where the rules were too complex to be efficient or created unsatisfactory results (NPC wealth, for instance) were perfect places for house rules and, ultimately, 4th edition to fix.

Likewise it often lacks rules for off screen action. One example is the way skum are created from human stock. This is stated in the fluff but there are no rules for it. Aboleths have no relevant powers or SLAs to accomplish the transformation.

Again, this is why the DM's ability to make rules and judgements is an important one.

 

[Professor Phobos]

A question for the narrativists in the crowd: How do you communicate and manage expectations of what could happen in-world?
.

I ask.

The issue is this: ought the character build mechanics and/or action resolution mechanics be regarded as the total account of how people and their endeavours unfold in the gameworld? or ought they to be regarded as purely metagame conveniences for resolving a subset of the gameworld (namely, the PCs and their adventures) that is of particular interest to those at the gaming table?

An excellent summary of the issue.

 

[Wolfwood2]

The difference is that the dragon has to whittle away the fighters HP, while the fall from the horse is a save or die at best, a automatic death at worst.
So indeed the horse poses the much greater threat to the fighter than the dragon.

I just had to respond to this one.

The same principle that allows a 20th level NPC off-screen to fall from a horse and break his neck logically also allows a dragon to kill him with a single bite, without whittling away at his hitpoints. It also allows him to die from an arrow through the eye fired by a Commoner 1. It also allows him to die by having a heart attack or choking on a fish bone. (Though certainly his 20th level cleric friend could bring him back.)

Conversely, a dragon might die from a single arrow fired through a gap in its scales.

Basically, adventuring- heck, being alive is always a dangerous business. Falling from a horse is an example, not the only point where the rules and the world don't agree.

Now I agree that in many ways, it is hard to make the 3.5 hitpoint model work for this. It strides an uncomfortable divide between hitpoints as physical ability to absorb damage and narrative protection. Again, there's a reason this is posted in the 4E forum. From everything we've heard, 4E will do a much better job of presenting hitpoints as narrative protection and determination/luck/skill rather than as physical damage.

Otherwise warlords wouldn't be able to heal people by giving them pep talks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The same principle that allows a 20th level NPC off-screen to fall from a horse and break his neck logically also allows a dragon to kill him with a single bite, without whittling away at his hitpoints. It also allows him to die from an arrow through the eye fired by a Commoner 1. It also allows him to die by having a heart attack or choking on a fish bone. (Though certainly his 20th level cleric friend could bring him back.)

And all of these strike me as the DM basically ignoring the rules, and thus don't create a rewarding game for me.

Basically, adventuring- heck, being alive is always a dangerous business. Falling from a horse is an example, not the only point where the rules and the world don't agree.

In a game of heroic adventure, "being alive" isn't dangerous business for the heroes. It is for the commoners. It would violate D&D's assumed genre to kill Superman in a car accident.

If you want to make heroes a bit less invulnerable, there's a lot of cool ways to do that by the book, that would allow for 20th level fighters dying from falling off a horse, things that make the PC's more like Batman than like Superman, but it hurts my sense of verisimilitude when hit points get 'turned off' when the spotlight isn't on them.

Now I agree that in many ways, it is hard to make the 3.5 hitpoint model work for this. It strides an uncomfortable divide between hitpoints as physical ability to absorb damage and narrative protection. Again, there's a reason this is posted in the 4E forum. From everything we've heard, 4E will do a much better job of presenting hitpoints as narrative protection and determination/luck/skill rather than as physical damage.

Otherwise warlords wouldn't be able to heal people by giving them pep talks.

I think 4e will expressly state that hit points are luck, skill, endurance, and sheer cussedness. I don't think they'll mention narrative protection at all, because they still won't go away when a PC isn't the narrative focus, because the 4e designers realize that not everyone enjoys this style of play.

I think in 4e, I will still have trouble believing that a 20th level warlord can fall from a horse and die without resorting to DM fiat that, for me, goes too far.

I do think in 4e, I will be able to rationalize how a pep talk or a second wind can restore your ability to fight on. That doesn't mean that this idea of "rules are only there when the PC's are there" is in full force, but it probably means that the concept is given more attention than it was in 3e, which is a good thing by all counts.

 

[IanB]

I think in 4e, I will still have trouble believing that a 20th level warlord can fall from a horse and die without resorting to DM fiat that, for me, goes too far.

Are all accidental deaths outside the realm of possibility, or is it just the ones for which we have abstract rules systems already?

Could he die from a heart attack or stroke? Could he choke to death on a fig? Surely he could drown, we have rules for that. Old age? Autoerotic asphyxiation?

And if he can die in all these ways in an acceptably simulationist way, but can't die from a fall because the falling rules won't allow it, how can we not just draw the conclusion that the falling rules suck?

 

[Primal]

Not that I care one way or the other about this, but you should keep in mind that 40 d20 rolls per player per session is not unreasonable. With 5 players making 40 rolls each, it means that a "very bad thing" happens once every second session to at least someone in the party.

This is WAY too often for my liking.

Um, I *did* note that this is not inherently "a bad that happens to the PCs" such as "instant-fumble-that-kills-your-PC" -- I noted that it's rather a 'Story Event' in most cases. Sometimes, yes, it might signify a terrible Fumble (such as hitting an ally) but most often it's not -- compare it to Ars Magica's Story Events that in my experience usually also happen at least once per session (or even more often if you spend multiple Seasons). Actually the correct term might be 'Complication'. How many times your PCs roll a Crit per session? It happens as often (in theory) as an "Insta Kill" (the optional rule: Double 20s and confirmation to kill anything with a single blow -- this has been used in every group I have gamed with).

 

[Mirtek]

From everything we've heard, 4E will do a much better job of presenting hitpoints as narrative protection and determination/luck/skill rather than as physical damage.

Unless 4e will make clear distinctions between being hit by a sword (or rather avoiding being hit by a sword because of hp) and being immersed in lava that won't work any better than before.

 

[Primal]

Though most of the people who argue against Phobos would probably not like the narrativist aspects of Indie games. They have generally said they dislike the meta-gaming element that pretty much is required to exist in those type of games.

So unfortunately this is not a solution to this potential disagreement (i say unfortunately not because of judgement of what type of game over another but of trying to resolve an issue)

Hmmm... and D&D does not have any meta-gaming elements? In many Indie RPGs you, as a player, at least have a "legit" way (i.e. "sanctioned by the rules") to always "interfere" with what happens in the story -- whether by a conflict or negotiation. So if the GM declares something, you're entitled to challenge that if you deem it unfair, or not fitting your idea of how the story should proceed or if you think it is important from your character's perspective.

 

[Toras]

Professor Phobos, I understand much of where you are coming from and I can appreciate it. But I can certainly understand where KM is coming from with a great deal of his complaints. I have fallen upon narrative convenience when I've run, but even then a level of reasonability or explantion is required.

Yes the rules can be considered a meta-game construct for interaction, rather than a model but it would require so little to simply make a note of that sort of contrivance.

House 1: Phobos's Law
-Your personal power represented the extent to which Fate has invested itself within you. Thus once you have completed what Fate requires of you, it will dwindle to whatever Fate decrees.

In this case, you have an in-game force that explains this drastic imbalance and might lead to more interesting stories as former adventures seek to reclaim what the Fates have robbed them of, or Villians seeking to alter the Loom of Fate and rob our heroes of their powers.

That took me two minutes, and in my opinion it makes a difference. Some characters and players might take umbrage with the Fates or Fate (as a disembodied force) having that much control over their character. I suspect KM is one that might, but is this not better than simply saying Cause?

 

[apoptosis]

Hmmm... and D&D does not have any meta-gaming elements? In many Indie RPGs you, as a player, at least have a "legit" way (i.e. "sanctioned by the rules") to always "interfere" with what happens in the story -- whether by a conflict or negotiation. So if the GM declares something, you're entitled to challenge that if you deem it unfair, or not fitting your idea of how the story should proceed or if you think it is important from your character's perspective.

No it does, I probably could've clarified but the people who are arguing for issues that break their immersion will not like the type of narrativist rules that they Indie games have done so well.

KM has stated that he does not like rules that will reduce his immersive experience ( a completely valid opinion to have) and these meta-gamist elements of indie games can do that for some people.

Adam