Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Professor Phobos]

In the game world, I (as my character) learn that a man who has actually taken on DRAGONs single-handedly, traveled to other planes of existence, brokered deals between other-worldly ambassadors, all without breaking a sweat, breaks his neck falling off his horse on a casual afternoon ride... I'm never riding a horse again. They are far too dangerous. There is a reason to fear them. To say "ho hum. sh%% happens" in character breaks all semblance of verisimilitude. This is the point. "sh%%" like this does NOT happen to people who kill dragons for a living. At least not in any game that I would ever want to be a part of.

That'd be a fun character concept, now that I think about it. Playing a mighty warrior, slayer of beasts, hunter of dragons...who happens to be deathly afraid of horses.

"But why, Torkol, destroyer of men, savior of the Elves, eater of hearts, are you afraid of that pony?"

"Horses killed mah grandfather!"

 

[Thaniel]

This makes no sense to me.

Suppose you learned, instead, that the person had been killed by a kobold. This is actually possible (if extremely unlikely) under the D&D action resolution rules (the NPC rolls all 1s, the Kobold all 20s including confirmed crits). Does that mean your character would be more afraid of kobolds than dragons? Or just infer that the person had an unlucky day?

Presumably the latter. Why should it be any different for the horse?

After all, people in the real world who fight fires for a living, or fight wars for a living, can still be killed in casual riding accidents. Great physical prowess does not entail invulnerability.

Once again, firefighters are NOT level 20. They are most likely level 2. Maybe 3. Putting out fires is NOT equivalent to wrestling dragons. Level 2 or 3 people can and do die from accidents like this. This is not, nor has it ever been, about those kinds of people. At least not from my side of the argument.

 

[howandwhy99]

The hardest thing for me to do is brevity.

Here is my position in brief.

If the game rules aren't the physics of the game world, then what is?

(And whatever you answer, isn't that the real game rules?)

The Fluff. The fluff, which is a rather denigrating term in my opinion, is the description of the world. What the Referee describes of the world and the Players of their characters is the reality. That is the physics of how the world works. It works by their description; the characters for the players, the rest of the world for the Ref. The rules are a half-hearted attempt to simulate that world to a degree of satisfaction for everyone involved. If the rules aren't living up to snuff, shake 'em out and find something that works.

Seeing as the referee is the one who is operating the world it's easiest for him or her to find a mechanic that fits the situation. Strangely enough most of the time a coin flip will do it. Then there are straight rolls like d6 or d20. Sometimes you might want a curve and you might use multiple dice. Or you weight things with bonuses and penalties. It's all pretty basic stuff. There are plenty of unique game mechanics out there to steal (or borrow).

I said in my previous post that the physics of the world are simulated. That it is not the rules dictating the simulation. Well, that's mostly true. Here are a couple of side cases to illustrate things as best I understand them.

First, groups have generally agreed that not all cases are covered by the rules. It's impossible anyways, right? We don't roll to breath every round. So the group just uses those rules they agree are necessary for them to enjoy the game. Case in point is the Called Shot rule. It just doesn't work in D&D. Damage Resistance is a poor choice too IMO, but it can be done. What happens when play turns to these nuances in the world and the mechanics don't match up? We fudge over it or we say we'd like to play a new way from now on. Either way mechanics don't work as constructed, but based upon the simulation of the world desired. Form follows function. However, instead of the functioning of the rules being the higher priority, it's the functioning of the described environment. The form of the rules change until the group is satisfied.

That's one side case where the rules fail as physics, but if left alone could be rightly called such. A second example is about when description takes on the weight of rule in an unexpected way. This kind of thing happens all the time. In fact, you could say all description has the force of rule. For example, if the referee says there's an elephant in the room and I as a player say there's not, guess who's right? It's the damned Ref every time! It's like a rule or something.

Anyways, an actual good example of description having the weight of rule is in the adjudication of spells. If my player creates a spell that kills all blue haired people within thirty feet, she's just included "blue hair" into the combat valuation system. It's now measurably good or bad to have blue hair in our game. It would require notation in a d20 statblock. If this physics change occurred in the real world, it's dollar value just went up. And I've not even mentioned what "foot" means though it's obviously important to the function of magic.

IMO, things get twisted when the rule of law shapes the world beyond what was ever intended and then those intentions are discarded under enforced law. The law was built upon intention and not the other way around. Sure, those laws can sometimes lead to illuminative or unforeseen consequences, but we aren't earnestly constructing exact simulations here. It's beer & pretzel for what we enjoy. Not supercomputers.

Shucks, I can't be brief either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Let's posit a theoretical 20th level fighter. He's the greatest warrior who's ever lived, and has carved a kingdom for himself. He's killed dragons and hydras and all sorts of monsters. He's unique in having achieved that level, and is a legend whose name will live forever.

However, there are no clerics who have remove disease, or at least none close enough that are willing to help him (they didn't like being conquered, dontchaknow). Sure, he's met the gods, and maybe slept with the Goddess of Love a time or two, but he has no divine rank, and none of them are willing to heal him (or are maybe prohibited by cosmic rules).

The DM tells you that he's died of cancer. Do you cry foul at that because cancer isn't in the DMG?

I cry foul at that, but more because of the aforementioned "one person isn't playing by the rules." If the DM created rules for heroes with cancer, I'd be cool with it on one level, but that would certainly change the tenor of the game to one that is, for me, skirting close to unwelcomingly realistic.

Because Superman wouldn't die of Cancer, either.

But, even in 4e, it's highly unlikely that all creatures will have action points, thus the rules already divide between PC and NPC.

Not all creatures need action points. Not all creatures need heroic class levels or XP, either. These are heroic mechanics. Reserving them for elite or solo monsters and special NPC's, along with the PC's, seems entirely in keeping with the idea that there are heroes who have special powers, and then there is Joe Dirt Farmer, who is like you and me.

To drive it home:

Once again, firefighters are NOT level 20. They are most likely level 2. Maybe 3. Putting out fires is NOT equivalent to wrestling dragons. Level 2 or 3 people can and do die from accidents like this. This is not, nor has it ever been, about those kinds of people. At least not from my side of the argument.

Bingo. The link posted above does a great job of describing this.

In what way does the rules model I've put forward treat one player differently from another? Of course it treats the GM differently - in most standard implementations, the GM will have more narrative control over non-PC game elements than the players do - but that is pretty mainstream for an RPG. It is certainly true of D&D.

I'm skipping a lot of replying to the whole me-calling-things-names angle, because I basically agree.

The comparison is that the GM doesn't just have more narrative control. As you say, that's always true of D&D, and is well within the bounds of the game. The issue is that in exerting that narrative control, the GM creates events that aren't covered by the rules, and doesn't use the possibilities that the rules allow for to resolve it (including making up new rules).

If a GM is still limited by describing effects in line with the possibilities inherent in the ruleset, then they are still playing by the same set of rules, just with the more autonomy than the characters. If the GM can declare certain parts of the game beyond the reach of the rules, then the GM is able to act beyond the rules, and so can spell words without using vowels and can kill knights without using the HP system.

Now, maybe other players have this control, too (they can say that their uncle was a 20th level fighter who died on a horse), in which case EVERYONE can play scrabble without using vowels.

Which is, I'm sure, fun for them, it's jut not my thing, because it feels like cheating to me. Even if everyone is doing it, and it's well-acknowledged, the Scrabble rules are built assuming that people use vowels, the vowels add a particular challenge (resource management and random chance) that I don't want to get rid of. I don't see how it adds to my fun so much as just makes things 'easier,' and I play games, in part, to be challenged.

That's kind of stretching the analogy about as far as it will go, but I hope it gets at the trigger for this emotion in me.

Here is one way I can make sense of the "cheating" idea: Suppose part of the point (challenge?) of the game - or, perhaps, the whole point - is to get everything in the gameworld to come out via the action resolution mechanics. So for a GM or player to simply specify some feature of the gameworld without engaging those mechanics would be to obtain, by simple stipulation, what is in fact meant to be achieved by applying those mechanics. A bit like trying to win at solitaire simply by setting out all the cards in a winning position, rather than playing it through.

Does this capture something like your thought?

That's pretty close, yeah.

If it does, I wonder about a couple of things: how does it fit with the GM's right to decide what the dice say in certain cases (as per above examples)? and how does it fit with the player's right to specify sex, hair colour, eye colour etc of his or her PC? If stipulation is permissible in respect of these matters, why not in other cases? This last question is not meant to be rhetorical, but to try to identify the criteria on which you are drawing what is, for your preferred playstyle, a crucial distinction.

The simple answer is that as long as the choices fall within the variance for the rules, and has no direct mechanical resolution or effect (there are no tables for eye colors, and gender is a moot point), it doesn't break anything. A character who was a human with bright purple hair and insect-like eyes who could change gender at will would probably break me. A changeling with the same probably wouldn't.

There are rules for what happens when you fall off a horse, and "instant death regardless of level" isn't one of the possible consequences, so a character who faces instant death regardless of level from falling off a horse (but only when they're not on-stage) breaks me. A 1st level Aristocrat falling off a horse probably wouldn't.

I'll note the presence of the word "normally". It does run your way, but not entirely your way.

And I did say I have no real problem with groups who have fun playing Scrabble without vowels. My way certainly isn't the only way, but it's a valid way that the rules do support.

That can't be meant literally, but perhaps only in the context of combat with the PCs. Otherwise, I could never do what you and others have suggested, and set up plots which do fit within the parameters of the action-resolution mechanics, because actually rolling the dice may not give the right result (see apprentice scroll reading example above).

We can't read the intent, only the writing. I'm happy to interpret that to mean that the dice describe what is possible, so they are the rules by which people succeed and fail and live and die. Regardless of where the 'camera' is.

I agree that 3rd Ed D&D has a default assumption that NPCs and monsters follow the same character build mechanics as PCs. Earlier editions did not, though, and 4e is expressly abandoning this particular feature of 3rd ed.

And that's one of the symptoms of a problem that many are having with 4e. They saw this in 3e as an improvement, as a feature, not a bug, and abandoning it hurts their play style, one in which the OP's suggestions would be largely unwelcome and not fun at all.

It is evidence that in D&D as it exists now, NPC's follow the same rules as PC's, even when the lights aren't on them.

For my own milage, I'd hope that 4e streamlines NPC mechanics without abandoning this entirely. SWSE's rule for nonheroic characters covers this pretty decently enough.

For the same reason, that can't be meant literally. Note also that it refers to a default, not a requirement, and it notes the presuppositions on which the default holds, and which obviously some posters on this thread do not share.

Right. Again, intent is difficult to argue, and I have no problem with people playing other ways. I do have a slight problem with 4e (and certain supporters) telling me I do have to change the way I play in order to fully enjoy the next edition.

I don't REALLY think it will do that in a major way, but if the designers agreed with the OP, it would, and that would be a problem for me.

I don't have my book in front of me, but from memory that is referring to NPCs fighting alongside PCs (eg Cohorts) and is not a more general statement about advancement (thus, I do not think there is a general presumption in the game that all high-level tower-dwelling wizards were once dungeon-delvers).

Actually, it's right before the NPC class descriptions. Which means that NPC's are supposed to advance through NPC classes by gaining XP the same way that PC's do. Presumably, since the statement isn't limited to NPC classes, they'd also progress through PC classes the same way that PC's do. There's also lines in that paragraph like "Not being adventurers, however, their opportunities are more limited" and "A commoner is likely to progress in levels very slowly" and "Most commoners never attain higher than 2nd or 3rd level in their whole lives" and "Dangerous areas are more likely to produce high-level NPCs than peaceful, settled lands."

Specifically, there is an example about a commoner who fights off gnolls regularly. It's also mentioned that town guards might be slightly higher level than the rest of the population.

All this strongly suggests that high-level tower-dwelling wizards faced challenges that brought them to that level, and earned XP in all the ways that PC's do. By default, this means that they killed orcs and gnolls and goblins and giants and dragons and vampires and fiends just like any PC. Even when the PC's weren't around. And they survived such adventures, presumably, because they have HP, even when they're not in the spotlight. Because the rules for PC's apply to NPC's, too, they did it within the bounds that the dice allow for. They lived by the rules, they can die by the rules.

I think that overall you're right that there is a suggested default position of mechanics = physics, but for the reasons I've given I think it can't be meant quite as literally as it is stated, and once we allow for that, plus for some of the qualifying language (like "normally" and "you might not think..."), then I don't feel that it dictates your approach to play. And from everything I've seen about 4e, I think that the designers have realised that D&D doesn't have to be played you way (though obviously it can be), and are setting out the rules with that thought more clearly in mind.

I think they realized that people don't really need four different NPC classes that go up to level 20 if NPC's don't get above level 2-3 and most are commoners. And they don't need tables to generate entire towns.

3e went too far, frequently, leaving you with a lot of useless detail, and 4e recognizes this and trims it up.

I don't imagine that 4e fully embraces the case of the OP, because the designers are clever enough to realize that some people really enjoyed this aspect of 3e. They can cut it down without removing it entirely and satisfy both ends of the spectrum by finding a middle ground.

There is plenty of concern about if 4e goes 'too far' in the other direction. I don't think it really will, but points like the Bugbear Strangler's ability suggest that in some places, maybe it does. That in further embracing ideas like the OP's, they have partially abandoned players like me, because I don't really have much fun in a game where everything works on different rules.

 

[Celebrim]

The Fluff. The fluff, which is a rather denigrating term in my opinion, is the description of the world. What the Referee describes of the world and the Players of their characters is the reality. That is the physics of how the world works. It works by their description; the characters for the players, the rest of the world for the Ref. The rules are a half-hearted attempt to simulate that world to a degree of satisfaction for everyone involved. If the rules aren't living up to snuff, shake 'em out and find something that works.

Seeing as the referee is the one who is operating the world it's easiest for him or her to find a mechanic that fits the situation. Strangely enough most of the time a coin flip will do it.

Maybe, perhaps, you should go and read what I've wrote one more time.

That's one side case where the rules fail as physics, but if left alone could be rightly called such. A second example is about when description takes on the weight of rule in an unexpected way. This kind of thing happens all the time. In fact, you could say all description has the force of rule. For example, if the referee says there's an elephant in the room and I as a player say there's not, guess who's right? It's the damned Ref every time! It's like a rule or something.

You might say that with every description that the referee makes, he also has made one or more 'little rules'. Well, shall we call them 'rulings'? My advice is to keep going with that idea and see where it leads you.

Shucks, I can't be brief either.

No, I don't mind. It's just that I got the impression that you intended your essay with its many fine qualities to be, well, to be tuitive, and well, somewhat corrective of my position I've hithertoo described. And I think that its just a tad too uncontridictory to fulfill that role.

But I will take issue with the notion that formal rules are 'half-hearted attempts to simulate that world to a degree of satisfaction'. If the formal rules aren't 'whole-hearted attempts', then I don't know what would be.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The simple answer is that as long as the choices fall within the variance for the rules, and has no direct mechanical resolution or effect (there are no tables for eye colors, and gender is a moot point), it doesn't break anything. A character who was a human with bright purple hair and insect-like eyes who could change gender at will would probably break me. A changeling with the same probably wouldn't.

There are rules for what happens when you fall off a horse, and "instant death regardless of level" isn't one of the possible consequences, so a character who faces instant death regardless of level from falling off a horse (but only when they're not on-stage) breaks me. A 1st level Aristocrat falling off a horse probably wouldn't.

Maybe it's a special NPC rules? Only possiblity-rated heroic characters get the 1d6 hit point damage, others must make a Fortitude Save DC 10 or die (success means 1d6 points of damage)

 

[allenw]

I notice that some people on the thread like AllenW's idea - fair enough, though it's not really for me, because it would get in the way of stories like those of King Theoden (in LoTR) and Beowulf.

I'm happy to have contributed something of interest.
With respect to Theoden, I see his story as supporting the need for level-atrophy rules, not opposing such a need (and vice-versa). IMO, Theoden *was* suffering under a lot of negative levels brought on by prolonged (Wormtongue-encouraged) inactivity. Fortunately, Gandalf cast Restoration on him (I'd normally be inclined against letting Restoration completely dispell such negative levels, but hey, Gandalf's a Maiar and he was wearing a Ring of Power that specifically fanned the fires of hope; or maybe he only dispelled half of them, and Theoden trained off the rest).
For Beowulf, I'm not as familiar with the story, particularly the ending, but my understanding was that, while King Beowulf was still a mighty warrior and killed the dragon (with help), he wasn't *as* kick-ass as he used to be, and thus he died as well. If I'm mistaken, and King Beowulf only died because the dragon was that much more kick-ass than Grendel and Mom had been, then I guess Beowulf must have worked out regularly (and/or being a Geatish King involved frequent combat).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Maybe it's a special NPC rules? Only possiblity-rated heroic characters get the 1d6 hit point damage, others must make a Fortitude Save DC 10 or die (success means 1d6 points of damage)

Sure, but a 20th level fighter is a heroic character, even if he's not a PC. And a nonheroic 1st level Aristocrat would probably die with the 1d6 damage and I wouldn't have a problem, either.

 

[Celebrim]

Maybe it's a special NPC rules? Only possiblity-rated heroic characters get the 1d6 hit point damage, others must make a Fortitude Save DC 10 or die (success means 1d6 points of damage)

If the NPC is known to be a heroic character in his own right, this only sidesteps the problem. The point isn't specificly that the character that breaks his neck after falling off a horse is a 20th level Paladin. The point is that the character is classified as heroic, and then does something that under the heroic rules is impossible. This breaks suspension of disbelief, and causes a player to lose trust in the referee ('I like good old King Thumble, and the referee just killed him 'by fiat'. He deserves better than that.'), or else to mistrust the description ('Clearly good old King Thumble couldn't have been killed merely by falling off his horse. Foul play must have been involved!'), or else garner the wrong lesson about the physics of the game world, ('One little fall off a horse killed good old King Thumble! Riding horses is dangerous! I'm never riding a horse again!'), or else lose emmersion in the narrative ('Under the rules, the way King Thumble died is just silly. It happened merely to serve the needs of the preestablished plot, because the DM couldn't be bothered to work within the rules. Obviously no character really has any free will.').

I mean this really isn't a difficult thing to deal with. Lets begin with the assumption that the game rules really do describe the world. Clearly, we live in a world where healthy heroic individuals don't die merely because they fell off a horse. The rules proscribe a sort of 'power of plot' protection to heroic characters that prevent that sort of mundane death from happening. They don't die from falling off horses anymore than they die from slipping in the bathtub. That's the world that the rules describe, and its natural that the players will expect you as the referee to describe that world.

But lets suppose that you decide that its absolutely essential that good King Thumble die offstage from falling off his horse. Well, that's easily enough handled without breaking the rules. King Thumble can't die merely from falling off his horse, but he can die from falling off his horse heroicly. So for example, I would relate to the PC's the tragic death of King Thumble as something that had mythic force:

"While riding on hunt, King Thumble together with his huntsman spied a great black hart of a stature and majesty the like of which no one in the party had ever seen. Immediately it seemed to the huntsman that a sort of madness fell upon King Thumble, for though he was never known to dally on the chase, he immediately fell to the chase of the hart with a wild and reckless abandon and soon outdistanced all of his huntsman and was err long out of sight and his path could only be discerned by the sounds of the chase and the King's horn. Soon the chase lead into wild country outside the King's park, little known to any save the most experienced of hunters. Then the party heard a great noise, as of the King's horse shying and a crash. Then the growing dread which all had been experiencing at this uncanny chase, became full and complete and with a great terror the party came to the place where the King's horn had last been heard. There they found what they had most dreaded, for the King had been thrown from his horse on trecherous ground, and fell down a step embankment into a hidden ravine so narrow and so preciptous that some of those that followed themselves were nearly cast in. At the bottom the saw the horrid scene, the broken body of the king lying in a shallow brook, his head dashed against a stone, with his steed lying on top of him. Even as his huntsman reached the bottom, the good King expired. All the nation now mourns, as one who has lost a beloved father."

Problem solved, and I would think in a good deal better of a fashion.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If the NPC is known to be a heroic character in his own right, this only sidesteps the problem. The point isn't specificly that the character that breaks his neck after falling off a horse is a 20th level Paladin. The point is that the character is classified as heroic, and then does something that under the heroic rules is impossible. This breaks suspension of disbelief, and causes a player to lose trust in the referee ('I like good old King Thumble, and the referee just killed him 'by fiat'. He deserves better than that.'), or else to mistrust the description ('Clearly good old King Thumble couldn't have been killed merely by falling off his horse. Foul play must have been involved!'), or else garner the wrong lesson about the physics of the game world, ('One little fall off a horse killed good old King Thumble! Riding horses is dangerous! I'm never riding a horse again!'), or else lose emmersion in the narrative ('Under the rules, the way King Thumble died is just silly. It happened merely to serve the needs of the preestablished plot, because the DM couldn't be bothered to work within the rules. Obviously no character really has any free will.').

I mean this really isn't a difficult thing to deal with. Lets begin with the assumption that the game rules really do describe the world. Clearly, we live in a world where healthy heroic individuals don't die merely because they fell off a horse. The rules proscribe a sort of 'power of plot' protection to heroic characters that prevent that sort of mundane death from happening. They don't die from falling off horses anymore than they die from slipping in the bathtub. That's the world that the rules describe, and its natural that the players will expect you as the referee to describe that world.

We actually live in a world where superman doesn't die by falling from a horse, but he is paralyzed afterwards. :\

But lets suppose that you decide that its absolutely essential that good King Thumble die offstage from falling off his horse. Well, that's easily enough handled without breaking the rules. King Thumble can't die merely from falling off his horse, but he can die from falling off his horse heroicly. So for example, I would relate to the PC's the tragic death of King Thumble as something that had mythic force:

"While riding on hunt, King Thumble together with his huntsman spied a great black hart of a stature and majesty the like of which no one in the party had ever seen. Immediately it seemed to the huntsman that a sort of madness fell upon King Thumble, for though he was never known to dally on the chase, he immediately fell to the chase of the hart with a wild and reckless abandon and soon outdistanced all of his huntsman and was err long out of sight and his path could only be discerned by the sounds of the chase and the King's horn. Soon the chase lead into wild country outside the King's park, little known to any save the most experienced of hunters. Then the party heard a great noise, as of the King's horse shying and a crash. Then the growing dread which all had been experiencing at this uncanny chase, became full and complete and with a great terror the party came to the place where the King's horn had last been heard. There they found what they had most dreaded, for the King had been thrown from his horse on trecherous ground, and fell down a step embankment into a hidden ravine so narrow and so preciptous that some of those that followed themselves were nearly cast in. At the bottom the saw the horrid scene, the broken body of the king lying in a shallow brook, his head dashed against a stone, with his steed lying on top of him. Even as his huntsman reached the bottom, the good King expired. All the nation now mourns, as one who has lost a beloved father."

Problem solved, and I would think in a good deal better of a fashion.

I like that...
I am not sure I would use this storytelling too often(, and I sure don't need it), but then - how often does a personality like king Thumble die?)