Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Celebrim]

Some of us don't equate "heroic fantasy" with "superheroes with swords."

That's fine. But in that case, you probably are making lemonaid out of lemons when it comes to the D&D rules, and you'll need to make significant adjustments to the rules to get what you want.

 

[pemerton]

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.

KM, thanks for the reply.

I'm going to try to do a Celebrim and be brief - and just focus on the main point which I'm still having trouble getting clear on.

Why is it OK (in your playstyle) for the GM to stipulate the dice, rather than roll them (to exercise "autonomy", as you put it above)? But not OK (in your playstyle) for the GM (or the players, in some cases) to stipulate matters without regard to the action-resolution mechanics?

Again, not a rhetorical question. I'm trying to work out the internal logic of the permissible parameters of stipulation.

 

[Professor Phobos]

That's fine. But in that case, you probably are making lemonaid out of lemons when it comes to the D&D rules, and you'll need to make significant adjustments to the rules to get what you want.

I dunno. I think I spent a whole thread arguing I could get exactly what I wanted out of the D&D rules as is, just by not viewing them as all-encompassing representation of the sum totality of all possible events in the game world.

It was on ENWorld. I think the thread was called "Game rules are not the physics of the game world." I'll try to find you a link.

 

[Celebrim]

I dunno. I think I spent a whole thread arguing I could get exactly what I wanted out of the D&D rules as is, just by not viewing them as all-encompassing representation of the sum totality of all possible events in the game world.

It was on ENWorld. I think the thread was called "Game rules are not the physics of the game world." I'll try to find you a link.

Ahh... I was hoping someone would use this line of attack.

The thing is, you haven't in fact shown that you can get exactly what you want out of the D&D rules 'as is'. All you've managed to show is that you can get everything you want out of the rules by ignoring them when events occur offstage. But whenever events occur onstage, they won't in fact generate those same results. There will be a marked and notable difference between how things work on stage, and how they work offstage. And frankly, of the two, its the on stage events that are far more important. So either you don't get 'all you want', or else you don't use the rules 'as is'.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No, the actor (read: Level 1 Expert, level 2 at best) is paralyzed afterwards. Level 1 (or 2) characters are able to be killed by falling off a horse by current rules.

To others who make this argument: Sorry to say, but Christopher Reeve was NOT Superman.

Damn, I didn't know that!

I was making a joke... (A joke I admit was maybe bad on multiple levels, but I just couldn't let the oppertunity go... Don't hurt me, please )

 

[pemerton]

The rules proscribe a sort of 'power of plot' protection to heroic characters that prevent that sort of mundane death from happening.

Following KM's quotes from the DMG, I agree that D&D runs this way (although not all this way).

But whether this is the best way to play is up for grabs. On the narrativist reading of D&D rules, NPC hit points aren't plot protection for those NPCs, but adversity regulation for when they engage with the PCs.

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.').

Looking at each of your responses:

1) Looks like a case where the Lois Lane rules should have been invoked - the problem is that the GM has improperly exercised narrative control.

2) Perhaps (and others have made this point earlier, including KM). But it depends very much on what the play group understands to be the scope of the action resolution mechanics.

3) I still think this is absurd, as I said above. The GM could have stipulated that King Thumble died in combat with a kobold after the kobold struck many lucky blows, while King Thumble's luck completely ran out (Kobold rolled all 20s, Thumble all 1s) and the players (and their PCs) would not therefore become completely scared of horses. They'd just figure that the King had got very unlucky.

4) This also looks like a case of conflict within the group about what the rules and playstyle are.

Of course there are always stories that can be told within the framework of the action resolution mechanics. Sometimes, however, one wants to have the gameworld evolve a different way. Is it obligatory, at that point, to go down the RM route and create action resolution mechanics that allow it to happen to the PCs too?

That's fine. But in that case, you probably are making lemonaid out of lemons when it comes to the D&D rules, and you'll need to make significant adjustments to the rules to get what you want.

I gather you do think it is obligatory to go down the RM route.

you haven't in fact shown that you can get exactly what you want out of the D&D rules 'as is'. All you've managed to show is that you can get everything you want out of the rules by ignoring them when events occur offstage. But whenever events occur onstage, they won't in fact generate those same results. There will be a marked and notable difference between how things work on stage, and how they work offstage. And frankly, of the two, its the on stage events that are far more important.

Alternatively, one can use this set of rules: (i) when PCs are involved, use the character build and action resolution mechanics; (ii) otherwise, determine the state of the gameworld by narration (distributed between GM and players as determined by further sub-rules).

There will be no difference between on-stage and off-stage in terms of the physics of the gameworld. There will be a difference in terms of the rules used to determine what happens (which rules are not the physics of the gameworld).

On-stage, of course, no PC will die from falling off a horse (because the PC enjoys hit-point plot protection). But this does not contradict the physics of the gameworld (in which people can die from falling off horses). That something never happens to the PCs doesn't show it couldn't have happened.

 

[pemerton]

<snip discussion of examples>

I hadn't thought of doing Theoden via Restoration magic. That'd be one way of doing it, I guess.

 

[pemerton]

even a 30th-level fighter is NOT Superman. Even going by the rules of hit points, a fall can kill him. His hit points mean that he CAN survive a fall, not that he will.

Agreed. I've tried to make this point in a couple of posts, but to no avail. Good luck!

 

[Kahuna Burger]

KM, thanks for the reply.

I'm going to try to do a Celebrim and be brief - and just focus on the main point which I'm still having trouble getting clear on.

Why is it OK (in your playstyle) for the GM to stipulate the dice, rather than roll them (to exercise "autonomy", as you put it above)? But not OK (in your playstyle) for the GM (or the players, in some cases) to stipulate matters without regard to the action-resolution mechanics?

Again, not a rhetorical question. I'm trying to work out the internal logic of the permissible parameters of stipulation.

While I'm not KM, my answer to the same question would be that adherence to the action-resolution system in off screen matters enhances predictability and consistency, which are two things I enjoy as a player and a DM. In a post above, I listed some of the possible endings of the "mystery" presented in a heroic warrior dying from such a minor accident. The players (and their characters) could know to consider these possibilities and treat it as a mystery, if the world is consistent in on and off screen resolutions. If that consistency isn't there, it's harder to subtly introduce a mystery, because strange things could just be the background.

 

[Professor Phobos]

But whenever events occur onstage, they won't in fact generate those same results. There will be a marked and notable difference between how things work on stage, and how they work offstage.

How did you get the impression we wanted the same results to occur on stage as occurred off stage?

Especially since we've said the opposite...?