Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Professor Phobos]

Which in turn creates certain reasonable expectations on the part of the PC's on how the mechanics regulate adversity when they aren't direct participants.

I don't agree at all. I have, in all my years, never once, as a player or the GM, thought the mechanics were anything other than an abstraction. I have never blinked at a man in Call of Cthulhu dying to a gunshot that technically couldn't have killed him in a single hit. I have never once worried about how the Demon: The Fallen novels had a ton of lobotomies without the rules being able to mechanically represent them. I never once thought that the absence of rules for sleeping meant no one ever needed to sleep, or that the absence of rules for losing a hand meant no one ever lost a hand.

And I have never, until the internet, even encountered the idea that the rules in D&D were the sum totality of a D&D world.

I can certainly see an initial, "Hey, that's weird..." sort of response when the High King Lord Badass falls and cracks his head open. I can even see them going and saying, "It must be dopplegangers!" But I don't expect them to reject, once investigation has concluded, the very possibility that it was just a mundane accident.

No game I own, barring except GURPS, has this expectation for the rules system. Not Unisystem, not Storytelling, not D20, not Reign, not Warhammmer FRP, not Blue Planet, not Paranoia XP (well, maybe that one), not Ars Magica...

It is totally unreasonable and I just don't follow your logic. I think I'm going to need a direct, example of the kind of progression you are talking about- from the "not allowed in the rules" situation occurring to the total collapse of my game, society, dogs and cats living together, etc.

All of your objections seem to rest on the idea that it is intuitively obvious that the rules are a total, comprehensive simulation of all possible events in a game world. And I think that is ridiculous. You also seem to assume that it is impossible for players to understand this separation and that it will inevitable lead to the total breakdown of their conception of reality, hitting 0 SAN, and going off to worship Cthulhu.

 

[JohnSnow]

The two questions are very different. So different, that they need completely different answers.

a) Yes, it really is less offensive than having the fighter die from falling off a horse, because the rules describe a universe where one is at least possible on a bad day, and the other simply never is.

Oh really? I thought that was still part of "the rules" regardless of whether they're written down in the books or not. I'm pretty sure someone told me that, and unless I'm totally incorrect, I think it was YOU.

So it seems to me you're backpedalling on your statement about rules...

Oh, I looked up some of those quotes on NPCs in the DMG. Like these two:

"NPC should obey all the same rules as PCs."

"NPCs should live and die - fail and succeed - by the dice, just as PCs do."

Sounds pretty clear, except that they left out a few words. They're part of the same paragraph in the DMG. But the actual quote is:

Normally, NPCs should obey all the same rules as PCs. Occasionally, you might want to fudge the rules for them in one way or another (see DM Cheating and Player Perceptions, below), but in general, NPCs should live and die - fail and succeed - by the dice, just as PCs do.

Wow. That's a whole lot less definite. It's almost like someone was quoting selectively in an attempt to mislead people.

So Celebrim, I guess you've now come up with a new thesis: every event in the gameworld should unfold in accordance with the printed rules.

Which means there IS still a disagreement. And it's one which, a few posts ago, you weren't even willing to acknowledge exists.

 

[Celebrim]

Professor Phobos: I don't even know where to begin. You seem to be taking this discussion very seriously. Please don't. It's a discussion about a game. I've seen bad DMing lead to shouting matches and truncated campaigns. But that's about the worst I've seen, so I don't really know what the basis of your exagerrated portrayals are. Nor do I really know where you are getting some of your claims about my argument.

I wrote quite a bit beyond that, but I think I'd rather respond to someone who disagrees with me and who understands what I'm saying, rather than someone disagreeing with the product of his own imagination. It's rather more fun for me, and its more respectful to those people who even if they don't agree don't need to create fever dreams to disagree with.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh really? I thought that was still part of "the rules" regardless of whether they're written down in the books or not. I'm pretty sure someone told me that, and unless I'm totally incorrect, I think it was YOU.

Yes, it is part of the rules whether it is written down or not. What does that have to do with the statement you are quoting? What did I say in that quote that leads you to think that I'm contridicting that?

So it seems to me you're backpedalling on your statement about rules...

What on Earth are you talking about? From exactly what are you drawing that inference?

Do you mind to much if I point out the gaping hole in what I think is your logic? Just because I've said that the formal official rules declare something is impossible, doesn't mean that I think that there must be some house rule or body of precedent in a particular game which means that it is possible. Where the rules are already clear, why would house rules pop into existance? Exactly why should any given table overturn any particular official rule in favor of a house rule? Yes, there could be some house ruling that would rule that a guy falling off his horse should have a slight possibility of breaking his neck, but nothing compells such a rule to come into existance. Quite a few referees would not believe that would make thier game universe better, and I'd be numbered among those.

Oh, I looked up some of those quotes on NPCs in the DMG. Like these two:

"NPC should obey all the same rules as PCs."

"NPCs should live and die - fail and succeed - by the dice, just as PCs do."

For the record, you aren't responding to me here. I haven't quoted the DMG in this discussion.

Wow. That's a whole lot less definite. It's almost like someone was quoting selectively in an attempt to mislead people.

Oh? Perhaps, but whoever these people are they aren't me. Again, I never quoted the DMG and if I did I would endeavor not to quote it selectively precisely so I could avoid the sort of attack you are now mounting. If I had quoted that passage from the DMG, I would have used the full quote so that I could get ahead of the objection you are now making AND saved myself the attack on my character. Ok, maybe not that last one, but still.

So Celebrim, I guess you've now come up with a new thesis: every event in the gameworld should unfold in accordance with the printed rules.

Clearly its getting late. Some peoples power of reasoning seems to be slipping for want of rest. Get some sleep and then take a fresh look at what I wrote in the morning.

Which means there IS still a disagreement. And it's one which, a few posts ago, you weren't even willing to acknowledge exists.

???

 

[JohnSnow]

Celebrim, let's try this again. I believe I said the following:

Should events in the gameworld be constrained by what is "possible" following a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written (and potentially also including anything with a mechanistic resolution system that the DM decides to add to his game)? Or are all those mechanistic rules merely an abstraction intended to facilitate gameplay that have no bearing on what's actually possible in a narrative context?

You called that statement a "false dichotomy." Moreover, you argued "that the above statements aren't sufficiently dissimilar to distinguish one type of play from the other." And yet, here we are, less than a dozen posts later, arguing about whether "events in the gameworld should be constrained by a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written." So I'm calling BULL on your "false dichotomy" claim.

You, and those who agree with you, seem to believe that the only acceptable way to have an outcome occur which contravenes those rules is for the DM to rewrite them. I, and those who agree with me, regard that as completely unnecessary. As the DM, we have the authority to ignore those rules without rewriting them. As long as it doesn't touch the PCs, it doesn't even count as a houserule.

The aforementioned "High-level NPC fighter who dies from a circumstance that could never kill a PC" involves just such a rules exemption. It's well within the DM's authority to disregard the rules that make it impossible, as long as he's fair (to the players, that is), and he's got a good reason. And, to us, a good plot hook is a sufficiently good reason.

We don't think that has any bearing on how consistent the game is. We don't think it affects anything other than the suspension of disbelief of people who believe NPCs and PCs should live by the same rules. But that's mostly a matter of personal preference.

 

[Lanefan]

The better solution in my opinion for a D&D game that once to increase the element of risk is to implement unbounded criticals in some fashion. The simpliest system I can think of would be if you roll a '20' its a critical, and you can make an additional identical attack. If that roll is also a '20', then you can make a third attack, and so forth. Then you just tweak the rules such that every physical blow in treated as an attack. In this fashion, there is a '1 in a million chance' falling off a horse will kill anyone, and we obtain the desired result without the need for a separate subsystem for everything, and without invalidating the rest of D&D's abstract system.

Simple, elegant, and pretty much free of knock-on effects as regards other rules. Sounds just fine to me.

This has pretty important narrative effects, in that it is an in game constraint on metagame behavior.

Good. Metagame behavior is, to me, a Bad thing.

In default D&D, a high level player knows that his character can fall a certain distance without risk of death.

Which has always been a problem, as far as I'm concerned.

Thus, high level characters ran by players who've learned the system tend to act as if they can't die from falling off a cliff (or off a horse). They act this way because in point of fact, they live in a universe where they can't die as the result of such events and thier players know that this is so.

Which is a design-based problem inherent in the system all the way back to 1e and earlier; though 3e's massive-damage rule was a good attempt to at least inject a shred of realism.

A good player might pretend for the purposes of the scene that his character is in some risk if he has some reason to believe that the DM wants a narrative where this is true (in defiance of the explicit rules!), but even this strikes an unintentionally comic note because it has to be feigned. Any fear is purely affectation, quite possibly in an attempt to get the DM to accept the character's purely metagamed proposition of jumping off a 90' cliff merely because of its tactical value. But if a player knows that there is some finite risk of death no matter the size of the attack, they'll tend to play thier character more in a way that reflects this fact. If your desire is stories in which the characters act as if falling off a 90' cliff is quite possibly hazardous, then you are better off adapting the game universe to reflect your goals.

Absolutely, and already done. I'd just prefer that such adaptation be taken care of at the root-design level, to save me the effort.

Lanefan

 

[apoptosis]

So the story fits those physics. The story, in so far as the PCs are concerned, is also generated in part by application of the action resolution mechanics. But those mechanics are not the physics. They are a metagame device for resolving certain aspects of the story.

This is a great statement.

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim, let's try this again.

Ok, one more time.

You called that statement a "false dichotomy." Moreover, you argued "that the above statements aren't sufficiently dissimilar to distinguish one type of play from the other." And yet, here we are, less than a dozen posts later, arguing about whether "events in the gameworld should be constrained by a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written." So I'm calling BULL on your "false dichotomy" claim.

I believe that you are confused on several fronts. First, the first two quotations in the above passage are actual direct quotations. The third one is not. So let's not paraphrase what we are arguing about and then imply intentionally or unintentionally that its also a direct quote.

Secondly, I said it was a false dichotomy because non-formal rules could carry the status of formal rules in dictating the physics of the game. By way of reminder, 'The wall is solid', is a rule of game table once it becomes established that walls are solid even if it is never wrote down. If one of your two choices is true, it doesn't imply that the other is automatically true, and vica versa. In fact, I don't necessarily have to agree that either choice is true. That's what false dichotomy means.

If formal rules or are or not literally interpreted, or are or are not strictly abided by, doesn't change the fact that the non-formal rules are in practice performing the same role. When I suggest that the formal rules of the game should be adhered to, it doesn't imply that I don't think that there are or aren't other rules. I'm merely stating in the example you quoted, on the assumption that the rules as written are being used, that the rules as written specify that a fall from a horse does d6 damage and that if you break that rule you've just misrepresent events to any player with an understanding that the rule applies because now you and the player have a slightly different mental picture of the world. And that is I think generally something that is inevitable enough of a confusion that we don't want to contribute to it.

You, and those who agree with you, seem to believe that the only acceptable way to have an outcome occur which contravenes those rules is for the DM to rewrite them. I, and those who agree with me, regard that as completely unnecessary. As the DM, we have the authority to ignore those rules without rewriting them. As long as it doesn't touch the PCs, it doesn't even count as a houserule.

I think you are confusing the issue when you use words like 'authority' or 'acceptable'. 'Acceptable' comes close to implying a moral or ethical judgement and that goes beyond what I'm saying, and on the subject of authority I agree that the DM has the authority to ignore the rules. The DM can contrevene himself, can issue inconsistant rulings, can signal the PC's that future rulings will be handled one way and then do them some different way, and any number of things. Whether you have the authority to do something is very different than whether it is the best practice. I'm just saying that I think in general it is a mistake for the DM to cheat, and it is always a mistake to consistantly do so. I believe you'll find the writers of the DMG hold very much the same opinion.

The aforementioned "High-level NPC fighter who dies from a circumstance that could never kill a PC" involves just such a rules exemption. It's well within the DM's authority to disregard the rules that make it impossible, as long as he's fair (to the players, that is), and he's got a good reason. And, to us, a good plot hook is a sufficiently good reason.

Again, you are really confusing the discussion by wanting to bring in to it topics like 'authority'. It is well within the DM's authority to disregard the rules he's established for play, but a wise DM in my opinion doesn't do so lightly. I would argue that when he breaks the rules, he's never really being 'fair' to the players. They may well find the rules-breaking acceptable if he's cheating in thier favor, but that's not the same as being fair and I think it sets a really bad precendent in DM behavior and DM/player relations. Simply put, a 'good plot hook' is not a sufficiently good reason for breaking the rules. It might be if you could demonstrate that the same thing couldn't be achieved by some similar plot hook that was game consistant, and that the fact that you as a DM wanted to break the rules didn't actually represent a conflict between your vision of the game and the rules, but I don't think you can really demonstrate either one. For any given plot hook, I can always fashion something similar, and I think better, using the tools at hand. And even if I can't, I think that that demonstrates not that I need to break the rules, but that I'd run into less problems if I just went and changed the rules so that I won't have to break them in the future.

We don't think that has any bearing on how consistent the game is. We don't think it affects anything other than the suspension of disbelief of people who believe NPCs and PCs should live by the same rules. But that's mostly a matter of personal preference.

Maybe liking consistancy in your game is a matter of personal preference, but it seems to me that the people who are losing suspension of disbelief are doing so because they are noticing that the game is inconsistant. It it isn't the fact that the game is inconsistant that is destroying thier suspension of disbelief, what do you think it is?

PS: Looking at that post, I think I'm getting tired now. So I think I'll have to take this up later.

 

[JohnSnow]

I believe that you are confused on several fronts. First, the first two quotations in the above passage are actual direct quotations. The third one is not. So let's not paraphrase what we are arguing about and then imply intentionally or unintentionally that its also a direct quote.

My apologies, I felt you would understand the simple conceit of eliminating a prepositional phrase without the elipsis. What I should have typed was: ""events in the gameworld should be constrained by...a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written."

I didn't think it was in the least bit misleading, since it was a quote of a line immediately preceding it in my post. The phrase "false dichotomy" implies that there is no choice to be made, or that the two statements are equivalent. Seeing as how you're disagreeing so vehemently with my position, I think it's pretty clear that they are NOT.

I'm just saying that I think in general it is a mistake for the DM to cheat, and it is always a mistake to consistantly do so. I believe you'll find the writers of the DMG hold very much the same opinion.

"The DM really can't cheat." - Dungeon Master's Guide, v3.5, p. 18.

Moreover, you're laboring under a false impression. You believe the rules operate when the players aren't playing. How can there be rules to a game that isn't happening?

Maybe liking consistancy in your game is a matter of personal preference, but it seems to me that the people who are losing suspension of disbelief are doing so because they are noticing that the game is inconsistant. It it isn't the fact that the game is inconsistant that is destroying thier suspension of disbelief, what do you think it is?

Game consistency is fine and desirable. But we are talking about "suspension of disbelief" related to events that happen in the gameworld as BACKSTORY.

You say that fractures your suspension of disbelief because you believe that, for example, hit points represent the character's actual physical ability to resist damage.

An offstage NPC doesn't have hit points, levels, ability scores, or anything. He's a person in a living world, not a gamepiece operating under some kind of cosmic chess rules.

The rules are just an abstraction intended to create a playable resolution system when the players are involved. They're not the campaign world's "physics." That's the distinction you refuse to admit exists.

 

[pemerton]

Leaving aside that I think that they have to have some common framework to even do that, I still don't think this approach qualifies as 'not a rules based approach' if it is either the formal rules of the game or if it becomes a precedent for how future conflicts over the narrative are resolved.

Has the topic changed from "are the rules of the game the physics of the gameworld" to "can you play an RPG without rules"? Or did I misunderstand something.