Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Celebrim]

The fault in your example is clearly with the players. I don't expect much from players, but I expect them to be more than just accountants managing a set of numbers on their sheet. I expect them to be playing characters that are engaged with and contributing to the story and world that I (and they) describe and share in our heads.

Whereas, I would prefer not to blame the inadequacies of my DMing on the players.

And that is precisely the sort of answer I expected from a DM that holds your position. 'It's the players fault.'

Bah.

UPDATE: The really annoying thing about this is you've been questioning my integrity this whole thread. You been accusing me of being ridiculous for suggesting that your approach will lead to problems. You've been saying the whole thread, "I would never have this problem." But what you've really meant the whole time is, "I have this problem, but when I do I blame my players for it so it isn't my problem."

 

[Professor Phobos]

Whereas, I would prefer not to blame the inadequacies of my DMing on the players.

And that is precisely the sort of answer I expected from a DM that holds your position. 'It's the players fault.'

Bah.

As a player, I don't want everything reduced to mechanics. I want roleplaying hooks like that. I make use of them. I enjoy them. I demand them.

A DM who is providing them is doing exactly his job. Not everything needs to be represented mechanically. RPGs are more than just a mathematical exercise.

If I have described cold, freezing rain, and a player says, "My character does nothing, for this rain has no mechanical effect" then that player is in the wrong.

Yes, there are bad players. I know ENWorld hates the GM and everything is the GM's fault and he's The Man keeping a player down, but bad players? They exist and for more reasons than just personal hygiene.

I don't care if you're bad at roleplaying and all you say is, "Well, I guess...I'm cold and unhappy?" I don't care if you don't make use of every hook I toss at you. I don't care if you never introduce one of your own.

But to explicitly reject anything not represented mechanically as irrelevant to even a simple roleplaying exercise? It's to reduce the game to a set of mathematical interactions that might have some tactical depth but no flavor whatsoever. Dry, dull, and reductionist is what the game play you are describing to me sounds like.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm starting to understand what's going on here a little more. I had a feeling it had something to do with "colour" - I didn't come up with the term or definition, by the way, but I think it works.

We need to carefully say what we mean by 'exist'. In the real world, when we say that something exists, we mean that it has the power to actually have a tangible impact on the universe. Normally, when we say that something really exists, exactly what we mean is that it has a mechanical impact on the universe. If it doesn't, then we say that the thing either doesn't exist or is sufficiently abstract that it may exist, but that we can't quantify it. We might say that 'love' exists, but it doesn't exist in the same way 'a brick' does.

Colour does have impact on the game, and it makes up most of the game world; it just doesn't have any mechanical impact on resolution.

Everything that exists in the game world doesn't have to have an impact on resolution. Especially true if you use conflict resolution mechanics, as seen in Burning Empires.

You just defined a term 'color' to refer to things that exist in the game but have no actual mechanical effect. These things actually exist outside of the rules, and hense the physics of the game. If they existed in the rules, then they would have a mechanical effect. If they were part of the physics of the game, then they would have a mechanical effect. This is because the rules of the game and its physics are inseparable (as I've described).

I brought up Burning Empires above. It does have rules on Colour: Colour scenes (and what you can do in them), Colour tech, etc. The rule breaks down to the fact that colour does not have an impact on resolution.

The speed of a shuttle can be colour if there's no conflict around it (like being in a chase).

It's a non-physical existance.

Not in the game world it's not. Just because my fighter's red hair doesn't impact resolution, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have red hair. Or any hair.

This is what I keep talking about when I say that if something isn't a rule, for practical purposes it doesn't really exist. Once the 'color' becomes tangible, 'this thing is solid therefore you can't just walk through it without magical assistance' then that ruling about the color takes on the same attributes of any other rule because it has a mechanical effect. It becomes established precedent 'this object has the attribute solid, objects like it can expected to be solid, and objects with the attribute solid can't be passed through without some defined exception'.

In this example, why do I want to get through the wall?

 

[Celebrim]

As a player, I don't want everything reduced to mechanics. I want roleplaying hooks like that. I make use of them. I enjoy them. I demand them.
...
Yes, there are bad players. I know ENWorld hates the GM and everything is the GM's fault and he's The Man keeping a player down, but bad players? They exist and for more reasons than just personal hygiene.

Oh don't even go there with me. I don't know how many hundreds of times I've been accused on this board of advocating a referee stance which is unfair to the players. I just earlier in the thread agreed that the DM has the authority to change the rules on the fly without even informing the players. I don't think its a very good idea, but he certainly has the authority. So let's not try to make an argument by generalizing my stance and creating a sterotype.

Not everything needs to be represented mechanically. RPGs are more than just a mathematical exercise.

Absolutely. So what? Everything doesn't need to be represented mechanically, but you'd do well to represent things that are mechanical mechanically.

If I have described cold, freezing rain, and a player says, "My character does nothing, for this rain has no mechanical effect" then that player is in the wrong.

I don't care if you're bad at roleplaying and all you say is, "Well, I guess...I'm cold and unhappy?" I don't care if you don't make use of every hook I toss at you. I don't care if you never introduce one of your own.

It has nothing to do with bad roleplaying, so don't try to create a strawman. Narrativists aren't the only good roleplayers. I've known alot of gamists who are fabulous roleplayers if the DM just feeds them the right information. You don't always get to pick and choose the roleplaying style of your friends, nor do you necessarily get players that are comfortable moving between styles. Sometimes you have to accomodate several different styles of gamers at the same table.

But to explicitly reject anything not represented mechanically as irrelevant to even a simple roleplaying exercise? It's to reduce the game to a set of mathematical interactions that might have some tactical depth but no flavor whatsoever. Dry, dull, and reductionist is what the game play you are describing to me sounds like.

I don't care what it sounds like to you. You are just sterotyping. Just because I have mechanical consistancy doesn't mean that I can't be evocative and flavorful. I've already presented one example of being evocative and flavorful while being mechanically consistant. I'm plenty capable of doing more.

You simply don't get it, so let me try to explain things in narrativist terms. Consider a game like DiTV and how it would handle marching in the cold. What's at stake? "Do we manage to walk all the way to Pleasantville?" Roleplaying well, the player describes his attempt to walk to Pleasantville. Describing the situation evocatively, the referee says, "It is a cold and wet journey." But if the referee doesn't put out a stake, if he doesn't raise, if doesn't mechanically challenge the players decision to walk to Pleasantville, for all practical purposes its not really cold and wet. When you say, "Its cold and wet", and the player says in effect, "Alright... We continue to march on doggedly", and you say, "You aren't roleplaying right.", you are wrong. The RPer is playing correctly because you haven't put any stake out. The cold and wet isn't actually real. Not until you put your stake out of something like, 'If you march in the cold and wet you will be fatigued and take 1d6 non-lethal damage per hour', are you really asking the player to make a dramatic choice. At that point the cold is actually real.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If I have described cold, freezing rain, and a player says, "My character does nothing, for this rain has no mechanical effect" then that player is in the wrong.

Yes, there are bad players. I know ENWorld hates the GM and everything is the GM's fault and he's The Man keeping a player down, but bad players? They exist and for more reasons than just personal hygiene.

I don't care if you're bad at roleplaying and all you say is, "Well, I guess...I'm cold and unhappy?" I don't care if you don't make use of every hook I toss at you. I don't care if you never introduce one of your own.

But to explicitly reject anything not represented mechanically as irrelevant to even a simple roleplaying exercise? It's to reduce the game to a set of mathematical interactions that might have some tactical depth but no flavor whatsoever. Dry, dull, and reductionist is what the game play you are describing to me sounds like.

This, to me, sounds tremendously arrogant.

The alternate play style is no more dry, dull, and reductionist, filled with bad players and poor roleplaying, than yours is empty make-believe for the purposes of constructing an ultimately unsatisfying story. People enjoy the game for different reasons, and that doesn't make them objectively bad, it just means that you should not play with them.

It's okay to be different. Good, even. I learned that in, what, 1st grade?

 

[Professor Phobos]

No, the right response in the DITV case would be, "We march on, drawing our coats in, shivering in the cold..."

It's not at stake, no, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Dogs is sort of a bad example, as well, as you're rarely, if-ever supposed to be "in conflict" with the environment. It's a game about judgment, morality, and so on. But if I say that the journey is long and unpleasant, I expect the Dogs upon their arrival in town to go to the local inn and get a nice, warm bath. Or a hot meal. No stakes, no conflict...just plain ol' being in character.

I don't care if you're gamist or simulationist or narrativist or any of that nonsense. This is roleplaying. If you really believe that if it doesn't give you a penalty, or affect a dice roll, or change a statistic, that it "effectively doesn't exist", then I can't imagine how your game must be. Looking over the transcripts from my game, at least half of game play (at least) is just simple roleplaying with no dice rolling. Conversations between characters and other things of that nature. That's a very real, extant part of game play. It matters.

This isn't a style of gaming. I'm entirely willing to toss different styles different bones, even if it isn't my own taste. That's just part of GMing.

This is basic. This is practically as basic as rolling dice.

but you'd do well to represent things that are mechanical mechanically.

And we come full circle again. The interaction of off-screen NPCs? Not mechanical.

The mechanics are how the PCs interact with the world and the world interacts with them. Full stop. The world interacting with the world? All in the DM's head, described as best he can, decided however he damn well pleases.

EDIT: Hell, they're not even exclusively how the PC's interact with the world. They tend to only crop up when there's something at stake- a resource, survival, a beloved supporting character. I wouldn't use the rules to establish how the PC goes and gets lunch from the local restaurant, but I certainly might have a scene with the PCs going to get lunch.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Whereas, I would prefer not to blame the inadequacies of my DMing on the players.

I do think it's important to note that there are MANY different solutions to the problem of "my players aren't acting like it's cold and rainy!", all of them valid.

One of them is to do like the original DM and make them feel what their characters feel. This works, but it's usually tough to control the environment like that.

One of them is to do like I would do and give them a mechanical consequence for that. "You must make a Fortitude save or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Your fingers are going numb, your shoes are soaked through, you can't feel your feet, your breath is ragged, a rivulet of near-ice-water is flowing down you back, under your armor, and saturating your shirt. If you keep going like this, you might pass out eventually."

One of them is to do like Prof. Phobos would (I guess) do and say "Act in character, or don't bother playing."

For me, I get enough "Act like it's cold and rainy!!" in my daily life as an actor. When I hit D&D, I'm looking for a different experience. So I wouldn't take very kindly to the last recomendation, but I wouldn't quite need the encouragement of the first; instead, something like the second is my ideal.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is roleplaying. If you really believe that if it doesn't give you a penalty, or affect a dice roll, or change a statistic, that it "effectively doesn't exist", then I can't imagine how your game must be.

The world is probably full of games I can't imagine, too. I bet they're still loads of fun for those who play 'em.

Looking over the transcripts from my game, at least half of game play (at least) is just simple roleplaying with no dice rolling. Conversations between characters and other things of that nature. That's a very real, extant part of game play. It matters.

This isn't a style of gaming. I'm entirely willing to toss different styles different bones, even if it isn't my own taste. That's just part of GMing.

This is basic. This is practically as basic as rolling dice.

Your goals are probably different than mine or Celebrim's when playing D&D. It matters for your goals. It really doesn't for mine. My games often have other players saying "Okay, enough talk, what next?" or "Are you done doing pointless things now? I wanna kill the orcs!" or "Do we really have to RP this? I can make a Diplomacy check, right? You can just describe what happens."

The mechanics are how the PCs interact with the world and the world interacts with them. Full stop.

I can see how you could come to that playstyle.

I don't see it said anywhere that this is the One True Way and that anyone not doing it this way is doing it wrong.

 

[Celebrim]

No, the right response in the DITV case would be, "We march on, drawing our coats in, shivering in the cold..."

*pulls hair out*

But that's exactly what the players of the aforementioned DM who had a problem communicating cold did! But of course, this is mere affectation. The player actually knows that his character isn't really cold. Nothing is at stake. The player that says, "I bravely trundle on uneffected by the cold.", roleplaying just as well. The player that says, "Ahh... whatever, I like marching in the rain. Keeps you stimulated.", is roleplaying just as well. You still haven't changed the fact that in making decisions, the character can ignore the cold and you are informing the player that in making decisions he can ingore the cold.

It's not at stake, no, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

*sigh*

But can you at least credit that its existance is of a very different character than if it had a mechanical effect. That is to say, its still not a part of the physics of the game world?

Dogs is sort of a bad example, as well, as you're rarely, if-ever supposed to be "in conflict" with the environment.

Just as an aside, that is one of the many reasons I don't play games like Dogs. I don't want a game that tells me what stories I'm supposed to tell. I want a game that gives me the mechanics to tell the stories I want to tell, no matter what conflicts those stories involve ('man vs. nature' is pretty classic and definately appropriate to the setting). (The DitV mechanics could be adapted to anything, but I have other problems with the game.)

If you really believe that if it doesn't give you a penalty, or affect a dice roll, or change a statistic, that it "effectively doesn't exist", then I can't imagine how your game must be. Looking over the transcripts from my game, at least half of game play (at least) is just simple roleplaying with no dice rolling. Conversations between characters and other things of that nature. That's a very real, extant part of game play. It matters.

I suspect that you really can't imagine it. I think the longest we went without touching dice once was like 6 hours - a six hour political negotiation involving all the PC's and I think 12 NPC's. No dice. Just roleplaying. But, no 'physics' either. Don't tell the players this, but the reason for no dice throwing was that there was nothing actually being resolved. I actually had predecided the stances of all 11 NPCs based on who that NPC was supposed to be. (This was 1st edition, so no 'sense motive' checks.) The whole session was really about the PC's ability to figure out what those stances really were so that they could plan for them. Granted, some minor shifting of stances might have occured had the players really blown the RP, but they were masterful (just not masterful enough to convince people to do things not in thier own interests). But it was alot of fun nonetheless, and still remains one of the most memorable gaming sessions I've ever experienced, and gave the PC's plenty of surprises. And I got to play like 11 different roles and make each one have memorable traits and habits of speach (the 12th NPC was played by a co-DM), the players got to make stirring speaches. Awesome.

This isn't a style of gaming.

Don't knock my style until you know what it is.

The mechanics are how the PCs interact with the world and the world interacts with them. Full stop. The world interacting with the world? All in the DM's head, described as best he can, decided however he damn well pleases.

Within the framework of the universe he has described so as to maintain consistancy and believability, yes.

 

[Celebrim]

I do think it's important to note that there are MANY different solutions to the problem of "my players aren't acting like it's cold and rainy!", all of them valid.

For certain values of 'valid'.

You certainly have the authority as DM to say, "Do what I think is a well considered characterization or else take a walk." If you are the director of a movie, and you really do have good taste in acting, that's a valid stance. I have a bit less tolerance for that stance as a DM, because money isn't at stake. This is for fun. I have even less tolerance for that stance if the director isn't actually self-critical, and is giving the actors bad direction. For me, giving inconsitant details to a player in an RPG constitutes something like bad direction. If you got the right actors, maybe it doesn't matter, but that doesn't mean that just because you make decent movies that you are a perfect director. It means you got good actors.

At least for certain values of 'good'.