Professor Phobos said:
Well, you should have mentioned that in the example! What was the DM's problem, then?
The DM was trying to apply 'force' on the PC's by describing something that he felt reasonably people would try to avoid. When the players didn't try to avoid it, and in fact treated it as if it wasn't there, it bothered him because they were not he believed (and I have every reason to believe he was right) getting into the role and empathizing with the hardship that the characters faced. He saw this as 'bad play', and was trying to encourage more sophisticated play.
Both the DM and the players may have been creating good color, but the interesting thing about the cold, ('Do we really want to keep marching in this, its cold!') was resolved entirely by pure tactical calculation. That is, despite whatever color was being offered, the players were taking a gamist stance ('I'll do this because it helps me win.') and he wanted them to take a more narrativist stance ('What would my character do?').
But the thing is, he had only offered 'color' and got a responce that was pure 'color'. From a different way of looking at it, he actually got the right response. From the character's perspective, no matter how cold and wet the color, the character isn't feeling cold or wet enough to bother him so why should he consider stopping? Up until the point the cold and wet have an impact on the game, they aren't real in any tangible way. 'Cold' and 'wet' aren't part of the games physics. They can't force the player to make descisions, the way IRL hitting a brick wall can force you to stop.
Oh, sure. If I'm playing a game detailed enough that a cold rain has some kind of effect I want to avoid, my reaction will be based on that. But that doesn't mean I won't react to a cold rain without mechanical backup, so to speak, which is what I thought you were talking about.
The two sorts of 'reaction' are different in character. One is mere affectation. It's more like, "Since the DM says its cold, I'll pretend to be cold so that he'll be happy. But really, I know that it is not really cold, and so it won't actually impact any decision which has some consequences." The other is, "Since the DM says its cold, I'll pretend to be in the cold so that he'll happy. But also, I know that my character is going to experience some consequence for being cold, so perhaps I should consider the fact that it is cold in my roleplay and make actions accordingly." It doesn't have to be that cynical, but it often is. T
Which strikes me as indicating we may be talking past each other...
We aren't as far apart as some of the discussion might suggest. I need to go back to some earlier things that were said.
But, back to the initial example, the knight breaking his neck is entirely within the framework of and consistent with the universe.
No it isn't. That's my point. It's entirely consistant within the framework and guidelines of this universe. The rules of this universe mean that knights that fall off thier horses can break thier necks. But, the game isn't occuring in this universe, even if one of the conceits of the game is that it is. It's actually occuring in an imaginary universe that has rules which are usually abstractions of the rules in this universe (plus usually a little something extra). And the knight falling off and breaking his next is not at all consistant with the framework and guidelines of the imaginary universe.
Except, you think that it is. And this creates a problem. Because on the one hand you are communicating to the players that the guidelines and rules of the imaginary universe are this, but in your head you are keeping a picture of the imaginary universe at odds with what you are elsewhere describing. I don't know how many of the stories related on these forums come down to a DM who had one picture of the universe (often what he thought was 'realistic'), and players that had a different picture, and a DM that was too inexperienced, arrogant, or being too cute to actually communicate to the players what was really in his head.
It's completely believable by those guidelines- if I describe a world of mortal men, accidents, misery, disease, mud, rats and sinking boats, then why would anyone not believe in High King Badass getting spilled by his horse and landing bad?
Because the rules don't in fact necessarily describe a world of mortal men, accidents, misery, disease, mud, rats, and sinking boats. So you giving two conflicting descriptions of the world. The mere fact that you've provided some color which is appropriate to one universe (the real one maybe?) doesn't make it real and believable in a different universe. High King Badness getting spilled by his horse and landing badly isn't believable in the context of the normal D&D rules. You are trying to make the universe outside the rules that govern the PC's behave in a very different way than how the universe works when the PC's are around. But you can't keep those two universes as distinct as all that.
But by your standard, since it contradicts the mechanics, it isn't believable. What we are trying to say is that the mechanics are not the only determining factor for believability and consistency
They don't have to be the only factor. If they are a factor at all, then they play a role in a games believability and consistancy. That's what being a factor means. The term comes from math. There might be and probably are other factors, but you can't ignore this one.
indeed sticking to them as literally the laws of physics conjures enormous problems with regard to a believable world.
Only if you think that the world is believable, if and only if it conforms to the expected standards of this world.
That's a little bit of an oversimplification, because I do believe that there can be 'bad rules', but a rule isn't necessarily bad if it doesn't create a result that is within the framework of what is believable in this world. For example, a rule that says experienced characters never fall off thier horse and break thier neck (indeed a rule system that forgoes the explicit possibility of broken necks entirely), doesn't necessarily create an unbelievable world. It only creates an unbelievable world if you can't imagine a world where if you are sufficiently 'destined', 'lucky', 'tough', or whatever, that you can't possibly break your neck by falling off a horse.
I really believe that you are confusing 'believability' with 'desirability'. I really can't help but thinking that when you say it creates problems with a 'believable' world, you mean, 'it creates a world with characteristics that I don't find desirable'. It's pretty close to the same thing, except that it ought to be evident that plenty of people can find the world you don't find desirable believable.
The purpose of mechanics is not to create a world, or a basis for which a world can be derived. Mechanics are designed for game play purposes. They're designed for fairness. Tactical interest. Ease of use. Speed. Things of that nature.
One doesn't preclude the other. The purpose of mechanics is to create or simulate a world, or a basis from which a world can be derived. They are most certainly and most evidently often designed for simulating a fictional world. And while they and nothing else could ever fully simulate a fictional world, that is there purpose and that's what they do. They are designed with various other attributes in mind, but simulating a world is there reason for being.
The rules have to simulate the thing you want simulated. That's why we say that certain rules do a better job of simulating some things than others. If you want a universe "of mortal men, accidents, misery, disease, mud, rats, and sinking boats" and the rules set doesn't simulate such a universe, you are headed for trouble. The game is going to continually be disappointing you, and your players are going to continually make decisions based on what really is happening in the game world rather than what you want to be happening in the game world. The created game universe will fail to look anything like the picture you had in your head, especially once the players figure it out and start taking advantage of what is really possible (or not possible) according to the rules.
So make sure you've smithed out some 'physics' that describe the universe you actually wanted to create. Then once you decide what you can work with, work with it. A decent system is going to leave you lots of flexibility. If you are continually feeling constrained by it such that you need to break the system, you probably need a different system.
