Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Kahuna Burger]

I will point to the number of people in this thread who have commented along the lines of "I'm a player, and I love it when things that directly contradict the rules happen!" as argument that your strategy of DMing, while most useful when constructing a narrative and certainly applicable for your player base, does not generally result in hugs and kisses for the GM when attempted.

I found this point interesting so I started a poll on the general forum (not sure why this thread is here instead of there to begin with, to be honest) phrasing the question specifically in terms of player enjoyment.

 

[robertliguori]

But if they're eating bread, then you need a coherent in-setting (and rules) explanation for how the humanoid races began the cultivation of cereal grains. If the rules don't support it, then it doesn't happen, as you claimed earlier, which means bread shouldn't exist unless you have those rules.

They put ranks in Profession(Farmer). Then they put more ranks in Profession(Farmer). They made their profession checks and were paid in wheat.

Besides, there's worlds of difference between "There isn't a rule for that." and "There are rules for this, and they say that couldn't happen."

But when you advocate needing rules for "20th-level kings falling from horses and breaking their necks at full hp," that just strikes me as rules bloat, because it's a pointless expansion of extreme corner cases to cover incredibly non-standard conditions during game play.

Many heroes ride horses. There are rules for heroes riding horses. There is nothing in the rules to imply that If falling from a horse is supposed to present a risk to heroes, it should present a risk to heroes (that is to say, show up as a risk to PCs if the conditions enabling it are met). If it isn't supposed to present a risk to heroes, it shouldn't present a risk to heroes (and you need another way to kill off a random heroic character.)

But you're still facing inconsistencies, despite your claim of coherence. If you "need" rules to explain how a dude falling from his horse could die instantly (instead of just treating it like the story event it is), then you

Do our characters know about the segregation between story events and non-story events? Do they note the vivid imagery and detail that surrounds them, and treat it as akin to a FMV rendered cut scene in a JRPG? Do the words "Roll initative!" on a faraway plane trigger a blur-and-zoom effect, signaling that the Special Combat Abstraction rules now apply? How about waist-high shrubs that prevent us from going where the story isn't meant to lead us? Are we offered a number of broken bridges that we inexplicably cannot cross, or possibly 5' passageways guarded by immobile, invulnerable soldiers?

I reject utterly the idea of nonruled story events in my tabletop rpg. If it's happening in the world my character experiences, my character will either expect the rest of the world to conform to the same rules he does, or start pulling out tomes detailing the Far Realms and go insane. (Of course, since I'm a cooperative sort, he'd go insane in a very Deadpoolish fashion, and chide other characters when they failed to recognize story events, walk into ambushes, expect the world to make sense from moment to moment, and so forth.)

Dragon Magazine isn't official D&D supplements. As the kids today would phrase it, it was a "money grab" filled with material people were "convinced they needed." I just wasn't ever "suckered" into it.

Allow me to expand your vocabulary: suggested, optional rules are a subset of rules.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Besides, there's worlds of difference between "There isn't a rule for that." and "There are rules for this, and they say that couldn't happen."

If everyone could abide by this simple distinction, the thread would be somewhat shorter.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Many heroes ride horses. There are rules for heroes riding horses. There is nothing in the rules to imply that If falling from a horse is supposed to present a risk to heroes, it should present a risk to heroes (that is to say, show up as a risk to PCs if the conditions enabling it are met). If it isn't supposed to present a risk to heroes, it shouldn't present a risk to heroes (and you need another way to kill off a random heroic character.)

Ah, but our NPC isn't the hero. The PCs are the heroes/heroines. Maybe he's an important character, maybe he's done great things, but he isn't the hero.

In the "3. the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc" sense.

 

[Celebrim]

No offense to anyone...

Mourn, let me in on a secret. Whenever you begin a statement with, "No offense to anyone...", it means that whatever follows it is offensive and you know it.

Fortunately, I'm hard to offend, even by someone as charming as you are.

 

[robertliguori]

Ah, but our NPC isn't the hero. The PCs are the heroes/heroines. Maybe he's an important character, maybe he's done great things, but he isn't the hero.

In the "3. the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc" sense.

Hero, in this case, was a term of art referring to "A character in the game world who has taken enough levels in a heroic class to clearly distinguish him from the majority of the game world."

Feel free to word-substitute that for hero in my post, if terms of art that replace standard English in certain contexts offends you.

The default assumption of D&D says nothing about protagonist, antagonist, interest, or extra; all characters play by the same rules. This is a default, shared assumption about the universe, encoded into the rules. You wanna change it, change it. But please understand that in doing so, you're changing a lot of other things, both mechanical and narrative.

 

[LostSoul]

The default assumption of D&D says nothing about protagonist, antagonist, interest, or extra; all characters play by the same rules.

My reading is different:

Your characters star in the adventures you play, just like the heroes of a book or movie.

 

[The Little Raven]

Mourn, let me in on a secret. Whenever you begin a statement with, "No offense to anyone...", it means that whatever follows it is offensive and you know it.

I prefaced it with that qualifier because there are elements on this forum that jump on any statement as a direct insult to them (like Le Rouse's post about them not using cool anymore), no matter what the reality of the situation is. If I hadn't, I'd probably have someone in your place claiming that I insulted them... but instead, I get you pointing out a technicality, which simply reinforces my point.

Fortunately, I'm hard to offend, even by someone as charming as you are.

Glad to see you're as enamored as me as I am myself.

 

[Professor Phobos]

The default assumption of D&D says nothing about protagonist, antagonist, interest, or extra; all characters play by the same rules.

Definitely. Sure. Right there with you. I mean, no, not at all, but yes, if that's how you want to play it, sure.

But that 20th level High King? Once he's off screen, he's not so much a character as a prop. An element of the backstory. A plot device. No rules apply to him. He's out of the game.

He left as a 20th level whatever, entered my (the DM's) head, and then returned to the game as a corpse. The corpse follows rules. The 20th level king followed rules. But in that shiny interim, nothing applied.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've had a couple players pull the "The rules don't support that backstory" argument on me, and it usually gets them kicked from our group, because our first and foremost rule (above all) is that the DM is the ultimate authority on what is possible and what the rules mean (it also helps that as main DM for my group, I'm also the rules guru).

Which works for you, no one should bother playing with someone who's gonna drag down the game. For the same reasons, you'd probably not be welcome to DM at my table. Still, I've got no problem with your reading of the rules and you having fun your way.

My reading is different:

It's a fair reading. Myself, I take this in conjunction with the "NPCs and PCs obey the same rules"/"gain XP the same way PC's do" statement and assume that just as the PC's at my table star in our adventure, the heroic-classed NPC's in the background are the stars of their own books or movies, just ones the PC's aren't a part of.

For me, this gives the world a very deep, breathing feeling, to know that while you are handling the Necromancer King here, someone else is fighting against demon summoners in the Nation of Fynn, and that freedom fighters are going against the Slave Lords of Bhalbanes, and that the Great Blue Wyrm is being slain by Al-Cid, the God-King of the Easterlands. To know that "adventurers" exist as a profession, albeit a rare one, and that people other than the PC's make fame and fortune slaying monsters and exploring old ruins, is pretty evocative of the D&D milieu for me.

I lose that feeling if the rules are more narrative abstractions than concrete, well, rules.

Definitely. Sure. Right there with you. I mean, no, not at all, but yes, if that's how you want to play it, sure.

But that 20th level High King? Once he's off screen, he's not so much a character as a prop. An element of the backstory. A plot device. No rules apply to him. He's out of the game.

He left as a 20th level whatever, entered my (the DM's) head, and then returned to the game as a corpse. The corpse follows rules. The 20th level king followed rules. But in that shiny interim, nothing applied.

And that's fair, but makes me feel cheated, so I don't want to see this in my games, though you're welcome to enjoy it in yours.