Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[pemerton]

Nope. The purpose of the mechanics is to create a certain gameplay result. Tactical elements, genre emulation, speed and ease of play. Those sorts of things.

Agreed. I'd add also - the mechanics are one way of answering the question "What state is the gameworld in?" They are not the only way.

 

[pemerton]

what happens when the PCs's bubble-of-reality sweeps over something it didn't previously cover?

a world in which there really are two classes of people - PCs and npcs - is very "order of the stick" as well.

If you refuse to even acknowledge a distinction between game and metagame, then no, you will have no alternative but to regard the rules as the physics of the gameworld.

 

[Celebrim]

That's all I meant.

The reason I didn't think that that is what you meant is that no one has in fact suggested the need to throw dice for every off stage event. So if that's what you meant, you didn't really say anything about anything anyone had actually said.

 

[AZRogue]

That.

Exactly.












EDIT: Sorry, the above didn't contribute anything and was done only for my amusement. It's probably not appropriate. No harm was intended. Let me post something more seriously.

The fact that the rules provide a structure for a PC's actions on the world to be adjudicated by the DM doesn't imply, IMO, that they're the actual physics of the game world. They are rules to simulate certain aspects of the game world, sure, but they do so with the goal of providing a base for characters to take actions and see their effects.

Certain design decisions of the game system (like hitpoints, levels, falling damage, etc.) don't lend themselves to believable play but DO lend themselves to resolving PC actions in a consistent manner.

The rules are there for the players, so that they can PLAY, not to adjudicate the way the world works outside the range of their influence.

 

[pkt77242]

While I personally like the style of play in which the rules are not the physics of the world, I don't begrudge others their prefered play style. Now the one thing that I don't understand is the talk of how if a 20th level NPC falls off a horse and breaks his neck that it destroys their suspension of disblief. If I am playing a game that has dragons, magic, demons, efls etc, and really only exists in my imagination, I am pretty sure that I can stretch my imagination just a little bit farther to fit a high level NPC falling off a horse and dying. In fact I don't think it is a stretch at all but that just my opinion.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

That.

The other thing.

I think all the bases have been covered now.

The Auld Grump

 

[Doug McCrae]

If the rules are physics can the game world's inhabitants learn them? For example could they discover levels or hit points?

My feeling is that certain rules work like genre conventions, the protagonists must always be blind to them.

 

[Doug McCrae]

a world in which there really are two classes of people - PCs and npcs - is very "order of the stick" as well.

Only if the inhabitants know it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

There's the D&D RAW and there's what is plausible. There is a significant overlap between these two but likewise much falls outside it. For example, by RAW a 90-year old wizard with a con of 3 travels as fast overland as a 25-year old ranger with an 18 con.

If there's a conflict what wins? RAW or plausibility?

 

[Professor Phobos]

Common sense wins.