Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[allenw]

Counting Coup-de-grace

How do you deal with the coup-de-grace rules? A peasant with a small knife is actually more threatening (they can trigger a Fortitude save in a sleeping 20th level Fighter) than is a fall from horseback at full gallop. That suggests that these elites are not that blessed. It suggests to me that the immunity from horseback fall is more a mechanical glitch (as per the sleeping example) than a nod to the physics of the assumed gameworld.

The coup-de-grace rules, and to a lesser extent the massive-damage and drowning rules, are concessions on the RAW's part to "realism." I would summarize the message of these concessions to be:
"Hit points aren't everything, some mundane things can indeed (though not always 'will') just kill you dead regardless of your starting hit points. Being heroic can better your chances, but it's not a guarantee (especially against drowning)."

The rationale (and mechanics) for the coup-de-grace involve "helplessness." Per the SRD:
"A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy." So, while "heroism" and hit points may continue to have a strong effect even in situations where there's literally "nothing the hero can do to save themselves," even the mightiest heroes can be killed by a combination of helplessness, minor damage applied correctly, and bad luck (rolling a 1, or sometimes more). This is how the world works *for the PCs*, and thus it will inform their worldview. They should find it believable (though highly ironic, and probably unfortunate) that Naughty King Roger Dragonslayer was stabbed to death by a disgruntled peasant when discovered sleeping (literally) with the peasant's wife; they (and the RAW) recognize there are *some* situations in which neither "plot immunity" nor "heroic toughness" will always save one.

I would consider it reasonable, and within the RAW, to rule that in your average "knife-at-the-throat" or "crossbow-to-the-head" hostage scenario, the NPC (or possibly even PC) hostage is "helpless" in this sense (barring PC-arranged distraction), and thus there is at least some risk of immediate death (and thus everyone involved should reasonably *act* like there's some risk of immediate death).

But what about everyone's favorite bugaboo, falling damage? If you happen to be "helpless" when you fall (paralyzed, bound, nodded off while riding a horse due to that darn insomnia, or even deep in daydreaming about a peasant's wife), can the ground "perform a coup-de-grace"? For that matter, if you are "completely at gravity's mercy" (e.g. falling under circumstances in which, from your starting point to the impact point, there's absolutely nothing to grab onto, bounce off of, swing from, be cushioned by, or otherwise interact with, even birds; and you have nothing wing-like or parachute-like on your person; let's say you misjudge a Dimension Door while naked and end up in empty air 100' over a stone floor), are you "helpless"?

Unless its extremely unusual ground, or your gameworld has an interesting interpretation of the "Gaia" concept, I'd have to say "no" (to the first question) by the strict letter of the RAW; coup-de-grace is a full-round, volitional action, and the ground doesn't get any actions, or have any volition. I do, however, think that the spirit of the RAW is consistent with such a possibility, and if I was inclined to rewrite or reinterpret the falling damage rules, I'd explicitly allow for such a possibility. That being the case, even if striving to have my gameworld operate consistenty with the RAW, I'd be okay with high-level people *very rarely* dying from "falling badly".

By the way, even by the approximate letter of the RAW, I do see one way that full-hp King Dragonslayer could be killled falling off of his horse, though not accidentally. Even if the ground can't perform a coup-de-grace, *the horse can* . If the horse notices that the King has nodded off (or is daydreaming about buxom peasant wives), and it really doesn't like him, it could take a full-round action to throw him at the ground "really well," resulting in a coup-de-grace save.

 

[S'mon]

There's a scene in Excalibur where Merlin's raven makes the Duke of Cornwall's horse rear up, flinging this (in D&D terms) high level warrior onto a stack of weapons, which impale and kill him. I guess this could be made to conform to D&D physics, especially if the spears get their x2 "set vs charge" damage bonus.
To me it didn't seem much more likely than the Duke simply falling off horse & breaking neck, though. Maybe the raven was a high level Assassin?

 

[Lanefan]

Lanefan, I don't want to inflict my posts on you if you're not interested - but in several of them on this thread I've explained how a certain playstyle gives a very definite "Yes" to the first of your quotes above, but an equally definite "No" to the second.

I fully appreciate that you may not want to play that way. But I deny that it can't be done.

And if I'm reading those explanations right (and I may not be), they add up to saying, in effect, that X does not equal X even though they are the same.

If the game world is to have any internal consistency, then a battle between an adventuring party and a dragon in the Crystal Mountains has to use the same in-game physics (defined as a sum of game rules and universal physical rules e.g. gravity) as a fight between another adventuring party and a band of trolls in the Mytherendel Forest, or a fight between yet another adventuring party and some pirates in the Kailos Islands. Whether or not one or more player characters is involved in any of these situations is utterly irrelevant.

As soon as you define things such that the PCs function differently from the rest of the game world (without an excellent in-game reason e.g. the PCs are all from another world) then internal consistency and believability race each other to be first out the window.

Lanefan

 

[GoLu]

If the game world is to have any internal consistency, then a battle between an adventuring party and a dragon in the Crystal Mountains has to use the same in-game physics (defined as a sum of game rules and universal physical rules e.g. gravity) as a fight between another adventuring party and a band of trolls in the Mytherendel Forest, or a fight between yet another adventuring party and some pirates in the Kailos Islands. Whether or not one or more player characters is involved in any of these situations is utterly irrelevant.

There are interesting points being made in this thread, but unfortunately many of them present information as fact when instead it is opinion and play style. Many people recognize that game rules have weird corner cases and don't expect the entire rest of the fictional world to live by those corner cases. Many people expect a consistent world where the backstory is plausible within the game system.

I'm mostly in the first camp (honestly, it's a spectrum of preference, even though it's presented as two opposing camps in this thread), so as far as I'm concerned the bolded text is absolutely untrue. Except it's really just my opinion against someone else's, where we both have different preferences in our respective games of make-believe.

And to address the original point of this thread: Game rules are clearly not always in-game physics, because there are games out there where this is blatantly untrue and that much is clearly explained by the game. How this actually applies to D&D is a stickier matter. I think versions of D&D prior to (and post) 3E are fairly obviously leaning towards that end of the spectrum, but 3E could itself go either way.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But what about everyone's favorite bugaboo, falling damage? If you happen to be "helpless" when you fall (paralyzed, bound, nodded off while riding a horse due to that darn insomnia, or even deep in daydreaming about a peasant's wife), can the ground "perform a coup-de-grace"? For that matter, if you are "completely at gravity's mercy" (e.g. falling under circumstances in which, from your starting point to the impact point, there's absolutely nothing to grab onto, bounce off of, swing from, be cushioned by, or otherwise interact with, even birds; and you have nothing wing-like or parachute-like on your person; let's say you misjudge a Dimension Door while naked and end up in empty air 100' over a stone floor), are you "helpless"?

actually no bad idea. Maye you could make a lesser coup-de-grace and allow a fort save vs damage to break a leg etc.

I would also rule you helpless if a crossbow is aimed at your head while you are bound. If you cannot move at least. If you can move, maybe an opposed initiative check would be appropriate to see who is faster

 

[pemerton]

If the game world is to have any internal consistency, then a battle between an adventuring party and a dragon in the Crystal Mountains has to use the same in-game physics (defined as a sum of game rules and universal physical rules e.g. gravity) as a fight between another adventuring party and a band of trolls in the Mytherendel Forest, or a fight between yet another adventuring party and some pirates in the Kailos Islands. Whether or not one or more player characters is involved in any of these situations is utterly irrelevant.

Correct. It's just that the action resolution mechanics are not that physics. They are something quite different - a set of metagame devices for telling us what the outcomes were, in the case of the PC battle, of the ingame physical processes.

 

[pemerton]

always[/I] in-game physics, because there are games out there where this is blatantly untrue and that much is clearly explained by the game. How this actually applies to D&D is a stickier matter. I think versions of D&D prior to (and post) 3E are fairly obviously leaning towards that end of the spectrum, but 3E could itself go either way.

I'm glad someone else has noted that these non-physics rulesets acutally exist, and are being played somewhere in the world even as we speak!

It's quite bizarre to read posts asserting that something can't be done, when in fact it is being done every day by RPGers across the lands.

I also agree with you about D&D (if I've understood you right) - that 3E is the most simulationist/rules complete approach to D&D we've had (although, perhaps paradoxically, also the most gamist).

 

[rkwoodard]

Only if...

If the game world is to have any internal consistency, then a battle between an adventuring party and a dragon in the Crystal Mountains has to use the same in-game physics (defined as a sum of game rules and universal physical rules e.g. gravity) as a fight between another adventuring party and a band of trolls in the Mytherendel Forest, or a fight between yet another adventuring party and some pirates in the Kailos Islands. Whether or not one or more player characters is involved in any of these situations is utterly irrelevant.

As soon as you define things such that the PCs function differently from the rest of the game world (without an excellent in-game reason e.g. the PCs are all from another world) then internal consistency and believability race each other to be first out the window.

Lanefan

But that only holds true if the Players know the whole story. A fight that happens with no PC involment is going to be hearsay anyway. They may know the outcome of the adventuring party vs the band of Trolls. They may be able to guess the other parties levels. But they will not know the prep the party did, the unusual situation the battle happened in, or other factors.

So no, in my opinion and experience, what happens off-stage does not have to go By the rules on the table or have believablity suffer.

RK

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM, this post isn't meant to be antagonistic at all, because (after your response to my kobold vs 20th lvl question, and my question about "cheating") I think I've got a pretty good handle on how you like to play, and (unlike some others on this thread) I don't think you're trying to say that other ways of playing can't be done.

Hooray!

What I wanted to do was just pick up on a couple of your comments and say how a different playstyle might handle those issues:

Sure. Just as long as it's clear that I wouldn't really have much fun with a lot of these transparent narrative devices in D&D.

I've got little problem with them in their right settings, but the fact that they don't have to exist in D&D (and yet the game still attempts to focus on playability and simplicity) is part of the reason I play D&D.

And that's why I think 4e shouldn't embrace this idea as wholeheartedly as some advocate, and as some apparently already assume it does. I do think 3e embraces my side a bit too much to let some of the more narrative DMs out there do their thing in a way they like, though, so it is good to see 4e trying to find a better middle ground. I like the idea of easily-built monsters and speedy NPC's. I just have apprehensions that 4e will err on the opposite side of this middle ground than 3e does, and leave me doing a lot of work to make the game breathe how I enjoy.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't think rules = physics or that consistency between rules and world is particularly important. The rules of D&D are heavily geared towards playing a little dungeon bash game, not simulating a world.

But I would have a problem with the high level NPC dying from a fall. The reason for this is I think that by giving the NPC a level (and presumably a class too) one is making a statement about the character. One is saying he's the same class of entity as the PCs so it's expected that the same rules, more or less, apply. However if he'd never been given a level then there wouldn't be a problem with his death.

The rules of the 'PC bubble' are indeed different from the rules of the wider world. But anything with a class and a level sort of gets sucked into the PC bubble.