Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I think this is basically so close to my position as to be indistinguishable, practically, at the game table.

My only contention would be one, basically, of color. But saying "A 1st level Aristocrat with 3 hp named King Badness died falling off a horse" and saying "King Badness died falling off of a horse" and letting me assume that, in the background, he was a 1st level Aristocrat with 3 hp, wouldn't be dramatically different from this.

Of course, if he had all the accouterments of a high-level adventurer, that dissonance would creep up again, but that's a lot easier to explain away as being consistent with the rules (various family heirlooms, etc.), and isn't about him falling off of the horse, so it'd really be kind of a separate hydra-head.

 

[robertliguori]

I've got an idea: exploding dice. Here's the basic concept; we move to 4E auto-max criticals, and declare that if you ever roll a 20 on an attack (or a 1 on the save), the effect automatically succeeds, and effectively happens again. So, if you roll a 20, you auto hit, automatically do max damage, and roll the attack again. If you hit, your attack deals the damage/effect of two attacks (one maximized); if you roll a 20 on that attack, you auto-max again, and roll again. You'd use the same principle for saves; roll a 1 on a save vs. falling damage, and you take the damage, and have to save again.

Using this mechanic, you can, without huge look-up tables, represent that one-to-a-million shot where that one-in-a-million shot did manage to fell a great dragon. You can inject an amount of uncertainty into combat again; it would crop up commonly enough to drive home that dangerous crap is dangerous, and sometimes suddenly gets a whole lot more dangerous than you expected.

 

[Hussar]

I posted this on the other thread in the general board, but I'll expand it here.

The idea that rules=physics breaks down because the rules themselves differentiate between PC and NPC.

PC's gain xp. NPC's only gain xp when they are with PC's.

Don't believe me? Reread your Leadership rules. Cohorts only gain xp when the leader does and the followers never gain xp, no matter what.

Do you advance the monsters every time the party retreats? After all, if the party backs off, or dies, it's quite likely that the monsters might actually start gaining levels.

Take another example.

Two smiths, John and Bob, both 1st level commoners. Both spend their day making iron bits over hot fires.

However, several times a year, John hunts wild ponies. He goes off into the bush and kills 4 wild ponies three times a year.

Within three or four years, John is now TWICE as skilled of a blacksmith as Bob. Regardless of the fact that they actually spend the same amount of time doing smithing stuff, John has 6 ranks in Smith (3rd level) and takes the Skill focus feat that he gets at 3rd level for a total of +9 to Bob's +4.

All because he kills ponies.

And I'm supposed to believe that this increases verisimilitude in the fantasy world? That Bob could study 24 hours a day, since he doesn't need to sleep, under the greates smith in existence, stopping only briefly every three days to eat a single meal, because that stops the mechanical effects of hunger, but, will STILL only be half as good of a smith as John?

So, how does killing ponies make me a better smith?

Take another example:

Two ships, on the first ship, the captain has the leadership feat and his companions, his cohort and his followers are on the ship. The followers are acting as crew.

The ship meets a sea monster and they defeat it. Xp is divided as follows: PC's get full shares, the cohort gets a half share that's created from nothing, resulting in the sea monster actually being worth more xp than if the cohort wasn't present, and the crew get nothing.

The second ship captain has no leadership feat.

The ship meets a sea monster and they defeat it. XP is divided as follows: All of the levels of those on board are tallied and averaged and everyone receives an equal share of xp.

Or, in the case of almost every campaign out there, the PC's gain an equal share and bugger everyone else.

However, the rules themselves differentiate between PC and NPC in major ways.

 

[AZRogue]

I think the situation would be helped by killing a PC every now and then by having him or her fall from a horse.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I really don't know why people keep trying to tell me I'm having badwrongfun, but whatever, I'm game.

PC's gain xp. NPC's only gain xp when they are with PC's.

Untrue. NPC's gain XP the same way PC's do, according to the 3e DMG. Not just when they are hirelings, but when they are Commoners on the frontier.

Don't believe me? Reread your Leadership rules. Cohorts only gain xp when the leader does and the followers never gain xp, no matter what.

Read the rules before the NPC classes, when it talks about what levels and classes the NPC's in your world should normally be.

Do you advance the monsters every time the party retreats? After all, if the party backs off, or dies, it's quite likely that the monsters might actually start gaining levels.

In a way, yes. In a way, you already did. The bodies of the adventurers who tried to attack it before and failed serve as testement that they have done their own share of XP-earning encounters "off screen."

Within three or four years, John is now TWICE as skilled of a blacksmith as Bob. Regardless of the fact that they actually spend the same amount of time doing smithing stuff, John has 6 ranks in Smith (3rd level) and takes the Skill focus feat that he gets at 3rd level for a total of +9 to Bob's +4.

All because he kills ponies.

And I'm supposed to believe that this increases verisimilitude in the fantasy world?

Well, we can start with the disclaimer that one of the many things I would've liked 4e to provide is a robust system for gaining XP via non-combat methods, and an NPC class that doesn't gain much hp, BAB, etc., but gains plenty of skill points. I think this is an area of 3e that can be improved with 4e.

But let's look at how it has been for me in 3e:

It's a fantasy world. Levels are purely a feature of the "heroic." When John goes out and risks his neck in the goblin-infested wilderness killing ponies, he's not just learning about killing ponies. He's also thinking about what killing ponies teaches him about blacksmithing, and applying that to the blacksmithing.

There's several ways to see this:

#1: When John goes out hunting, he goes out hunting with a friend who is a better blacksmith than him, and they swap stories about blacksmithing, and John picks up some tips the don't teach you in books.

#2: As John hunts, he learns about the properties of metal. He identifies veins running close to the surface of the ground. He perhaps does some impromptu forging over a campfire with some clay. He analyzes how different kinds of folding allow for different kinds of wounds on the prey, some more effective than others.

#3: As John is hunting, he's also finding treasure in some of those pony-infested forests, goblin-holes and old tombs and the like. He uncovers tomes of blacksmithing from bygone empires when the secrets from Moradin himself were passed down, coins of unusual synthesis, shapes and patterns no one back home really knows about.

#4: Hunting ponies leads to all sorts of interesting encounters with travelers, like those dwarves he talked to.

That Bob could study 24 hours a day, since he doesn't need to sleep, under the greates smith in existence, stopping only briefly every three days to eat a single meal, because that stops the mechanical effects of hunger, but, will STILL only be half as good of a smith as John?

Study all you want, you won't get that "aha!" moment until you take your nose out of the book and go explore the world a little bit.

In D&D, life experience (and a variety of it!) is vastly better than any sort of purely academic learning.

Two ships, on the first ship, the captain has the leadership feat and his companions, his cohort and his followers are on the ship. The followers are acting as crew.

The ship meets a sea monster and they defeat it. Xp is divided as follows: PC's get full shares, the cohort gets a half share that's created from nothing, resulting in the sea monster actually being worth more xp than if the cohort wasn't present, and the crew get nothing.

The second ship captain has no leadership feat.

The ship meets a sea monster and they defeat it. XP is divided as follows: All of the levels of those on board are tallied and averaged and everyone receives an equal share of xp.

I'm not really seeing a problem with that.

Or, in the case of almost every campaign out there, the PC's gain an equal share and bugger everyone else.

I dunno, I take into account potential NPC allies when accounting for PC experience, because having another target to waste actions and limited resources on makes the encounter that much less dangerous. Even if it's just 50 commoners, that's a bunch of actions the sea monster can spend one-shotting mooks.

However, the rules themselves differentiate between PC and NPC in major ways.

The rules differentiate between Heroes and Mere Mortals in major ways. The rules don't differentiate between On-Camera and Off-Camera much.

 

[pemerton]

I really don't know why people keep trying to tell me I'm having badwrongfun, but whatever, I'm game.

I think, in many cases at least (not sure about Hussar, but I think the OP was doing this rather than what you suggest) they are trying to point out that other ways of playing the game are possible, and are supported by the game rules (to a passable degree, at least).

Well, we can start with the disclaimer that one of the many things I would've liked 4e to provide is a robust system for gaining XP via non-combat methods, and an NPC class that doesn't gain much hp, BAB, etc., but gains plenty of skill points. I think this is an area of 3e that can be improved with 4e.

I'm not sure that this would fit with you "heroic realism" interpretation of the D&D world, because it would produce non-heroic heroes.

It's a fantasy world. Levels are purely a feature of the "heroic."

<snip>

In D&D, life experience (and a variety of it!) is vastly better than any sort of purely academic learning.

I think that the core RM XP rules do a better job of implementing this model ("hard field training" being the way to advancement). Those rules, combined with the RM character build rules, also solve the non-combat NPC problem without completely undermining the "heroic realism" approach.

I'm not sure it is such a neat fit for D&D, because the emphasis is not so much on what the character did (successfully used a skill or ability in the field) but on what the character accomplished relative to his/her goals (ie overcoming challenges). It is this element of metagame in the D&D XP system that supports its use for a certain (admittedly limited) range of non-simulationist approaches to play.

 

[pemerton]

I've got an idea: exploding dice.

<snip>

You can inject an amount of uncertainty into combat again; it would crop up commonly enough to drive home that dangerous crap is dangerous, and sometimes suddenly gets a whole lot more dangerous than you expected.

As I've already said, if I want to play RM, I'll play RM (which has open-ended high rolls which play a similar role to what you describe).

As I've also said, RM is not the only way to approach the relationship between the action resolution mechanics and the gameworld.

In particular, some approaches to play don't benefit from increasing the risk of PC death. Hence they adopt various metagame devices (be they Fate Points, or the metagame interpretation of hit points and other aspects of D&D's mechanics) to control it.

 

[Lanefan]

The idea that rules=physics breaks down because the rules themselves differentiate between PC and NPC.

PC's gain xp. NPC's only gain xp when they are with PC's.

If that's the RAW, I smell a houserule coming my way...

Don't believe me? Reread your Leadership rules. Cohorts only gain xp when the leader does and the followers never gain xp, no matter what.

I'm not even going to ask what (or even if) they were thinking when they dreamed that up. All I can say is I've never played or DMed that way in any edition.

Do you advance the monsters every time the party retreats? After all, if the party backs off, or dies, it's quite likely that the monsters might actually start gaining levels.

It's possible, but killing one or two PCs does not (usually) a level make. Worth noting, however.

Take another example.

Two smiths, John and Bob, both 1st level commoners. Both spend their day making iron bits over hot fires.
However, several times a year, John hunts wild ponies. He goes off into the bush and kills 4 wild ponies three times a year.
Within three or four years, John is now TWICE as skilled of a blacksmith as Bob. Regardless of the fact that they actually spend the same amount of time doing smithing stuff, John has 6 ranks in Smith (3rd level) and takes the Skill focus feat that he gets at 3rd level for a total of +9 to Bob's +4.
And I'm supposed to believe that this increases verisimilitude in the fantasy world? That Bob could study 24 hours a day, since he doesn't need to sleep, under the greates smith in existence, stopping only briefly every three days to eat a single meal, because that stops the mechanical effects of hunger, but, will STILL only be half as good of a smith as John?

You've found a full-ride headache with 3e's skill system. As others have said, a system whereby commoners could gain ranks in non-adventuring skills without having to adventure would sure be nice.

Take another example:

Two ships, on the first ship, the captain has the leadership feat and his companions, his cohort and his followers are on the ship. The followers are acting as crew.
The ship meets a sea monster and they defeat it. Xp is divided as follows: PC's get full shares, the cohort gets a half share that's created from nothing, resulting in the sea monster actually being worth more xp than if the cohort wasn't present, and the crew get nothing.

Sure, this might be how it works using the RAW, but it's still dead wrong. Any of the crew who took part in the battle (as opposed to just taking cover) should get some ExP for it, period.

The second ship captain has no leadership feat.

The ship meets a sea monster and they defeat it. XP is divided as follows: All of the levels of those on board are tallied and averaged and everyone receives an equal share of xp.

Which is how it should work regardless of who is on the ship or what feats they have or how they relate to anyone else on the ship.

Or, in the case of almost every campaign out there, the PC's gain an equal share and bugger everyone else.

However, the rules themselves differentiate between PC and NPC in major ways.

Sometimes you just have to stare your rulebook down, say to it "you're talking garbage", start houseruling, and pretend what you read in the rulebook was just a bad and quickly fading dream.

Lane-"but I'd use a different word than garbage"-fan

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sometimes you just have to stare your rulebook down, say to it "you're talking garbage", start houseruling, and pretend what you read in the rulebook was just a bad and quickly fading dream.

Yes.

 

[Hussar]

But, Lanefan, it doesn't matter if you or I agree with the rules. That's entirely besides the point. The point being made here is that a D&D world functions as a result of those rules. That the RAW defines the physics of the world. That you think the rule is stupid or bad is irrelevant.

I'm presenting how the RAW actually works. I'm not making anything up. This is what the RAW specifically states will happen. Full stop. That's why RAW doesn't function as the physics of the world because it would be utterly unbelievable if it did.

Read the rules before the NPC classes, when it talks about what levels and classes the NPC's in your world should normally be.

Yup, read them. Where does it say anything about how those NPC's got those levels? Oh, right, it doesn't. It says pretty much - give them the levels you think they should have to fit in the adventure. Oh, and if you want to make a town, here's how to do it so that you have a nice spread of levels. At no point do you ever advance those NPC's by having them go through off camera adventures. No NPC ever dies before becoming the planned level of your adventure.

DM - Damn, I was really hoping I could use Roderick for this adventure. Too bad he bought it before he hit sixth level. Guess it's back to the breeding pit for more NPC's.

It has nothing to do with wrongbadfun and I certainly never claimed anything of the sort. My point is that you are taking a completely indefensible position and trying to say that it works. It doesn't. The RAW doesn't say what you claim it says. The RAW differentiates between PC and NPC in significant ways. Changing my examples doesn't make you right. If you cannot defend your position without distorting the situation, that means your point is wrong.

Look, how many ways does the RAW need to differentiate between PC and NPC before we can say, yes, they are different by RAW? Off the top of my head I can think of the following ways:

• XP - PC's and NPC's gain xp differently, in that NPC's only gain xp when on camera. Off camera, an NPC never gains xp, or you would have entire towns gaining levels after a tornado. People living in Kansas would all be seventh level by the time they were twenty years old.
• Wealth - PC's have twice the wealth of an NPC. Why? Because PC's are better investors? Ballocks. It's because an NPC is meant to be a challenge against 4 PC's. To bring the classes up to speed against the party, classes need magical bling. Also note, monsters actually don't get as much treasure. A 7th level PC has 19k gp, a 7th level NPC has 8500 and a CR 7 monster has 2600 gp. Despite the fact that they should all be equal. A 7th level NPC fighter is a CR 7 encounter. Why does he have just about 4 times more bling than a Hill Giant?
• Action Points. I brought this up before, and it was brushed off, but, other than very rare NPC's, only PC's gain action points. Why? Because it would be too complex to give action points to everyone. Pure gamism.

That's just a few examples of how the rules differentiate PC from NPC. Never mind the bag full of rules that make absolutely no sense from a world building perspective. Unless your world is full of extremely skinny insomniacs that is.