Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Celebrim]

Do you really think that it would have to be included as part of the rules?

Ok, trying again.

When I say 'rules' in this thread, I'm generally refering to the all the rules being used to arbitrate play. I am not only refering to the formal rules of the game as have been written down. When I say, 'rules', I mean literally all the rules.

I believe in my 'd2' example that it was fairly obvious that all the rules being presented formally where all the rules period. That doesn't mean that in other game systems that this is true, but it was certainly true in my example.

Don't you think, instead, that the level of limitation would spring naturally from the actions attempted by the player and those allowed by the other players and DM (if the game had one)?

No, I don't. Why would you think that it would? I think quite the opposite will occur. The hypothetical players of 'D2' might not initially realize that they can offer propositions like 'I become President of Universe', but such a limitation isn't naturally arising from the resolution system of the system. It's arrising naturally from the players conceptual limitations of having lived in this universe, and if we play D2 by the rules it will be eventually overturned by the actions attempted by the player and the observed results.

Suppose we altered the d2 system just a bit. Instead of all propositions being resolved by a coin flip, the referee was allowed to classify the propositions into 'heads', 'flip', and 'don't be an arsehat'. 'Heads' propositions always succeeded, 'flip' propositions succeeded 50% of the time, and 'don't be an arsehat' always failed. This effectively gives the referee in d2 nearly full narrative control of the game. (This is quite a change, since the first edition of d2 effectively gave most of the narrative control to the player.) Using this narrative control, the referee can impose limitations on the actions of characters to force the game universe to conform to his idea of how it the universe should actually work. Depending on the referee, this might make for sufficient 'casual realism' for the story to be believable to a person who expected the game universe to work something like the real universe. It would however basically boil down to DM fiat, and the players would not be able to foreknow what propositions would fall into each category.

 

[Celebrim]

The thing about heavy arbitration is that it's extremely dependant on how good of a DM you have. The most successful and fun games have heavy arbitration, but the most awful, boring, and slow games have heavy arbitration, too. A good narrative DM doesn't need many rules beyond "what I say goes." They can tell a good story no matter what system they use, just because they're naturally engaging, they know neat tricks, and when they make a descision, you know it's going to be basically for the better.

I agree, though I think there is even more too it than that.

I consider myself a good, though not great, DM. (Great DM's can run fun and engaging sessions of Toon and Paranoia. Almost anyone can run fun and engaging sessions of D&D.)

For me, even if I could run a session on, "what I say goes", after a while its not very fun for me. For one thing, too much of the game is about me. I may be entertaining the players, but excercising that much control means that the players are not as likely to be entertaining me. For another, its just too much mental heavy lifting. It's exhausting to run a game that way for a long time. I like to have rules because it's alot easier to resolve something under the rules quickly, than it is to answer questions for myself like, "How far could an atheletic 6' tall person jump consistantly?" and "Does it make a better story if he grabs that chandelier or is the story more interesting if he doesn't?"

 

[JohnSnow]

Has anybody else gotten to the point of agreeing with my conclusion that this discussion is at this point just pulling a "Merry-Go-Round?"

Folks, we just disagree on how the game plays best. Some people even disagree that we disagree, yet we don't agree that they're right. In my opinion, further discussion on this topic is pointless and I will be withdrawing from this thread.

Obviously, you're all free to ignore me and continue the discussion, but since I'm withdrawing, please don't address me or quote me in a way that would draw me back in.

Thanks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For me, even if I could run a session on, "what I say goes", after a while its not very fun for me. For one thing, too much of the game is about me. I may be entertaining the players, but excercising that much control means that the players are not as likely to be entertaining me. For another, its just too much mental heavy lifting. It's exhausting to run a game that way for a long time. I like to have rules because it's alot easier to resolve something under the rules quickly, than it is to answer questions for myself like, "How far could an atheletic 6' tall person jump consistantly?" and "Does it make a better story if he grabs that chandelier or is the story more interesting if he doesn't?"

I'm on board with this. I'll even add that using the rules to decide how far he jumps and if he grabs the chandelier could, very likely, give me the launching pad for a more interesting story than if I knew the outcome or just decided it myself. The best writers don't know where they're story will take them, after all.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Or in short, we can do this and not make the players expressedly conscious of the fact that the universe divides into on stage and off stage. The same is not true of 'falling off a horse' if we have communicated to the players rules for falling off horses that make the observed result impossible.

There is nothing in the current Rules As Written that makes it impossible for a fall off a horse to do more than D6 damage. (Or if you prefer, that it not result in an instant death effect that bypasses hitpoints.) Show me where in the PHB or the DMG it says that you can't die from falling off a horse if you have more than d6 hitpoints.

More than d6 hitpoints of damage is not one of the options offered by rolling a die, but that is in no way the same thing as saying that other results are impossible. Rolling a die can only give you a limited subset of results of all the possible things that could happen. Presumably, if the results range has been well-defined, it will be the most common results. But not the only possible results.

As for everyone arguing that they prefer a world where 20th level characters can never die from falling off a horse, that has nothing to do with the rules being the physics of the game world. Not a blessed thing. If powerful, competent people never die ignoble deaths, then that is just as much fluff as saying they do. It's not because they have a mess of hitpoints; it's because you want heroic people to die heroically.

I think I demonstrated that when I offered the alternative scenario of a 1st level fighter falling off a horse, getting his foot entangled in the stirrups, and being dragged along the ground. That scenario is not going to come from rolling the dice anymore than a 20th level fighter falling off a horse and dying. Yet the few responses I got seemed to take it as okay for the DM to fiat that sort of thing, because it doesn't make a heroic person non-heroic.

Because it makes sense by the fluff (as they perceive it.)

 

[Celebrim]

Ah, well, it's just a preference thing then. The most successful and FUN games I've ever had were where DMs used heavy arbitration, and therefore PCs were more free to do those things that felt the most natural to them.

I remember a player propping up his longsword in a cloud dragon's mouth to keep it from closing on the cleric and killing him. I didn't try to find the rule on whether it was possible; it was creative and so I ran with it and made him roll to hit and let him pull it off.

I think you are confusing two concepts again. Not surprisingly, its the same two things people are repeatedly confusing.

In the above example:

a) The player offered a proposition that was not in the rules: "I want to stick my sword in the dragon's mouth to keep it from closing on the cleric."
b) You decided that the absence of a rule specifically allowing something was not the same as having a rule that explicitly forbids something.
c) You created an impromptu rule for arbitrating what happens when a character proposes to stick his sword in a dragon's mouth to keep it from closing.

That all sounds good to me as well. In fact, this might surprise you, but it is the sort of thing I'd advocate. You shouldn't just say, "No.", to a character. You shouldn't use the formal rules incompleteness as an excuse for not allowing reasonable actions. You should be able to smith out rules on the fly as the need for them arises.

None of this in fact implies that the game rules are not the physics of the game world. None of this argues against my claim that game plays better (is more fairly arbitrated, less likely to have DM PC's, is less likely to generate conflict between player and DM, is more emmersive, is more likely to inspire DM's imagination in novel ways, whatever) if the events of the game are assumed to have abided by the rules of the game.

All it says is that the absence of a rule specifically allowing something is not the same as having a rule that explicitly forbids something.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm on board with this. I'll even add that using the rules to decide how far he jumps and if he grabs the chandelier could, very likely, give me the launching pad for a more interesting story than if I knew the outcome or just decided it myself. The best writers don't know where they're story will take them, after all.

The problem with replying to people who agree with you and who you agree with is that there is very little to say to them after a while except, "Right on!"

Or, "Write on!", as the case may be.

 

[Celebrim]

There is nothing in the current Rules As Written that makes it impossible for a fall off a horse to do more than D6 damage. (Or if you prefer, that it not result in an instant death effect that bypasses hitpoints.) Show me where in the PHB or the DMG it says that you can't die from falling off a horse if you have more than d6 hitpoints...Rolling a die can only give you a limited subset of results of all the possible things that could happen.

Indeed, rolling a die can only give you a limited set of results of all the possible things that could happen. The question answers itself. It's not possible because 'Instant death' is not a result on my d6.

If there are possible results other than d6 damage, then the rules ought to specify what those results are. There is in fact no reason to suspect that the designer thought {1,2,3,4,5,6,'Instant Death'} was the set of possible results of falling off a horse. Presumably if the results range has been well-defined, it will be all the possible results. Otherwise, the results range is not well-defined, by the definition of 'well-defined'.

As for everyone arguing that they prefer a world where 20th level characters can never die from falling off a horse, that has nothing to do with the rules being the physics of the game world. Not a blessed thing. If powerful, competent people never die ignoble deaths, then that is just as much fluff as saying they do. It's not because they have a mess of hitpoints; it's because you want heroic people to die heroically.

I don't follow you at all. The claim you make at the top doesn't seem to have a logical connection to what follows afterwards. Perhaps if you rephrased your idea?

I think I demonstrated that when I offered the alternative scenario of a 1st level fighter falling off a horse, getting his foot entangled in the stirrups, and being dragged along the ground. That scenario is not going to come from rolling the dice anymore than a 20th level fighter falling off a horse and dying.

No it isn't? So?

Yet the few responses I got seemed to take it as okay for the DM to fiat that sort of thing, because it doesn't make a heroic person non-heroic.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think that it is Ok for the DM to fiat that sort of thing. I know as a player, that if my character was thrown from the horse, and the DM said, "You know. I've always liked the cinematic quality of characters falling off thier horse and getting thier feet tangled in the stirrups and then being dragged along the ground. I know the rules don't provide for it, but since it doesn't make your hero less heroic, I'm going to make a judgement that it happened here.", I'd be somewhat disatisfied.

I would probably be actually much more satisfied with that than if the first time it occurred it happened to a NPC though. I'd feel slightly cheated both ways, but at least in the first case the DM is upping the ante in a good ol' fashion rat b@$@#$! sort of way.

Now, on the other hand, if the DM started a session by saying, "As you may or may not know, Bob is a rodeo bull rider and an expert horseman. He's approached me about problems he has with the lack of realism in the horsemanship rules we are playing under. He says its really interfering with his ability to enjoy the game. He talked it over and he made some suggestions and I have some new rules that hopefully prove not to be too much more complicated in play. Among other things, these new rules may increase the risk when thrown from a steed.", then I'd be perfectly fine with that. I'd also be fine with the DM saying that he personally was having problems with the level of realism/detail in the riding rules. And likewise, I think at any point a PC ought to be able to say something like, "I strap Black Bob's foot to the stirrup...", and the DM ought to be able to improvise some sort of 'dragged across the landscape' rules.

 

[pemerton]

your point about 3E also being the most gamist is weird. I don't think it's wrong, but it's just weird to think about. Early D&D seemed so gloriously gamist that it hurts my brain a little to think about how the far more simulationist 3E is possibly even more gamist than it ever could be.

Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt anyone's brain!

I was thinking about the complexity of both character build and action resolution mechanics in 3E, which really give scope for gamist play. Earlier editions relied much more on non-rules-mediated player-GM negotiation for action resolution, which could support gamist play, but was also unhappily prone to abusive GMing and 2nd-ed style railroading. 3E is better at avoiding those issues, and is (in that sense) more gamist, I think.

I suspect that a lot of house rules get started because the game = physics thing doesn't work perfectly in the ruleset as published by WotC (but it works well enough that it seems like it should work the rest of the way), and so additional (or alternate) rules are created to bridge the gap.

I think this is right. But that you have to drift D&D to play it fully simulationist suggests (i) that the rules themselves may be a little incoherent, but also (ii) that playing D&D in non-simulationist mode is not necessarily contrary to the rules (as has been suggested by some in this thread).

 

[pemerton]

A good narrative DM doesn't need many rules beyond "what I say goes."

I don't know why you say this. The best explanation I can think of is that by "narrativist" you mean something like "railroading".

Some explicitly narrativist games have reasonably low-key mechanics. Others (like TRoS, or HeroQuest, or The Dying Earth) do not. D&D (3E or 4e), played as a narrativist game, is going to be more like these - that is, rules heavy.

What distinguishes narrativist (ie metagame-heavy, thematically-oriented) play from "rules as physics" play is not that it is light on mechanics, but rather than those mechanics are not interpreted as the physics of the gameworld. Rather, they are a metagame device for distributing narrative control, and (in some cases) determining the resolution of conflicts.

I'm really starting to get annoyed, so I'm not going to respond to anyone in particular.

<snip>

I guess I shouldn't expect people that argue that logic and consistancy aren't important to show much logic or consistancy.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me. But when they think that they are disagreeing with me, it would at least be nice if they were.

Names not having been named, I don't know if I'm among the annoying or not. Given that I've been both logical and consistent, and have defended the importance of logic and consistency in the gameworld, I'll give myself the benefit of the doubt.

Particularly as I do disagree with you.

Imagine I have a new game system: 'd2'. D2 is the most simple game system ever devised. It has at its heart one conflict resolution mechanic.

"For any proposition, determine the success by flipping a penny. If the penny comes up 'heads', the proposition succeeds. Otherwise it fails."

With a few additional rules (mostly to describe what the above words mean, particularly 'fails'), that's a complete game system.

It does not however describe a world that has physics anything like the real world.

<snip and segue>

Yes, but I was describing a hypothetical game system with one rule. But I wanted to talk about a theoretically 'most simple' game system, to avoid complicating the discussion.

Celebrim, it's a litttle unclear whether your hypothetical system has one rule or more than one. If it really has only one rule, then I agree it is unplayable as, for example, it doesn't tell me (i) how to introduce adversity into the game, nor (ii) what counts as a conflict, nor (iii) what the parameters of player and GM narration are (eg am I allowed to explain my success in jumping to Mars by explaining "It turns out my PC had rocket fuel in his backpack"?), nor etc etc.

But once I supplement d2 with the sorts of rules you suggested would be there in your original post, then I have a game that looks a little like Prince Valiant, don't I? I'm not sure why it would be unplayable. I also don't know why anyone would assume that the d2 rolls modelled anything in the gameworld. They would obviously be a device for saying either "Yes" or "No" to a player's attempt at specifying a certain gameworld situation. The explanation for that situation (assuming the player wins the d2 roll), and thus the ingame physics, would be narrated by the play (as per the rocket fuel explanation above). And such physics may well have mass, space, time etc, (or no not, if we play in a more Toon-ish approach - this is why supplemental rules about the source and context of adversity matter).

Of more mainstream games, Conan OGL has a similar feature in its rule that permits a player to spend a Fate Point in order to specify or change the gameworld to a limited extent. Does anyone really suppose that such Fate Point expenditure correlates to any physics of the gameworld? (Can Conan change the world by wishing?) It is a purely metagame device, for giving the player a limited degree of narrative control.

You have not actually addressed this issue, despite the fact that I have raised it in numerous posts: some mechanics in some RPGs are expressly not about the physics of the gameworld. They are about the distribution of narrative control at the gaming table. The physics of the gameworld are the product of the decisions made by those exercising that control.

His first assumption won't be, "The universe works differently depending on whether it is a PC or NPC", and I would argue that if that is your player's first assumption, you have or are about to have a problem.

The first assumption, in a narrativist game, presumably would be "I have narrative control (or plot protection in the form of hp and other aspects of the action resolution mechanics) in respect of my PC, that I do not have in respect of the NPCs in this world." Such a thought is consistent with the thought that the ingame universe works the same way in respect of both - its just that, as far as those workings are concerned, the player has some control over them when they implicate his or her PC (just as the GM has some control over them when they implicate an NPC).

And I don't think that the assumption I have described will necessarily create any problems. Many published RPGs expressly state it, and are played in accordance with it.

The leadership doesn't treat NPC's differently from PC's, except that it implies that PC's can't be cohorts.

And what is this rule? It is obviously not part of the physics of the gameworld - there is nothing about PCs, qua ingame beings, that makes it impossible that they should enter the service of a lord. It is an obvious metagame rule.

I'll say it again: if you refuse to distinguish gameworld and metagame - and so refuse to distinguish between the physics of an imaginary universe, and the rules for handling the interactions of players in the actual universe - then of course narrativist play will look strange and problematic. That is why narrativist play begins by drawing the gameworld/metagame distinction very clearly.

I know as a player, that if my character was thrown from the horse, and the DM said, "You know. I've always liked the cinematic quality of characters falling off thier horse and getting thier feet tangled in the stirrups and then being dragged along the ground. I know the rules don't provide for it, but since it doesn't make your hero less heroic, I'm going to make a judgement that it happened here.", I'd be somewhat disatisfied.

As would I. The point of plot protection rules is to undergird players' protagonism via their PCs. A GM undermining that by ignoring or breaking the rules is not good.

I would probably be actually much more satisfied with that than if the first time it occurred it happened to a NPC though.

This response depends upon assuming what the narrativist does not, namely, that the action resolution mechanics are the physics of the gameworld, rather than a device for undergirding player protagonism by way of PC plot protection. As such, it is not the response that would be universally had. (To draw another parallel to Conan OGL: if the players found a dead NPC at the end of a battle, would they ask themselves "Why did she not spend a Fate Point?" I assume not - the players know that Fate Points are a purely metagame device, to give the players limited control over their PCs' fates.)

Now, on the other hand, if the DM started a session by saying, "As you may or may not know, Bob is a rodeo bull rider and an expert horseman. He's approached me about problems he has with the lack of realism in the horsemanship rules we are playing under. He says its really interfering with his ability to enjoy the game. He talked it over and he made some suggestions and I have some new rules that hopefully prove not to be too much more complicated in play. Among other things, these new rules may increase the risk when thrown from a steed.", then I'd be perfectly fine with that. I'd also be fine with the DM saying that he personally was having problems with the level of realism/detail in the riding rules. And likewise, I think at any point a PC ought to be able to say something like, "I strap Black Bob's foot to the stirrup...", and the DM ought to be able to improvise some sort of 'dragged across the landscape' rules.

This is one possible way of handling the action resolution mechanics in the game. There are others. For example, in a fortune in the middle system, how do we know whether Black Bob's foot got stuck in the stirrup? Well, if the PC wins the conflict againt Black Bob, then the player has licence to state that Black Bob's foot got stuck in the stirrup, and Black Bob was dragged across the landscape. In this latter sort of game (eg HeroQuest), no one would suppose that the action resolution rules are the physics of the gameworld. They don't tell us what is taking place in the gameworld. They distribute the right to determine that across the players and GM within certain parameters - and those parameters are driven by metagame considerations, not ingame logic.