Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Celebrim]

What if we - the people playing the game - say that they don't and can't? Are we wrong?

Wrong is such a loaded term. If all participants agreed to something, then they agreed to it.

But in this case, its not clear to me what that agreement would actually signify. The stories created using the rules would still bear the clear marks of the rules to the reader. If some other stories were created without those rules, there would be a notable difference in the character of the stories. Agreeing that the characters are blind to those differences doesn't change the presence of the elements under discussion. I think that this is simply creating a rule that in game participants are genera blind.

Maybe if you provided a clear better example of what you meant.

And if we - the people playing the game - say that they do stab each other at the same time, what happens then? Didn't that just happen in the gameworld?

Yes. You have, by common agreement agreed to exempt the scene from the normal rules. You have effectively created a 'cut scene' within the universe where the normal resolution mechanics didn't apply. This has the advantage of clearly communicating what the rule was to the players and getting thier clear consent to the rules exception. But in terms of emmersion into the narrative, I think it suffers compared to finding some other solution - especially if two people stabbing each other at the same time is something you want to happen in the universe without needing common agreement.

But if it works for you, then there is clearly nothing 'wrong' here.

 

[LostSoul]

Wrong is such a loaded term. If all participants agreed to something, then they agreed to it.

But in this case, its not clear to me what that agreement would actually signify. The stories created using the rules would still bear the clear marks of the rules to the reader. If some other stories were created without those rules, there would be a notable difference in the character of the stories. Agreeing that the characters are blind to those differences doesn't change the presence of the elements under discussion. I think that this is simply creating a rule that in game participants are genera blind.

Maybe if you provided a clear better example of what you meant.

I mean: if we, the players, say that the NPCs and PCs in this world of our imagination do not know about/predict the behaviour of Fate/Action/etc. Points, are we wrong - do they in fact know about them, even though their authors say that they don't?

I know that the fiction will come out differently. That's the point in having those mechanics. But that's not what I'm responding to, unless I've totally misunderstood this:

Even if an in game observer didn't know the name of the meta-game constructs like 'fate points' or 'saving throws', he certainly could observe thier effects and would recognize them as being a part of the predictable behavior of the universe he lived in.

I, as an author of the game's fiction, am saying that the characters (scratch that - everything in the game world, not just characters) involved don't recognize these things, cannot predict results based on them, and don't base their behaviour on them. Because I, as author, am saying that these metagame points don't exist at all in the gameworld; they only exist at the table in the real world.

Am I, as an author of this fiction, wrong about what I'm creating? Does my world actually have "Action Point" rules, even when I say that it doesn't?

Yes. You have, by common agreement agreed to exempt the scene from the normal rules.

I'm not talking about changing the rules, though; I'm talking about describing the action.

The NPC hits me, then on my turn I hit him and do enough damage to kill him. I decide to describe it like this:

"I feint and he goes for it - he's so fast that his sword nicks me at the same time as I hack his head off with my axe."

 

[pemerton]

Celebrim, thanks for the reply. I found it clarified quite a few of your points. I'm still pretty sure we disagree, but I think I'm clearer as to what we disagree about.

you appear to be trending toward a FORGEism that I expressly deny - namely that the GNS ways of playing a game are incompatible.

In this discussion I'm certainly trying to draw the distinctions starkly (sort of like Weberian ideal types). I'm not sure that they are as stark in play as the Forge would have it, but I have to confess threads like this make me think that the Forge might be right. For example, and hoping it's not rude to say so, I think that your approach to what I am calling metagame rules (which you deny are purely or strictly metagame) suggests that simulationist thinking is winning out. Which does suggest a degree of incompatibility. I don't expect you to agree with that comment (hence my hope that you nevertheless won't take it as rude) but I'll try to explain why I make it.

I disagree with your claim that the distinction in narrativist play is mechanical or even the assumptions about the mechanics. What you are describing is features of games designed specifically to facillitate narrativist play, and not essential distinguishing features.

Fair enough. I guess my view is this: narrativism can be facilitated by the presence of certain action resolution mechanics. But (and more importantly) it can be hindered by the presence of certain rules, or by a certain approach to the rules and mechanics. If you get rid of the latter (the hindering ones) but don't add in the former (the facilitating ones) then you can play vanilla narrativist.

In the context of D&D, the main rule that I believe hinders narrativist play is the alignment system, which (in play, and I believe also in description, although the latter is more debatable) deprotagonises players frequently and unpleasantly. But other assumptions about play do also, such as the common assumption that the GM is free to introduce adversity at any point of the gameworld. My reading of W&M is that 4e is changing much of this, either expressly or by implication (via PoL).

I also think that an "rules as physics" approach can hinder narrativism, because it can deprotagonise players in certain unhappy ways (RM is notorious for this, I think, despite the fact that many features of its character build rules are very friendly to a vanilla narrativism). Hence my linking of narrativist play to Fate Points, "saying yes" rules, hit points as plot protection rather than ingame physics, etc.

You keep using FitM in a way that strikes me as very unconventional as well. Doesn't it just describe a mechanic whereby the outcome is not known until after the dice are thrown? For example, if in D&D the table rule is that you roll the dice to determine if you hit, and then only after that describe the scene, aren't you using FitM?

You seem to be pigeon-holing FitM to some very specific mechanics, in much the same way that you seem to have an overly narrow definition 'narrativist'.

I believe I am following the Forge notion of FiTM. So yes, D&D would count as a type of FiTM if played in a certain way. But I think playing it in this way would already take us away from the "rules as physics" approach. For example: the "rules as physics approach" (and here I've especially got in mind KM and robertliguori - I'm less sure about where you stand) treats 50 hp damage as 50 hp damage. So, when a high level hero falls over a cliff and suffers 50 hp damage they have taken a mighty tumble and survived - whereas a lesser mortal would have perished. But in a FiTM approach, we don't know what the 50 hp means until the action is resolved and the damage applied - and in that context, it becomes highly plausible to narrate it differently: "The hero falls over the cliff, but the God of Winds - whose Djinn she rescued from entrapment last session - smiles on her and the breeze slows her fall at the last moment." And once you are playing D&D like that I think that the notion of "rules as physics" has started to take a back seat - for example, under this approach I don't see that any damage to the integrity of the gameworld, or to the integrity of the real world play experience, would be had by having a high level fighter NPC die falling over a cliff. His luck ran out, that's all.

I don't deny that a game can have metarules which shape play but which have no real existence at the in game universe level. I've kind of hinted around that this is true without really getting into it. And, it's at this point that things get complicated, because alot of the things that you say are metagame rules don't strike me as being pure metagame rules. Rather, very often the metarules you describe are in my opinion 'simulationist' in character and have both metagame and in game existance. That is they shape play at the table, and are also from the standpoint of an in game actor 'real'.

<snip>

I'm perfectly willing to distinguish between gameworld and metagame rules. I'm perfectly willing to distinguish between a rule that governs the interactions of players, and a rule that governs the interactions of thier characters. Oddly enough, I think that you are having trouble doing so. A rule like 'the DM doesn't have to pay for the pizza', governs the interactions of players. A rule like, 'If we can't decide what the correct interpretation of a rule is, we flip a coin and move on rather than argue', governs the interactions of players. The rules you keep citing govern the interactions of things in the game universe.

I think this is the real crux of our disagreement. The rules you mention - about pizza and coin tosses - are not the rules I'm interested in, as you note. What I'm calling metagame rules (perhaps unhelpfully, but I don't know a better phrase) do govern the interactions of things in the game universe. But (and this is crucial, contentious, and will be taken up again below) not from the perspective of the game universe.

Consider a rule (what I am calling a metagame rule, but I don't think it is a metarule in your sense) which distributes narrative control. Suppose, for example, that we are playing D&D as FiTM, so that when my PC survives a 50' fall I am allowed (within certain parameters expressly or implicitly understood) to narrate how that happened. This is a rule that combines action resolution mechanics - the dice are rolled, the damage applied to my character - with non-mechanical matters, namely, those which tell us who can narrate and what is permitted in that narration.

Under this rule, the action resolution mechanics are, I assert (and I'm pretty sure you deny, but I may be wrong) not modelling, giving voice to or otherwise representing or expressing the physics of the gameworld. The rule about what is permitted in narration is doing that - but the relationship between that rule and the actual mechanics may differ a great deal from game to game.

I don't think RPGs actually need any of those things.

I hope all the above makes it clearer why I think that rules (be they express, or - as is more common in mainstream RPGing - implied) about context, adversity introduction etc matter. These shape the play experience. Thus, if there is no "Lois Lane" rule by which the players can declare sidekicks or lovers off-limits to the GM, at least in certain respects, then a certain sort of play - one which makes thematic points using those NPCs as part of the expressive material - becomes more difficult. Now, the absence of a "Lois Lane" rule is simply the presence of a different rule (again, it may be an express rule or (as in much D&D) an implicit rule): the GM may use any NPC as a site of adversity no matter the relationship between that NPC and the PCs, and no matter the attitude of the player towards that NPC.

Likewise, rules about parameters of narration (eg when playing d2 revised edition as a FiTM game, can I explain my success in jetting to Mars by declaring that I had rocket fuel in my backpack?) help settle the physics of the gameworld (among other things).

I think where we may be sticking is that in your description of narrativist play, there is a body of rules describing the physics of the in game universe which are implied by the setting. I grant that this is true.

<snip>

Part of the problem is that in most narrativist games I'm aware of, the action resolution mechanics are so generic and abstract that the sort of edge case conflicts we are describing simply aren't possible. Maybe I just don't know the rules of those games well enough, but with an abstract mechanical resolution system - whether narrativist or not - is it ever possible to note that an offstage event was impossible under the rules?

I think what you say about implied setting constraints is right. This is what I am trying to get at with references to "the parameters of permitted narration".

As to the issue about abstract action resolution - I think that is also right, and feeds into the flexibility of FiTM resolution. D&D is not as abstract as that.

For example, two fighters never stab themselves at the same time. Ever.

Well, that's true if it's a fight being resolved using the action resolution rules. But whether all fights have to be understood as implicitly falling under those rules is what we're debating. I prefer to think of it like this: the physics implied by the setting make it perfectly clear that two fighters sometimes stab one another at the same time. Our action resolution mechanics, however, make this impossible for PCs (and NPCs, when those mechanics are in use). This degree of non-abstraction in our action resolution mechanics puts a limit on the flexibility of FiTM but we may have other reasons for wanting a less abstract set of mechanics (as per your even earlier remark about GNS in/compatibility, maybe we want a little bit of gamism mixed in with our narrativism). But I don't think we're obliged to read this funny "glitch" of our mechanics into the gameworld per se.

Now, I have to qualify that in as much as that there is often a metagame rule that the in game actors are themselves 'genera blind' and don't know the tropes of the universe that they inhabit.

<snip>

That the rules grant PC's plot protection is not a necessary and inescable feature of the rules (though its often a desirable one), but that they model a universe in which a game takes place is necessary and inescable.

This point about "genre blindness" is crucial. It underlies my claim that certain rules and mechanics which determine how things are in the gameworld do not do so from the perspective of the gameworld. I actually think it goes beyond genre blindness, however. For example, the ingame characters are blind to the fact that the PCs never perform simultaneous strikes.

There are other ways in which this sort of blindness operates, too. Suppose, for example (as may well be true - I've never checked) that in a Raymond Chandler novel no character ever utters more than a 3-syllable word. Does it follow that no one in Phillip Marlowe's universe has a full vocabulary? I don't think so. There is a "metagame" explanation - Chandler is trying to write punchy crime fiction - which does not have to be taken to model the linguistic physics of his world. Or, to give another example, the effect on nineteeth century novels of their prior serialisation (Dickens, Wilkie Collins) which contributes to their meandering, episodic and surprise plot-twists style: do we infer that the characters all live in bizarre plot-twist world? Or do we treat it as purely a "metagame" feature of the writing, which is not indicative of the "gameworld" reality.

I think the latter. I think by wanting to read these (as I call them) metagame constraints back into the gameworld, you are evincing a systematic simulationist reading of the game rules and mechanics which (IMO) would get in the way of vanilla narrativist play. As this is an attribution of personal preferences, inclinations and obstacles, feel very free to contradict and/or refute it! But to me it seems to be the crux of our disagreement about the relationship between game rules and gameworld physics.

 

[pemerton]

I mean: if we, the players, say that the NPCs and PCs in this world of our imagination do not know about/predict the behaviour of Fate/Action/etc. Points, are we wrong - do they in fact know about them, even though their authors say that they don't?

I know that the fiction will come out differently. That's the point in having those mechanics.

<snip>

I, as an author of the game's fiction, am saying that the characters (scratch that - everything in the game world, not just characters) involved don't recognize these things, cannot predict results based on them, and don't base their behaviour on them. Because I, as author, am saying that these metagame points don't exist at all in the gameworld; they only exist at the table in the real world.

Am I, as an author of this fiction, wrong about what I'm creating? Does my world actually have "Action Point" rules, even when I say that it doesn't?

Lost Soul, you have hit here on exactly the point that I (in my much longer post!) isolated as my point of disagreement with Celebrim.

If I may treat your questions as rhetorical, then let me express my agreement with what you are saying.

I'm not talking about changing the rules, though; I'm talking about describing the action.

The NPC hits me, then on my turn I hit him and do enough damage to kill him. I decide to describe it like this:

"I feint and he goes for it - he's so fast that his sword nicks me at the same time as I hack his head off with my axe."

Maybe D&D does have more room for highly flexible FiTM than I allowed in my long reply to Celebrim.

 

[Hussar]

Just to clarify my point. I was ONLY speaking to the idea that the RAW could be used to explain all events in a game world. I don't care about house rules or the rules at someone else's table, since I don't play at that table. My ONLY point, which should have been fairly clear, was that the RAW distinguishes between PC's and NPC's and thus you have a fairly selective physics.

Heck, PC's are immune to certain skills. Why can I diplomacy one character and not another?

The rather larger stuff that you guys have sailed onto is all your own discussion. I was merely pointing out a basic point. NPC's and PC's are differentiated by the rules themselves. The differentiation makes Rules=Physics very problematic.

 

[AZRogue]

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.

I think we agree more than we disagree. I am always most concerned with those situations where rules have not been made. I like it when my players think of creative actions and do things that the rules do not cover.

Of course, I also believe that the rules are only a rough structure for resolving PC actions and not an explanation for how the world works in general. Combine that with the fact that I consider the NPCs and world in general to be my property and, thus, subject to my will and whim, and I could see our having problems at a table.

But to each there own. I hope you continue to have fun.

 

[AZRogue]

I, as an author of the game's fiction, am saying that the characters (scratch that - everything in the game world, not just characters) involved don't recognize these things, cannot predict results based on them, and don't base their behaviour on them. Because I, as author, am saying that these metagame points don't exist at all in the gameworld; they only exist at the table in the real world.

Thank you. This is an excellent point and one of the key things that I have been trying (and failing, I think) to articulate.

 

[Hussar]

KM, a few last thoughts before I bow out.

I didn't mean to accuse you of wrongbadfun. Not in the least. In my mind, I think you have mischaracterized your game. You are claiming that rules=physics in your game, but, I think that you have not explored exactly what that means.

The fact that the only way you can justify the examples I brought up is by rewriting them shows me that. It's not that you're having wrongbadfun, I think you're having just as much fun as everyone else. I also think that your campaign is likely exactly the same as everyone else's - NPC's and PC's are treated differently, created differently and, off camera operate under entirely different rules sets.

I highly doubt you actually adventure that NPC up to 15th level, for example, but rather create him whole cloth, complete with whatever doodads you want to give him.

That's my entire complaint in a nutshell. It's not that you're having wrongbadfun, it's that you're trying to make a claim that isn't supported by either your own experience or by the RAW. IMNSHO.

 

[Lurker37]

Frankly, I find the proposal that an set of RPG rules could be used as a full description of a gameworld's in-game physics to be a little disconcerting.

To truly achieve this, the game system of any world where we assume that the protaganists are biological organisms with complexity remtely approaching that of a human being, where there is an ecosystem of sufficient diversity to provide an engaging variety of flora and fauna, and where at the very least the Newtonian laws of Physics apply, would require a game system so complex that it would comprise several hundred rulebooks and a supercomuter to calculate results in real time. And that's before we add any rules for magic/psionics/pokemon/whatever.

No playable system uses a full simulation of gameworld natural laws. What the do is present a simulation model.

Is anyone here not familiar with the concept of a simulation model? It's a method of simplifying a real-world scenario down to the point where, for instance, a computer can predict the outcome of something. The trick is taking the thousands of real-world variables and replacing those that will not be changing significantly during the process we wish to model with constants. That requires us to make assumptions about the environment in which the process will occur. If one or more of those assumptions proves incorrect, or if a significant variable is left unaccounted for, then the model will not generate accurate results.

RPG rules are models. They simplify the simulation of the player's experiences in the gameworld to the point where the simulation is playable and enjoyable. For example, most of them do not do is simulate weather patterns, extinction of species, geographical formations, economic systems etc. Rules that do attempt to do this are usually either gross simplifications (e.g. random tables) or else so cumbersome that they are rarely invoked during a game session.

Not surprisingly, RPG rulesets tend to focus on the creation of PCs and handling their adventurous activities. This allows further assumptions to be made, further reducing the amount of rules required to play the game.

The point of contention here is that there appears to be an assumption in the D&D system that PCs will not suffer injuries such as sprains or broken bones. The hit point system lets PCs and NPCs alike function at full efficiency until their condition becomes life-threatening. Why was this assumption made? Presumably becasue although such outcomes of even minor injury are indeed possible, being forced to play the results of such is not widely considered as fun. (Yes, I know. Go figure!)

So the rules do not model broken bones or sprains, because the assumption is that such things will not be required to result from combat involving PCs.

The problem that is arising is what happens when one or more of the assumptions of the rules no longer apply? There are two approaches - extend the rules to deal with the situation, or accept that this is a limitation of the model, and handwave it. If you are only willing to accept the first approach, but cannot establish a rule, the only conclusion is that such an event cannot be handled in game at this time.

I do not, however, accept that such a situation means that such things are impossible in the gameworld (unless the fact that this is impossible is explicitly stated in the rules, in which case it isn't a flaw in the model to begin with). Instead I take the stance that this is a result of the imperfections of the rules' attempt to model the gameworld, and that the DM is able to go beyond these limits due to rule 0.

Having said where I stand, I'm going to plow on with the example to see where this thought experiment takes us.

I'm going to try to break down the high-level character falling off horse argument into the three ways it jars against the default system. To do this I'm going to thoroughly pain the DM into a corner so that extraneous tangential lines of argument can't draw us away from the point we were originally trying to examine - how can this NPC die from falling off the horse?

Let's assume for narrative purposes that the fighter has been a semi-mentor figure, and the DM wishes for him to die so that the PCs can step into his shoes. It is important that this death be by misadventure, as any fatal illness would be cured by the clerics, and death by foul play would require a revenge plotline that would derail the current main plotline, which has time-critical elements. Alas, the PCs have explored the vicinity and know that there are no deep ravines, so that trick is ruled out. Furthermore, the DM has plans to use the manner of this NPC dying as an omen for a future plotline.

In the RAW, there are three obstacles to allowing the fatal fall from a horse. The falling damage rules only allow for 1d6 damage, there are no rules for broken bones, and the NPC has a respectable hit point total that would absorb most injury.

If this were a PC, then there would be no question. The rules are specifically set up on the assumption that such injuries to PCs do not enhance the game, so there is no page space devoted to rules for them. Ergo, the PC would not be able to die from the fall unless already gravely injured.

The core question seems to be whether the same holds for NPCs.

Let's examine each point to see how much room for interpretation there is.

1) Can a fall result in more damage? The falling damage system is both simple and rigid. Furthermore, despite reports in the news of toddlers surviving falls from 5th story balconies, such things are reported precisely because they are so atypical. Asking for the level of variance in the rules to inflict more hit point damage from falling, say by exploding criticals, would mean that even tripping over could become a life-threatening event. So it seems that reworking the falling damage system would cause far more problems than it would solve.

2) Can NPC's suffer non-abstract injuries that the PCs are assumed to be immune to? For instance, can commoner NPCs sprain ankles or break arms? While many of us would argue that there is no strain on our disbelief to encounter a commoner with either condition, it is equally valid to note that nothing in the rules spells out how such a condition would have been inflicted on them. If we accept that such injuries are possible in the gameworld, then we either need to create rules for them, and thus create the risk the wrath of players whose characters are rendered unable to fight by such injuries, or else persuade them to accept that the absence of rules to inflict these conditions does not mean that they do not exist. I personally would have far more trouble with believing that commoners cannot sprain ankles than accepting that although it can happen in the gameworld there are no rules for it happening in play. Yet. But the DM's spouse is not amenable to this, so we continue.

3) Are hit points extraordinary physical resilience or a simulation of skill and luck/fate/destiny/divine favour? The presence of massive damage and coup-de-grace rules would seem to indicate the latter, but this point is being hotly debated in this thread. How do we handle situations where the hit point system breaks down? The presence of massive damage and coup-de-grace rules point to two cases where the designers thought the default behaviour of the hitpoint model was undesirable. Are there any others? Is the NPC falling from his horse one of them?

Personally, I'd simply handle it narratively. I would not feel it necessary to create a rule for a once-off event, but instead say it happened, and move on. I'd accept that happily, as would the group I play with, but many posters here would not.

So let us furthermore assume that one of the players is of such a mindset, and furthermore cannot simply be ejected from the table due to being married to the DM.

(As I said, I'm painting the poor DM into a corner.)

So how to proceed without having to sleep on the couch tonight?

I note that in 4E at least hit points are going to be explicitly defined as not representing extraordinary physical toughness, but rather a combination of skill and luck. Apparently healing spells are even being rewritten to reflect this.

That suggests a solution. Rather than ramp up the damage, houserule that under certain circumstances skill and/or luck no longer apply, reducing the effective hitpoint total.

If the hit point system is a simulation of skil land luck, then situations where skill and/or luck no longer apply would reduce the character's ability to survive damage.

Let's take being immersed in lava, for example. No amount of physical prowess is going to help you once you're in it- the time for it to help you was before you fell into it. Furthermore, there is no probability involved. The chance of the lava NOT conducting fatal amounts of heat energy into your body during any given second is zero. It's going to happen. So anything not magically immune to extreme heat, and with a melting or ignition point below the melting point of rock, is going to die.

So perhaps a charcter - PC or NPC is deprived of the benefit of half their hit points whenever skill or luck is removed as a factor, and deprived of most of them when both are removed. At this point they only have a low, base amount of hit points standing between them and mortally wounded status. The only trick left is to determine how low this is, making sure it's not instantly killed by a pebble while still allowing coup de grace etc.

Then the GM can simply rule that in this case both the NPC's skill and luck were ruled out, so the few remaining hit points he had were low enough for the fall (which did max damage) to be fatal.

Unfortunately the DM's spouse really liked that NPC, so the DM is still sleeping on the couch tonight.

So now we have a proposed houserule that can allow the NPC to die, and also makes life far shorter for high-level characters dropped in lava or falling from great heights.

My final question is: does anyone prefer this houserule to just accepting that a DM can make judgement calls on situations not covered by the RAW?

 

[AZRogue]

I think the main issue is that falling damage IS covered in the RAW. Therefore, some people think that this rule, unless previously House Ruled (which would render all of this pointless), must be followed because this is how the physics of falling are handled in the game world.

Basically (and I'm sure I'll mess this up somewhere), the Falling Damage rule is a direct reflection of the setting's nature itself. If you change it, fine, but that would mean (from their point of view) that you just changed the physics of the world.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe that Falling Damage does not represent the physics of the world but, instead, is the way the game handles adjudicating the consequences of falling for a PC. Under casual circumstance it could also be used for NPCs, since it allows for quick and easy adjudication, but I believe that this is not necessary. Since, IMO, the rules do NOT reflect the physics of the world, but are in place to provide a fun heroic fantasy game for the players, I think that it is much more appropriate to not use the rule and instead adjudicate the situation in a way that MORE CLOSELY REFLECTS the physics of the game world.

I think that a player who thinks that this is impossible because his character has survived much more dangerous falls is kind of metagaming. The character was "lucky" (partially what hit points represent) and should think that he barely escaped with his life--not conclude that every hero of his skill (level) can leap from tall buildings.

But, once again, I don't begrudge anyone their style of play. It did surprise me at first because this is the first I've heard of it, and I've been playing since 1981 and DMing since 1985, with a wide variety of people including many gaming store games. I didn't realize that it was such a popular interpretation of what the rules represent.