Game rules are not the physics of the game world

[Imban]

1) Has anyone ever played with a group where the difference in opinion on gamerules as gameworld physics became an issue, and how was this handled?

I typically have this issue myself with published books and modules far, far more than games in actual play. For example, shadows being easily capable of bringing about an undead apocalypse bothers me in 3e, because by my "rules-as-physics" philosophy, their statblock provides that they can do that, so they can do that, and it leaves me holding the bag for answering why that hasn't happened / doesn't happen.

(And God forbid a Shape of Fire shows up to wreak havoc.)

For an even better example of this, there's a power in Exalted called Implicit Construction Methodology. It's not particularly destructive of balance or gameplay, because (in typical PCs' hands) it's much quicker but not notably more effective than comparable abilities for making magical equipment. However, it is destructive to the setting, because in the hands of a very high-powered character (of which a good many exist and existed in the setting), it far obsoletes any other sort of construction for almost everything, including giant factory-cathedrals, which are a major setting feature. As such, from a "rules-as-physics" point of view like mine, that power is bugged.

2) Who be able to enjoy a game where the DM held the opposite opinion, and what, if anything, would facilitate this? (e.g. announcement at the start of the game which philosophy was being followed)

I might be bothered by it because I see high-level D&D as almost superheroic fantasy, and I personally would not like a story wherein 16th-level player characters are just treated as tough professional soldiers who have to honestly worry about an angry peasant girl knifing them. I know I would be bothered by things that break the rules in explicitly stupid ways - I believe someone earlier on this thread (or perhaps on another recent thread) mentioned a fire-immune creature in a published module that's described as having received crippling burns from a lava bath.

Barring that, if we were still playing a game of heroic fantasy, it's probably all good.

 

[pemerton]

Now, if these expectations aren't a problem, because you don't mind telling your players "It's plot. It's not supposed to work like the rest of the world. Oh, yeah, none of your characters find it at all odd or incongruous.", this isn't a problem. However, if players value a consistent world over a dramatic story, and value their ability to interact with and shape the story through in-game world-supported action, you pretty much need new players.

This paragraph does not remotely speak to the issues under discussion in this thread.

I'll ask you again: do you actually deny that anyone plays The Dying Earth, or TRoS, and enjoys it?

 

[pemerton]

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.

Lurker37, your post is interesting, but it does contain this assertion which is open to dispute. In the sort of play I am trying to articulat in my posts, (i) the action resolution and character build mechanics are not models of anything, and (ii) talk of "player's experiences in the gameworld" is an unhelpful confusion of two distinct things: the PCs' experience in the gameworld (which accord with the physics of that imaginary world, which physics are not modelled by any rule of the game); and the players' experience of the game (which happens in the real world and is not modelled by any rule of the game).

Can NPC's suffer non-abstract injuries that the PCs are assumed to be immune to?

In the sort of approach to the rules I am trying to articulate, the PCs are not immune to sprains or deadly falls. It's just that they never suffer them unless a player him- or herself specfies this to be so of his or her PC (because the rules, including the action resolution mechanics, do not grant anyone but the player of the PC the authority to narrate such an event into the gameworld).

If a DM doesn't have an internal consistency within her game that runs far deeper than what the players ever see, it eventually shows through...and the players notice, to the detriment of the game.

You seem to be equating "internal consistency within the game(world?)" with "having all gameworld events be the actual, or at least theoretically possible, outcome of the action resolution and character build mechanics". That equation does not hold true for all approaches to play, and detriment to the game will not necessarily follow from such play.

 

[pemerton]

I see high-level D&D as almost superheroic fantasy, and I personally would not like a story wherein 16th-level player characters are just treated as tough professional soldiers who have to honestly worry about an angry peasant girl knifing them.

But that is not possible in D&D. An angry peasant girl has virtually no chance of wearing through a 26th lvl PC's AC and hp.

The real question is, do you object to a story wherein an NPC duelist of known repute (ie a high-level NPC) died from a fall from horseback? That's the sort of scenario under discussion in this thread, I think.

 

[Imban]

But that is not possible in D&D. An angry peasant girl has virtually no chance of wearing through a 26th lvl PC's AC and hp.

The real question is, do you object to a story wherein an NPC duelist of known repute (ie a high-level NPC) died from a fall from horseback? That's the sort of scenario under discussion in this thread, I think.

Well, of course - I know that out of character, and would prefer to know that in-character as well... but in some styles of play, I'm obliged to act as if I was threatened if an angry peasant girl pulls a knife on me while I'm unarmed and unarmored, or if some loser has a hand crossbow pointed at the small of my back.

I would prefer stories like the duelist who dies of misadventure not happen in D&D, and would avoid them in my own storytelling, but wouldn't lose sleep over it in an actual game. In a printed RPG book, of course, it'd drive me batty - Overlord Invinciblar the Absolutely Invincible Setting NPC can't possibly be killed by your PCs in any reasonable game as he is 26th level, but this setting book says he died from a random fall from horseback or was gored to death by a dire boar on a routine hunt? That pushes my buttons.

 

[Hussar]

Now, if these expectations aren't a problem, because you don't mind telling your players "It's plot. It's not supposed to work like the rest of the world. Oh, yeah, none of your characters find it at all odd or incongruous.", this isn't a problem. However, if players value a consistent world over a dramatic story, and value their ability to interact with and shape the story through in-game world-supported action, you pretty much need new player.

You assume, for some bizarre reason, that rules=physics somehow presents a consistant world. I've argued that it doesn't. It doesn't because there are specific rules in the RAW where PC's and NPC's are differentiated - by the rules themselves.

So, the only reason X happens is because there happens to be a warm body, other than the DM, behind the character sheet. That's not consistent. That's actually the opposite of consistent.

XP awards, Skills, population generation, action points, wealth, - how many things need to be PC specific before you can say, no, this is not a consistent set of rules that allows us to extrapolate a believable world?

 

[Lanefan]

1) Has anyone ever played with a group where the difference in opinion on gamerules as gameworld physics became an issue, and how was this handled?

Yes, though things weren't stated in such clear terms or debated to anywhere near the extent they've been here. What it usually boiled down to (and still does, on occasion) is a question of abstract game rules vs. common sense. We almost always let common sense win, and if it means the permanent adjustment of a rule, the rule gets changed.

2) Who be able to enjoy a game where the DM held the opposite opinion, and what, if anything, would facilitate this? (e.g. announcement at the start of the game which philosophy was being followed)

I'd probably not play in such a game, but if I did it would be as a purely gamist *game* rather than as a true role-play; my immersion level would be steady at about zero, and I'd most likely get bored out of my mind after about 3 sessions.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

You seem to be equating "internal consistency within the game(world?)" with "having all gameworld events be the actual, or at least theoretically possible, outcome of the action resolution and character build mechanics".

As far as the ordinary inhabitants of the gameworld (including PCs) are concerned, yes. Further, internal consistency demands that if something works in a certain manner once, it works in the same manner if-when tried again...this specifically means no mid-campaign rule changes where said change would affect anything that has already happened in that campaign. (of course, if gods and so on get involved this all goes out the window; they make their own mechanics)

That equation does not hold true for all approaches to play, and detriment to the game will not necessarily follow from such play.

Obviously, I disagree; but we'll likely not get much further bashing each other over the head with this.

My bigger point is still that the game rules don't do enough to define what the game-world physics are or how they work. Every setting released, for example, should come with at least general weather tables for the various regions...but how many ever do? And the DMG for any edition needs to at least nod toward the idea of "when in doubt, use real-earth physics (gravity, speed of light, etc.) unless you have intentionally made a chance to such".

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

My bigger point is still that the game rules don't do enough to define what the game-world physics are or how they work. Every setting released, for example, should come with at least general weather tables for the various regions...but how many ever do? And the DMG for any edition needs to at least nod toward the idea of "when in doubt, use real-earth physics (gravity, speed of light, etc.) unless you have intentionally made a chance to such".

Yes and no. I can see real world phyics being a royal PITA when dealing with a lot of things and not actually improve gameplay. The reason we don't screw around with air pressure after a fireball is that no one wants ot play D&D if it requires that much math. I should not need a scientific calculator to play D&D. So, we handwave air pressure. In the same way, we handwave hitting someone with a shocking grasp spell when grappling. Or lightning bolts that travel parallel to the ground. Or that your sword can keep on doing the same damage even after months or years of use. Or, or or...

Take something like a weather table. That's a vastly gross simplification. It's not even a close approximation to how weather actually works. It works in the game, but, as a reality sim? Not even remotely. So, why bother? Use weather as a thematic device and leave it at that. I certainly don't want a player turning to me and saying, hey, you can't have a foggy day today, it's not on the chart.

 

[pemerton]

Obviously, I disagree; but we'll likely not get much further bashing each other over the head with this.

I know it's not your preferred way to play. I don't quite get why you think it can't be done by others, however, and enjoyed by them.