Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wolfwood2" data-source="post: 4032447" data-attributes="member: 39394">Picking up on something from the "Stephen Radney-Macfarland" thread that I thought deserved its own discussion.I offer this up for debate:  Game rules are not intended to model the physics of the game world.  Rather, game rules are intended to offer up a rough simulation of the game world that will yield useful narrative results.  There are and should be occasions in the game universe where things happen that appear to break the rules, because the story has gone to a place the simulation fails to adequately cover.This is something seen often in real life.  We frequently create simulations of complex systems that yield results "close enough", even though real life will occasionally throw results inconsistent with the simulation.  An example most people will be familiar with is Newtonian physics versus Einstein's relativity theory.  Newton yields results close enough to the real world that it's useful and taught in classrooms, but ultimately it's just an estimate for how the real world works.Examples for places where D&D rules might fail.1. A strong, skilled, and uninjured fighter might fall from a horse, break his neck, and die.  It would be a million to one, but it could happen in the game world even though the hitpoint model says it can't.2. A (by the game rules) 3rd level wizard might be able to cast a planar binding spell and accidentally call an efreet.  Maybe he fumbled his way through with his master's spellbook as aid and accidentally got it right.  The game rules say this could never happen, but the game rules are merely a guide to probable outcomes.  There's nothing physically preventing him from managing the right gestures and words.3. You might be able to sell a magic item for twice the gold piece value listed in the DMG, though the rules say you'll only give half value.  This is a "physics" that most DMs seem to have no trouble ignoring, though it's no more or less a part of the game world physics than either of the examples above.4. A fighter might study with a fighting master and be extra deadly with a weapon, though the rules say he's not high enough level for weapon specialization.Anyway, the point is that a lot of things in the game world do not and should not follow the rules set forth for the PCs. 4E seems set up to acknowledge this in a way that 3E does not.  That's why monsters and NPCs are treated differently, because it's more useful to use a slightly different (and simplified) simulation for them than the simulation used for PCs.  Neither simulation really captures everything that's going on in the game world.  Both simulations are expected to yield results that make sense enough to then be sensibly described in the context of the game world.Now, I think the reason that this frustrates a lot of people is that player characters generally do follow the rules.  They have to live with the results of the simulation, because this is a game and we want characters to be on even footing.  One complaint I saw on another board was (paraphrased):"What if I have a wizard character with an NPC mentor who has powers built using the NPC rules?  Suppose that mentor dies and my PC studies his notes to learn his powers.  If both characters are human, it makes no sense to me that my PC could never learn those abilities.  It would break my suspension of disbelief."The answer, of course, is that within the context of the game world it is possible for the PC to learn those powers.  However, to do so requires stepping outside the standard rules simulating the game world.  You have to move to realm of the narrative and have a talk between the player and the DM to see if it is appropriate to break the simulation in this case and still have a fun game for everyone.And that is why I think it is a mistake to equate the rules to the physics of the game world.  In the game world, 1 out of 20 swings do not miss and 1 out of 20 swings do not always hit (for given value of "swing, which could be several attacks).  It's simply a convenient assumption for the simulation.</blockquote>

Verification