Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4035038" data-attributes="member: 32164">I think this is just an issue of difference of opinion at this point. We've essentially got two groups, or maybe 3. I'll call them A and B, with a nod to the possibility of a third.Group A includes Wolfwood2 (the OP), Professor Phobos, Mallus, Hussar, myself, and several others. We hold that the game rules are just a useful abstraction for game purposes, and that they do NOT represent what is possible and impossible in the game world. What they DO represent is what is likely and unlikely when PCs are interacting with the game world.Group B holds that the rules of the game define the physics of the game world. That group includes (near as I can tell) robertliguori, Kamikaze Midget, Imban, KarinsDad and (I'm sure) others. The way I understand it, Group B believes that the physics of the gameworld are determined by the rules, and that nothing should happen in the entire game world that contravenes those rules. All "exceptions" should be explained in the context of the existing game rules or (and this is the fuzzy case for me), the DM should write a new rule that applies universally to account for any changes he wants to make.In other words, Group B says (I believe) that if you want a high-level NPC to be able to die from falling off a horse, you, as DM, need to institute some mechanic (even if it's avoidable with a DC 2 REF save) for breaking your neck when you fall off a horse.However, the above suggestion would mean 1 in 20 falls from a horse was fatal. And given the number of times PCs will fall off horses in the game, that seems a bit harsh. So if we want to set up a 1/10,000 (or 1/100,000) possibility, we have to create elaborate layers of extra rules.There may be a subset of Group B that doesn't think the DM should be allowed to introduce new rules to cover those possibilities. I'm not sure about that.Basically, it comes down to a simple question:Are the game rules:A) an useful abstraction that enables PCs to interact with the game world, or;B) the actual rules guiding the physics of that world?B would, I believe, hold that a human being with 200 hp is as physically resistant to injury as a anything else with 200 hp.A would hold that a PC with 200 hp is as likely to be seriously injured by a given attack as anything else with 200 hp, while those things are part of the game.Hopefully, people grasp the distinction. And quite honestly, I don't think this debate is solvable.I would point out that I believe the Fourth Edition designers and developers at WotC are firmly in the "Group A" camp.</blockquote>

Verification