Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4037984" data-attributes="member: 42582">In the gameworld, I thought "something pointy stuck in his guts" is performed by stabbing him in the guts. The attack roll happens at the gaming table, surely, and not in the world (assuming the world is not OoTS). So the attack roll is a device for (if you must use that language) "contriving the narrative".Some of us think that it need not be the only such device that the rules make room for - that the attack roll has a special role to play when a PC is involved, but has no role to play otherwise. And that in those other situations, other rules can come into play.By describing different rules as inconsistent rules, you are begging the question against those who want to play differently from you. If the rules are that (i) action resolution and character build mechanics govern PCs, and (ii) other rules for distributing narrative control determine who is able to decide non-PC elements of the gameworld, then it is not inconsistent for the rules to (i) declare that no PC is dead who still has hit points left as has not failed a saving throw, and (ii) permit the GM to decide that a powerful NPC warrior died in a riding accident.What counts as "involving the PCs" is of course a flexible matter than could vary from game to game, from ruleset to ruleset, from gaming table to gaming table. Within the framework sketched above, there are at least two ways to approach Lois Lane: either she gets the benefit of (i) even when offscreen, and so can't die until all her hitpoints are lost; or she gets the benefit of (ii) so that when she is offscreen, the players (and not the GM) have narrative control in repsect of her.In my own game, we do not have formal rules for how to handle this, but there is an implicit understanding that I, as GM, can control Lois Lane so as to engender PC adversity (eg she gets kidnapped) but not so as to crush the PC's plot line (so she can't be randomly killed, or suddenly fall in love with someone else).What I said above. And I hope you can see why "ignoring for the sake of expedience" and "glossing over for the sake of convenience" could be read as pejorative descriptions of a particular approach to play.A neutral description might be "quaranting the action resolution and character build mechanics to situations that involve the PC, for the sake of gaming pleasure".KM, as I said in my post to which this is a reply, I don't doubt your feelings. My objection is that, in voicing your feelings, you are using language like "cheating" or "breaking the rules", plus the other phrases I have quoted above, to describe those with different preferences in RPGing. These are pejorative descriptions.You will have noticed that in my post I used phrases like "the rules may be different when the PCs are not implicated" and "hit points can be interpreted as a type of plot protection". I did not assert that there is only one way to play: I merely pointed out that the narrativist approach to play that you do not enjoy is a possibility within the framework of D&D rules, and is certainly not correctly, let alone fairly, described as "cheating" or "breaking the rules".Many narrativist players would agree - your claim may be true, but it is entirely orthogonal to the discussion. The discussion is not about consitency in the world, it is about whether or not the action resolution and character build mechanics govern the whole world, or just the PCs and their protagonism.Notice you said "could", whereas (if the action resolution and character build mechanics really are the physics of the gameworld) then you should have said "would". Because on the "rules as physics" approach it is impossible for the uninjured high level fighter not to survive the 200' fall down a cliff.If we stick to "could" and not "would", then of course the narrativist player need not dissent from your assertion.Which is to say, that you want the character build and action resolution rules to be the "physics" of the gameworld. But not everyone does. Nothing in the D&D rules states that this is the case. There are other ways of interpreting the D&D rules. Some players so interpret them. And those players are not breaking or ignoring the rules, nor are they cheating. They are just playing in a different way from your preference.What you say is expressly true of hit points in RM or RQ. On the other hand, ever since AD&D the D&D rules have expressly said that hit points are a measure of skill, luck and physical prowess. And Chris Sims on the Healing thread has pretty much reiterated this in respect of hit points in 4e.I gather that 4e will also change some of the flavour of healing spells to reflect this (these being the main aspect of traditional D&D that is somewhat at odds with the hit-points-as-skill-and-luck approach).Via the rules for distributing narrative control.That's one way to do it (the example is a bit odd for D&D, however, because it's combat rules aren't really designed for handling massed battles - but nevermind).Lost Soul posted another way (what the Forge calls "fortune in the middle").But precisely what is up for grabs in this discussion is whether the character build rules are rules for high-level PCs (which is broadly what the narrativists maintain) or rules that describe all heroic personalities in the gameworld. Your discussion of contracts between GMs and players is entirely tangential to that question.That's one way to do it. But that means that the gameworld can never include a scenario in which (for example) a powerful warrior is pushed off a 50' cliff and dies before getting to draw his sword (because, under the RAW, even 30 hp of damage won't trigger massive damage). Or in which a high level wizard burns to death in her tower (because, by the action resolution rules, the jump from the window wouldn't kill her and so, were they strictly applied, she would have no reason not to jump).Some of us do not want to play in worlds in which such scenarios are impossible. We therefore have (among others) the following options: play Rolemaster, and reconcile ourselves to the prospect that PCs will die frequently from unlucky crit results; play HARP, which introduces Fate Points into otherwise RM-ish mechanics; play D&D, but adopt the interpretation of its character build and action resolution mechanics that some of us are articulating in this thread.I understand why some people might prefer to play Rolemaster. I've done a lot of it myself, and still do. But I don't see why the third option above cannot be acknowledged as a legitimate approach to the play of D&D.That's one way to do it. It won't work if I want to run a game set in a world with no Fates. If I may speak on his/her behalf, the logic of Prof Phobos's position is that we don't need to analyse all our rules as if they model features of the gameworld. We can be upfront that some of them - maybe all of them - are devices we have adopted at the gaming table so as to have a fun time playing the game.Of course this would not be a fun game for everyone (eg KM). But it is a fun game for some people, perhaps a lot of people.And this sort of rules-bloat is, IMO, the greatest threat to pleasurable simulationist gaming. We could call it "the curse of Rolemaster".I notice that some people on the thread like AllenW's idea - fair enough, though it's not really for me, because it would get in the way of stories like those of King Theoden (in LoTR) and Beowulf. By referring to rules-bloat I'm not so much intending to denigrate this rules option, but rather the more general notion that it can't happen in the gameworld unless there is a part of the action resolution or character build rules that describes it.With respect, this comment completely disregards what John Snow, Prof Phobos and I have been saying for several pages now - that we are not talking about the mechanics that govern player protagonism, but rather whether those mechanics (of which hp and save-or-die are sub-systems) should be understood as governing the entire gameworld (ie are they the "physics" of that world?).But anyway, spelling it out:A PC does not have to fear a horse more than a dragon, because the dragon is manifestly fiercer. A player does not have to fear his or her high level PC riding a horse at all, because s/he know that there is no way, within the rules, for his or her PC to die simply from a failed Ride check.A high level NPC does not have to fear a horse more than a dragon, because the dragon is manifestly fiercer. And an NPC has no player (by definition).Thus, no one either in the gameworld, or at the table, has more to fear from a riding horse than a dragon. QED.</blockquote>

Verification