Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4038620" data-attributes="member: 3192">The Fluff.&nbsp; The fluff, which is a rather denigrating term in my opinion, is the description of the world.&nbsp; What the Referee describes of the world and the Players of their characters is the reality.&nbsp; That is the physics of how the world works.&nbsp; It works by their description; the characters for the players, the rest of the world for the Ref.&nbsp; The rules are a half-hearted attempt to simulate that world to a degree of satisfaction for everyone involved.&nbsp; If the rules aren't living up to snuff, shake 'em out and find something that works.&nbsp; Seeing as the referee is the one who is operating the world it's easiest for him or her to find a mechanic that fits the situation.&nbsp; Strangely enough most of the time a coin flip will do it.&nbsp; Then there are straight rolls like d6 or d20.&nbsp; Sometimes you might want a curve and you might use multiple dice.&nbsp; Or you weight things with bonuses and penalties.&nbsp; It's all pretty basic stuff.&nbsp; There are plenty of unique game mechanics out there to steal (or borrow).I said in my previous post that the physics of the world are simulated.&nbsp; That it is not the rules dictating the simulation.&nbsp; Well, that's mostly true.&nbsp; Here are a couple of side cases to illustrate things as best I understand them.First, groups have generally agreed that not all cases are covered by the rules.&nbsp; It's impossible anyways, right?&nbsp; We don't roll to breath every round.&nbsp; So the group just uses those rules they agree are necessary for them to enjoy the game.&nbsp; Case in point is the Called Shot rule. It just doesn't work in D&amp;D.&nbsp; Damage Resistance is a poor choice too IMO, but it can be done.&nbsp; What happens when play turns to these nuances in the world and the mechanics don't match up?&nbsp; We fudge over it or we say we'd like to play a new way from now on.&nbsp; Either way mechanics don't work as constructed, but based upon the simulation of the world desired.&nbsp; Form follows function.&nbsp; However, instead of the functioning of the rules being the higher priority, it's the functioning of the described environment.&nbsp; The form of the rules change until the group is satisfied.That's one side case where the rules fail as physics, but if left alone could be rightly called such.&nbsp; A second example is about when description takes on the weight of rule in an unexpected way.&nbsp; This kind of thing happens all the time.&nbsp; In fact, you could say all description has the force of rule.&nbsp; For example, if the referee says there's an elephant in the room and I as a player say there's not, guess who's right?&nbsp; It's the damned Ref every time!&nbsp; It's like a rule or something.Anyways, an actual good example of description having the weight of rule is in the adjudication of spells.&nbsp; If my player creates a spell that kills all blue haired people within thirty feet, she's just included &quot;blue hair&quot; into the combat valuation system.&nbsp; It's now measurably good or bad to have blue hair in our game.&nbsp; It would require notation in a d20 statblock.&nbsp; If this physics change occurred in the real world, it's dollar value just went up.&nbsp; And I've not even mentioned what &quot;foot&quot; means though it's obviously important to the function of magic.IMO, things get twisted when the rule of law shapes the world beyond what was ever intended and then those intentions are discarded under enforced law.&nbsp; The law was built upon intention and not the other way around.&nbsp; Sure, those laws can sometimes lead to illuminative or unforeseen consequences, but we aren't earnestly constructing exact simulations here.&nbsp; It's beer &amp; pretzel for what we enjoy.&nbsp; Not supercomputers.Shucks, I can't be brief either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 4038620, member: 3192"] The Fluff. The fluff, which is a rather denigrating term in my opinion, is the description of the world. What the Referee describes of the world and the Players of their characters is the reality. That is the physics of how the world works. It works by their description; the characters for the players, the rest of the world for the Ref. The rules are a half-hearted attempt to simulate that world to a degree of satisfaction for everyone involved. If the rules aren't living up to snuff, shake 'em out and find something that works. Seeing as the referee is the one who is operating the world it's easiest for him or her to find a mechanic that fits the situation. Strangely enough most of the time a coin flip will do it. Then there are straight rolls like d6 or d20. Sometimes you might want a curve and you might use multiple dice. Or you weight things with bonuses and penalties. It's all pretty basic stuff. There are plenty of unique game mechanics out there to steal (or borrow). I said in my previous post that the physics of the world are simulated. That it is not the rules dictating the simulation. Well, that's mostly true. Here are a couple of side cases to illustrate things as best I understand them. First, groups have generally agreed that not all cases are covered by the rules. It's impossible anyways, right? We don't roll to breath every round. So the group just uses those rules they agree are necessary for them to enjoy the game. Case in point is the Called Shot rule. It just doesn't work in D&D. Damage Resistance is a poor choice too IMO, but it can be done. What happens when play turns to these nuances in the world and the mechanics don't match up? We fudge over it or we say we'd like to play a new way from now on. Either way mechanics don't work as constructed, but based upon the simulation of the world desired. Form follows function. However, instead of the functioning of the rules being the higher priority, it's the functioning of the described environment. The form of the rules change until the group is satisfied. That's one side case where the rules fail as physics, but if left alone could be rightly called such. A second example is about when description takes on the weight of rule in an unexpected way. This kind of thing happens all the time. In fact, you could say all description has the force of rule. For example, if the referee says there's an elephant in the room and I as a player say there's not, guess who's right? It's the damned Ref every time! It's like a rule or something. Anyways, an actual [I]good[/I] example of description having the weight of rule is in the adjudication of spells. If my player creates a spell that kills all blue haired people within thirty feet, she's just included "blue hair" into the combat valuation system. It's now measurably good or bad to have blue hair in our game. It would require notation in a d20 statblock. If this physics change occurred in the real world, it's dollar value just went up. And I've not even mentioned what "foot" means though it's obviously important to the function of magic. IMO, things get twisted when the rule of law shapes the world beyond what was ever intended and then those intentions are discarded under enforced law. The law was built upon intention and not the other way around. Sure, those laws can sometimes lead to illuminative or unforeseen consequences, but we aren't earnestly constructing exact simulations here. It's beer & pretzel for what we enjoy. Not supercomputers. Shucks, I can't be brief either. [/QUOTE]

Verification