Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lurker37" data-source="post: 4046096" data-attributes="member: 9522">Frankly, I find the proposal that an set of RPG rules could be used as a full description of a gameworld's in-game physics to be a little disconcerting.To truly achieve this, the game system of any world where we assume that the protaganists are biological organisms with complexity remtely approaching that of a human being, where there is an ecosystem of sufficient diversity to provide an engaging variety of flora and fauna, and where at the very least the Newtonian laws of Physics apply, would require a game system so complex that it would comprise several hundred rulebooks and a supercomuter to calculate results in real time. And that's before we add any rules for magic/psionics/pokemon/whatever.No playable system uses a full simulation of gameworld natural laws. What the do is present a simulation model.Is anyone here not familiar with the concept of a simulation model? It's a method of simplifying a real-world scenario down to the point where, for instance, a computer can  predict the outcome of something. The trick is taking the thousands of real-world variables and replacing those that will not be changing significantly during the process we wish to model with constants. That requires us to make assumptions about the environment in which the process will occur. If one or more of those assumptions proves incorrect, or if a significant variable is left unaccounted for, then the model will not generate accurate results.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. For example,  most of them do not do is simulate weather patterns, extinction of species, geographical formations, economic systems etc. Rules that do attempt to do this are usually either gross simplifications (e.g. random tables) or else so cumbersome that they are rarely invoked during a game session. Not surprisingly, RPG rulesets tend to focus on the creation of PCs and handling their adventurous activities. This allows further assumptions to be made, further reducing the amount of rules required to play the game. The point of contention here is that there appears to be an assumption in the D&D system that PCs will not suffer injuries such as sprains or broken bones. The hit point system lets PCs and NPCs alike function at full efficiency until their condition becomes life-threatening. Why was this assumption made? Presumably becasue although such outcomes of even minor injury are indeed possible, being forced to play the results of such is not widely considered as fun. (Yes, I know. Go figure!)So the rules do not model broken bones or sprains, because the assumption is that such things will not be required to result from combat involving PCs.The problem that is arising is what happens when one or more of the assumptions of the rules no longer apply? There are two approaches - extend the rules to deal with the situation, or accept that this is a limitation of the model, and handwave it. If you are only willing to accept the first approach, but cannot establish a rule, the only conclusion is that such an event cannot be handled in game at this time. I do not, however, accept that such a situation means that such things are impossible in the gameworld (unless the fact that this is impossible is explicitly stated in the rules, in which case it isn't a flaw in the model to begin with). Instead I take the stance that this is a result of the imperfections of the rules' attempt to model the gameworld, and that the DM is able to go beyond these limits due to rule 0.Having said where I stand, I'm going to plow on with the example to see where this thought experiment takes us.I'm going to try to break down the high-level character falling off horse argument into the three ways it jars against the default system. To do this I'm going to thoroughly pain the DM into a corner so that extraneous tangential lines of argument can't draw us away from the point we were originally trying to examine - how can this NPC die from falling off the horse?Let's assume for narrative purposes that the fighter has been a semi-mentor figure, and the DM wishes for him to die so that the PCs can step into his shoes. It is important that this death be by misadventure, as any fatal illness would be cured by the clerics, and death by foul play would require a revenge plotline that would derail the current main plotline, which has time-critical elements. Alas, the PCs have explored the vicinity and know that there are no deep ravines, so that trick is ruled out. Furthermore, the DM has plans to use the manner of this NPC dying as an omen for a future plotline.In the RAW, there are three obstacles to allowing the fatal fall from a horse. The falling damage rules only allow for 1d6 damage, there are no rules for broken bones, and the NPC has a respectable hit point total that would absorb most injury.If this were a PC, then there would be no question. The rules are specifically set up on the assumption that such injuries to PCs do not enhance the game, so there is no page space devoted to rules for them. Ergo, the PC would not be able to die from the fall unless already gravely injured.The core question seems to be whether the same holds for NPCs.Let's examine each point to see how much room for interpretation there is.1) Can a fall result in more damage? The falling damage system is both simple and rigid. Furthermore, despite reports in the news of toddlers surviving falls from 5th story balconies, such things are reported precisely because they are so atypical. Asking for the level of variance in the rules to inflict more hit point damage from falling, say by exploding criticals, would mean that even tripping over could become a life-threatening event. So it seems that reworking the falling damage system would cause far more problems than it would solve.2) Can NPC's suffer non-abstract injuries that the PCs are assumed to be immune to? For instance, can commoner NPCs sprain ankles or break arms? While many of us would argue that there is no strain on our disbelief to encounter a commoner with either condition, it is equally valid to note that nothing in the rules spells out how such a condition would have been inflicted on them. If we accept that such injuries are possible in the gameworld, then we either need to create rules for them, and thus create the risk the wrath of players whose characters are rendered unable to fight by such injuries, or else persuade them to accept that the absence of rules to inflict these conditions does not mean that they do not exist. I personally would have far more trouble with believing that commoners cannot sprain ankles than accepting that although it can happen in the gameworld there are no rules for it happening in play. Yet. But the DM's spouse is not amenable to this, so we continue.3) Are hit points extraordinary physical resilience or a simulation of skill and luck/fate/destiny/divine favour? The presence of massive damage and coup-de-grace rules would seem to indicate the latter, but this point is being hotly debated in this thread. How do we handle situations where the hit point system breaks down? The presence of massive damage and coup-de-grace rules point to two cases where the designers thought the default behaviour of the hitpoint model was undesirable. Are there any others? Is the NPC falling from his horse one of them?Personally, I'd simply handle it narratively. I would not feel it necessary to create a rule for a once-off event, but instead say it happened, and move on.  I'd accept that happily, as would the group I play with, but many posters here would not. So let us furthermore assume that one of the players is of such a mindset, and furthermore cannot simply be ejected from the table due to being married to the DM.(As I said, I'm painting the poor DM into a corner.)So how to proceed without having to sleep on the couch tonight?I note that in 4E at least hit points are going to be explicitly defined as not representing extraordinary physical toughness, but rather a combination of skill and luck. Apparently healing spells are even being rewritten to reflect this.That suggests a solution. Rather than ramp up the damage, houserule that under certain circumstances skill and/or luck no longer apply, reducing the effective hitpoint total.If the hit point system is a simulation of skil land luck, then situations where skill and/or luck no longer apply would reduce the character's ability to survive damage.Let's take being immersed in lava, for example. No amount of physical prowess is going to help you once you're in it- the time for it to help you was before you fell into it. Furthermore, there is no probability involved. The chance of the lava NOT conducting fatal amounts of heat energy into your body during any given second is zero. It's going to happen. So anything not magically immune to extreme heat, and with a melting or ignition point below the melting point of rock, is going to die. So perhaps a charcter - PC or NPC is deprived of the benefit of half their hit points whenever skill or luck is removed as a factor, and deprived of most of them when both are removed. At this point they only have a low, base amount of hit points standing between them and mortally wounded status. The only trick left is to determine how low this is, making sure it's not instantly killed by a pebble while still allowing coup de grace etc.Then the GM can simply rule that in this case both the NPC's skill and luck were ruled out, so the few remaining hit points he had were low enough for the fall (which did max damage) to be fatal.Unfortunately the DM's spouse really liked that NPC, so the DM is still sleeping on the couch tonight.So now we have a proposed houserule that can allow the NPC to die, and also makes life far shorter for high-level characters dropped in lava or falling from great heights. My final question is: does anyone prefer this houserule to just accepting that a DM can make judgement calls on situations not covered by the RAW?</blockquote>

Verification