Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4046438" data-attributes="member: 4937">The thing you are overlooking is that the in game characters generally aren't complex biological organisms, the in game universe generally doesn't have complex ecosystems, and so forth.Newtonian laws of physics apply, but only in the vague 'assume for these purposes that the arrow arced in a reasonable ballistic trajectory'.  "No playable system uses a full simulation of gameworld natural laws. What the do is present a simulation model."No in game world is actually as complex as you are pretending.  The in game world itself is actually a simulation model.  Consider the case of a computer RPG like 'World of Warcraft'.  Blood doesn't actually circulate in any of the creatures.  We can make a pretence that it does, but the circulation of blood plays no real role in the physics of 'World of Warcraft'.  Neither is there a complex ecosystem.  Trees don't actually transpire, don't actually photosynthesize, and don't actually exchange carbon dioxcide for oxygen.  In fact, oxygen doesn't actually exist, and most of the time no one is even making a pretence that any of these things are happening.  No one is simulating any of this even in thier imaginations.  The game universe is actually very simple.  The rules are not an abstraction of the game universe, because the game universe is less concrete and real than even the rules.  We pretend that the game universe is complex, but it really isn't.  It is exactly what you'd expect to be the product of simulation model.Some people are claiming, "Well, but offstage its more complex and real than on stage."  Hogwash.  Offstage, it is less complex and less real and less concretely imagined than one stage.  That's one of the reasons why I suggest using the rules offstage.  It encourages you to imagine that reality in more detail than merely handwaving away the game simulation.But that's the thing.  Most games I've played in don't have weather patterns, extinction of the species, geographical formations, or economic systems.  It's a rare DM that even imagines that his world has these things or thinks about it.   Most game worlds I've been in don't have any weather to speak of, and the only time anyone even thinks about it is when the DM is using it as fluff to say, "There is trouble in the state of Denmark."  or "This scene is going to be explicitly 'man vs. nature'.  They certainly don't have geographical formations unless the DM is a geologist.  (I'm a member of the NSS, so my games actually have caves, but I wouldn't claim that they have any other sort of geology.)  The only time I've been in games that have these things on any sort of a regular basis is with DMs that took the time and effort to create a simulation model of these things, because otherwise they simply would never be reminded that these things were going on.  I take the trouble to roll up the weather every day, because I know if I didn't the game universe would never have any weather to speak of. No, PCs suffer injuries like sprains or broken bones.  What do you think 'ability damage' is?  In fact, 'sprain' is a result on my house rule fumble table, so my characters really do suffer these sorts of injuries.  But in other game worlds, they really don't happen.  Be honest.  Whens the last time your BBEG entered combat with a sprained ankle or a strained muscle?  I appreciate you attempt to propose a house rule to allow the story to progress, but I find your house rule very vague and arbitrary.   It is also unnecessary.  I've previously provided a story that works very well under both the RAW and my own house rules explaining how the death of an important high level NPC was caused by a fall from his horse.  <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4039026&postcount=229" target="_blank">(Relevent post here.)</a> Moreover, my story makes a far better 'evil omen' story than the one you proposed IMNSHO.  Again, sticking by the rules forced me to create something more interesting because I needed to provide more detail to explain the event.   And, sticking by the rules made sure that the world was more emmersive and believable, because what happened offstage fit the players conceptions of what should happen based on thier on stage experiences.  So, yes, in theory I could have broke the rules and probably got away with it, but by not being 'lazy' about the story I avoided pitfalls and still told the same story but IMNSHO told it better for my game world.Once again, we are confusing the situation.  I've never once claimed that the DM can't make judgement calls on situations not covered by the RAW.  I've even allowed that the DM can if he deems it necessary break the rules.   But this is a situation covered by the rules as written, and he loses something and gains nothing by breaking the rules.  Hense, he is best adviced to stick to the rules.  It's not 'wrong' to not stick to the rules, but it is (at least in the cases thus far discussed) better to do so IMO.</blockquote>

Verification