How Does "The Rules Aren't Physics" Fix Anything?

[Kordeth]

But the spell requires 5,000 gp worth of diamonds. I would be relatively sure that most temples or other places of Clerical worship don't have hundreds of thousands of gp worth of diamonds lying around in order to change out for gold when people need to be raised.

But by the wacky rules of the D&D economy, they do./

Community Wealth and Population
Every community has a gold piece limit based on its size and population. The gold piece limit (see Table 5–2) is an indicator of the price of the most expensive item available in that community. Nothing that costs more than a community’s gp limit is available for purchase in that community. Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical. While exceptions are certainly possible (a boomtown near a newly discovered mine, a farming community impoverished after a prolonged drought), these exceptions are temporary; all communities will conform to the norm over time.

In other words, a Small City or larger should easily be able to produce the goods required for a raise dead spell.

 

[VannATLC]

5,000 gp in diamonds is exactly the same as 5,000 gp in cash - by definition. As long as there is ANY fleck of diamond dust to be had, the spell should work. It does not say a 5 carat diamond. Value, in terms of gp, is determined not by size, but by supply and demand.

But the spell requires 5,000 gp worth of diamonds. I would be relatively sure that most temples or other places of Clerical worship don't have hundreds of thousands of gp worth of diamonds lying around in order to change out for gold when people need to be raised.

You completely missed the point.

Economics and Supply/Demand equate the worth of a diamond, to an individual, exactly what they are willing to pay.

The single 1/4 carat diamond in my signet ring is worth $5000 to me. I'd want it back, and would reward for it, were it lost.

I wouldn't pay $5K for a raw 1 carat diamond, without serious cause.

 

[xechnao]

If you encounter someone who thinks that by wiggling his fingers he can shoot balls of fire from his hands, you have in fact met a crazy person. His perceptions, have little to do with reality as you and I and the car he thinks he just blew up experience it.

Conversely if my PC encouters a group of NPCs with a problem and says "Well why don't you just do blah, that always works for me." only to have the NPCs say "Yeah but that only works for you, we couldn't do that even if Smaug and Santa Claus got out and pushed." then my character is going to start to have serious doubts about his own sanity. Did he actually slay the dragon of blackrock or is he giggling to himself in a straightjacket somewhere? Am I playing this character, or merely describing his hallucinations?

Do you see? If PC and NPCs visibly operate under different rules, it produces a cognitive dissonance that shatters my suspension of disbelief and reduces my enjoyment in the game. :\

Right just before each session of D&D with your group get to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4tFzD13hmc

At least once every six months watch this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/

Otherwise you won't be able to play D&D

 

[VannATLC]

If you encounter someone who thinks that by wiggling his fingers he can shoot balls of fire from his hands, you have in fact met a crazy person. His perceptions, have little to do with reality as you and I and the car he thinks he just blew up experience it.

Conversely if my PC encouters a group of NPCs with a problem and says "Well why don't you just do blah, that always works for me." only to have the NPCs say "Yeah but that only works for you, we couldn't do that even if Smaug and Santa Claus got out and pushed." then my character is going to start to have serious doubts about his own sanity. Did he actually slay the dragon of blackrock or is he giggling to himself in a straightjacket somewhere? Am I playing this character, or merely describing his hallucinations?

Do you see? If PC and NPCs visibly operate under different rules, it produces a cognitive dissonance that shatters my suspension of disbelief and reduces my enjoyment in the game. :\

There is *nothing* that we are aware of that prevents an NPC from accessing a PC's abilities. At all. Ever.
Its simply a matter of statting an NPC to have that ability. Which is completely up tho the DM.

There is no reason a DM cannot stat an NPC with PC Classes.
It is simplt acknowledge there are better methods, for throw-away characters, than a full stat block, and as opposed to simple experience, there are now guidelines and rules on doing this.

Equally, NPC abilties are perfectly suited to give DM's the ability to quickly, and with a solid degree of balance, expand the powers available to the PCS.

People, on this forum, some of them in particular, have this truly bizzare idea that the DND ruleset is self-contained.

Only one part of DND has ever been designed to be self-referential and self-contained, and that is the basic conflict resolution systems. 4e, IMO, is the first edition of the game to actually come close to realising that goal.

Everything else is left to the DM, AS IT SHOULD BE.

This isn't heroquest. Its not trying to be. It *can* be, if you want it to, be no more than a board-game. That's all the ruleset needs to be. That's the part that is simply too hard for most groups to establish and create.

If the new rules give guidelines to other parts of world creation, like the DMG has previously, (And there is every reason to believe there is even more of a focus on this) then that is fantastic.

 

[hong]

Unless of course, you're someone like me who, not being dog ignorant of physics, cringes every time he sees 'airplanes in space' and wonders what the hell is so hard about making an accurate space flight sim.

Nothing is particularly hard about it. There simply aren't that many of you, compared to the number of people who want to blow things up in Tie Fighter. So you just have to suck it up, or write it yourself.

Similarly, if the rules are not actually how things work in the game world, but merely how my character perceives things to work, then I'm not really playing that character as far as I'm concerned. I'm playing what that character hallucinates as he sits in the corner of his padded cell. This is not good playability.

If thinking leads to pain, and hallucinating leads to fun, I choose hallucinating!

 

[Andor]

If thinking leads to pain, and hallucinating leads to fun, I choose hallucinating!

Some of us find thinking fun...

 

[hong]

Some of us find thinking fun...

But in this case, it is causing you pain. So you can choose to either continue suffering the pain, or stop it and have fun.

 

[xechnao]

But in this case, it is causing you pain. So you can choose to either continue suffering the pain, or stop it and have fun.

Heh. You speak as if D&D being fun is a law of reality.

EDIT: I know. I need to take a course of physics.

 

[The Little Raven]

Heh. You speak as if D&D being fun is a law of reality.

If it isn't, then it should be, because otherwise, what's the point?

 

[robertliguori]

You completely missed the point.

Economics and Supply/Demand equate the worth of a diamond, to an individual, exactly what they are willing to pay.

The single 1/4 carat diamond in my signet ring is worth $5000 to me. I'd want it back, and would reward for it, were it lost.

I wouldn't pay $5K for a raw 1 carat diamond, without serious cause.

Yes, that's true in our world. In our world, a man in a nightdress flinging sulphrous bat poo at you is not a deadly threat, human-shaped creatures taller than about eight feet start suffering from massive health problems, and dragons can't breathe fire and don't fly.

In D&D, these facts, like the absence of an absolute standard worth, are true. In D&D, they aren't. Items intrinsically have a price, and a number of metaphysical effects in the game world are dependent on them. 5000 gp worth of diamonds is an absolute amount of diamond, totally independant of what any or all people are willing to pay for diamonds. It's a term-of-art thing.