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

[ogre]

I guess you could almost say that... the rules... should not be treated like the physics... of... nah, I almost had a good thought, but I lost it.

... and that finishes the thread (for me). Thank you. Rex.

 

[Andor]

Andor has already admitted that thinking is causing him pain. Therefore, to succeed at having fun and not having pain, he simply has to stop thinking.

Not in the least, and I'd rather you didn't put words into my mouth. Thinking is fun. What is painful to me is when other people fail to think. Particularly when they then get angry about the fact that I like to think and they don't. This phenomenon is not limited to D&D btw.

If you don't like to think, by all means don't, but don't presume to judge me or my fun. After all, exercising judgement unpleasant to you.

 

[robertliguori]

I guess you could almost say that... the rules... should not be treated like the physics... of... nah, I almost had a good thought, but I lost it.

I have had an epiphany.

The 'rules are not the physics of the game world' mean 'the rules as presented in the default materials are not necessarily the final word on how the world operates'. As I understand it, you all aren't saying 'there are no rules'; instead, you're simply reserving the right to modify the rules and get new (and generally better) results.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Most awesome crit & fumble tables eva.

I don't know, what could be better than 'Head pulped and spattered over a wide area' from the original Arduin Grimoire?

Ken

 

[Hussar]

But what when the rules and the physics of the game world conflict?

From WAY upthread. What do you do? Well, that's what a DM is for. If the rules and the physics never conflicted, then we could model it perfectly well with a computer and cut the DM out entirely. Heck, even without a computer, you still wouldn't need a DM whatsoever. You could pull out a random generator and play D&D without any problems.

When the rules conflict with the expectations of the game world (a better phrase IMO than physics) then it's up to the DM to fix things. If the rules on their own could produce perfect game worlds, then we'd have the ultimate gaming system.

Oh I get it. You judge the effectiveness of any ability just by its value in combat as if D&D consisted only out of a endless string of combat encounters.

Nice straw man that.

Look at the list of abilities that many creatures got. Most of them were never, ever used. Sure, the option was there, but, if it's never used, it's just wasting page count. OTOH, how do you explain how mind flayers have mind controlled slaves when, by RAW, they have no charm/domination powers?

We can play this game all day long.

I have had an epiphany.

The 'rules are not the physics of the game world' mean 'the rules as presented in the default materials are not necessarily the final word on how the world operates'. As I understand it, you all aren't saying 'there are no rules'; instead, you're simply reserving the right to modify the rules and get new (and generally better) results.

Pretty much. The rules as presented are simply mechanics for determining the outcome of actions taken by the players. They may apply to the wider world, or they may not. Again, that's what the DM is for.

 

[hong]

Not in the least, and I'd rather you didn't put words into my mouth. Thinking is fun. What is painful to me is when other people fail to think.

This practice of getting pained by things over which you have no control, it is self-destructive. Perhaps you should get pained by the things over which you do have control.

Particularly when they then get angry about the fact that I like to think and they don't. This phenomenon is not limited to D&D btw.

Of course, they are the ones having fun, and you are the one complaining.

If you don't like to think, by all means don't, but don't presume to judge me or my fun. After all, exercising judgement unpleasant to you.

You are entirely free to continue thinking, no matter how much pain it causes you. I simply point out the alternative.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm siding with the OP on this issue, but that is probably because I am an engineering student. Everything is physics to me nowadays. I haven't read this entire thread (my Snark Meter pegged out after the first two pages), but in case nobody has said it yet, I'll chime in:

DM fiat and flipping a coin are perfectly legitimate methods of solving conflict. So is explaining the difference between physics and make-believe, if that works for your group. It doesn't work for us, but we engineering nerds are a special case. So when/if I go to 4E, I am looking at doing a lot of creative writing and improv.

That said, "because the rules say so" is and will always be a lousy explaination for anything. "This ain't the real world" is not any better. I'm not asking for a three-hundred page thesis on the biochemical processes involved in Healing Surges, but a paragraph or two about what happens to our burns, cuts, and bruises when we use them would rock.

 

[VannATLC]

If its divine, they close up. If its martial, or a second wind, nothing. You soldier on. Later, over night, at camp, you bandage and cleanse.

Also, being an engineer student has nothing to do with, sorry.

I have a doctorate of chemistry, a civil engineer, a material scientist, a programmer and myself, in my group. We all understand the difference between a ruleset, and the 'reality' of a fantasy world.

The fantasy world is its own reality. It is not supposed to model our world. It should be internally consistent, unless you're deliberately playing something where reality itself is fluid.

 

[CleverNickName]

If its divine, they close up. If its martial, or a second wind, nothing. You soldier on. Later, over night, at camp, you bandage and cleanse.

This makes sense...I can easily describe that from a narrative point of view, without having to get into psychology and morale and whatnot. My players want to know that when they hit a monster, they are rending flesh and smashing bone...so if that monster uses a healing surge, they don't want to hear how all of that hacking and slashing "wasn't real" or "wasn't as bad as it first seemed." The monster soldiering on in spite of his wounds works for me, but I can see where some might find it unsatisfying.

The fantasy world is its own reality. It is not supposed to model our world.

This is still a lousy explaination, though. The last time I said something to that effect, I got a lot of sarcastic "so are my torches still working?" questions for the next two hours.

It is fine for our fantasy worlds to have a different reality...they must, since magic and elves and unicorns are all possible somehow. But we have to convey those differences in our narrative as we describe the world to the players...not with a blanket statement that makes the players feel silly for asking a simple question. That doesn't satisfy anyone's imagination.

 

[VannATLC]

I don't follow.

Its lousy, but its true?

You could, probably, build a world were torches didn't work under the same principles. It would take a *lot* of work for me to be happy with it, mind you. But it would be do-able.

And yes, those differences come across in Narrative, in whatever form it takes in your campaign. (I supply background 'common knowledge' for anything significantly out-of-the-expected.)

The blanket statement is fundamentally true. But it doesn't change the requirement for internal consistency.

And most of the things I've seen in DnD of any flavour, that break consistency, are functions of the economic and social systems, not the combat rules, not anything else.
3.x had lots of interesting little things that offered SFA, for me. The skill system, functionally, offered little significant difference, in actual play, to that I've seen for 4e
The thing that most simulationsists seem to skip is how fundamentally broken the who DND economy is. >.>