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

[Lacyon]

Instead, the enemy wizard is an opportunity for the fighter's buddy the mage, to shine, because he has the powers to have a wizardly duel or whatever, and take out the enemy mage, while the fighter deals with the bodyguards, or the demon the enemy wizard summons, or whatever.

So it's like Rock-Paper-Scissors except that rock beats rock, and paper beats paper, but paper also gets to beat rock?

 

[Spatula]

Storytelling games need rules. That's why they all have them.

Storytelling games all have rules because they are games (by definition), and all games have rules. You don't need rules for co-operative storytelling, just a shared set of assumptions amongst the participants. It comes down to what you're primarily after - telling a story, or playing a game. But as with most of the concepts in these discussions, there's a range of possible states between "storytelling" and "game," and people will pick different points in the range as their individual ideal.

So, yes, games have rules. But you don't need rules to tell stories, if that's what you're mainly interested in.

And guess what? Playability trumps simulation. Playability trumps tactical complexity. Playability trumps storytelling needs. All of these serve the central Gods of "Fun" and "Ease of Use."

Playability trumps X is not an absolute statement; it can't be, as different people have different ideas of what's playable and what's too complex, and furthermore those beliefs depend on the context. And what's "fun" to you isn't necessarily "fun" to others. "Fun" for some folks is the simulation or tactical complexity. Take a look at some historical wargames, or stuff like that old Star Trek space battle game (Starfleet Battles?). Those types of games aren't for me, but I'm not going to denigrate others for enjoying them.

If ease of use is your goal, then D&D in any incarnation probably isn't for you, as any particular incarnation is rather complex compared to most other games. Which is especially true of 3e & 4e. You obviously want some simulation, and some tactical complexity, or you wouldn't be interested in 4e at all. Some people want more. Some people want less, and play other games than D&D. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Lacyon]

Playability trumps X is not an absolute statement; it can't be, as different people have different ideas of what's playable and what's too complex, and furthermore those beliefs depend on the context.

Playability trumps X for nearly every X because everyone who buys an RPG wants to play a game, but not everyone wants X. That playability is subjective does not stop this from being true.

 

[xechnao]

Even if it tried to do the things you want, it wouldn't be a solution to the problem I listed. Even if they DM said, "You worked to accomplish your goals for the last 6 months of playing, you died in the pursuit of those goals and you did well, you get X benefit. Now roll up a new character to continue playing. Let me know in 2 hours when you are done." I know that I would say, "I don't want the benefit, could I just not have died?"

There are even rules for this in 4e with the quest mechanics modeling personal goals and giving out rewards for accomplishing them. But they are all character rewards. Your character dies, you lose them all. And certainly, not all players are story motivated(in fact, I've met very few who are) so they don't care what they've accomplished, only that they don't want to deal with the hassle of making a new character.

If you ever have the chance to read Burning Empires or even better Reign I would advice you to not lose this chance. I suspect that they could provide you a helpful insight regarding your idea of the limits of possibilities in roleplaying games.

 

[Professor Phobos]

I guess what I am saying is that "but the rules don't simulate the world!" is a false contradiction. That isn't what gameplay is for, and the rules are for gameplay.

Again, let me use Call of Duty 4 as my worked example. It is set in the real world, using real weapons. The characters are, ostensibly, real people who can bleed to death, have indigestion, pay taxes and drink beer.

Your character can soak up bullets and so long as he isn't killed and has time to recover, eventually returns to full health. People do not do this in the real world. Even worse, in cutscenes, normal human vulnerabilities return!

The simulationist (apparently) says: "Contradiction! Inconsistent! I cannot buy into the story or the characters as a result!"

This is clearly not a problem for a great many people, as it is a very popular game. But why, if there is a intrinsic, crippling contradiction to it?

Because the three elements are served in different ways, and because it would be far, far worse to have bad gameplay as a result of attention to "realism."

The world is simulated by all the Tom Clancy crap- real world weapons and jargon, etc. The story isn't told by gameplay but by characters, dialogue and plot twists. The gameplay is served by the (very popular) regenerating health mechanic. There are no contradictions here, because the three elements have different needs.

That is why D&D has hit points. To serve gameplay.

If you want simulation, then do it the same way all other gamers everywhere have always done- keep your world and characters consistent whilst the story is told.

Searching for a "reason" for hit points or second wind or anything is fruitless. It has dominated discussion on this forum and it all ends up in the same place- there is no explanation. Sure, people come up with all kinds of great rationalizations for rules (there was one a while back on why Rings were so powerful) but they're unnecessary.

Why are they unnecessary? Because it's a false contradiction to begin with. Just like someone playing Call of Duty 4...don't worry about it. Everyone at your table is going to be aware they are playing the game. They are sitting at a table. There is a bag of Cheetoes. They have to edit these elements out for their imagination anyway if they're going to get any degree of immersion, and it's trivial to do the same for gameplay artifacts and their "intrusions" on the story or the world building.

In other words, don't worry about whether or not you can explain what a Healing Surge is. You don't have to worry about it. Why don't more games have detailed, realistic wound systems? Because they're bad for gameplay. I mean, Phoenix Command had a way of determining how a bullet traveled through the body. It could take several minutes to resolve a single gunshot. Is that fun?

It is not the role of the rules system to tell you what the world is like. That's both impossible (no system could ever reflect the complexities of a world) and counterproductive (in the trying you'd need to sacrifice ease of play and other considerations).

 

[Rex Blunder]

In many novels, when the characters fight a wizard, it's not the fighter who goes up against the wizard and butchers him in one round with 4 attacks against a low AC. The fighter knows that if he goes against the wizard, he's going to be held, or disintegrated or teleported into a trench in the ocean or whatever, before he ever gets close. Instead, the enemy wizard is an opportunity for the fighter's buddy the mage, to shine, because he has the powers to have a wizardly duel or whatever, and take out the enemy mage, while the fighter deals with the bodyguards, or the demon the enemy wizard summons, or whatever.

Not in many fantasy novels written before 1972 or thereabouts, I bet. That sounds like D&D-influenced novels. Sword and sorcery novels have plenty of wizards butchered by fighter types.

Also: I agree with the good professor. D&D rules are 99% totally laughably ridiculous! Never let us forget that in our rules arguments. (It just so happens that D&D is also totally awesome and fun. There is a strong correlation between laughably ridiculous and totally awesome. See: The Scorpion King)

 

[Andor]

But a RPG is all of these things, all at once. And guess what? Playability trumps simulation. Playability trumps tactical complexity. Playability trumps storytelling needs. All of these serve the central Gods of "Fun" and "Ease of Use."

Unless of course what you call playability makes the game less fun for me. Then it has utterly failed in it's stated objective. Because in seeking to make the game less complex, less 'simulationist', less 'tactical' in the name of playability you may have stripped out the elements that bring me joy and therefore cause the game to become unplayably annoying or boring.

And... I'M NOT WRONG! My fun is not badwrongfun. Your fun is not badwrongfun. If (and it has not firmly been established yet) 4e moves in a direction that make it less fun for me to play then 3e or other games then the designers will have failed in their goals for me. That will not prevent you or anyone else from playing with great joy. And neither of us are wrong.

Incidently I do not demand complex economic or tactical simulation tools in my games, I love a good game of Amber for example. However a game earns a degree of contempt from me when they try to include such rules, and they are self destroying. (3e I'm looking at you.) There is no need to include such rules in a game, but it you do put them in they should make sense, in the context of the world they portray. Why is this hard to understand?

Hit points do not model anything at all. They aren't an abstraction of damage, health, willpower, luck and dodging- they represent nothing but a gameplay tool. Literally just how many hits you can take. Nothing more, nothing less.

Depends on the game and the hit point system. For a look at three different games with very different but more narrowly defined hit point systems check out Albedo, Morrow Project and World Tree.

 

[comrade raoul]

Bottom Line: Whether the rules are physics or not, they need to be consistent enough that players have a clue what will work and what won't.

Fair enough.

But it still seems that all you need is enough consistency to know when the rules model an event in a way that dictates a clear outcome, and when they don't. It seems like most tactical combat situations in 4e fit into the first camp, while other situations might not. They should be transparent enough so that it should be clear to everyone when DM fiat is involved. Because that would be clear to everyone, the players should be okay with asking their DM if they're not sure how DM fiat will go.

It seems to me that the rules are just asking for trust and communication between the players and the DM, but that seems like something you'd need anyway.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

And neither of us are wrong.

You are wrong. The 4e deisgner goals are not to make the game more fun for YOU.

It is to make the game fun for as large a playerbase as they can. YOU cannot pass judgement on their success. They may also have other sub goals which again have nothing to do with you.

 

[Stogoe]

There is a strong correlation between laughably ridiculous and totally awesome. See: The Scorpion King

See Also: D&D The Movie.


...what?

As an aside, I'd like to thank Cadfan for introducing me to Og and Faery's Tale. I look forward to picking them up.