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

[Hussar]

I'm wrong in deciding what I do and do not enjoy? Are you seriously claiming the right to walk into my house, up to my gaming table and tell me that I'm playing wrong, am not actually enjoying the game I'm playing, and have to play it your way to truly enjoy myself? If so that is simultaneously the ballsiest and stupidist thing I have ever read on the internet./snip

Nope, you are not wrong in deciding what you do or do not enjoy.

Where you are mistaken is assuming that your preferences are any metric to use for judging the game.

In other words, you are using your personal preferences to say that 4e is a bad game instead of trying to judge it based on whether or not it achieves its stated goals - faster gameplay, easier on the DM, etc.

That the game doesn't live up to your expectations is, quite frankly, irrelevant to anyone other than you.

You're saying that because it breaks with simulationism, it's a failure. But, the goal of 4e wasn't simulationist play. So, whether or not it lives up to your expectations of sim play doesn't really matter in the larger scheme. In order to judge the game, it has to be judged on its own merits (or lack thereof), not in what you wish it would be.

I could say that GURPS (for example) is an absolute failure because it takes too bloody long to resolve combat. But, that's judging it based on my preferences. GURPS is intended as a sim play system. Thus, you want all those fiddly bits that better model the reality of the setting.

Now you could argue that earlier editions did better model reality and thus appealed to a more simulationist bent. That's fine. I think it's mistaken and that no version of D&D modeled anything other than D&D, but, at least we can speak from a common metric.

But, you're trying to say that cars are bad because they don't float, thus boats are better. Cars aren't meant to float. 4e is not meant to simulate. Judging something based on what its not meant for doesn't make a lot of sense and can only lead to very frustrating conversations.

 

[Andor]

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just explaining why I think you have what I consider a faulty expectation. It's like expecting a cat to bark like a dog. It'll never track.

I guess I just don't understand where you developed this idea, and why you persist in holding to it. If it's preventing you from enjoying a game, why not discard this preconceived notion?

But it's not a faulty expectation. One of the things I find delightful about RPGs from a DM or Worldesign standpoint is either taking the games starting assumptions and figuring out how things might progess from there, or by taking the rules and making a world that would result from those rules. *

Having the standards and expectations I do do not prevent me from enjoying RPGs, they are one of my most loved hobbies, it simply means I may prefer to play a different set of them than you do.

You go on to ask what is so hard to understand about this sentence. Let me highlight what I fail to understand. I'm also going to assume this statement extends to other rules- if there are rules for injuries in a game, they should make sense in the context of the world, and so on. (gunfights, negotiations, whatever)

I don't understand why you think rules are supposed to portray a world. It just doesn't make any sense to me how that expectation could be maintained. It especially doesn't make sense to me in the context of a message board primarily devoted to Dungeons and Dragons, which has never done anything like this or even attempted to do so. D&D rules have never made sense in the context of the world they portray.

*You are kind of correct here. It is pretty much true that D&D game worlds never make sense in the context of the rules for D&D. Eberron perhaps comes closest. But so what? No one holds a gun to my head and forces me to play in those worlds. I am free to take those rules and create a world that looks however I want, and that makes sense to me in the context of those rules. If I choose not to do so, and play in someone elses game while they use a more mainline D&D world I'm obviously giving up the right to bitch about their world as that would be plain bad manners. The first thing I ask when playing in someone elses game is "How can I make a character to fit into your world, and is there any way I can construct my character that will help you with your plot?" Mind you I rarely get an answer that's not "Whatever you want man." :\

Why do I think the rules are intended to portray a world? I'm not sure I understand what other role the rules could possibly have, to be honest. The rules exist to tell me how my character can interact with the world and other characters, and include a conflict resolution method designed to prevent the "No you didn't! Yes I did." arguments observable on any playground where kids point imaginary guns at each other. If I have a climb skill of 10 and a typical DC for climbing a tree is 15, then I can reasonably expect that my character can climb most trees. If we remove me from the equation and pretend that my character is an actual being in an actual world, then he too will be able to anticipate climbing most any tree as he is a skilled and experienced climber.

If I am playing in a Supers game and my character has superman like toughness then I can reasonably expect him to ignore small arms fire. If bullets suddenly start hurting my character he would have every reason to think something unusual was happening.

If a mage wakes up in the dark, casts a light spell and still can't see, something is wrong. He could be in a magical darkness more powerful than his light spell. He could be in an anti-magic zone. He could have gone blind. But it is reasonable for him to immedately assume some other problem exists other than he is simply in a dark room.

If I am playing a D&D mage, and my character wakes up in a dark room, casts a light spell, and still can't see. The GM should not be surprised if I look for another explanation for my blindness. The rules of the game portray a world where light spells do not simply fail. If the GM has decided to change those rules because he wants a world where magic sometimes just fails, he has to tell me that, because otherwise I will be playing a mage who after years of studying magic has somehow never learnt that spells sometimes just fail.

Spell failure is an observable phenomena inside the game world, and it is rediculous to think that a Mage might some how not know about it.

The rules effect how character interact with their world, and to pretend that they don't have some level of understanding of how those rules work is to make a disconnect that seems to completely preclude any immersion in the characters.

If the rules weren't intended to portray a world, then why do we use different rule sets for different worlds? Why does Oriental adventures offer rules for Honor instead of alingment? Why is a Wu-jen given a different spell list than a wizard? Why does a planescape character have the ability to sense portals while a spelljammer character does not? Why does mainstream D&D include clerics while Darksun and Midnight do not?

Role playing to me means that to some extent I am assuming the role of my character. If I cannot understand how my character views his world, then how can I possibly assume that role?

 

[hong]

If the rules weren't intended to portray a world, then why do we use different rule sets for different worlds? Why does Oriental adventures offer rules for Honor instead of alingment? Why is a Wu-jen given a different spell list than a wizard? Why does a planescape character have the ability to sense portals while a spelljammer character does not? Why does mainstream D&D include clerics while Darksun and Midnight do not?

Genre emulation. Tone modification. Narrative facilitation.

Role playing to me means that to some extent I am assuming the role of my character. If I cannot understand how my character views his world, then how can I possibly assume that role?

Consider playing a character in a movie, instead of a character in a world.

 

[Andor]

In other words, you are using your personal preferences to say that 4e is a bad game instead of trying to judge it based on whether or not it achieves its stated goals - faster gameplay, easier on the DM, etc.

You're saying that because it breaks with simulationism, it's a failure.

Now you could argue that earlier editions did better model reality and thus appealed to a more simulationist bent.

Nng. Would you care to show me where I ever said any of these things?

 

[Professor Phobos]

But it's not a faulty expectation. One of the things I find delightful about RPGs from a DM or Worldesign standpoint is either taking the games starting assumptions and figuring out how things might progess from there, or by taking the rules and making a world that would result from those rules.

There's not a game I can think of that wouldn't inevitable run into a silliness problem, with this assumption. I can't follow your logic.

Having the standards and expectations I do do not prevent me from enjoying RPGs, they are one of my most loved hobbies, it simply means I may prefer to play a different set of them than you do.

I'm not saying anything contrary to that. I'm saying your position on rules-setting transition makes no sense.

If the rules weren't intended to portray a world, then why do we use different rule sets for different worlds?

Because we're using different rules sets to tell different kinds of stories. The rules can prioritize elements that we want to see appearing in a game. The world is the backdrop for those stories. It doesn't need to be reflected in the rules, because the game isn't about the world, it's about the characters and their story.

Why does Oriental adventures offer rules for Honor instead of alingment?

Critical to the characters, and to the story.

Role playing to me means that to some extent I am assuming the role of my character. If I cannot understand how my character views his world, then how can I possibly assume that role?

Again, the problem is- the character doesn't view the world through the rules. The character is completely unaware of the rules. If it helps, think of it more as if the campaign is the legend of your characters, told through the ages, and exaggerated. In the game, Hero Protagonist was stabbed by a goblin, spent a healing surge, and kept fighting, despite a deep wound to the stomach. In reality, it wasn't even a goblin, but a particularly angry house cat, and Hero Protagonist spent two months with a fever because of the infection. But a thousand years later, as the story is told, he has mythological qualities. The rules aren't building the world. The world is presumably more complex than the rules can reflect.

No one in Call of Cthulhu expects to be up on their feet so quickly after a gunshot, or for a man of sufficient health and size to be flat-out immune to dying from a single wound from a .22 pistol. That doesn't mean the Call of Cthulhu rules don't work or have no utility- they're simple, they're fast, they emphasis the things the game emphasizes, etc. It just means you need a little common sense to cover the edge cases, offscreen events, and the like. No one would ever say, if I had a really large and healthy man turn up in the morgue with a .22 bullet to his brain, "But that can't happen! A .22 maxes out at 16 HP and he had 17!" It can't happen to PCs and it can't happen to NPCs the PCs are shooting at. But presumably, since Call of Cthulhu is explicitly set in the real world, it still happens. While it might be helpful to have a rules set that more accurately represents the potential lethality of the .22 caliber round, I would never in a million years want such a set unless it was at least as simple, flexible and playable as BRP. Every rule in a game has to justify its existence with a direct correlation to some positive benefit to play. If it doesn't, it is an unwelcome and unwholesome imposition on my time.

I mean, every time this discussion comes up it's the same bits. "That ruins immersion!" Well, if your priority is solely and exclusively total immersion in the game world, and that this demands a rules set completely consistent with that world (even if only at an abstracted level), then frankly I can't think of a single game that has ever existed that is right for you.

I mean, what about the other priorities? A lot of the changes to how monsters work are designed to make it easier for a GM. They're not designed with world building concerns in mind. The hue and cry against this is all about this perceived inconsistency, and yet...it makes things easier for the DM. How can this be ignored?

Why is simulation the most important thing for a game?

 

[Hussar]

Why do I think the rules are intended to portray a world? I'm not sure I understand what other role the rules could possibly have, to be honest. The rules exist to tell me how my character can interact with the world and other characters, and include a conflict resolution method designed to prevent the "No you didn't! Yes I did." arguments observable on any playground where kids point imaginary guns at each other. If I have a climb skill of 10 and a typical DC for climbing a tree is 15, then I can reasonably expect that my character can climb most trees. If we remove me from the equation and pretend that my character is an actual being in an actual world, then he too will be able to anticipate climbing most any tree as he is a skilled and experienced climber.

But, the examples you give are not the rules portraying the world. They are mechanics designed to portray how the players interact with the world. Once the PC's are off stage, the rules generally are not in use.

Unless, of course, you grant xp to every farmer who survives a tornado or a forest fire. Entire towns would suddenly jump a level every tornado season.

Trying to say that the rules model the reality leads to OOTS like situations.

You are right that the rules would allow you to understand how your character views his world. However, you are mistaken in thinking that every person in that world needs those rules. The DM doesn't bother using the rules to model every element of the world, and he really couldn't anyway, the rules are far too contradictory and outright silly in many cases.

For example, if I seal a room and light a candle, the candle will eventually go out. However, fireball does not cause any sort of vacuum. I could fireball in a sealed room all day long and nothing would happen by RAW since there is nothing in the rules that say that Fireballs use oxygen.

Unless, of course, you rule that candles don't use oxygen either.

Trying to model reality with mechanics is an exercise in futility. You can poke VERY large holes in any attempt to do so.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Honestly, I think I already did this thread. I should just link back to that argument.

Look, I like simulation as much as the next guy. My absolute favorite moment as a player was when I lost a foot to frostbite and died of the infection after the amputation (in CoC). That was great.

But stuff like healing surges and six hour rests is clearly meant to prevent the 15 minute adventure problem. The game wants characters to keep going. It's a little bit of resource management and a lot of endurance for play. That, to me, has a direct and positive impact on play.

Likewise, the monster stats have nothing to do with the full behavior or capabilities of monsters in the world. They're clearly intended to make preparation quick and their in-game use easy. That is added utility.

It isn't as if I can't maintain all the other aspects of the "simulation" just fine if the rules are serving multiple masters.

 

[Andor]

Again, the problem is- the character doesn't view the world through the rules. The character is completely unaware of the rules. If it helps, think of it more as if the campaign is the legend of your characters, told through the ages, and exaggerated. In the game, Hero Protagonist was stabbed by a goblin, spent a healing surge, and kept fighting, despite a deep wound to the stomach. In reality, it wasn't even a goblin, but a particularly angry house cat, and Hero Protagonist spent two months with a fever because of the infection. But a thousand years later, as the story is told, he has mythological qualities. The rules aren't building the world. The world is presumably more complex than the rules can reflect.

Remember what I said earlier about if the rules don't match the reality of the game world my character might as well be tied up in a metal hospital hallucinating? That is exactly the example you just gave back to me. It may please you to imagine a character slaying dragons while the GM imagines a psychiatrist making notes about his patients intricate fantasy world, but that does not interest me.

Why is simulation the most important thing for a game?

I never said it was. In fact I challange you to show me where I said any such thing. I am saying that internal consistancy is important to me because a lack of it ruins my suspension of disbelief.

 

[The Little Raven]

Remember what I said earlier about if the rules don't match the reality of the game world my character might as well be tied up in a metal hospital hallucinating?

So, since D&D has never really had rules for reproduction, how'd you manage to play in fantasy worlds where people obviously reproduce (since your character has a dad and a mom who had to get busy to make him) without the 'physics/rules' to allow them to do so?

 

[AZRogue]

On the matter of NPCs and PCs using different rules:

In game, this will have no effect. It provides a DM the means to stat up only the information he thinks will be relevant for an NPC or monster, and that's it. A DM can give his NPCs abilities that are the same as some PC abilities. He can even, very easily, give a player a monster ability, though this, I imagine, will take a simple House Rule.

The only thing lacking is their using the same 'level progression' rules. NPCs don't have to be progressed, level to level, like a PC does, because this is usually a waste of time. HOWEVER, should the desire ever arise, NPCs can be given PC levels and leveled up as much as you want.

I don't think there's anything to worry about. The game still has Templates, for instance. I think anything with Templates is going to provide us enough options to manipulate our NPCs however we want.

Er, carry on with the rest of the thread I guess.