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

[hong]

This isn't a complain about the rules being too "gamist", it's a complaint about "the rules aren't the physics of the campaign" being used as an excuse for everything.

I've heard this statement come up in quite a few cases:
What happens when a non-PC does X? Rules aren't physics!
This supposedly-important fluff ability has no mechanics? Rules aren't physics!
This rule results in very strange combat results? Rules aren't physics!


But how does that actually solve anything? When an important situation comes up, and a player wants to have their character do something, you need some method to determine success or failure. So what methods exist?
1) DM fiat.
2) Flip a coin.
3) Have a rule that can cover it.

1. You are confusing the use of rules as a framework for simulating the world, with the use of rules as a framework for conflict/task resolution.

2. If you cannot handle stat/skill atk vs AC/Fort/Ref/Will/skill def on the fly, give up now.

 

[Derren]

"Rules aren't physics" is just a nicer way of saying "Shut up" or "Shut up and go play Rolemaster".

 

[hong]

"Rules aren't physics" is just a nicer way of saying "Shut up" or "Shut up and go play Rolemaster".

Rolemaster. Now that's funny!

 

[LostSoul]

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.

You seem to be more worried about DM fiat than "rules aren't physics" arguments.

 

[robertliguori]

First of all, lets put some things straight, Chris Sims said that npcs have healing surges and can be healed by a cleric or warlord.

Second when I think that the rules of the world are not physics i mean that the rules are conflict resolutions cases, the rules normaly just say if something is successful or not and the efects in game terms, the rules don´t say how that efect hapened in the game world.

For instance a halfling fighter want to bull rush a kobold, the dm say that he must make an STR check against his oponent FORT defences, the player sucedes, the dm then describes the halfling bashing his shield and the kobold boucing backwards. The same halfling fighter nowwants to use the same maneuver against a big hobgoblin soldier, the mechanics are the same, and the halfling sucedes again, with a litle luck, the dm them describe the maneuver as the halfling pressuring foward and the hobgoblin misstep´s and retreat to safer ground by going backwards. In both case the mechanics were consistent, the same roll was made and the same result achieved, but the way that you described it were diferent, because the rules don´t explain the world, they let us interact with it.

The best metaphor that i can find is that rules are translation between what we, players and dms, whant to do and how that afects the game world. Lots of people know that the best translation is not the most literal one, but the one that keep more of the spirit of work.

I think that this is the result of mixed-up terminology. Physics is an interesting branch of science. It has oodles of what and extremely little why. But, and this is the thing about it that makes it used in the metaphorical case, the lack of why does not detract from the what. The theory of gravitation speculates that objects move towards each other in predictable fashion. The theory of gravitation could be true because of graviton interactions, or superstrings mating, or the Divine Will, or invisible falling elves pushing everything in the universe. But, regardless of which (or any) of these 'why' answers are true, the 'what' is constant; objects fall in predictable ways. Unlike in our world, the physics of D&D are not particularly granular; they do not say what happens on an extremely micro level. But, they do exist, and they can be noticed.

Now, it might be that the flavor of a Con-18 dwarf shrugging off a blow with his 30 hp is much different than the flavor of a highly-leveled 30-hp Con 10 nimble elf doing the same. It is almost certain that the fluff of a 30-hp door experiencing the same hit will be different than both. But if the rules are physics, then despite the difference in fluff, you will need to apply about the same amount of violence to each in order to break it.

Here's the thing, though; you can't get around there being rules-as-physics. If you adjucate everything on the fly, and events set no precedent and can un-happen as the story dictates, then the rules of physics are that reality is a giant quantum event. You can't make that not the case without laying down and adhering to actual rules. 'Rules are the physics of the game world' is another way of saying 'The rules describe what happens in the game world'; if this isn't true, then you've got one unorthodox game.

Now, what happens when what the rules describe does not match what you expect or want? A rules-as-physics would suggest that D&D 3.XE was a very strange place where a trained fighter could unleash a deadly flurry of blows, but only if you could get a swarm of rats to run past him first. The answer to this is not to suggest another 'real' layer of rules that prohibit the bag of rats exploit; it's to note that the rules imply this, then change them so that it is no longer true. It is vital that all players share certain expectations about what the world is and how it behaves in certain circumstances; empirical evidence strongly suggests that when this is not the case, many games degenerate into "I shot him!" "No, you missed!" The problem here is not a limited degree of editorial control over the story (that player A wanted the story to proceed where someone got shot and player B didn't); it's that Player A's expectations were that A's target's shooting was an inevitable consequence of the nature of the universe, and that B's expectations were otherwise.

Now, if players want a universe in which causality and precedent aren't, and things happen simply because they think they should happen, then conflict-resolution makes sense. If you have players that will be upset if their understanding of the world is egregiously violated, and others whose desire for certain types of events takes precedence over their desire for continuity, conflict resolution is not an ideal method of rules adjudication.

 

[hong]

Here's the thing, though; you can't get around there being rules-as-physics. If you adjucate everything on the fly, and events set no precedent and can un-happen as the story dictates, then the rules of physics are that reality is a giant quantum event.

The "reality" is that you are not an elf. You are pretending to be an elf. And similarly, you can pretend that things follow cause-and-effect even if you make stuff up on the fly.

Trust me, I'm a statistician.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Rolemaster. Now that's funny!

Most awesome crit & fumble tables eva.

 

[VannATLC]

'Rules are the physics of the game world' is another way of saying 'The rules describe what happens in the game world'; if this isn't true, then you've got one unorthodox game.

Description =/ prescription

Which is exactly why we have theories of material sciences. Not rules.

Now..

The game world is a Computer. The rule a player follows are, lets say, Perl.

There are many and varied layers of abstraction between the commands used in one, and their effects on the others. They are deterministic, but there are many, many ways of getting the same result.

Rules are toolset. The are not prescriptors.

Editted for clarification.
I should know better than to use PC on a RPG forum.

 

[Revinor]

The "reality" is [...]

Trust me, I'm a statistician.

If you are a statistician, then you are probably the last person who should speak with authority about what 'reality' is

 

[Charwoman Gene]

The game world is a pc.

The Mountains are its consittuion, the general cultural advancement is the Intelligence...

What?