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

[AZRogue]

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.

Okay, I'll add one more thing.

I think I know what you're saying, but let me add my own interpretation: The end result of the DM's adjudication should be consistent with the reality of the game world the PC experiences.

What I mean by that is that if we need, in the game world, to see the number 12 or less (just an abstract example) then it doesn't matter if behind the DM's screen the number was generated on 3 d4's, 2 d6's, or 1 d8 + 1 d4.

Having different rules for different things, like PCs and NPCs, doesn't make any real difference if on the Players' side of the screen the results remain consistent. I think that's what 4E is aiming for, in part: consistent results with the simplest rule possible given the particular situation, even if this means different rules for some things.

I'm not sure if that made any sense, but it's what I've come to believe.

 

[Professor Phobos]

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?

Why?

I guess a better question is: Can the rules govern a specific subset of the world's interactions, based on the assumption that it is that very category of event the game as a whole is interested in?

Or must the rules govern the totality of the game world?

 

[Andor]

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?

I guess a better question is: Can the rules govern a specific subset of the world's interactions, based on the assumption that it is that very category of event the game as a whole is interested in?

Or must the rules govern the totality of the game world?

The answer to both these questions is something I said a page ago. To quote:"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."

The problem is not a lack of rules to cover monster reproduction. The problem would be including those rules and yet to write them so badly that the only possible result of using those rules is the world being overrun with monsters.

An example from 3e, oft cited, is the poor economic rules. A game may or may not include those rules as the writer pleases, but if they are included they should work.

In a similar vein if an NPC Humanoid warrior has an ability that a PC cannot aquire, even if it is plainly a mundane use of a weapon, I need a better explaination for that than "He can do it because he is an NPC. You cannot because you are a PC." Having PCs be exceptional is okay. Having them be unique in the world (until one dies and another similarly gifted invididual pops out of the woodwork) is not.

If the PCs are truly unique in the world. The offspring of gods say, or inheritors of an ancient prophecy. Then that too is fine, as long as that is the premise of the campaign from the start, and I dammed well expect the NPCs to act like it as well.

But in the standard D&D world adventurers are, if not a dime a dozen, at least reasonably common. John the farm boy can aspire to be an adventurer. He may make it, or he might get cut down by a goblin, but by the standard model of the game there is no reason for him to think it's impossible.

In other words in D&D as we have all known and loved through 3 editions the difference between an NPC and a PC is one of degree not type. The PCs are not Gods, subject only to divine law, and unconcerned with the trials of mortals. That may be what 4e is going to be, but if so they should say so from the outset.

 

[hong]

In a similar vein if an NPC Humanoid warrior has an ability that a PC cannot aquire, even if it is plainly a mundane use of a weapon, I need a better explaination for that than "He can do it because he is an NPC. You cannot because you are a PC."

And when you divest of yourself of that need, you will no longer have such problems.

 

[The Little Raven]

But in the standard D&D world adventurers are, if not a dime a dozen, at least reasonably common.

Maybe in your world. Not in mine. If adventurers were around every corner, there'd be no point to the player characters, since there's always someone else capable and willing to tackle that mess. And that bores me to frakin' tears.

I don't run games so my players can be just Adventuring Party #317, with Wizard #874 and Cleric #922. I run games so they can be the Champions of Baldwar Mountain, led by Kelson O' the Thorn.

John the farm boy can aspire to be an adventurer. He may make it, or he might get cut down by a goblin, but by the standard model of the game there is no reason for him to think it's impossible.

If he has a destiny... and if he doesn't, then his hopes and dreams of becoming the next Champion will be dashed upon the rocks, because all fate has in store for him are some turnips.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Could you be more specific?

Also, I don't think you've really answered the question. Do the game rules have to cover the totality of game world interaction, or can they focus on a specific kind of interaction? I'm not talking about specific sub-systems, I'm talking about the rules as a whole.

In other words in D&D as we have all known and loved through 3 editions the difference between an NPC and a PC is one of degree not type.

Oh! Well, that's easy enough to resolve then. The difference between PCs, Major NPCs (who might well be written with PC rules) and Minor NPCs is one of degree, not type. Degree of attention required.

A quick little stat block for a random city guard isn't supposed to represent a fundamental, intrinsic game world difference between the PC and the guard. It's supposed to represent the different degree of interest we have in that guard. The guard is a mook. We do not care about all the finer details of the guard. The DM shouldn't have to spend a lot of time statting out the guard. Simplified monsters, minions, etc, all that serve this ultimate purpose of determining the degree of mechanical attention paid to different characters. The PCs get the most, because we pay the most attention to them. Major NPCs, presumably, also get extensive attention.

Likewise, PCs, being run by players, deserve special consideration. We don't particularly care about random NPC soldliers bleeding out on the battlefield. But given the "Heroic Fantasy" vibe of D&D, we do care about preventing PCs from dying from anything other than a heroic confrontation. Winning a battle and then dying from infection a few days later is something that only happens to NPCs based on DM fiat, not because of some "in world" difference between NPC and PC, but because of wholly metagame differences. The PCs are the main characters of our story, and more importantly, they're run by actual people whose thoughts and opinions matter.

You could always just say "The PCs are heroes/have destinies" etc, if you really need some kind of justification for how awesome they are.

 

[small pumpkin man]

The answer to both these questions is something I said a page ago. To quote:"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."

The problem is not a lack of rules to cover monster reproduction. The problem would be including those rules and yet to write them so badly that the only possible result of using those rules is the world being overrun with monsters.

An example from 3e, oft cited, is the poor economic rules. A game may or may not include those rules as the writer pleases, but if they are included they should work.

A very good 3.x example is spawn propagation of certain incorporeal undead, (In fact this actually came up in a recent game) where a strict following of RAW allows a single Wraith to create a chain reaction and depopulate entire citys in minutes.

"The Rules aren't the Physics of the World" allows the DM to limit this, to say "this is how it works in combat, but for these reasons the obvious implications do not come about", but it doesn't really prevent it from being annoying and arguably sloppy.

 

[Professor Phobos]

"The Rules aren't the Physics of the World" allows the DM to limit this, to say "this is how it works in combat, but for these reasons the obvious implications do not come about", but it doesn't really prevent it from being annoying and arguably sloppy.

I would say that something like that should probably be an in-world thing, since I love the idea of an incorporeal undead apocalypse. Still it's something their Monster Manual entry should probably mention.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I would say that something like that should probably be an in-world thing, since I love the idea of an incorporeal undead apocalypse. Still it's something their Monster Manual entry should probably mention.

Well, yes, it's a cool idea for a setting, but it's obviously not something that was intended as a basic assumption for all 3.x settings.

 

[Campbell]

In a similar vein if an NPC Humanoid warrior has an ability that a PC cannot aquire, even if it is plainly a mundane use of a weapon, I need a better explanation for that than "He can do it because he is an NPC. You cannot because you are a PC."

The absence of particular ability within the confines of the Player's Handbook is not evidence that a player's character cannot learn that particular ability. It's simply evidence that if a player wants his character to learn that ability some design work needs to be done in order to balance the ability for PC use.