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

[robertliguori]

What I don't understand is how the rules are the physics of the world rather than the physics of the player controlling the character in the world.

I've always thought of the rules as an interface system rather than an operating system.

Treating it otherwise always breaks verisimilitude for me because it inevitably leads to Red Mage from 8-bit theater.

Well, to continue the metaphor, players expect to belong to the same inheritance hierarchy as every other roughly humanoid creature. When it's obvious that other creatures are using neither constructor or logic but public setter functions to access their vital stats ("He has 50 hp, despite his level, Con mod, and feats. Because."), and that each individual creature is scratch-built and using their own functions rather than generic, properly debugged helper methods, verisimilitude isn't.

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.

Again, "The physics of the world are the rules of the game, modified and clarified in places" is different than "Rules aren't physics."

Also, I've found that such clarifications tend to produce worse results; they give any apocalyptic villain a simple goal to shoot for, with word-of-god confirmation that if the villain can overcome the limitation, the world go boom. At some point, you need to expose the physics of the world in order for your players to make meaningful choices, and given time, it is expected that the characters should have worked these laws of nature out.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

I disagree. I don't want to have to go through the books with a fine tooth comb, looking for things like this. I don't want to find out that "Well, since I'm using the rules as the physics of the game world it is only a matter of time before everyone in the world is an incorporeal undead because of the rate they can turn people into themselves."

I can say "During combat with the PCs, the Wraiths turn one of them into another Wraith when X happens. However, that's not the case for Wraiths fighting NPCs all over the place. They have a different process to turn them into Wraiths or they never become Wraiths. Therefore, the rules don't get in the way of creating a fun world."

The same thing with economic systems. If the rules say, "The PCs can find anything below X GPs in a town of size Y" then I can sit back and know that it is for ease of play that such a thing happens, not the economic rule of the whole planet. It isn't that every magic item in the book below a certain gp value is all sitting in a store in every town of size Y. It is that the PCs are lucky and manage to come across someone who is traveling through who has one when they look for it.

When the PCs gain levels they also gain hitpoints. Which let them survive longer. This isn't necessarily true for everyone else on the planet. Other people can be the most powerful mage in the world and still die by a simple dagger wound.

Yes, gravity still applies to everyone. Yes, fire still burns normally. However, the game effects that these things have on players is different from other people.

 

[Cadfan]

A whole lot of the arguments in this thread seem to boil down to this:

"When I review the stats of the monsters I fight... blah blah blah... crunch the numbers on his stats... blah blah blah... find discrepancies with how my character works versus the monster... blah blah blah... breaks verisimilitude."

I have a very fast solution for that problem.

We like to pretend that there's no wrong way to play D&D. This is of course false. Any manner of playing D&D that involves intentionally engaging in behavior that makes you miserable is a wrong way of playing D&D. If finding out that the monster's hit points don't match his con score and level wrecks your verisimilitude, stop doing it. Leave that information alone. It's like Dorothy, complaining that ever since she looked behind the curtain she just doesn't believe in the big floating green head anymore. Of course she doesn't. If she wanted to believe, she shouldn't have looked.

 

[pemerton]

At some point, you need to expose the physics of the world in order for your players to make meaningful choices, and given time, it is expected that the characters should have worked these laws of nature out.

This claim is false.

Players can make meaningful choices in RPGs in which the rules are not the physics of the gameworld, but rather a metagame device for distributing narrative control (in such a game, the physics of the gameworld are to be deduced from the totality of the narrative contributed by GM and players). It's just that the meaning of the choice will typically be what the player wants, rather than what the GM wants.

 

[Mallus]

If finding out that the monster's hit points don't match his con score and level wrecks your verisimilitude, stop doing it.

That's why they call it the 'willing suspension of disbelief'.

 

[Mallus]

This claim is false.

Players can make meaningful choices in RPGs in which the rules are not the physics of the gameworld...

Exactly right. As DM, I've offered players plenty of meaningful choices that had nothing to do with the melting point of lead, the acceleration due to gravity, or the general physical characteristics of like-sized hominids.

I've always offered players dramatic choices based on characters, motivations, and conflicts. I try to focus on the Shakespearean rather than the Newtonian or Aristotelean (though I usually end up with the 3rd-rate Pratchettarian... go figure).

It's with some curiosity that I note these discussions of verisimilitude never seem to involve the fictitious persons/personalities in a campaign world and the underlying drama beneath the comic book fantasy violence. The physics of the gameworlds I'm familiar with is narrative, not, well, simulated physics.

 

[Derren]

This claim is false.

Players can make meaningful choices in RPGs in which the rules are not the physics of the gameworld, but rather a metagame device for distributing narrative control (in such a game, the physics of the gameworld are to be deduced from the totality of the narrative contributed by GM and players). It's just that the meaning of the choice will typically be what the player wants, rather than what the GM wants.

When the rules are not the physics of the game you can offer the players a list of options and they can pick one. The players can only make free choices when the physics of the game world don't depend on DM fiat.

 

[Cadfan]

For the record, in the game Og: Unearthed, there are 18 words a character can know. For fast character generation, it is recommended that you select which if the 1d6+2 words you actually know by drawing them from a hat. These are the possible words.

You, Me, Rock, Water, Fire, Stick, Hairy, Bang, Sleep, Smelly, Small, Big, Cave, Food, Thing, Shiny, Go, and Verisimilitude.

That last word is crucial for certain types of players. Mostly the type that gets stomped by a dinosaur very, very fast.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A whole lot of the arguments in this thread seem to boil down to this:

"When I review the stats of the monsters I fight... blah blah blah... crunch the numbers on his stats... blah blah blah... find discrepancies with how my character works versus the monster... blah blah blah... breaks verisimilitude."

I have a very fast solution for that problem.

We like to pretend that there's no wrong way to play D&D. This is of course false. Any manner of playing D&D that involves intentionally engaging in behavior that makes you miserable is a wrong way of playing D&D. If finding out that the monster's hit points don't match his con score and level wrecks your verisimilitude, stop doing it. Leave that information alone. It's like Dorothy, complaining that ever since she looked behind the curtain she just doesn't believe in the big floating green head anymore. Of course she doesn't. If she wanted to believe, she shouldn't have looked.

Assuming people can't change their preferences due to good or bad experiences, this is true. Don't play something that's not fun for you.

But let me say it this way. When I was first introduced to D&D 3E (after Shadowrun), I cringed at the idea of hit points and the absurd spellcasting system. These days, I appreciate the hit points, versimilitsdfingsdingsidnisdnfwerirenwtn aside, simply because of their pure game play value. I even began to like some parts of the spellcasting system (D&D spells seemed extremely unformulaic and evocative to me, with spells like Scry, Bigby's Grasping Hand, Mordekainen's Magnificent Mansion, compared to Shadowruns Level 5 Manabolts, Level 3 Armor spells and Level 4 Fire Elementals)

Experience can change your likes and dislikes a lot.

 

[Mallus]

The players can only make free choices when the physics of the game world don't depend on DM fiat.

This is patently false. It's only true when and if the players/DM cannot agree on what's reasonable.