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

[Derren]

No, I was just suggesting that sometimes restricting choices to only the fun ones can make a more fun game. It's certainly possible (and perhaps even likely) that a group given infinite choice will still choose the fun options.

If the PCs want to play something which is in your opinion boring why stop them? When they want it then it apparently is fun for them.

They aren't all barred, however. The idea is that there IS still physics. The rules just don't simulate them.

At some point you must still decide how the rules interact with the physics of the game world and unless you do it by DM fiat (imo bad) then you need rules for that. And imo it is nearly always preferable to directly say that rules = physics instead having "conversion rules". But those are still preferable to DM fiat.

Do I WANT the players to sneak past the dragon?

Here our opinions simply differ. Imo a DM shoud not want any specific outcome. The PCs should be able to decide what to do, no matter if it is fun or boring in the eyes of the DM who in turn should provide realistic, logical consequences to the actions to their actions. Of course that doesn't work if you have players who don't think about what they do and instead charge, hoping that the DM will save them but I normally don't tend to DM for such people.

 

[D'karr]

Some people simply want to be able to decide if they instead of attacking the dragon/beholder negotiate instead. Or that they instead of attacking can sneak past the dragon and get the princess out. But all those choices are barred unless the DM offers those options as the PCs can never know if their plans would really work as the physics of the game world are not known to them and something which works inside the combat might not work outside of them.

As contrived as it might be, the simple fact remains that no amount of rules can give more options or less options than a DM is willing to allow. Crappy DM's don't get better with more rules.

 

[Derren]

As contrived as it might be, the simple fact remains that no amount of rules can give more options or less options than a DM is willing to allow. Crappy DM's don't get better with more rules.

Rules can give you more options. There is a difference between:

Leader: Hey Eladrin. We distract the dragon while you Feystep into its lair, get the Princes and Feystep out again
Eladrin: I can't Feystep through solid objects.
Leader: Thats bad. We have to find an air hole for this to work. Or you teleport through the front entrance and hope that the dragon doesn't see you.

and

Leader: Leader: Hey Eladrin. We distract the dragon while you Feystep into its lair, get the Princes and Feystep out again
Player of the Eladrin. I don't know if that works, can I carry the princess when I Feystep? And last time the DM didn't let me Feystep through that door so I don't know if I can do it now through the stone wall.


PS: I know that we can't say if those examples are really correct. They are just to demonstrate why having concrete rules is sometimes better than having to rely on the DM for definite rulings.

 

[Kordeth]

Leader: Leader: Hey Eladrin. We distract the dragon while you Feystep into its lair, get the Princes and Feystep out again
Player of the Eladrin. I don't know if that works, can I carry the princess when I Feystep? And last time the DM didn't let me Feystep through that door so I don't know if I can do it now through the stone wall.

And unless your DM is a complete and total jerk who delights in watching his players fumble blindly in the dark, you left out the last line of this conversation.

DM: Yeah, I've ruled that fey step doesn't work through solid objects. I hadn't considered carrying someone before, but we'll say you can fey step carrying anything up to your encumbrance limit. Better hope that princess is in good shape.

Even if there is no rule on the subject (and I'm willing to say with virtually 100% certainty that "teleport" is a movement type like fly or swim now, and has its own entry that tells you how teleporting works), in ordinary circumstances the DM should be telling the players whether what they're asking will work, not work, or require a check before they attempt it. Anything else is just being a jerkstore.

Granted, exceptions can be made if the player is trying something so out of bounds as to be something the character would have no way of gauging the success of the action ("Can I teleport into the dragon's stomach and survive long enough to cut my way out?"), but in 90% of circumstances where the DM has to make up an ad hoc ruling about something, he should inform the player of the ruling before the player attempts the action. This is what is known as "good DMing," and until we perfect both the infinite monkey-typewriter writing room and the technology to store 18-trillion page rulebooks on transdimensional hypercubes, there's never going to be a game that doesn't require it.

 

[cwhs01]

Rules can give you more options.

You have some very good points here, i'll give you that. I think the important word in the sentence above is CAN.

Wether a comprehensive ruleset is a good thing or bad, when it comes to choices in possible ingame actions, is entirely dependent on the premise and the design goal of the system. And also very much dependent on the expectations of the players and dm.

Spirit of the Century is a rpg, were the intended goal of the rulesystem is to emulate the pulp genre of fiction in an uncomplicated way ruleswise. There are no real limitations in the actions that can be taken as long as they would work in an pulp novel. This is the definition of the games physics (imo and as i interpret the intent of the rules). is it fun and would it work for the shadow, doc savage or the spirit? if yes, then go ahead.

Also. I've played in ruleless rpg's and not felt i lacked any choices in actions. I've played complicated systems, such as GURPS, where i felt restricted in what i could do. And i've played in games where i didn't really know the rules and tried things where i had no real chance of succeeding (WoD).

If the players have a different idea of what should be possible than the GM, then a lighter less comprehensive rulessystem could cause problems. Especially if the purpose and intent of the rulesystem isn't as obvious as Spirit of the Century, a comprehensive ruleset can be a very good thing.

However, i think that it has been stated numerous times that 4e is about high action cinematic fantasy (inspired perhaps by tolkien, but not really resembling his works in the slightest anymore). If a given action would be fun and look good in the movie based on the campaign, there should be a good chance it works and doesn't kill any pc's. maim them perhaps (or give them a fleshwound and a nice scar for the collection).

imo this is enough for me, but we'll get more rules, DC's, etc. to adjudicate and explain/understand the gameworld when we see the final 4e ruleset. Ofcourse we will.

 

[JohnSnow]

Yes, as it's exactly the sort of thing that discussions like this revolve around: do the rules as written support believability. Even something as simple as that one statement gets the point across that things are intended to be believable, and that the game world *does* have internal physics and the DM had better keep this in mind.

Well, I was reading through this thread, and I think I have some new light to shed on this "the rules aren't physics" debate.

I believe myself to be firmly in the camp that believes "the rules of the game do not reflect the physics of the gameworld." However, I would state it more accurately as: the probabilities laid out for actions occurring in game according to the rules do not accurately reflect all of the available probabilities for events in the game world.

In other words, things that might happen frequently to the PCs do not necessarily ever happen to an NPC. Similarly, actions that might happen to any given NPC are not necessarily common enough that there's a reasonable chance of them happening to a PC.

This is based on the fundamental conceit that the PCs are touched by luck, destiny, divine providence, or some other thing that makes their lives different from those of the people around them.

When a PC gets "hit" by a sword blow and survives a cut that would kill a shopkeeper, it's not that the physics are different. In reality, the shopkeeper could take a mighty blow and survive (in the same way that a convenience store clerk today can be shot in the head and survive). The difference is that the PC, through luck and skill (and whatever supernatural forces come into play), is not likely to die when this happens, whereas, most of the time, an ordinary person would. The PCs operate under different rules than the rest of the world, but most people in the game world would only notice that the PCs (and some NPCs) seem to be especially skilled, lucky, blessed, or whatever.

This is done for two reasons:

1) Most people would rather play the guy who's touched by luck or destiny than the random shopkeeper.
2) From a game perspective, most players don't want their characters to die easily.

When I (and others) say that PCs are "heroes" or "the protagonists of the story," what we're really talking about is skewing the rules of the game (specifically, the conflict resolution probabilities) to facilitate ongoing action adventure stories. Yes, there's still a risk of death in what the characters do, but for the PCs, it's reduced by all the things that make them different.

Most NPCs don't enjoy that kind of protection because, from the standpoint of the fun of those playing, they're disposable. If someone guts the shopkeeper with a sword, or if he gets knifed in a bar fight, he's likely to die. Sure, that shopkeeper should have a wife, children, hopes, dreams, and maybe a nice lawn gnome collection, but isn't his personality more important to the game being played than properly statting him out as a 4th-level commoner?

Personally, I'd argue that an NPC with a well-developed personality and no stats is a more "real" part of the game world than a fully-statted one with no personality. But that's just how I play.

And in the case of 4E, we're actually talking about "minimal stats" as opposed to "none."

 

[D'karr]

Rules can give you more options.

And as has already been stated none of those options are even viable unless the DM allows them.

For an example let's go to the ranger. He has an ability that gives him bonuses to his rolls in and out of combat against certain enemies. That is pretty well defined. According to you that provides more options.

But the chance to even use that ability is entirely dependent on the DM providing that enemy. If you have a good DM he will find a way to make sure your ability doesn't go to waste. He either, purposely, places those creatures into the narrative so that you can exercise your cool schtick, or he told the player ahead of time that the game includes a lot of monster X so that the player can tailor his character with favored enemy (Monster X).

A poor DM does the opposite.

Let take a look at cleave. A pretty nifty feat... If you ever face more than one creature in combat. If your DM never puts more than one creature into a combat that feat is wasted character sheet space.

So the options are provided not by the rules but by the DM. That is true of any edition of D&D.

 

[robertliguori]

And unless your DM is a complete and total jerk who delights in watching his players fumble blindly in the dark, you left out the last line of this conversation.

DM: Yeah, I've ruled that fey step doesn't work through solid objects. I hadn't considered carrying someone before, but we'll say you can fey step carrying anything up to your encumbrance limit. Better hope that princess is in good shape.

Even if there is no rule on the subject (and I'm willing to say with virtually 100% certainty that "teleport" is a movement type like fly or swim now, and has its own entry that tells you how teleporting works), in ordinary circumstances the DM should be telling the players whether what they're asking will work, not work, or require a check before they attempt it. Anything else is just being a jerkstore.

Granted, exceptions can be made if the player is trying something so out of bounds as to be something the character would have no way of gauging the success of the action ("Can I teleport into the dragon's stomach and survive long enough to cut my way out?"), but in 90% of circumstances where the DM has to make up an ad hoc ruling about something, he should inform the player of the ruling before the player attempts the action. This is what is known as "good DMing," and until we perfect both the infinite monkey-typewriter writing room and the technology to store 18-trillion page rulebooks on transdimensional hypercubes, there's never going to be a game that doesn't require it.

What we have here is a persistent failure to communicate. At the point when the DM decides that you can fey step with another person as long as they're under your encumberance limit, we've got a rule. We've got a statement about how the physical universe works. We have, in fact, a game rule that is part of the physics of the world.

And here's the great part: the rules books can agree, disagree, or be totally silent on the subject. There's a reason that we have the term RAW, and use it as distinct from The Rules.

Really, past a certain point it becomes tautological. All conflicts are resolved by metagame mechanics, then the physics of the universe is that there are no physics of the universe; a player can win a conflict causing the world to explode for no reason next round. Characters, of course, can be convinced otherwise; if the conflict-resolution follows certain patterns, characters may try to understand the world ("Hey, certain types of threats that aren't dramatic never seriously hurt me. I guess that spikiness and weight take a back seat to theatrics on determining how hazardous an event is!"), but ultimately, there is no paradigm to comprehend.

And I'm pretty much unable to get inside the head of a character who believes this and doesn't stick his head into the Far Realms and call out, "You know what, guys? This multiverse sucks. You all can have it. I'm going to go off and make a better one."

 

[Lord Zardoz]

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.

That pretty much nails the situation. The rules are, in general, not meant to be a reasonable simulation of real situations. The rules are meant to be a plausible abstraction of real situations.

If the abstraction is reasonable enough to serve suspension of disbelief within the context of the game, than that should be good enough. And with respect to D&D, while having the monsters and the players use exactly the same rules is ideal on paper. In practice, there is not much benefit to gameplay, and it causes more work than the abstraction requires.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Banshee16]

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

Not at all.....

Maybe my players aren't playing wizards correctly, but fighters tend to butcher them. Generally the fighter saves against what the wizard throws at him, and then the fighter gets his 3 attacks in or whatever, and the wizard is toast.

The system seems dependent upon an assumption that the wizard has all his buffs in place ahead of time, and the fighter is standing far enough away that he can't reach the wizard in one round of charging (or running).

If the fighter is standing there, with his sword in the scabbard, and the wizard doesn't have his buffs on, and they see each other, and the fighter is close enough that he can get to the wizard in one or two rounds of running, the wizard generally doesn't last long.

Fighters just do such massive damage when played properly, particularly when equipped for their level etc. In contrast, it's not like wizards have lots of bracelets that maximize their fireballs at no extra cost, etc.

Maybe the players of fighters in my groups have been better than the players of wizards, but that's been my experience.

I can't be the only one, because for every person who says fighters are useless, and wizards too powerful, I hear someone else say the opposite.

Banshee