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

[JohnSnow]

But falling off a cliff is really deadly. How deadly? Is the hurty-mojo of the cliff enough to overcome the not-be-hurty-mojo of the barbarian? Roll the dice and find out.

All 1s = 10 hp. Not enough to kill a 1st-level fighter.

The rules are about tilting the laws of what's probable in the character's favor, not distorting them beyond all reality.

Arguments like "there's magic" and "in the real world, creatures over 8 feet tall have major health problems" are utterly spurious in this context. In the parlance of fiction, those are what are called "genre assumptions." In other words, they are utterly irrelevant to a discussion of what is "believable" or "realistic" in the game world.

 

[hbarsquared]

Wow, this thread took quite an effort to slog through.

Here's my contribution: granularity.

First, physics of the real world, our world, is granular. The easiest and popular example is Newtonian versus Relativity. Both are "correct," despite being differing theories. Newtonian physics covers most situations, most of the time. You need Relativity to explain the fringe cases of the very big and the very fast. Of course, even Relativity can't explain the very small, let alone when you divide by zero...

The point is, the Rules of the Game are extremely granular: they provide the physics of the game world only insofar as they can be translated to the players in the context of a role playing game. You could say it's physics, but they are Newtonian, and do not reveal the intricacies or detail of the actual game world, if you wish.

You could even go so far as to say that the PCs, and those they interact with, use "Relativity" physics, while the rest of your game universe uses Newtonian. Those rules are accurate, and do describe the game world, but because the PCs are the protagonists, they necessarily are considered a fringe case. And even that doesn't cover all that is possible in the game universe... and that is what the DM is for.

NPCs and PCs, on-camera actions and off-camera actions DO follow the same physics, and the rules DO reflect this. NPCs simply do not require the same level of detail or labor (mechanically, this issue has nothing to do with creative storytelling or "roleplaying") - hence they use Newtonian physics, while the PCs use the more fantastic Relativity.

Besides, the whole "physics of the game world" issue is far more prevalent in 3E. If you want your character to have a particular special ability, oftentimes it required 10+ levels of planning, multiple prestige classes, and a fintely tuned feat and skill selection in order to pull off. In 4E, this 1) seems far less so, and 2) far easier to tinker with, from a DM perspective. In 4E, the DM has much greater leniency to change the physics/rules of the game world as he or she sees fit.

 

[Hussar]

I see no conflict. JIT (with just-in-time being before anyone made a decision in which the rule would b a factor) rulemaking is not fiat, it's houseruling. More to the point, "Make a new rule and stick to it." is not the same thing as "Arbitrate without apparent rhyme or reason." DM fiat is not making new rules; it's overwriting existing ones.

Sorry, but that's needlessly splitting hairs. In any case, the DM is making a judgement call to determine the results of the action. DM's fiat in no way requires the DM to make different judgements when presented with similar situations. Most house rules come into being after a particular in game event, not before since most of us cannot possibly determine how to resolve every in game event beforehand.

Take Derren's swimming example above. I think he's actually talking about two different things. He's right, if a character has a swim speed of 30, then he should always have that. But, if another character has no swim speed, can he swim? In the absence of a swim skill (pre 2e), can a character swim?

 

[pemerton]

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.

This is not really true. Given that, in the typical purist-for-system RPG (RM, RQ, GURPS) it is the GM who actually has overriding authority to narrate the world, the choices the players can make are quite circumscribed by what the GM establishes as the parameters for those choices.

Those rule systems do allow players to estimate the likely success of various actions once the GM's narration has been clearly undertaken. Given the importance of die rolls in such systems, it is important to note that the players can't choose for their PCs to achieve things, only for them to try things. This is a significant limitation on choice. It is what tends to give those games a rather gritty feel.

The PCs should be able to decide what to do

I think you mean "the players should be able to decide what actions their PCs attempt".

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.

The availability of these options has nothing to do with whether or not the rules are the physics of the gameworld. In fact they depend on such things as the scope of the game's action resolution system. In most versions of D&D negotation is actually primarily an example of GM's fiat. It is more typical for more narrativist games (eg The Dying Earth), in which the rules are not the physics of the gameworld, to have adequate action resolution mechanics for negotiations.

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.

with rules=physics the players know, by knowing the rules what will work in the game and what not. If that is not the case then the players always have to guess how the DM will rule in the case and never can be sure how their powers work in the situation because the DM might "railroad" them elsewhere to preserve the story.

Are you aware of the actual realworld existence of RPGs that have non-simulationist character build and action resolution mechanics? To mention The Dying Earth again, it has very detailed rules for resolving a wide range of PC actions. Those rules do not model the physics of the gameworld. Rather, they distribute narrative control across the various players of the game (including the GM).

In short: it is possible to have rules which the players can rely upon in playing the game, without those rules having to be the physics of the gameworld.

the DM who in turn should provide realistic, logical consequences to the actions to their actions.

You seem to be saying that players have more choice when the GM has the sole authority for determining the consequences of their actions. That is not quite contradictory, but it's far from obviously true.

The players do have to have an understanding of what the rules mean about the game's physics model for interacting with parts of the physical world, particularly for understanding the boundaries for cinematic action, in order to make some meaningful choices without simply appealing to referee authority.

This is not necessarily so. The rules can tell the players what choices are permitted without those rules being the physics of the gameworld. The rules, for example, may tell players what the limits are of their narrative control - perhaps no more than 1 friendly NPC to be introduced by the player per session. Such a rules would have no implications for the natural laws that govern demography of the gameworld.

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.

Most FiTM action resolution systems require the player to narrate the action so as to explain the outcome. Thus, winning a conflict would not cause things to happen for no ingame reason. The player's narration would explain what the reason is.

A general question to all those who say that rules must be the physics of the gameworld: do you actually deny the existence of RPGs (eg The Dying Earth, Prince Valiant, HeroWars, etc) which do have action resolution mechanics, but in which those mechanics are not the physics of the gameworld? Or do you think that the people who play those games don't understand what they are really doing when the play them?

 

[AZRogue]

The important thing here is: Clerics can, indeed, Heal NPCs.

Wait, sorry, what's this thread about? They're all blurring together.

 

[Andor]

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.

The only ruleset covering how the player controls the character in the world that I have ever encountered is having to throw 25¢ in the kitty whenever someone says a word the host doesn't want their kid to hear.

1d6 damage per 10' fallen tells me how my character suffers in a fall, not how I do.

 

[Andor]

Good lord. This thread is almost entirely people talking past each other. There are a dozen examples of people saying "No you're wrong! It works in exactly the way you described with slightly different phraseology!"

People keep attacking points that nobody made, and refuteing playstyles that no one claimed.

I think this entire board needs to take a remedial reading comprehension class.

 

[Hussar]

Good lord. This thread is almost entirely people talking past each other. There are a dozen examples of people saying "No you're wrong! It works in exactly the way you described with slightly different phraseology!"

People keep attacking points that nobody made, and refuteing playstyles that no one claimed.

I think this entire board needs to take a remedial reading comprehension class.

Could you be more specific? All I see is you and Derren endlessly repeating the mantra that rules MUST EQUAL physics or the game is completely ruined and unbelievable.

This has been proven to be false since numerous systems, particularly rules lite systems, obviously don't follow this pattern.

So, instead of insults, how about trying to actually address the points?

 

[CleverNickName]

Good lord. This thread is almost entirely people talking past each other. There are a dozen examples of people saying "No you're wrong! It works in exactly the way you described with slightly different phraseology!"

Behold the power of the internet! Don't worry, this often happens when a thread grows to more than 3 pages.

Some people like a completely realistic game, and that's cool.
Other people like a completely unrealistic game, and that's cool too.
Almost everyone likes a mix of both, and it's still cool.

Now for me, I like mine over ice, with a splash of soda.

Wait...what are we talking about again?

 

[Hussar]

Behold the power of the internet! Don't worry, this often happens when a thread grows to more than 3 pages.

Some people like a realistic game, and that's cool.
Other people like a completely unrealistic game, and that's cool too.
Almost everyone likes a mix of both, and it's still cool.

Now for me, I like mine over ice, with a splash of soda.

Wait...what are we talking about again?

See, the problem is, Rules=Physics =/= realistic.

You can have rules that are not physics that are perfectly consistent, but, are not meant to model physics. The split between PC and NPC, for example, is perfectly consistent. Diplomacy works on NPC's but doesn't work on PC's is a consistent rule.