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

[Andor]

So, I got your quotes. What part didn't I understand. You've stated that 4e is a bad game because it breaks your sense of verisimilitude. I replied that the quality of the game is irrelavent to your sensibilities. You claimed that 4e is akin to being insane and poor role playing (ignoring the NPCs).

So, how exactly have I mischaracterized your points in such a way that everyone else in this thread has mischaracterized them in pretty much the same way?

I haven't said any such thing about 4e. I haven't seen 4e. It's not out yet. I would be an idiot to make declarative statements about something of which I have only seen tiny tidbits. This is a discussion about 'rules as physics' which to me means whether or not the rules closely portray what the characters are experiencing within their world.

I feel that if there is a disconnect between what the rules portray and what the GM thinks is happening such that the rules do not allow me to closely understand what my character is experiencing then it detracts from the experience of the game in the same way that an out of focus projector detracts from the experience of watching a movie.

A hypothetical example drawn from what may or may not be true in 4e, based on speculation drawn from the back of a DDM card is the existence of a monster ability that allows one to use a mundane weapon in a nonmagical way that cannot be replicated by a player character. If this is the case (and neither you nor I have the slightest idea if it is or not) it will detract from my opinion of the game if there is not an in game rational for why a hobgoblin can use a pogostick while my character cannot.

 

[hong]

Which leads right into my point. Without a rule to the contrary, for some people, once you stop counting initiatives, you're now in that space between encounters. Can a per encounter power be used then?

Just ask me. Have I stopped counting initiative?

 

[hong]

I feel that if there is a disconnect between what the rules portray and what the GM thinks is happening such that the rules do not allow me to closely understand what my character is experiencing then it detracts from the experience of the game in the same way that an out of focus projector detracts from the experience of watching a movie.

A hypothetical example drawn from what may or may not be true in 4e, based on speculation drawn from the back of a DDM card is the existence of a monster ability that allows one to use a mundane weapon in a nonmagical way that cannot be replicated by a player character. If this is the case (and neither you nor I have the slightest idea if it is or not) it will detract from my opinion of the game if there is not an in game rational for why a hobgoblin can use a pogostick while my character cannot.

The rules portray an NPC extra. The GM thinks it is an NPC extra. There is no disconnect between the rules and GM. The only disconnect is between the rules and you. And this disconnect is easily rectified by not thinking too hard about fantasy.

 

[VannATLC]

A hypothetical example drawn from what may or may not be true in 4e, based on speculation drawn from the back of a DDM card is the existence of a monster ability that allows one to use a mundane weapon in a nonmagical way that cannot be replicated by a player character. If this is the case (and neither you nor I have the slightest idea if it is or not) it will detract from my opinion of the game if there is not an in game rational for why a hobgoblin can use a pogostick while my character cannot.

Who says your character cannot? This is again, part of the problem I have with so many of the arguments on this board.

DnD is a toolset. It is emphatically not a board game. That does not, in any way, appear to have changed between 3.x and 4e.

As a toolset, its allows you, just like earlier versions, to create new content, based on guidelines. Previously, a lot of those guidelines had to be reveresed engineered.. and rarely supported.

There's been quite a bit of noise around the fact that the new monster guidelines are actually useful, so this gives me much hope that there is advice for better kit-bashing in the DMG, as opposed to prior versions, where it was simply a 'do it if you want'.

 

[Hussar]

Since the quality of the game is an entirely subjective assessment, his sensibilities are not irrelevant at all.

Really? Quality is entirely subjective?

So, I can say that 1e is a terrible game because I don't like it? And that's true? I don't think so. Just like anything else, a game must be judged on its own merits. That I or you happen to not like it is not a reflection of its quality.

Or, put it another way. I don't like Go. I understand it, I can play it, but I don't like it. However, I would in no way say that Go is a bad game. It's just not the game for me.

Conflating personal tastes with any sort of value judgement is just bad.

Saying that a system where the rules=/=physics results in unbelievable and inconsistent settings may be true for your tastes, but, it is not objectively true. Numerous systems out there show this to be untrue, all the way from Basic D&D to The Dying Earth.

 

[Professor Phobos]

I truly do not know what you are trying to say here. Could you clarify?

Yeah, let me give it a shot. Think about applying a "genre template" to the rules of a game world. Think about how the "rules" are different for the main characters in a television show and the extras. Gaming isn't just a simulation of a world but it's about specific characters and their story- and people in stories don't follow the same rules as people-in-reality. Even a fictional reality. Think of the rules as provisionally applied to only a certain subset of interactions within the world- heroic deeds, sword-and-sorcery stuff for D&D, romantic intrigue for a game about romance, horror investigation in Call of Cthulhu, etc. Everything else is literally just up to the GM. (Though in some games this power is shared w/ the players via bizarre mechanisms of a blasphemous and sordid aspect)

There are only two ways for a player to perceive the world his character exists in. One is the rules, the other is the people he plays with, especially the GM.

What about fluff? Setting information? Common sense?

I think you are conflating two things here. One is house rules, which I think are a great thing. The other is a GM ruling for a situation which the rules cover poorly or not at all. While I think house rules are a great thing I think they should be presented at the start of a campaign, which shows that the GM has a clear idea of how and why he wants to alter the game. When house rules keep appearing midsession it is rarely a good sign in my experience.

See, no, I disagree. People here have a tendency to exaggerate how rigid the rules are intended to be. They are a loose framework of guidelines. Midsession special case adjudication is not only necessary and expected, it is desirable. House rules are more formal alterations to the existing framework, not special-case applications of the pre-existing framework. Think of a house rule as me attaching a flamethrower to my hammer, and GM adjudication as me swinging the hammer differently.

If, for instance, in Call of Cthulhu I vary the consequences for failure on a skill roll depending on all manner of circumstances, this is not a "house rule." The skill descriptions present only guidelines for that sort of thing. If I say a character rolling a Surgery skill for a comparatively minor injury under good conditions with adequate tools can't kill the patient even if he fails, but later I say a surgery done under terrible conditions with improvised tools with only a terrified Boy Scout Troop Leader's shaking flashlight for light will kill the patient with a failed roll, I have not established a house rule, I have just applied the rules in a manner appropriate to the situation.

As far as cutting a throat goes the rules do in fact address that exact circumstance. It's call a coup de grace. As a player in your game I would be very puzzled why you would feel the need to make a new mechanic to cover an existing rule on the fly rather than in your pre-game house rules packet.

Coup De Grace specifically applies only to "helpless" opponents.

This will lead to uncertainty and confusion on the part of your players and possibly the characters.

Look, this is just not true. I've never had a player who didn't "get" what I am saying. Never once have I seen someone who couldn't handle this stuff.

Confusion that would not be there if you played as if the rules were the physical rules of the game world. I dislike that confusion and thus prefer to play in games with clearly spelled out rules.

As Hong has been trying to tell you, this confusion is entirely a construct of your own preconceptions, and if you discard them, then you will not be burdened by it anymore.

It may be more accurate than the clear but wrong impresson I had from the written rules, but it is still vague and leaves both me and my character less sure.

Why can't you ask? This topic keeps coming up- "uncertainty! I don't know what I can do!" and I can only shudder to think at how bad your DMs have been to have taught this kind of learned helplessness. If you're not sure if a given thing will work, just say, "Hey I'm going to try this, is it going to work?" and the DM can say "Yes, No, Maybe- Roll!" This is how it is supposed to work. Does your gaming group laugh at you if you get this sort of thing wrong?

And how it makes your character less sure...your character can't do anything, it is not an independent agent. It's only as confused as you say he is, and again, this confusion isn't at all necessary between people who can communicate with one another. You have to separate your knowledge of the game from your character's knowledge.

 

[VannATLC]

And how it makes your character less sure...your character can't do anything, it is not an independent agent. It's only as confused as you say he is, and again, this confusion isn't at all necessary between people who can communicate with one another. You have to separate your knowledge of the game from your character's knowledge.

I can't agree more.

A staggering amount of generally simulationist pedagogy seems to come from a variety of metagaming.

As opposed to the general idea, where your character has access to information that he wouldn't, as it is based on your RL observations, not his.. we also have metagaming were a Player underattributes the knowledge their PC may have.

There is *nothing* wrong, with asking a DM is something is do-able or plausible. It is not your character asking.. your character already *knows*.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

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.

This is an interesting problem of taxonomy.

I would have said that the first rule doesn't at all apply to issue of player control over character. Unless you have to put the money in the kitty only when the you, as the player, have your character say the dirty word.

And I would have also said that every rule governing character creation does apply and would have had very little to do with the physics of the game world.

Unless assigning skill ranks has some sort of physical analogue, which is honestly, mind blowing. And I'm not certain in what sense.

And the second rules gives you, as the player, a consequence for your future actions involving the character in lost hit points based on your decision to fall, anything that happened to the character in the game world is entirely abstracted.

Not to mention that the specific physics of that situation, in the game world, are pretty unknowable from that rule alone. Since the actual physical consequence of the damage is so hugely dependent on the class and level of the character involved.

 

[Lanefan]

Why can't you ask? This topic keeps coming up- "uncertainty! I don't know what I can do!" and I can only shudder to think at how bad your DMs have been to have taught this kind of learned helplessness. If you're not sure if a given thing will work, just say, "Hey I'm going to try this, is it going to work?" and the DM can say "Yes, No, Maybe- Roll!" This is how it is supposed to work. Does your gaming group laugh at you if you get this sort of thing wrong?

Until somebody (not me, because I agree with your point here) squawks about how awful this "mother may I" gaming style is, and declares instead "Hey, I'm going to do this and it *is* going to work". That's where DMs are learning to be helpless.

And how it makes your character less sure...your character can't do anything, it is not an independent agent. It's only as confused as you say he is, and again, this confusion isn't at all necessary between people who can communicate with one another. You have to separate your knowledge of the game from your character's knowledge.

Yes, but your *character's* knowledge should be the framework for whatever decision you're making...the problem is, too many things are left out of the "character knowledge" folder and instead have to rely on player assumptions - which may well disagree with DM assumptions. I go back to my earlier somewhat-silly-but-still-valid example of gravity in the game world...if there's nothing saying different, players and DMs alike assume it to be the same as our own, and the characters act using that in-character knowledge. But if it's different - if the DM has decided sea-level gravity in the game world is equal to about .5g here on Earth, for example - things like falls suddenly become much less lethal, jumps become more cinematic, and so on. (side note: hey, maybe that's why falls in D+D don't hurt so much - there's less gravity!)

Lanefan

 

[VannATLC]

With reference to the falling rules and HP/Level interactions;

Which is why falling should be percentage HP based, capped at something like 75%, with an additional roll of height/10 vs fortitude, or be reduced to 1hp above your death level.