How Does "The Rules Aren't Physics" Fix Anything?
- Thread starter IceFractal
- Start date
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
Lanefan said:
That's true for certain play agendas, but not for all play agendas. For less immersion oriented play character knowledge and motivations need not be the only elements in decision-making framework. Sometimes elements like genre appropriateness, narrative concerns, not being a jerk and pacing can have just as profound an impact on player decisions as character knowledge and motivations.
Hussar
Legend
Lanefan said:
That's a bit of a mischaracterization though.
Mother-May-I play exists when there are inconsistencies in rulings. If I try something one day and try the same thing the next and the mechanics for resolving that action change, then you have a legitimate beef.
However, rules can be consistent without becoming physics. Rules that apply to the PC's and not to everyone else, for example. The players are not playing Mother May I because they know how the rules interact for their characters. How actions between two NPC's are resolved off stage is of no particular concern to the mechanics.
ThirdWizard
First Post
I didn't read the thread, but I thought I'd answer the question, because my glance through didn't really see a comprehensive answer.
If you think of the players as "DMs" for their characters, co-narrators, or in some other way in which gameplay is based more on a cinematic experience and/or on an ideal where the outcome is more important than, and in fact supersedes, how the outcome occurred, then the rules of a game are not, in fact, the physics of the world but the players are, in fact, able to guage the abilities of their PCs (just as the DM can do with NPCs). In this way, it doesn't really matter how an event occurred so much as the fact that the event did occur and that those playing the game are able to move the game toward said occurrence.
Okay, that might be a bit convoluted.
The most prominent example I can think of this are martial Encounter powers. I'll use Fox's Cunning as an example, a 1/encounter ability that allows the ranger to shift 1 square and make a basic attack against an enemy in response to an enemy attack.
Now, one who is looking at rules = physics might see this rule and say that this means that quite literally there must be a physical, substantial, reason for the PC not being allowed to do this more than once per encounter. Reasons are pulled up, almost all of which are generally unsatisfactory. The PC must know about the limit, though, because the PC is choosing when to do it and these choices must be informed by the reality of the world so that the PC can make these decisions.
That's not the only way to look at the situation, however. Another way to look at it (and there are probably as many ways to look at it as their are players, really) is to assume that the player's choice in the action is affecting the flow of battle itself. When the player says that their PC uses Fox's Cunning, he or she is not only stating that the PC has used Fox's Cunning but also that a situation that allows Fox's Cunning to be used has occurred.
Now, whether or not you want to play this way is another matter. But, it is fully possible, and it appears that aspects[/] of 4e (not everything mind you!) will embrace this idea. I think it is worth it for everyone to at least try and take something from it.
If you think of the players as "DMs" for their characters, co-narrators, or in some other way in which gameplay is based more on a cinematic experience and/or on an ideal where the outcome is more important than, and in fact supersedes, how the outcome occurred, then the rules of a game are not, in fact, the physics of the world but the players are, in fact, able to guage the abilities of their PCs (just as the DM can do with NPCs). In this way, it doesn't really matter how an event occurred so much as the fact that the event did occur and that those playing the game are able to move the game toward said occurrence.
Okay, that might be a bit convoluted.
The most prominent example I can think of this are martial Encounter powers. I'll use Fox's Cunning as an example, a 1/encounter ability that allows the ranger to shift 1 square and make a basic attack against an enemy in response to an enemy attack.
Now, one who is looking at rules = physics might see this rule and say that this means that quite literally there must be a physical, substantial, reason for the PC not being allowed to do this more than once per encounter. Reasons are pulled up, almost all of which are generally unsatisfactory. The PC must know about the limit, though, because the PC is choosing when to do it and these choices must be informed by the reality of the world so that the PC can make these decisions.
That's not the only way to look at the situation, however. Another way to look at it (and there are probably as many ways to look at it as their are players, really) is to assume that the player's choice in the action is affecting the flow of battle itself. When the player says that their PC uses Fox's Cunning, he or she is not only stating that the PC has used Fox's Cunning but also that a situation that allows Fox's Cunning to be used has occurred.
Now, whether or not you want to play this way is another matter. But, it is fully possible, and it appears that aspects[/] of 4e (not everything mind you!) will embrace this idea. I think it is worth it for everyone to at least try and take something from it.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Hussar said:
Something may have objectively measurable qualities, but quality is still a subjective judgement. Everyone has different metrics and criteria that will define whether something is quality or not. If you don't like Go, then it's a bad game... for you.
JohnSnow
Hero
For me, the solution to all the problems has always been to make sure all the parties involved (players and DM) have a "shared assumption" about the kind of world we're simulating.
That world is not solely defined by the D&D game rules, because using those rules and logical extrapolations of them as the sole and only base for the gameworld's physics creates a world that I, as a DM and player, am not comfortable playing in. Moreover, I find the notion of having to create a mechanically-based houserule for every single situation where the rules grate against my sensibilities is far more trouble than it's worth.
Hence, my games operate with a certain amount of shared genre assumptions. Generally, they start this way:
1) Except where stated or obvious by genre convention, the gameworld operates according to physical and natural laws that roughly conform to those of the real world.
2) Cinematic sensibilites supercede realistic ones. Wounds operate more like they do in Die Hard or The Three Musketeers than in, say, Platoon (or god forbid, "the real world.")
3) Magic and magical creatures that do not exist in the real world are glaring contradictions to "real world physics." These are waived away by genre conventions. In these cases, things exist that defy physics simply because they're "neat." Bipeds over 8' in height (like giants) fall under this category.
4) The game rules are a set of probability resolution tools designed to mimick desirable outcomes similar to those in action adventure stories. The assumption is that these sorts of rules predispose certain kinds of conflict to favor the PCs so that they will survive an adventure based on more than just simple luck. In other words, the rules tilt the probability of survival in the PCs favor. Normal NPCs do not benefit from these rules, but non-normal heroic (and villainous) NPCs do.
5) Certain things happen due to game conventions. PCs can wander in the woods and expect they will run into "appropriate challenges" when they do. NPCs don't get that benefit.
6) Fringe case, low-probability events are not covered by the rules if they are not likely to come up in play. To prevent "swingy" results, the possibility is removed from the resolution mechanics affecting PCs. Breaking your neck falling off a horse is an example of this. Similarly, things that are decidedly 'unfun' if they were to happen to a PC are removed from the list of random possible outcomes in the game's combat mechanics. Mutilation in normal combat falls into this category. That doesn't mean these doesn't happen when NPC armies go to war. It also doesn't mean a player can't elect to have this happen to his character. It just won't happen randomly.
7) Things that are patently "gamist" are explained away using fungible reality. For example, in a realistic setting, a martial power that comes up "once a day" is one where the situation is rare enough, or the effort required extreme enough, that it can only be expected to succeed on an infrequent basis. Per-encounter martial exploits function similarly, except that the applicable circumstances for their use are less rare.
8) Any attempts to game the system (bag of rats cleave and so forth) will be met with snark and derision.
Those are pretty much the maxims under which I operate. They may not work for every game, but they work for mine.
As an example, can you survive a fall off a hundred foot cliff in this scenario? Sure. But it might not be a sheer cliff, or there might be a pile of refuse at the bottom, or you might bounce off a few trees, or...
Heroes get lucky and survive circumstances that would kill a normal person. That's, to me, what hit points are all about. Maybe they're a little tougher, but a lot of it is luck (or divine favor, or whatever) and skill. Perhaps at Epic levels, we can talk about mythological feats of damage resistance, like swords bouncing off your toughened skin.
(By the way, there is an argument, somewhat tautological (that is, true by definition), that goes: "any ruling you make, mechanical or otherwise, including specified genre conventions, becomes part of the game rules, and hence, all physics of the gameworld are dictated by the game rules," That is only true by this, IMO, somewhat unusual definition of what constitutes "the game rules." Personally, I find this argument obfuscated legalese, rather pedantic, and non-conducive to real discussion of this issue. If this is the crux of your argument, you're wasting your breath, because most of us will never agree with this rather fringe definition of "the rules.").
That world is not solely defined by the D&D game rules, because using those rules and logical extrapolations of them as the sole and only base for the gameworld's physics creates a world that I, as a DM and player, am not comfortable playing in. Moreover, I find the notion of having to create a mechanically-based houserule for every single situation where the rules grate against my sensibilities is far more trouble than it's worth.
Hence, my games operate with a certain amount of shared genre assumptions. Generally, they start this way:
1) Except where stated or obvious by genre convention, the gameworld operates according to physical and natural laws that roughly conform to those of the real world.
2) Cinematic sensibilites supercede realistic ones. Wounds operate more like they do in Die Hard or The Three Musketeers than in, say, Platoon (or god forbid, "the real world.")
3) Magic and magical creatures that do not exist in the real world are glaring contradictions to "real world physics." These are waived away by genre conventions. In these cases, things exist that defy physics simply because they're "neat." Bipeds over 8' in height (like giants) fall under this category.
4) The game rules are a set of probability resolution tools designed to mimick desirable outcomes similar to those in action adventure stories. The assumption is that these sorts of rules predispose certain kinds of conflict to favor the PCs so that they will survive an adventure based on more than just simple luck. In other words, the rules tilt the probability of survival in the PCs favor. Normal NPCs do not benefit from these rules, but non-normal heroic (and villainous) NPCs do.
5) Certain things happen due to game conventions. PCs can wander in the woods and expect they will run into "appropriate challenges" when they do. NPCs don't get that benefit.
6) Fringe case, low-probability events are not covered by the rules if they are not likely to come up in play. To prevent "swingy" results, the possibility is removed from the resolution mechanics affecting PCs. Breaking your neck falling off a horse is an example of this. Similarly, things that are decidedly 'unfun' if they were to happen to a PC are removed from the list of random possible outcomes in the game's combat mechanics. Mutilation in normal combat falls into this category. That doesn't mean these doesn't happen when NPC armies go to war. It also doesn't mean a player can't elect to have this happen to his character. It just won't happen randomly.
7) Things that are patently "gamist" are explained away using fungible reality. For example, in a realistic setting, a martial power that comes up "once a day" is one where the situation is rare enough, or the effort required extreme enough, that it can only be expected to succeed on an infrequent basis. Per-encounter martial exploits function similarly, except that the applicable circumstances for their use are less rare.
8) Any attempts to game the system (bag of rats cleave and so forth) will be met with snark and derision.
Those are pretty much the maxims under which I operate. They may not work for every game, but they work for mine.
As an example, can you survive a fall off a hundred foot cliff in this scenario? Sure. But it might not be a sheer cliff, or there might be a pile of refuse at the bottom, or you might bounce off a few trees, or...
Heroes get lucky and survive circumstances that would kill a normal person. That's, to me, what hit points are all about. Maybe they're a little tougher, but a lot of it is luck (or divine favor, or whatever) and skill. Perhaps at Epic levels, we can talk about mythological feats of damage resistance, like swords bouncing off your toughened skin.
(By the way, there is an argument, somewhat tautological (that is, true by definition), that goes: "any ruling you make, mechanical or otherwise, including specified genre conventions, becomes part of the game rules, and hence, all physics of the gameworld are dictated by the game rules," That is only true by this, IMO, somewhat unusual definition of what constitutes "the game rules." Personally, I find this argument obfuscated legalese, rather pedantic, and non-conducive to real discussion of this issue. If this is the crux of your argument, you're wasting your breath, because most of us will never agree with this rather fringe definition of "the rules.").
Professor Phobos
First Post
billd91 said:
Not really. If you don't like Go, then you don't like Go. It says nothing about the quality of Go as a game, just your own reaction to it.
This is opposed to Monopoly, which is objectively a bad game. In fact it is the worst board game of all time. I can prove this empirically. I have charts and graphs.
Storm-Bringer
First Post
The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry.Professor Phobos said:
Here is where the arguments tend to fall down. D&D is not a movie, a novel, a television show, or a stage play. D&D is a game. A role playing game. While some comparisons are useful for designing a particular adventure or campaign, the entertainment industry has an entirely different purpose.
John McClane isn't tough because he has hit points and healing surges. He is tough because the story calls for it. Because the movie wants to show that an experienced, no-nonsense, street cop from Detroit with limited resources can beat a group of sophisticated, well-funded criminals from Europe single handedly. In other words, "America, f- Yeah!". The people with undesirable attributes die right on schedule, while McClane takes out the bad guys one at a time. From the opening credits of Die Hard to the final notes on Live Free or Die Hard, there was absolutely no question that John McClane would be alive through the entire series.
Hit points, in that light, can certainly be regarded as 'script immunity'. But only in the most superficial manner, because hit points will eventually run out. John McClane had infinite script immunity. It's not that he could absorb more damage than the minor characters, it's that he didn't get lethally injured. If there had been a scene where he was shot in the face with a shotgun, he would have been dead. His script immunity was that he didn't get shot in the face. Not that he could absorb the damage, or shrug it off, or work through the pain. He simply didn't get lethal wounds within the context of the movie*. Hit points are not the objectively worst mechanic for that, but you have to take into account that John McClane effectively had infinite hit points.
If that is the kind of game that appeals to you, go for it. Happy gaming! I would thoroughly enjoy reading about the wild exploits your players get into and out of again.
However, there are other ways to play. And that is the crux of the whole argument. The dev team seems to think that this cinematic play is objectively best for everyone**. If I interpret things correctly, the entire marketing scheme has been to highlight all the 'cool' action movie things you can do. As evidenced by the discussions here and on other boards, not everyone wants an action movie game. At least not action movie only. Certainly, wuxia, swashbuckling, larger-than-life cinematics and so on have a place in the rules. Making that virtually the only playstyle is, by definition, limiting.
Using existing rules to boost characters up in level for more cinematic play is a bit time-consuming at character generation. Ripping out or changing rules whole cloth (which cascades to other rules, sometimes unintentionally) for a grittier style is a massive undertaking. If you are looking for a wide appeal, the former is a good design, the latter is not.
*Of course, even the best case scenario of getting a bullet in the shoulder is severe pain in that arm for the rest of one's life. Entertainment takes certain liberties; see The Last Action Hero
**And before someone chimes in with "4e lets you change that!", I am not going to spend $100+ for 600 pages of rules I will ultimately not use.
Andor
First Post
JohnSnow said:
Here is a big trouble spot. This is not a universal game convention. If I am GMing and the party of 1st level PCs insist on going into the troll swamp I am not going to pull punches and they are most likely going to get eaten by trolls. If I was playing in your game and the adventure called for me to go into the troll swamp you are asking me to metagame, using my player knowledge of plot immunity, to make my character do something which he should logically feel to be certain suicide.
Forcing metagame decisions on the players is disruptive. As an example from the very last session I played in our party was in Xendrix and found an old ruin that contained some sort of trapped elemental horrors which if set free would combine and destroy the world. The plot clearly called for us to summon these things one at a time and destroy them individually. We all knew that. However our 4th to 6th level characters had absolutely no in game reason what-so-ever to think the we should be able to beat ancient elemental horrors that even a group of dragons (apparently) had only been able to imprison. We spent half the game session arguing in character about if we should summon these things, or merely chuck the summoning stones into the sea. It took hours and we ended up fighting only one of the four or five entities when the GM had intended to end the campaign that night.
Incidently I was not one of the troublemakers. When we started the discussion I said "Well we know it will be a level appropriate encounter..." and got roundly booed by the rest of the group.
Do you see? By enforcing genre conventions you compel players to metagame which ,by definition, forces you to come out of character.
Similar Threads
