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

[Cadfan]

The coup-de-grace rules are a standard and well understood part of the game. Applying them to a situation where the NPC would not normally count as helpless is a lesser disruption then trying to describe a "You take no damage but bleed out in 5 minuetes for some reason" effect.

Nice try at a defense, but ultimately unsuccessful. All you've proven so far is that good ad libbing is superior to bad ad libbing.

You can't use a good made up rule as an example of a good imaginarily codified rule and set it in opposition to a bad made up rule. It simply does not compute.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

But what when the rules and the physics of the game world conflict?

That's why you ahve a GM. The game you want is too video-gamey.

 

[Derren]

That's why you ahve a GM. The game you want is too video-gamey.

I just want a game which makes sense and doesn't require that the players turn of their brains in order to overlook all the gaping holes it has.

 

[hong]

I just want a game which makes sense

Of course it makes sense. You just need to define "sense" properly.

and doesn't require that the players turn of their brains in order to overlook all the gaping holes it has.

The holes are not holes. You just need to define "holes" properly.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I just want a game which makes sense and doesn't require that the players turn of their brains in order to overlook all the gaping holes it has.

I just want games that depend on player's using their imaginations. The games you describe drive big gapinmg holes in versimilitude by the rigid stasis of the rules frameworks.

 

[Derren]

I just want games that depend on player's using their imaginations. The games you describe drive big gapinmg holes in versimilitude by the rigid stasis of the rules frameworks.

That players having to guess how the world works has nothing to do with imagination. And just because abilities always work in the same way doesn't mean that a world is in stasis.

 

[hong]

That players having to guess how the world works has nothing to do with imagination.

Nobody has to "guess" how the world works. Well, unless you define "guess" improperly.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

That players having to guess how the world works has nothing to do with imagination. And just because abilities always work in the same way doesn't mean that a world is in stasis.

Every negative consequence of play you have described is resolved by not playing with anal-retentive deliberately obtuse jerks.

 

[HeinorNY]

The rules aren't the physics of the gameworld, they just represent the elements of the gameworld which are relevant to the game that's being played.

The rules aren't how the gameworld works, they are what we, the players, can perceive of the gameworld.

But what when the rules and the physics of the game world conflict?

Rules take precedence.
If you don't like the rule, house rule it.
Keep playing D&D.

 

[Primal]

The funny thing is, the whole thing was definitional. I'm fairly certain if we were all gaming together, our styles would appear remarkably similar, or the things that annoyed us would be mitigated by all the things that went well. Only on the internet are these minor preferences elevated to the level of immutable schism.

Or not. I think our personal styles (both as players and DMs) vary probably a lot -- at least "in practise" (at the table). What I think is both funny and weird that a lot of the "pro-4E" people used to openly criticize a lot of the design decisions some months ago, until, apparently, they gave up and entrenched themselves firmly in the pro-4E camp. It's almost as if they said to themselves: "My opinions do not matter -- the change is coming, and I have to adapt. In fact, I *have* to *LOVE* the game, no matter what. It just has to be the GREATEST, BESTEST edition ever, and I have to defend it, because I have no alternative. I cannot play 3E anymore, because it won't be supported by WoTC, and that would kill my game!". I'm not trying to be snarky or insult anyone -- that's my honest observation based on how so many people who used to criticize 4E seem now to *love* those same things they clamored against. Why the sudden change in attitude? And the worst part is that some posters now go to any lengths in defending those changes even without any reasonable arguments backing their claims. It's the same phrases I keep hearing: "You're just afraid of change and fail to see this new mechanic's superiority!" or "It seems that you lack the imagination to play 4E, so stick with 3E".