IceFractal
First Post
This isn't a complain about the rules being too "gamist", it's a complaint about "the rules aren't the physics of the campaign" being used as an excuse for everything.
I've heard this statement come up in quite a few cases:
What happens when a non-PC does X? Rules aren't physics!
This supposedly-important fluff ability has no mechanics? Rules aren't physics!
This rule results in very strange combat results? Rules aren't physics!
But how does that actually solve anything? When an important situation comes up, and a player wants to have their character do something, you need some method to determine success or failure. So what methods exist?
1) DM fiat.
2) Flip a coin.
3) Have a rule that can cover it.
Now while methods 1 and 2 work fine for non-vital activities, like "how many fish did I catch while waiting for the boat", they fall flat when something vital comes up, like "was I able to escape the dragon's magma breath?" The problem I have is that this "rules aren't physics" solution is extended to cases that I'd consider vital. Such as being able to heal an NPC or not. That's not some trivial simulation detail - that's life or death, that's something where the outcome can be very important.
Sometimes the argument is made that DM fiat needs no rules to slow it down. After all, if the DM puts an NPC into the fight, and decides which foes are targetting it, and how many HP it had to begin with, they may as well just decide whether the NPC can be healed or not.
But there's a problem with this - planning. Because while the rules may not be physics, they are the player's eyes and ears into the world. They are what allows the players to make reasonable choices within the game without asking the DM a nonstop stream of questions and slowing the action to a crawl.
Imagine if the combat rules were ad-hoc as well, and the players had no idea what effect an attack would have. You'd have problems right away, where the players' guesses don't match up to the DM's thought process:
DM: The group of hill giants approaches the gates of the town.
PC: *Notices "melts lead" in fireball description, figures no living creature can survive it.*
PC: No problem, I'll hold them off, I have Fireball!
DM: *Figures that hill giants are tough, and fireball isn't that high-level a spell, so they'll definitely survive it.*
DM: Though scorched by your fireball, the hill giants reach the gates and pound you into the ground - roll up a new character.
PC:
*Argues*
See why we don't play that way? I'm not saying 4E has vague combat rules (quite the opposite), but PC vs monster combat isn't the only place where vital situations occur. If the rules on healing NPCs are just ad-hoc, how can you effectively protect one? Is it safe if they get somewhat injured? Knocked unconcious? Can they come back from death's door like you can? Forget strategy when you fight all day and still don't know how healing works.
Bottom Line: Whether the rules are physics or not, they need to be consistent enough that players have a clue what will work and what won't.
I've heard this statement come up in quite a few cases:
What happens when a non-PC does X? Rules aren't physics!
This supposedly-important fluff ability has no mechanics? Rules aren't physics!
This rule results in very strange combat results? Rules aren't physics!
But how does that actually solve anything? When an important situation comes up, and a player wants to have their character do something, you need some method to determine success or failure. So what methods exist?
1) DM fiat.
2) Flip a coin.
3) Have a rule that can cover it.
Now while methods 1 and 2 work fine for non-vital activities, like "how many fish did I catch while waiting for the boat", they fall flat when something vital comes up, like "was I able to escape the dragon's magma breath?" The problem I have is that this "rules aren't physics" solution is extended to cases that I'd consider vital. Such as being able to heal an NPC or not. That's not some trivial simulation detail - that's life or death, that's something where the outcome can be very important.
Sometimes the argument is made that DM fiat needs no rules to slow it down. After all, if the DM puts an NPC into the fight, and decides which foes are targetting it, and how many HP it had to begin with, they may as well just decide whether the NPC can be healed or not.
But there's a problem with this - planning. Because while the rules may not be physics, they are the player's eyes and ears into the world. They are what allows the players to make reasonable choices within the game without asking the DM a nonstop stream of questions and slowing the action to a crawl.
Imagine if the combat rules were ad-hoc as well, and the players had no idea what effect an attack would have. You'd have problems right away, where the players' guesses don't match up to the DM's thought process:
DM: The group of hill giants approaches the gates of the town.
PC: *Notices "melts lead" in fireball description, figures no living creature can survive it.*
PC: No problem, I'll hold them off, I have Fireball!
DM: *Figures that hill giants are tough, and fireball isn't that high-level a spell, so they'll definitely survive it.*
DM: Though scorched by your fireball, the hill giants reach the gates and pound you into the ground - roll up a new character.
PC:
*Argues*See why we don't play that way? I'm not saying 4E has vague combat rules (quite the opposite), but PC vs monster combat isn't the only place where vital situations occur. If the rules on healing NPCs are just ad-hoc, how can you effectively protect one? Is it safe if they get somewhat injured? Knocked unconcious? Can they come back from death's door like you can? Forget strategy when you fight all day and still don't know how healing works.
Bottom Line: Whether the rules are physics or not, they need to be consistent enough that players have a clue what will work and what won't.
Last edited:
