Remember we are discussing multiple play styles. The fact you do not does not mean no one does. That is the whole crux of the matter.
I don't believe I made any statement that would suggest that I'm not aware of, or even disapprove of, other methods or approaches to play. I'm absolutely sure I made statements to the contrary.
I'm not arguing against however you choose to play, I'm pointing out that the justification you gave is contradictory with itself. If you care about that or not, I'm not to say, nor to judge, but if you make the argument here, it's open for discussion.
Now, also remember that even if a DM would adjudicate an outcome without playing it out as they likely would, they would do so based on the rules and not the real world. In D&D, if a 20th level fighter is surrounded and attacked by 20 1st level fighters he will mop the floor with them. We might agree this is unlikely in the real world. Let's posit it is even if you disagree for purposes of this discussion. The DM is going to know off camera a battle occurred between the 20th level fighter and the 1st level fighters. He won't play it out but he will resolve it based on his knowledge of the rules. At least in my own way of playing.
I don't, so I'm assuming that the DM in this situation is one that approaches play as you do? With that assumption, sure, you can do this, but it's not mandated or required by the rules. In other words, the system here doesn't mandate this, but rather the player's choice on how to build their world does.
This thread is about how system matters, not about choices we make that aren't related to system. A similar topic that's nearby but not directly related to system matters is the discussion about what roleplaying is or how it's expected to be done at the table -- system rarely impinges on this discussion; it's a discussion largely orthogonal to the issue of the thread. As is the players making the choice to have the game rules be discoverable in the fictional world.
So a game deliberately caters to a particular idea. Does that not mean that other systems might not cater the other way. So system can matter.
I'm a strong, and vocal, proponent that system does matter. However, in this case, a system that fights your choice to make game rules discoverable in the fiction doesn't make the point you think it does. There's a fallacy here that if not b means not a, that b then means a. A game that doesn't work with with your preference doesn't mean that a game that does requires it. It's still not on the system if you choose to make game rules discoverable.
I was never off of that understanding. You've just realized what I am talking about. If the rules are the physics of the world then it inexorably leads to the idea that characters within that world have some understanding of them. The same way we do with the real world even in the middle ages.
Um, what? I'm pretty sure I've followed you pretty well. My point is that the choice to make game rules discoverable in the fiction is not tied to system, but is an orthogonal choice. Yes, some systems make this much harder, or incoherent, but that doesn't mean that a system that does requires it, or even encourages it (I've largely never played this way, throughout any edition of D&D I've read or played).
And, again, my point is that this preference is largely done ad hoc and piecemeal, making it somewhat incoherent. Some rules are reified in the game world, and other are not, and some are outright ignored. This makes the concept even harder to conceive of as an approach, because it's basis is so ad hoc.
It has nothing to do with realism. It's a blind spot in your way of thinking for sure. It's never been about realism. 1e is no more realistic than 3e. We are able to imagine a larger than life fantasy world where PC's and some NPCs as well are super heroic. So you really miss the whole point but I think it is the very fact that it is hard for you to grasp our position that makes you who you are in your preferences. People with different sensibilities have a difficulty with empathy for the other side.
Right, I understood your comment about the lizard to be pointing out where the rules don't establish a good foundation as physics, but instead you were saying that being slapped by a massive tail not moving you at all is just the physics of this world. Ones that lead to oddities, like when a large slap does move you (as with some giant abilities) that are largely, in the fiction, not very different in scale or scope. Giants can toss you with a club swipe, but dragons cannot with a similarly sized and swung tail, because... reasons.
This was my point, that you've buried under dismissing "realism" -- that the approach you suggest contains incoherencies because the rules of D&D do a very poor job of defining a coherent physical system. And that's not another realism argument, it's pointing out that the rules are rarely even consistent. A person living in this world wouldn't discover these physics, and understand them in any real way, but would instead just deal with the chaos of the system as it comes, on an exception based concept.
To me, this is the real crux of this approach -- that the view taken is from the point of the players, where the world operates according to game rules and what Bob the GM says, but is then extrapolated, usually by Bob, into some kind of understanding in the game world of the game rules by the fictional inhabitants. The point that gets missed, here, is exactly how much of these rules are really just what Bob the GM says -- heck, 5e embraces this approach as foundational! So, in reality, the "physics" in the world are what Bob says they are, and aren't the game rules when Bob says they aren't. In this regard, it's not really the rules, but Bob that does the deciding as to what physics are represented in the game world, and Bob could decided, were he inclined to do so, with a different general understanding that what the rules might or might not say.
To sum this up, this approach isn't really any different from not treating the rules as repeatable, discoverable processes in the fiction -- it's still just about what the GM says, but tries to borrow the cloak of orthodoxy by referencing the rules. I find it doesn't. Which isn't to say that it can't be a perfectly fine approach, and that it can't generate tremendous fun, or that it's bad to do this. It's just not privileged in any way by claiming an association with the rules (which is arbitrary).
As to game system, a game like 1e D&D for example is easy to apply the rules as physics. While super heroic, there is nothing that really seems alien. It's very much like watching tv. There is crap on tv that is completely unrealistic but we buy it. It's plausible in a super heroic setting. And that goes for all sorts of shows not just fantasy/sci-fi shows. Every notice that the hero will easy punch a bad guy once and knock him out until at the end he fights the big bad guy and they will literally beat the living daylights out of each other and neither go down for some time?
There are things in a game that just don't sit right despite our ability to include the fantastical. Those things are part of a system typically. When a system has those things, a lot of people decide the system is not for them. Often they don't even know why because not everyone thinks it through like we do.
I'm not convinced your method of "thinking it through" is really anything different from being arbitrary, though. I play 5e by the book, with small house rules for each campaign to enhance themes but that rarely alter the actual rules (more add ons for additional focuses, and then even slight). I don't have any problems with how 5e works, and I absolutely don't get close to treating the game rules as discoverable physical systems in the game world. The opposite, if anything. So, your approach doesn't seem to be privileged in being able to make sense of the rules any more than a different approach, especially since I avoid anything like your preference.
And, suspension of disbelief doesn't require assuming game rules are discoverable physical processes in the fiction. Not at all.
playingattheworld.blogspot.com
