Pathfinder 1E What's broken or needs vast system knowledge?

[Matthias]

IMO it's always a bad idea to attempt to treat the game rules as the physics of the game world, unless you want an Order of the Stick comedy setting. The rules roughly define the typical experience of the PCs, but not what happens offstage. Eg in-world people in combat get limbs chopped off, that this never happens to PCs is irrelevant. Obscuring mist lasts 1 minute or 2 minutes etc for PCs, but the same sort of spell cast offstage may last 0.4 or 3.8 minutes. Some parts of the rules may have rough analogies in the world physics, eg combat rules map roughly to combat in-world, and pre-4e Spell Levels might have in-world significance to some sorts of in-world spellcaster, though not necessarily.

I'm glad you were able to say what I tried to say in my previous post, but in fewer words.

For any that try to understand what we're getting at, think of Pathfinder's rules System as a basic language that describes how the laws of nature function in that universe. It is a mistake to try to infer physical laws in the game world from peculiarities in how the language (rule system) is constructed in the real world:

Just because the rules say natural 1's always miss in combat, this doesn't mean that over thousands of attempts to strike their intended target in the heat of multiple battles, that your character is statistically 5% likely to miss.

Just because the rules say one needs Combat Reflexes to be able to make more than one AOO in a given round, that it is physically impossible in the game world for your character to make more than one AOO every six seconds...or that beyond some point in time, your character can suddenly develop the ability to make multiple AOOs every six seconds but could never be able to do so before.

Just because the rules say that longbows have a maximum range of 1,000 ft (10 range increments) and cost 75 gp, does not mean that in the game world, it is physically impossible for a character wielding a common longbow but lacking the "Far Shot feat" to hit a target more than 1,000 feet away, or that he will always be able to get 75 gp for that longbow.

Then there's the encumbrance limits per strength. There are specific penalties to going above your medium, heavy, and maximum loads which are defined by the pound. Just because the rules would allow the addition or subtraction of a pound to impose or remove a penalty instantaneously, or say that a character can move with a load half a pound under his max but not a half pound over, doesn't mean that these effects can be demonstrated scientifically in the game world. They are just guidelines to define roughly what a character is or isn't able to get away with.

Lastly, the rules apply fixed, parallel level-based progressions to several different abilities: base attack bonus, hit points, save bonuses, skill points, feat slots, spell slots, and so on. Do the RAW allow for a character like this? A 20th-level character with a superb Constitution and excellent Fort save (because he has extraordinary immunity to poisons and ailments), and loads of skill points (because he has spent a lot of time in the library), yet has absurdly low hit points and BAB (because he can't fight his way out of a wet paper sack). Technically no, unless the player uses (say) Monk for his character class but voluntarily misses most of his attack rolls and lets his character drop at only 50% HP. The game does not allow characters to develop BAB separately from saves or hit points (though other non-d20 game systems permit that kind of flexibility). The game world would not logically be bound by such restrictions, but that is OK. Dramatic license, GM fiat, and player self-imposed penalties can do this.

One is better off thinking of any game effect's performance as dictated by the rules as reasonably close to the actual statistical average, rather than as fixed, immutable limitations. GM fiat exists to fill in the blanks: the GM can (in the name of dramatic license) let a 1st-level commoner pull off a second AOO in a round, let a longbow arrow a goblin a mile away, or be sold for 150 gp to some desperate merchant who needs such a perfect birthday gift for his grandson that very day.

 

[Empirate]

Just because the rules say natural 1's always miss in combat, this doesn't mean that over thousands of attempts to strike their intended target in the heat of multiple battles, that your character is statistically 5% likely to miss.

Just because the rules say one needs Combat Reflexes to be able to make more than one AOO in a given round, that it is physically impossible in the game world for your character to make more than one AOO every six seconds...or that beyond some point in time, your character can suddenly develop the ability to make multiple AOOs every six seconds but could never be able to do so before.

<etc.>

But Matthias, that is exactly what is the case! Any Fighter, no matter how good, will never be able to get beyond 95% hit rate. Nobody is capable of exploiting more than one moment of dropped defenses in a 6 second interval, unless they've received special training AND are exceptionally agile. It is that way in the game world because the rules say it is so. And the rules are the only source of information and guidance as to what can and cannot happen in the game world that we, in the real world, have. It may be that the rules are badly designed, but I'd rather hold a different viewpoint.

Nobody within the game world will ever be able to "test" hit rates vs. non-helpless opponents in a controlled environment and arrive at d20 mechanics. That is because other metagame information (enemy stats, circumstance modifiers, even one's own stats etc.) are similarly unknowable as the actual d20 roll. "Combat Reflexes" is likewise a metagame concept - some may have them, others not, some may have high Dex, some not, and the conditions under which you can make an attack of opportunity (which is itself a metagame concept) vary a lot.

I could go on for other examples, but my point is: the rules of the game WILL actually determine what is and what is not possible in the game world; they MUST be the sole determinator, otherwise it would make no sense to use them at all. But that doesn't mean that in-game, characters can actually have metagame information.

Now on the other hand, I'd still hold that there are observables (spell slots/day is pretty good, but also number of Magic Missiles generated, as another poster stated) in-game that are derived from metagame concepts such as character level. But now it's just up to us to come up with good explanations as to how these things are perceived in-game.

We don't have to assume things don't work as the rules tell us they do. We just have to use our imagination.

 

[S'mon]

, but my point is: the rules of the game WILL actually determine what is and what is not possible in the game world; they MUST be the sole determinator, otherwise it would make no sense to use them at all. .

This is completely wrong. The rules are there for playing the game, not for defining existence in the game-world. They are no less an abstraction than are the rules of a company-level boardgame, where 200 men perish on the roll of a single d6. If I use d20 Modern rules to play a real-world WW2 scenario, d20 Modern does not become the physics of Earth in 1942, so that no soldier ever suffers amputation or permanent injury, misses more than 95% or hits more than 95%. The physics of the world exist entirely separate from the game rules.

 

[Empirate]

And what IS the basis of game world physics then? It patently isn't real-world physics (which don't allow for magic). You just make something up? And follow the rules otherwise? If so, that's entirely in keeping with my post.

 

[N'raac]

And what IS the basis of game world physics then? It patently isn't real-world physics (which don't allow for magic). You just make something up? And follow the rules otherwise? If so, that's entirely in keeping with my post.

Game world physics are whatever we choose to define them as. The game rules are a simulation of those game world physics, simplified to permit playability.

 

[billd91]

And what IS the basis of game world physics then? It patently isn't real-world physics (which don't allow for magic). You just make something up? And follow the rules otherwise? If so, that's entirely in keeping with my post.

You use your understanding of real world physics. It is, by far, the most immersive model you're going to find for table top RPGs. You just make exceptions to it to allow for fantasy elements like giants, dragons, and magic. If you didn't use real world physics as your base model, you'd have to define the entire physics engine. That may be OK in a computer game which, in fact, has to define its physics engine, but it's too big a job for a tabletop game that can't constrain the actions a PC may attempt under a referee's supervision.

For the most part, RPGs depend on us making as much use of real-world expectations as we can to have a common understanding between players. If a PC lets go of his sword, we expect it to fall at his feet. If a character dies, we expect him to be unable to continue to fight in combat barring specifically called-out exceptions. These expectations are part of what make role playing game rules writeable and manageable.

There may be genre conventions that change the model. Characters in super hero games may have all sorts of exceptions. Characters in Toon may be able to defy the law of gravity if they forget it applies or never studied law. There may even be some fuzziness with how individual players interpret genres (imagine a Toon game based on different styles of animation like Record of Lodoss War). But without those exceptions, we still expect coyotes pursuing roadrunners to fall or superheroes with their flying powers negated to fall.

 

[S'mon]

And what IS the basis of game world physics then? It patently isn't real-world physics (which don't allow for magic). You just make something up? And follow the rules otherwise? If so, that's entirely in keeping with my post.

The default basis for game-world physics is indeed real-world physics, tweaked to fit - eg Traveller's universe allows for FTL Jump travel; Glorantha is a flat world and has magic, but the great bulk of physics in both settings is the same as in the real world. People eat food for energy, an axe can chop off limbs, water flows downhill, etc.

 

[Matthias]

Nobody within the game world will ever be able to "test" hit rates vs. non-helpless opponents in a controlled environment and arrive at d20 mechanics. That is because other metagame information (enemy stats, circumstance modifiers, even one's own stats etc.) are similarly unknowable as the actual d20 roll. "Combat Reflexes" is likewise a metagame concept - some may have them, others not, some may have high Dex, some not, and the conditions under which you can make an attack of opportunity (which is itself a metagame concept) vary a lot.

I could go on for other examples, but my point is: the rules of the game WILL actually determine what is and what is not possible in the game world; they MUST be the sole determinator, otherwise it would make no sense to use them at all. But that doesn't mean that in-game, characters can actually have metagame information.

Now on the other hand, I'd still hold that there are observables (spell slots/day is pretty good, but also number of Magic Missiles generated, as another poster stated) in-game that are derived from metagame concepts such as character level. But now it's just up to us to come up with good explanations as to how these things are perceived in-game.

We don't have to assume things don't work as the rules tell us they do. We just have to use our imagination.

All I am saying is that any rule that involves a die roll is simply a useful abstraction of a more complicated process or event which has multiple possible outcomes.

Hitting something with a sword
Disabling a trap
Surviving the effects of dehydration
Constructing a working siege engine
Determining the market value of a gem
Figuring out if someone is being deceptive
Teaching an animal a new trick

In the real world, these are all complicated tasks involving physical and mental processes (ultimately able to be boiled down to chemical reactions and other more fundamental interactions) which we simplify with some rules to determine the odds of success based on a die roll.

Non-die roll based mechanics such as alignment ought to be measurable in their effect.

 

[pemerton]

And what IS the basis of game world physics then?

A lot of people have answered "real world physics". Which is a reasonable answer.

Another answer is "shared understandings of the genre conventions". This is the approach I use in my own game (admittedly 4e rather than 3E/PF).

 

[S'mon]

A lot of people have answered "real world physics". Which is a reasonable answer.

Another answer is "shared understandings of the genre conventions". This is the approach I use in my own game (admittedly 4e rather than 3E/PF).

I'm not sure if that's entirely right for what goes on 'off stage', though - genre conventions apply most strongly to the protagonists and the bubble of events around them. Does Hollywood Physics apply universally in a Hollywood movie universe? Last Action Hero would appear to say yes, but then the Schwarzenegger character is a protagonist, we can't say whether normal folks in that universe expect to be able to smash through glass without getting sliced up.

My impression is that typically GMs and scriptwriters have non-protagonists act as if they expect something much closer to real-world physics to apply, and are surprised when it doesn't. Eg the SWAT team in Die Hard 2 don't realise that as non-protagonists they can all be wiped out in a few seconds of gunfire despite their body armour etc. The real-world physics of gunfights would make it incredibly unlikely; their place in the movie makes it inevitable.