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



## IceFractal (Apr 8, 2008)

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.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Apr 8, 2008)

I always wanted an RPG that runs like clockwork during tactical combat and like an open discussion regarding everything else. To me the discussion is the game. The dialogue covers the game in pretty much the same way science covers nature (i.e. not completely but close enough). I agree the rules need to be consistent enough but maybe I draw the line further out than you do.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 8, 2008)

FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!

Do you get it yet?  Though flavor is important flavor is mutable... and honestly... have you ever had a DM destroy all the equipment something is wearing after the PC's dump fireball after fireball on it?   Just because they fluff says something doesn't mean you can assume anything about it's combat use.  Also... lead melts very easily... not a point of instant death for anything...


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 8, 2008)

Umm can you give us some quotes where a rule that is going to cause the problems you listed above in 4E has been explained away by rules aren't physics by a WotC guy/gal?
Otherwise your argument is purely hypothetical because we haven't seen the rules and any poster here who uses the excuse 'rules aren't physics' to a knotty rules problem is just voicing their opinion.

And in answer to this question







> Such as being able to heal an NPC or not.



We have been told that NPC's have healing surges, so I would imagine this is covered.


----------



## cwhs01 (Apr 8, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> And in answer to this questionWe have been told that NPC's have healing surges, so I would imagine this is covered.





I generally disagree with the OP (or aren't as concerned), but you've only dismissed one possible case of an inconistency (and without a quote or a link).

I think it is perfectly okay to be concerned that 4e will have numerous inconsistencies and cases where pc rules differ from npc rules. I think we know there will be some differences, but until we see the final product we won't know how many. 

And most importantly, i'm pretty sure that any inconsistencies have been introduced for a reason (eg. wotc's idea of fun, ease, speedy play and a sense of that the pc's are the heroes of the story). Its probably a question of priorities, but having a rulesystem be 100% consistent for both pc's and npc's but is also complex as heck, and slow during actual use in play (ie. high level 3.5e), is not my idea of an ideal rpg system.


----------



## essenbee (Apr 8, 2008)

cwhs01 said:
			
		

> I generally disagree with the OP (or aren't as concerned), but you've only dismissed one possible case of an inconistency (and without a quote or a link).



Here


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 8, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> 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.




Because it is clear that since the rules allow for men made of straw, it is silly to assume the game world does.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 8, 2008)

The rules are a toolset to enable the player to manipulate his avatar, as an agent of stage, in a setting created/maintained and implemented by the DM.

Those aspects deemed generic enough are codified as rules, written down.

Things like the skill challenges, loot tables, and other suggestions allow a DM to bring some consistancy to their creation. 

How a DM handles the fact that the rules are not physics is a LARGE portion of what makes them a good DM.

I truly fail to see what your problem is, with the suggestion that the rules are not physics. They are enablers.. representations and abstractions of a PC-agent's role in the world-as-setting that the DM watches over.


----------



## senna (Apr 8, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> 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.




First of all, lets put some things straight, Chris Sims said that npcs have healing surges and can be healed by a cleric or warlord.

Second when *I* think that the rules of the world are not physics i mean that the rules are conflict resolutions cases, the rules normaly just say if something is successful or not and the efects in game terms, the rules don´t say *how* that efect hapened in the game world.

For instance a halfling fighter want to bull rush a kobold, the dm say that he must make an STR check against his oponent FORT defences, the player sucedes, the dm then describes the halfling bashing his shield and the kobold boucing backwards. The same halfling fighter nowwants to use the same maneuver against a big hobgoblin soldier, the mechanics are the same, and the halfling sucedes again, with a litle luck, the dm them describe the maneuver as the halfling pressuring foward and the hobgoblin misstep´s and retreat to safer ground by going backwards. In both case the mechanics were consistent, the same roll was made and the same result achieved, but the way that you described it were diferent, because the rules don´t explain the world, they let us interact with it.

The best metaphor that i can find is that rules are translation between what we, players and dms, whant to do and how that afects the game world. Lots of people know that the best translation is not the most literal one, but the one that keep more of the spirit of work.


----------



## Voss (Apr 8, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Because it is clear that since the rules allow for men made of straw, it is silly to assume the game world does.




So you're saying that far from the 'rules aren't physics' strawman, there are more rules in the books?


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> 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!
> ...




1. You are confusing the use of rules as a framework for simulating the world, with the use of rules as a framework for conflict/task resolution.

2. If you cannot handle stat/skill atk vs AC/Fort/Ref/Will/skill def on the fly, give up now.


----------



## Derren (Apr 8, 2008)

"Rules aren't physics" is just a nicer way of saying "Shut up" or "Shut up and go play Rolemaster".


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> "Rules aren't physics" is just a nicer way of saying "Shut up" or "Shut up and go play Rolemaster".



 Rolemaster. Now that's funny!


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 8, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> 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.




You seem to be more worried about DM fiat than "rules aren't physics" arguments.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 8, 2008)

senna said:
			
		

> First of all, lets put some things straight, Chris Sims said that npcs have healing surges and can be healed by a cleric or warlord.
> 
> Second when *I* think that the rules of the world are not physics i mean that the rules are conflict resolutions cases, the rules normaly just say if something is successful or not and the efects in game terms, the rules don´t say *how* that efect hapened in the game world.
> 
> ...




I think that this is the result of mixed-up terminology.  Physics is an interesting branch of science.  It has oodles of what and extremely little why.  But, and this is the thing about it that makes it used in the metaphorical case, the lack of why does not detract from the what.  The theory of gravitation speculates that objects move towards each other in predictable fashion.  The theory of gravitation could be true because of graviton interactions, or superstrings mating, or the Divine Will, or invisible falling elves pushing everything in the universe.  But, regardless of which (or any) of these 'why' answers are true, the 'what' is constant; objects fall in predictable ways.  Unlike in our world, the physics of D&D are not particularly granular; they do not say what happens on an extremely micro level.  But, they do exist, and they can be noticed.

Now, it might be that the flavor of a Con-18 dwarf shrugging off a blow with his 30 hp is much different than the flavor of a highly-leveled 30-hp Con 10 nimble elf doing the same.  It is almost certain that the fluff of a 30-hp door experiencing the same hit will be different than both.  But if the rules are physics, then despite the difference in fluff, you will need to apply about the same amount of violence to each in order to break it.

Here's the thing, though; you can't get around there being rules-as-physics.  If you adjucate everything on the fly, and events set no precedent and can un-happen as the story dictates, then the rules of physics are that reality is a giant quantum event.  You can't make that not the case without laying down and adhering to actual rules.  'Rules are the physics of the game world' is another way of saying 'The rules describe what happens in the game world'; if this isn't true, then you've got one unorthodox game.  

Now, what happens when what the rules describe does not match what you expect or want? A rules-as-physics would suggest that D&D 3.XE was a very strange place where a trained fighter could unleash a deadly flurry of blows, but only if you could get a swarm of rats to run past him first.  The answer to this is not to suggest another 'real' layer of rules that prohibit the bag of rats exploit; it's to note that the rules imply this, then _change them_ so that it is no longer true.  It is vital that all players share certain expectations about what the world is and how it behaves in certain circumstances; empirical evidence strongly suggests that when this is not the case, many games degenerate into "I shot him!" "No, you missed!"  The problem here is not a limited degree of editorial control over the story (that player A wanted the story to proceed where someone got shot and player B didn't); it's that Player A's expectations were that A's target's shooting was an inevitable consequence of the nature of the universe, and that B's expectations were otherwise.

Now, if players want a universe in which causality and precedent aren't, and things happen simply because they think they should happen, then conflict-resolution makes sense.  If you have players that will be upset if their understanding of the world is egregiously violated, and others whose desire for certain types of events takes precedence over their desire for continuity, conflict resolution is not an ideal method of rules adjudication.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Here's the thing, though; you can't get around there being rules-as-physics.  If you adjucate everything on the fly, and events set no precedent and can un-happen as the story dictates, then the rules of physics are that reality is a giant quantum event.




The "reality" is that you are not an elf. You are pretending to be an elf. And similarly, you can pretend that things follow cause-and-effect even if you make stuff up on the fly.

Trust me, I'm a statistician.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Rolemaster. Now that's funny!



Most awesome crit & fumble tables eva.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 8, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> 'Rules are the physics of the game world' is another way of saying 'The rules describe what happens in the game world'; if this isn't true, then you've got one unorthodox game.




Description =/ prescription

Which is exactly why we have theories of material sciences. Not rules.

Now.. 

The game world is a Computer.  The rule a player follows are, lets say, Perl.

There are many and varied layers of abstraction between the commands used in one, and their effects on the others. They are deterministic, but there are many, many ways of getting the same result.

Rules are toolset. The are not prescriptors.

Editted for clarification.
I should know better than to use PC on a RPG forum.


----------



## Revinor (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The "reality" is [...]
> 
> Trust me, I'm a statistician.




If you are a statistician, then you are probably the last person who should speak with authority about what 'reality' is


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 8, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> The game world is a pc.




The Mountains are its consittuion, the general cultural advancement is the Intelligence...

What?


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 8, 2008)

Revinor said:
			
		

> If you are a statistician, then you are probably the last person who should speak with authority about what 'reality' is




He's not.  He's speaking with authority about pretending to have cause and effect when you don't.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> He's not.  He's speaking with authority about pretending to have cause and effect when you don't.



Curse you, Charwoman Gene. Curse you, I say


----------



## KidSnide (Apr 8, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> 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.




Absolutely.  I don't believe at all that the rules are the physics of the world, but I agree that a certain level of consistency is necessary.  But just because you have a certain level of consistency, doesn't mean that the GM is a total slave to the rules.  The rules describe how things generally work, but don't cover weird corner cases.  

A GM can reasonably say that Whirlwind and Great Cleave work as described, but simply not allow the swarm of a 1000 rats trick.  Why?  Because we are not computers, and GMs can apply their reason to the specific situation without having to design a general rule every time an exception comes up.  

Take the falling rules.  I think most of us agree that falling does an unrealistically low amount of damage in general, although we can find examples of real-life people surviving incredible falls.  To the extent to which falling was designed (as opposed to just borrowed from 1E), it is a deliberate light touch mostly because most people don't want fully healed characters dying from level-appropriate falls.  So, as long as your PCs are only falling by accident or as the result of desperate decision, those rules work pretty well.  PCs fall - and you don't kill them.  But, as soon as your players get it into their heads that these are the immutable physics of the world, you can get weird situations where a PC plan involves *deliberately* jumping off a 100 foot cliff with no magic (i.e. I grapple the evil wizard and jump - don't worry I'll survive).  For many of us, this violates our sense of verisimilitude and wouldn't expect the rules to support such an outlandish scheme.

Similarly, in my last campaign, the PCs the same type of monsters appeared in encounters from level 6 (in 2E) all the way up to level 15 (in 3E).  When they first met these creatures, they were deadly and would be well modeled as elites in 4E terms.  After a few levels, these creatures were significant threats, but the sort of thing the PCs expected to handle (regular monsters in 4E terms).  Towards the end of the game, a single PC fighter could expect to fight a dozen of these guys and get back to the game (weak minions).

Now, a level 5 elite, a level 9 regular monster and a level 17 minion are all worth the same number of XP, but they have pretty different stats.  The higher level monsters have higher ACs / attacks, while the lower level monsters with better "ranks" have more hp and a wider variety of maneuvers.  

That's because you want a level 17 minion to be able to hit a level 17 party, but you want him to be easy to manage as a GM because there will be many in the battle.  You want low hit points, because these monsters are fun partially because you can run through them quickly.  In contrast, you want a level 5 elite to have a chance of missing the level 5 party, but you want a lot of hit points (for a satisfyingly long fight) and you want either multiple or AoE attacks so the creature can occupy several PCs at once.

If I were running that game again, I would give different stats to the same creature, depending on the level of the PCs.  From a pure physics standpoint, this doesn't make any sense at all.  (I can justify it by saying that monsters fight differently depending on who they are facing, but this is a justification - not a rationale.)  But it will produce a much better game experience because the monster rules will better reflect the role of that creature in the particular combat at hand.

Of course, the "rules are not physics" argument doesn't solve *every* problem.  We all want consistent rules for common combat situations.  But it is a reasonable response to someone suggesting a "bag of rats" exploit.  Just because there is a loophole in the rules doesn't mean that you can expect the GM to allow you exploit it.

(For a real-life example of this, take a look at the legal history of Grokster.  Their whole business plan was based on a "bag of rats" legal defense.  See how it worked out for them.)


----------



## beholdsa (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> "Rules aren't physics" is just a nicer way of saying "Shut up" or "Shut up and go play Rolemaster".




But I actually really like Rolemaster...

...D&D needs to be more like Rolemaster!


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 8, 2008)

The "rules aren't physics" helps because

1. It explains why a rule that swiftly, efficiently and effectively works 99% of the time its used is still a good rule even if you or your players dream up a crazy edge case that breaks it, and why we shouldn't replace the first quick and efficient rule with a bloated monstrosity just to protect against that 1%.  Remember, "The rules are not physics," and combine it with "and the DM exists to adjudicate the edge cases."

2. It explains why you can't argue that because the rules don't explicitly explain how something works, that the something in question doesn't exist.  For example, suppose the rules don't include a method for your weapon to sustain damage when you use it to attack something.  This means that with power attack, a longsword, and patience, you can chop down castles.  Its not like the sword will ever become dull or break!  Sure, the sword has hit points, but it has no method to take hit point damage from being swung at rocks!  Or... not.  The rules cover the majority cases where the dulling or breaking of swords would be an annoyance.  If you let your players exploit this you have only yourself to blame because... the rules are not physics.

3. It explains why sometimes rules work differently for PCs and NPCs.  For example, a PC can bluff an NPC in 3e with a skill check and a story plausible enough that the DM doesn't call shenanigans.  But an NPC bluffing a PC typically involves not only the NPC's bluff roll beating the PCs sense motive, but also the DM successfully bluffing the player.  This is a flat out difference in not only how lying works, but in the chances of successfully lying, but its justified because otherwise the dice take the player out of the picture.

There are probably more reasons.  Overall, the rules provide a context in which you can interact with the gameworld.  They aren't actually the gameworld.  A rule might provide an inadequate context for interaction and be a bad rule, but it is also possible that a rule might provide an excellent context that just happens to not work so well in the wacky scenarios you dream up, or when the PCs are off stage and the rules don't need to function anyways.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Apr 8, 2008)

Isn't this whole thread based on the question of NPC healing .... 

.... which is itself a mass of speculation about a part of the rules that we know absolutely nothing about, because we haven't seen it yet?   

That being the case, isn't it a bit early to start making blanket statements that the NPC healing rules are ad-hoc and inconsistent, considering that we literally have no idea whether or not they exist, or what they may be if they do exist?


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 8, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> FLAVOR IS MUTABLE!  DON'T USE FLUFF AS CRUNCH IN COMBAT!
> ... (repeat ad nauseam)
> 
> Do you get it yet?  Though flavor is important flavor is mutable... and honestly... have you ever had a DM destroy all the equipment something is wearing after the PC's dump fireball after fireball on it?   Just because they fluff says something doesn't mean you can assume anything about it's combat use.  Also... lead melts very easily... not a point of instant death for anything...




Fluff/flavor is not mutable.

Or at least, it's not mutable within a given campaign.  If I say that in my campaign, Fey Step means you step into the Feywild-analogue of the mortal world, move through it, then step back, then that's how it works, and players have a right to expect that I will make rulings consistent with that.  If a PC wants to know what's going on in the Feywild and announces he's using Fey Step to pop in and have a look, I can't just fall back on "This is just a short-range teleport ability, the rules don't say you can use it for cross-planar reconnaissance."

Or if you want a combat example--say the PCs are laying a trap for an NPC eladrin, and put a ranger in the Feywild with a readied action to shoot the NPC when he tries to bamf away.  If I'm using the Feywild-movement fluff for Fey Step, then that plan should work, even though nothing in the crunch text says so.  And it's entirely reasonable of the players to expect that plan to work, and to get mad if I arbitrarily announce that it doesn't.

And if _fireball_ says it melts lead, and I as DM accede to that statement, then the players have a by-God right to expect that they can melt lead with their _fireballs_, in combat or out.  And they can also expect to ignite anything else that would be ignited by a fire that hot.  This may lead to some disagreements and require DM adjudication once in a while.  Such is the price of playing an RPG and not a computer game.

Now, you can if you like deny the _existence_ of specific fluff for a particular mechanic--in other words, you announce that that mechanic is pure metagame and that you will make up fluff for it on a case-by-case basis when necessary.  This is the approach commonly taken with experience points, since it's pretty dang hard to come up with fluff that makes any sort of sense for the way XP works.  But this becomes silly past a certain point; if you're going to make up the whole story on the fly anyway, why are you bothering with rules in the first place?  There _has_ to be a point of connection between the rules and the imagined reality of the game world.

Coming back to the OP's question... to me, the point of "rules aren't physics" is that the rules express how things _generally_ work; they are not absolute and exact specifications of the game-world reality, but approximations.  When the rules produce results that make no sense in terms of the game world, it is the DM's responsibility to adjust the results as necessary (and perhaps apply a house rule if the situation is one that will come up often).

Now, this does not excuse rules from conforming _in general_ to the game-world reality.  If the result of a rule has to be adjusted almost every time the rule comes into play, then it's a bad rule.

To draw a comparison with actual physics, consider the Newtonian and Aristotelian models, as applied to space flight simulations.  Newtonian physics are a pretty good ruleset for space flight sims.  Even though they don't actually match exactly what's going on, and there are corner cases where you have to adjust the results (e.g., when dealing with objects moving at close to the speed of light), in the vast majority of cases, Newtonian physics yields results consistent with what you'd expect.

On the other hand, Aristotelian physics are a horrendously bad ruleset for space flight sims.  The results produced by Aristotelian physics are so far from reality that you will have to adjust them pretty much every time you try to use them, to the point that you might as well not even bother.

I would accept "rules aren't physics" as an excuse for using the Newtonian model.  I would not accept it as an excuse for using the Aristotelian one.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 8, 2008)

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.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 8, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> There _has_ to be a point of connection between the rules and the imagined reality of the game world.



And that's usually pretty mutable.



> To draw a comparison with actual physics, consider the Newtonian and Aristotelian models, as applied to space flight simulations.  Newtonian physics are a pretty good ruleset for space flight sims.



To be more accurate, Newtonian physics that make spaceships behave like WWII-era _aircraft_ that clumsy database admins and teenagers could pilot work for space flight sims, at least the ones people play for fun. 

Or, said another way, playability trumps simulation every damn time. This guiding principle can also be applied to other games.


----------



## Derren (Apr 8, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> 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?


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 8, 2008)

The OP is not using the "rules aren't physics" statement in its most usual form, which I think is causing confusion.

"Rules aren't physics" isn't usually invoked to cover areas where there are no rules for a situation, or the rules don't make solid predictions (like his incorrect example about no rules for healing npcs). This example got us all off on the wrong track.

"Rules aren't physics" is invoked for situations where there ARE rules about things, and the rules  DO make solid predictions about the universe, and the predictions break verisimilitude.

3.x Examples: 
-Raise dead is available to sufficiently high-level clerics, therefore rich nobles and royalty can never die prematurely.
-Falling damage is low, and caps out, therefore powerful heroes and monsters can regularly cascade off cliffs like lemmings to save travel time.
-20th level wizards can solo dragons, therefore there are no dragons and there are a bunch of super-rich wizards.
-The nature of teleportation and attack spells means that castles are not a good form of defense, and armies are easily slaughtered by wizards and monsters. Therefore a pseudo-medieval high fantasy world should have no castles and armies.

All of these situations are caused by EXISTING game rules, not lack of game rules. There's never a situation where, as the OP said, "players don't know what will work and what won't". The problem is, everyone knows how things work according to the rules, and the way things work is stupid.

That's the problem "the rules aren't physics" is usually invoked to respond to. In other words, the rules are how things work for the PCs. However, offstage, things work generally the way we'd expect them to work (kings die, heroes don't jump off of cliffs, there are dragons and armies and castles).


----------



## Umbran (Apr 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The "rules aren't physics" helps because




People are somewhat confusing "rules aren't physics" with "the rules as written are a complete and comprehensive description of all physics".

Newtonian mechanics are physics.  But note how there are edge cases where they don't predict things well (Three Body Problem), they are an incomplete theory that does not cover every possible thing that happens in the universe (Relativity), and allow that things will _seem_ to work differently if you don't take everything into account properly (say, you assume two objects of the same size have the same mass, when they don't).

The problem isn't with the argument that rules aren't physics - the problem is that people don't understand how science works


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

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



The rules can't be in conflit with the physics of the gameworld because gameworlds have no physics. Sometimes rules can be in conflit with the notions of physics we have from the Real world (lava rules, falling from high altitude etc)
But the rules don't need to be the physics of the gamewolrd in order to not get in conflit with our notions of real world physics.


----------



## Derren (Apr 8, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> "Rules aren't physics" is invoked for situations where there ARE rules about things, and the rules  DO make solid predictions about the universe, and the predictions break verisimilitude.
> 
> 3.x Examples:
> -Raise dead is available to sufficiently high-level clerics, therefore rich nobles and royalty can never die prematurely.
> ...




Yes, that is the real problem and the reason why 4E couldn't work without the "rules aren't physics" creed. The target group of 4E want for the most part cool, over the top action stunts but are also unable to accept any other fantasy than a real world medieval one lifted straight from the history books and pulled through the romanticization machine five or six times. Of course people who are able to create energy at will, the existence of intelligent monsters which can destroy towns and villages at will which means humans are not the top of the food chain anymore and traditional medieval lifestyle don't fit together very well (or should I say "at all"?). But in their wisdom WotC simply said that those things have nothing to do with each other by saying "Rules are not Physics" and for most people this is enough to make the setting work even though it isn't.

To make a coherent game world you either have to create the rules according to the game world or design the game world according to the rules. WotC is doing none of those things and instead design them independantly and decree that they work together (which they don't). And whenever a person finds something where the game world and the rules conflict they are simply thinking about it too hard. (This also applies to 3E, but in 4E this is a lot worse).


----------



## Aservan (Apr 8, 2008)

The rules aren't physics is a good rule of thumb most of the time.  Don't violate the spirit of the rule is a better one.

Jack the rogue walks out into the field of recently harvested wheat.  Out in the middle of the two acre field he drops trow and proceeds to wiggle his backside at the hovering great wyrm red dragon above.  Jack is a rogue and has no magic skills to speak of and yet he stands tall and proud when the dragon trys to incinerate him with it's mighty breath.  After the conflagration has melted the soil into magma.  Jack still stands.  Vincinie cries "Inconceivable!"

In the game world Jack used a his evasion ability to take no damage.  The spirit of the rules is that Jack's quick reflexes allowed him to hide behind something  or simply avoid being in a situation where he would get toasted.  Yet Jack was in the middle of the field with no cover to be had.  He purposefully put himself in a situation where he could get toasted.  Ballsy sure, but inconceivably stupid too.  If I was GM I give the player his props and tell him that he is dead.  Evasion is an extraordinary ability not a Supernatural one.  He is so dead.

Other people will claim I am a jerk because the rules said...  I think the spirit of the rules is more important then the letter of them.  If Jack gave me any small justification (like he took a shield into the field with him) then I would rule in his favor, but I need that small bit of wiggle room to have things go his way.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes, that is the real problem and the reason why 4E couldn't work without the "rules aren't physics" creed. The target group of 4E want for the most part cool, over the top action stunts but are also unable to accept any other fantasy than a real world medieval one lifted straight from the history books and pulled through the romanticization machine five or six times. Of course people who are able to create energy at will, the existence of intelligent monsters which can destroy towns and villages at will which means humans are not the top of the food chain anymore and traditional medieval lifestyle fit together very well. But in their wisdom WotC simply said that those things have nothing to do with each other by saying "Rules are not Physics" and for most people this is enough to make the setting work even though it isn't.




You, uh...

You did notice that Rex's examples were all from 3.X or earlier, right?

And that some of them (definitely _raise dead_, probably teleportation, possibly falling damage) are being cleaned up in 4E?

Ah, the irony.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> But in their wisdom WotC simply said that those things have nothing to do with each other by saying "Rules are not Physics" and for most people this is enough to make the setting work even though it isn't.




If it makes the setting work, then it makes the setting work. Remarkable, isn't it?



> And whenever a person finds something where the game world and the rules conflict they are simply thinking about it too hard.




Indeed. It is good to see that your edification is proceeding apace.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

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




To second ainatan, they don't.

What happens is that you get results from the system that you don't want.  That's a different problem.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Of course people who are able to create energy at will, the existence of intelligent monsters which can destroy towns and villages at will which means humans are not the top of the food chain anymore and traditional medieval lifestyle fit together very well. But in their wisdom WotC simply said that those things have nothing to do with each other by saying "Rules are not Physics" and for most people this is enough to make the setting work even though it isn't.




In _their_ wisdom, TSR also had energy-creatin' people, powerful monsters, and a traditional medieval lifestyle.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> I think that this is the result of mixed-up terminology.  Physics is an interesting branch of science.  It has oodles of what and extremely little why.  But, and this is the thing about it that makes it used in the metaphorical case, the lack of why does not detract from the what.  The theory of gravitation speculates that objects move towards each other in predictable fashion.  The theory of gravitation could be true because of graviton interactions, or superstrings mating, or the Divine Will, or invisible falling elves pushing everything in the universe.  But, regardless of which (or any) of these 'why' answers are true, the 'what' is constant; objects fall in predictable ways.  Unlike in our world, the physics of D&D are not particularly granular; they do not say what happens on an extremely micro level.  But, they do exist, and they can be noticed.
> 
> Now, it might be that the flavor of a Con-18 dwarf shrugging off a blow with his 30 hp is much different than the flavor of a highly-leveled 30-hp Con 10 nimble elf doing the same.  It is almost certain that the fluff of a 30-hp door experiencing the same hit will be different than both.  But if the rules are physics, then despite the difference in fluff, you will need to apply about the same amount of violence to each in order to break it.
> 
> ...



Exactly so.

I really do see this trend away from concrete rules as an intrusion of Exalted style play, and that as an extension of the general Storyteller expectations.  In a sense, it has a bit of Nobilis in there also.  All of which are great games, to be sure (my personal bias places Nobilis head and shoulders above the others, of course   ).  I think the 'god-like' wish fulfillment play those cater to is not strictly compatible with the D&D genre.  Historically, anyway.  If the new paradigm is like that, I am uncertain as to how well that will work out.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 8, 2008)

StormBringer said:
			
		

> I think the 'god-like' wish fulfillment play those cater to is not strictly compatible with the D&D genre. Historically, anyway.




I dunno. The 1st edition gods in "Deities and Demigods" had hit points and armor class. So presumably you were supposed to kill 'em.

Edit: Unless I misunderstood, and by godlike you mean "having narrative control," not "having powers like unto the gods".


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 8, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> 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 sort of agree with you overall, but what's stopping them from asking? Or, 

Players: "Hey, we expected to be able to heal these guys."
DM: "Oh, technically you can't do that. But that's unfair to you guys, so go ahead. Just remember in the future- no healing."
Player: "But wait, if we could heal them now, how come we can't heal them again?"
DM: "Shut up, Frank!"

Problem solved.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> You, uh...
> 
> You did notice that Rex's examples were all from 3.X or earlier, right?
> 
> ...



Begging the question.  

How are they being 'cleaned up'?  Not to raise the spectre of Raise Dead again (pun intended), but I hardly see that as 'cleaned up', since it hasn't really changed.  'Everyone can be raised if the DM says so' and 'No one can be raised unless the DM says so' are no different.  'Probably' and 'possibly' hardly support a positive assertation that they "are being cleaned up in 4e".

How are problems in 3.x demonstrable proof that 4e has 'fixed' them?


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> I dunno. The 1st edition gods in "Deities and Demigods" had hit points and armor class. So presumably you were supposed to kill 'em.
> 
> Edit: Unless I misunderstood, and by godlike you mean "having narrative control," not "having powers like unto the gods".



Sort of having narrative control, but more like the Exalted or Nobilis level of power.

I think the original Deities and Demigods was often mistaken for the Super Monster Manual, and players could often advance to a level where they could feasibly threaten a deity, but those were intended for the deity's manifestation on the Material Plane.  It was not exactly clear, but the indication was there that challenging a deity on their own plane was simply impossible except for other deities.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I sort of agree with you overall, but what's stopping them from asking? Or,
> 
> Players: "Hey, we expected to be able to heal these guys."
> DM: "Oh, technically you can't do that. But that's unfair to you guys, so go ahead. Just remember in the future- no healing."
> ...



No, that is the exact heart of the problem.  If I can't consistently heal my retainers/henchmen/followers, they become equipment, to be disposed of when they are broken.  Additionally, if there is an important NPC that needs to be brought back up to healthy (don't we all love escort missions?    ), as a player, I need to know I can use whatever equipment or spells necessary to accomplish that goal.  Otherwise, you are well into the territory of 'PCs Glow', and the important NPCs have a white circle around their feet.  It turns into an incredibly slow moving CRPG.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 8, 2008)

If that is the exact heart of the problem, then you have no problem, because Chris Sims says that you can heal NPCs.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Apr 8, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> But how does that actually solve anything?




In and of its self, it does not.  But what it does make life a whole lot easier for the designers.

3rd edition ended up having a bunch of rules that end up causing more problems than they were worth as a result of trying to be simulationist.  There are instances where leaning towards simulation help (such as diagonal movement and the confirm roll for criticals vs very high AC opponents in my opinion).  But there are more instances where simulationist rules were not such a great plan.


 - Poison doing ability damage causes poisons to be much more dangerous than they need to be.
 - Grappling giving a size bonus meant that large creatures would nearly always succeed on grapple checks since they would also have very high strength values and a CR appropriate Bab.
 - Ability bonuses being tied into so many different things that changing a score via a buff or a poison / ability drain would require a bunch of recalculation.
 - Monsters playing by exactly the same rules would often result in more book keeping than would be ideal.
 - Monsters getting abilities that make sense flavor wise but are meaningless in actual game play.
 - A skill system that guaranteed it would be impossible to have a skill based challenge that would be reasonable for everyone in the party to have to attempt.
 - The implementation of Disarm / Sunder / BullRush essentially being crappy.
 - Mounted combat that leads to a 'kill the horse' strategy always being the best.

While I am not sure if it would show up in 4th edition, what harm would there be in making it so that the players mount would be guaranteed to survive within reason?  As a player, if I put a bunch of effort into mounted combat, I would like to have the horse survive a 10th level Fireball.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> If that is the exact heart of the problem, then you have no problem, because Chris Sims says that you can heal NPCs.



Well, that isn't precisely the point.  The rules need to be consistent, where they exist and are applied.  You can swap out 'raise dead' for 'heal', and the problem remains.  In fact, the problem becomes worse, as you can heal your NPCs all day, but once they are dead, that is the end of their story.  How does one form of healing work but not the other?


----------



## Warbringer (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Trust me, I'm a statistician.




So, dice it off?

Don't trust me, I'm a statistician in marketing


----------



## Warbringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The problem isn't with the argument that rules aren't physics - the problem is that people don't understand how science works




if the rules give a clear model of how events are be judged in the rules I don't care if its a physical model or not


----------



## Thyrwyn (Apr 8, 2008)

Point of contention - no one has said that only PC's can be raised - they said that only someone with an epic destiny (or something like that) can be raised.  To me, that means that anyone (PC or NPC) can be raised if they are relevant to the story/plot/path of the campaign.  While this (theoretically) inherently includes the PCs, it does not inherently exclude all NPCs - only most of them.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 8, 2008)

storm-bringer said:
			
		

> Well, that isn't precisely the point. The rules need to be consistent, where they exist and are applied. You can swap out 'raise dead' for 'heal', and the problem remains. In fact, the problem becomes worse, as you can heal your NPCs all day, but once they are dead, that is the end of their story. How does one form of healing work but not the other?






			
				storm-bringer said:
			
		

> Not to raise the spectre of Raise Dead again (pun intended), but I hardly see that as 'cleaned up', since it hasn't really changed.




So I'm confused. Are you saying that the raise dead rules have changed from 3e, or not?


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> In and of its self, it does not.  But what it does make life a whole lot easier for the designers.
> 
> 3rd edition ended up having a bunch of rules that end up causing more problems than they were worth as a result of trying to be simulationist.  There are instances where leaning towards simulation help (such as diagonal movement and the confirm roll for criticals vs very high AC opponents in my opinion).  But there are more instances where simulationist rules were not such a great plan.



I am going to address these bullets here:

* - Poison doing ability damage causes poisons to be much more dangerous than they need to be.*
As opposed to poisons that arent' very dangerous at all?  I mean, of the poisonous substances in the world, a good many of them are simply _lethal_.  No saving throw.  Certain spider poison will cause necrosis of tissues for months or _years_ after the initial bite.  

* - Grappling giving a size bonus meant that large creatures would nearly always succeed on grapple checks since they would also have very high strength values and a CR appropriate Bab.*
So, an Ancient Dragon should have roughly the same chance to grapple as a Kobold?

* - Ability bonuses being tied into so many different things that changing a score via a buff or a poison / ability drain would require a bunch of recalculation.*
Only when you used them.  I understand 4e has a crapload of overlapping auras and such that need to be adjusted and re-calculated during combat.  Much higher handle time.

* - Monsters playing by exactly the same rules would often result in more book keeping than would be ideal.*
DMs who are _forced at gunpoint_ to stat out every goblin child in the game world will be faced with a great deal of bookkeeping.  DMs who wisely stat out major NPCs only will not have a substantial task ahead of them.

* - Monsters getting abilities that make sense flavor wise but are meaningless in actual game play*.
Such as?

* - A skill system that guaranteed it would be impossible to have a skill based challenge that would be reasonable for everyone in the party to have to attempt.*
How is that bad?  Is Rope Use _really_ applicable when negotiating with a sphinx?  Will Diplomacy _really_ help you detect a trap better?

* - The implementation of Disarm / Sunder / BullRush essentially being crappy.*
In your estimation.  Much like Grapple, some have problems, others don't.

* - Mounted combat that leads to a 'kill the horse' strategy always being the best.*
Which, historically, was the best strategy.  How is this a problem?



> While I am not sure if it would show up in 4th edition, what harm would there be in making it so that the players mount would be guaranteed to survive within reason?  As a player, if I put a bunch of effort into mounted combat, I would like to have the horse survive a 10th level Fireball.



Because that isn't a 'mount', that is an M-1 Abrams Main Battle Tank.  You don't sound like you want a reasonable chance of a mount surviving, you want Geico for your horse.  If you don't want to lose a horse in combat, tie it up back and the camp and hike over to the battle.

I don't remember when common sense applications of rules became the ultimate in bad GMing, but it is a particularly odd development, in my mind.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> Point of contention - no one has said that only PC's can be raised - they said that only someone with an epic destiny (or something like that) can be raised.  To me, that means that anyone (PC or NPC) can be raised if they are relevant to the story/plot/path of the campaign.  While this (theoretically) inherently includes the PCs, it does not inherently exclude all NPCs - only most of them.



Which is exactly no different than previous editions.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 8, 2008)

It fixes things by separating the retards from the roleplayers.


----------



## Kordeth (Apr 8, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Well, that isn't precisely the point.  The rules need to be consistent, where they exist and are applied.  You can swap out 'raise dead' for 'heal', and the problem remains.  In fact, the problem becomes worse, as you can heal your NPCs all day, but once they are dead, that is the end of their story.  How does one form of healing work but not the other?




Raise dead isn't healing. It's a powerful ritual in which you contact the Raven Queen and entreat her to return the soul of one who has fallen. The Queen of the Dead does not grant this favor lightly--only those who have a great destiny before them left unfulfilled will be returned from her halls, and only the greatest of heroes can even _ask_ for such a favor.

I imagine, depending on the Raven Queen's fluff and how it relates to undead, you could spin off an interesting in-world explanation by saying that those with unfulfilled destinies are allowed to be raised because the alternative is a vengeful revenant or restless spectre.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Apr 8, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Which is exactly no different than previous editions.



The effect on the rules implementation may not be any diferent, but from the standpoint of consistent storytelling & world building, the effect is quite significant.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 8, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> I am going to address these bullets here:




Yes, you do a good job of pointing out the simulationist logic behind those rules.
But the rules are still more complaex than they have to be.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 8, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Which is exactly no different than previous editions.




I am so confused now!

First you said that lack of NPC healing was the heart of the problem with 4e, then that turned out to be wrong.

Then you agreed to move the argument to the way 4e handles Raise Dead, but twice now you've said that Raise Dead hasn't changed since 3e.

So what's the new, improved heart of the problem? (This will be the third heart.)


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 8, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Which is exactly no different than previous editions.




I beg to differ. The standard way to set up laws is to make a rule and then designate the exceptions. The assumption is that the standard rule is the norm and the exceptions are there to cover corner cases.

For a moment, let's ignore the monetary cost of raise dead. There's a world of difference between:

"Anybody can be raised from the dead unless they choose not to be." (3.5)

and:

"Nobody can be raised from the dead unless they possess an epic destiny." (4E)

The first implies that being raised from the dead is a typical occurrence, and then tries to band-aid the implications over by making it expensive (meaning that it's rare because most people can't afford it). Essentially, everyone in the game world with enough cash can come back from the dead. That means that if an NPC dies, anyone who wants to could spend their treasure to bring them back. People coming back from the dead is the default assumption.*

The second implies that being raised from the dead is an atypical occurrence. While it may be something that great heroes do, it's just not available to the average joe _at any price_. *By definition,* if you can come back from the dead, you're not average. In this world, people staying dead is the default assumption.**

From the standpoint of the PC characters, nothing has changed. From the standpoint of the gameworld assumptions, there's a BIG difference.


*While it is _possible_ for the DM to decide for his campaign that the (assumed) corner-case exception in the rules of a person who doesn't want to come back is, in fact, the default standard, doing so runs counter to the implications of the default rule.

**Likewise, the DM could decide that everyone has a Destiny sufficient to enable them to be raised from the dead, but again, doing so runs counter to the prevailing assumptions implied by the default rule.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 8, 2008)

It fixes things by separating the retards from the roleplayers.


----------



## Rel (Apr 8, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> It fixes things by separating the retards from the roleplayers.




We prefer that you not use the term "retards" and instead say, "FickleGM".  Thank you.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> So I'm confused. Are you saying that the raise dead rules have changed from 3e, or not?



You are stringing two different points together as though they are related, then claiming confusion.  I would say that is disingenuous.

The first point is, why is healing different than raise dead for NPCs?  Can I apply successive healing spells to an NPC to bring them back up to full hit points?  Does it work when they are at zero?  Or negatives?  Does the DM let the entire mission fail because the NPC dies without an 'epic destiny' to allow them to be raised?  Or does mission failure count as a 'destiny' for that NPC?  More importantly, how is that different than how it was handled in 3.x?  I hear all kinds of people talking about how NPCs can be raised by high level clerics, but no talk of DMs simply saying "No, they can't be raised".  I didn't seem to have a problem with NPCs getting raised behind my back when I was DMing.

The second point is that the items the other poster mentioned as being 'cleaned up' were offered with no proof of any actual improvement, and I pointed out that Raise Dead had, in fact, not changed one whit, so claiming it has been 'cleaned up' is unsupported at best, and incorrect at worst.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Raise dead isn't healing. It's a powerful ritual in which you contact the Raven Queen and entreat her to return the soul of one who has fallen. The Queen of the Dead does not grant this favor lightly--only those who have a great destiny before them left unfulfilled will be returned from her halls, and only the greatest of heroes can even _ask_ for such a favor.
> 
> I imagine, depending on the Raven Queen's fluff and how it relates to undead, you could spin off an interesting in-world explanation by saying that those with unfulfilled destinies are allowed to be raised because the alternative is a vengeful revenant or restless spectre.



Neither edition of the 3.x PHB says anything about the 'Raven Queen'.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> The effect on the rules implementation may not be any diferent, but from the standpoint of consistent storytelling & world building, the effect is quite significant.



In what way?


----------



## senna (Apr 8, 2008)

* - Poison doing ability damage causes poisons to be much more dangerous than they need to be.*


			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> As opposed to poisons that arent' very dangerous at all?  I mean, of the poisonous substances in the world, a good many of them are simply _lethal_.  No saving throw.  Certain spider poison will cause necrosis of tissues for months or _years_ after the initial bite.




Poison was dangerous because it ruined your character in no time, It was TOO dangerous, a simple poison witch does 1 to 3 con damage were realy dangerous, a little less danger would be a good thing, not no danger at all, but now that poison does damage AND can have carier efects i think we can have the better of the two worlds.

* - Grappling giving a size bonus meant that large creatures would nearly always succeed on grapple checks since they would also have very high strength values and a CR appropriate Bab.*


			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> So, an Ancient Dragon should have roughly the same chance to grapple as a Kobold?




No, but almost any character can´t escape a great dragon grapple, in a game that expects its character to engange in melee with them the bonus need to be a litle more evened out, with advantage to the dragon of course.

* - Ability bonuses being tied into so many different things that changing a score via a buff or a poison / ability drain would require a bunch of recalculation.*


			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Only when you used them.  I understand 4e has a crapload of overlapping auras and such that need to be adjusted and re-calculated during combat.  Much higher handle time.




Nobody can realy say that with certanty, no one here have seen the full rules. And everybody walks into combat truly buffed with half a dozen spells, sometimes more, dispel was invaluable because of that, and most of the time it results into players feeling that they tossed ressources away and time spent recalculating everything, time that shoul be used in playing the game. 

* - Monsters playing by exactly the same rules would often result in more book keeping than would be ideal.*


			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> DMs who are _forced at gunpoint_ to stat out every goblin child in the game world will be faced with a great deal of bookkeeping.  DMs who wisely stat out major NPCs only will not have a substantial task ahead of them.




True, but the game, through npc classes and everybody using the same rules, points to that direction, only experience and time at the table teach diferent to the game master, make the game easier to dm is a good goal.

* - Monsters getting abilities that make sense flavor wise but are meaningless in actual game play*.


			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Such as?




Half of the spell-likes of any outsider!

* - A skill system that guaranteed it would be impossible to have a skill based challenge that would be reasonable for everyone in the party to have to attempt.*


			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> How is that bad?  Is Rope Use _really_ applicable when negotiating with a sphinx?  Will Diplomacy _really_ help you detect a trap better?




The thing is that everybody should be capable inside and outside combat, and could help once in a while, but the 3e skill sistem make the diference between someone good, and someone mediocre too big. On a second note if you use the skill chalenge of 4e in 3e with only the social skills, bluff, diplomacy, intimidate and sense motive, the fighter rarely can help, intimidate is almost useless, the fighter is beter taking the phisical skills, and an untrained check rarely can make even the easy chalenge, so i think that the 4e take its a step in the right way.

* - The implementation of Disarm / Sunder / BullRush essentially being crappy.*


			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> In your estimation.  Much like Grapple, some have problems, others don't.




True, but mechanicaly or you are realy good at it and do it all the time, or you only do it when you are desperate, thats not a good thing.

* - Mounted combat that leads to a 'kill the horse' strategy always being the best.*


			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Which, historically, was the best strategy.  How is this a problem?
> 
> Because that isn't a 'mount', that is an M-1 Abrams Main Battle Tank.  You don't sound like you want a reasonable chance of a mount surviving, you want Geico for your horse.  If you don't want to lose a horse in combat, tie it up back and the camp and hike over to the battle.




but the only problem its that make the battle boring, you have a cheap shot, a charge, and thats it the players kill the mount, and the knight is toast because every single one of his abilities are about making him a beter knight. This is a case where playability trumps reality!


----------



## Kordeth (Apr 8, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Neither edition of the 3.x PHB says anything about the 'Raven Queen'.




No kidding, considering I'm talking about *Fourth Edition*, as you were considering the specific problem of yours I was addressing was "why can I heal my NPC ally all day but not raise him?" Which is a decidedly 4E mechanic, because in 3.x you can raise _anybody_ as long as they want to come back.


----------



## Derren (Apr 8, 2008)

senna said:
			
		

> Half of the spell-likes of any outsider!




Oh I get it. You judge the effectiveness of any ability just by its value in combat as if D&D consisted only out of a endless string of combat encounters.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 8, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> The first point is, why is healing different than raise dead for NPCs?  Can I apply successive healing spells to an NPC to bring them back up to full hit points?  Does it work when they are at zero?  Or negatives?




You can keep on healing them until they run out of healing surges. Just like a PC.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Does the DM let the entire mission fail because the NPC dies without an 'epic destiny' to allow them to be raised?  Or does mission failure count as a 'destiny' for that NPC?




As always, that's up to the DM.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> More importantly, how is that different than how it was handled in 3.x?  I hear all kinds of people talking about how NPCs can be raised by high level clerics, but no talk of DMs simply saying "No, they can't be raised".  I didn't seem to have a problem with NPCs getting raised behind my back when I was DMing.




No one outside NDA knows just how raise dead is described to work in 4E. Keith Baker leaked a bit about needing a destiny to be raised but later said that 'destiny' was his word and not necessarily in the rules at all.

The rules may be as simple as saying that nobody below Paragon tier can be raised without direct divine intervention. It fits the available data reasonably well. (Supposedly, when Heroic tier PCs die, the typical response is to roll a new character, whereas Paragon tier characters can be resurrected with the expenditure of monumental effort, and Epic tier characters see death as a "speed bump". Since the vast majority of NPCs wouldn't make it to Paragon tier, and even those that did would still need some pretty major work done to resurrect them, most NPCs just won't get raised, even if they technically could be).


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> I am so confused now!
> 
> First you said that lack of NPC healing was the heart of the problem with 4e, then that turned out to be wrong.
> 
> ...



It looks like the third heart of the problem is your willful misinterpretation.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> No kidding, considering I'm talking about *Fourth Edition*, as you were considering the specific problem of yours I was addressing was "why can I heal my NPC ally all day but not raise him?" Which is a decidedly 4E mechanic, because in 3.x you can raise _anybody_ as long as they want to come back.



How is that different, mechanically, than 4e?  I was referring to the difference.  In 3.x, any character can be raised unless the DM decides otherwise, and you are saying that in 4e, any character that the DM decides can be raised.  I am pretty sure that 'as long as they want to come back' is one of the fluff elements in 4e also.  So, you used 4e fluff, but you _exactly described how things work in 3.x now_.

How is that different, let alone improved?


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 8, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> So, an Ancient Dragon should have roughly the same chance to grapple as a Kobold?



Was this question asked in good faith?

Kobold: CR 1/4, Str 9, BAB +1, Size Small, Grapple -4 as a result

Ancient Red Dragon: CR 23, Str 39, BAB 34, Size Gargantuan, Grapple +60 as a result

Take away the size modifiers, and you get

Kobold Grapple: +0
Ancient Red Dragon Grapple: +48

0 does not equal 48.

Let me restate the matter clearly.  Many high level monsters in 3e grapple, because a huge monster that picks up your PC and bashes him into the floor is kind of cool.  Your primary defenses against having this happen to you are, first, your touch AC, second, your grapple check, third, your escape artist check if applicable, and fourth, teleportation, freedom of action, and other magical countermeasures.  The problem is that three out of four of these things are worthless.

Your touch AC isn't going to help you.  You must have an awful lot of confidence in your touch AC if you think that a high level grappling monster will be swayed by it in the slightest.  This is especially true for characters like Fighters.  Perhaps the 4e math will change this a bit, but that's how it was in 3e.

Your grapple check won't help you either.  Your 3e grapple check scales at the same rate as your BAB and your Strength, but, the monster's grapple check scales at the same rate, plus more.  What does the monster get that you don't?  First, your overall attack bonus is calibrated as if you had relevant magical weaponry, and for normal attacks is calibrated against the monster's overall bonus.  However, when you start grappling, you don't get to use your shiny magical sword.  You lose an advantage that was necessary to keep you even, and the monster doesn't.  Then, the monster usually gets a size modifier that you do not receive.  Now you're behind by, usually, over 10 points.  And in an opposed check, that's an enormous difference in odds.  Feats really won't help you, either, as the difference is simply too vast.  After all, even a level 20 fighter with a strength of 30 is looking at a grapple check of a whopping +30.  That's useless against even a CR 12 purple worm, with its grapple of +40.

Escape Artist won't help you either, for the same reasons, except that you had to pay skill points to suck at escape artist, and you get to suck at defensive grappling for free.

That leaves magical countermeasures.  These tend to work automatically, with no chance of failure.  That's... kind of lame.

So grappling is being reworked.  One of the problems, size modifiers to grapple, is being axed.  This is probably a good thing, as 1) it helps the overall situation, and 2) kobolds clinging to your legs and biting you is kind of cool.

And no, this doesn't mean that a kobold gets to grapple just as well as an ancient dragon.  Unless its a kobold with 23 character class levels in a martial class, and an elite ability score array, in which case it might get close.  I don't know why you thought otherwise, but consider the matter settled.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 8, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> You are stringing two different points together as though they are related, then claiming confusion. I would say that is disingenuous.




No, not disingenuous. I genuinely don't understand what you're saying.

I understand your point 2, "raise dead has not changed one whit". No problem there. But I don't understand your point 1 at all:

"The first point is, why is healing different than raise dead for NPCs?"
_How_ is healing different from raise dead for NPCs? Is this difference unique to 4e? 

"Can I apply successive healing spells to an NPC to bring them back up to full hit points?"
Yes, up to the limit of their healing surges, just like PCs, according to Chris Sims. So, that's not where your criticism of 4e lies.

"Does it work when they are at zero? Or negatives?"
These are questions we haven't been told the answer to. However, I seem to remember a developer saying that the DM can just declare that all the dropped enemies are dead, so you don't have to go around the battlefield slitting throats after the battle. So this is an area where you may have a point that PCs will be explicitly treated differently than NPCs. 

"Does the DM let the entire mission fail because the NPC dies without an 'epic destiny' to allow them to be raised? Or does mission failure count as a 'destiny' for that NPC?"
I am sure that the intent is that the DM can choose to allow this NPC to be raised, if it allows the PC's mission to continue. However, if it makes things more interesting, the DM can mandate that the NPC stay dead. As you say, no different from 3e. So, this is not where your criticism of 4e lies.

"More importantly, how is that different than how it was handled in 3.x? I hear all kinds of people talking about how NPCs can be raised by high level clerics, but no talk of DMs simply saying "No, they can't be raised". I didn't seem to have a problem with NPCs getting raised behind my back when I was DMing."
Agreed. You maintain that 4e raise is no different from 3e raise dead - it's up to the DM. So this is not where your criticism of 4e lies.

I hope you'll understand my confusion and excuse me from the charge of being disingenuous. It seems to me that you are criticizing 4e, but I can't find any specific charges you level at it - except that it's unclear whether NPCs participate in the "dying" rules. Is that your problem with 4e?

NOTE: I just noticed that you clarified that the heart of your problem with 4e was my wilful misinterpretation. OK, fair enough. I'm not bundled with the 4e rulebooks*, though, so your dislike of me shouldn't affect your enjoyment of the game.

*I do, however, come with DDI, via the Virtual Rex Table!


----------



## Kordeth (Apr 8, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> How is that different, mechanically, than 4e?  I was referring to the difference.  In 3.x, any character can be raised unless the DM decides otherwise, and you are saying that in 4e, any character that the DM decides can be raised.  I am pretty sure that 'as long as they want to come back' is one of the fluff elements in 4e also.  So, you used 4e fluff, but you _exactly described how things work in 3.x now_.
> 
> How is that different, let alone improved?




Are you talking about in-game or out of game? Out of game there is no difference--it's the DM's call. In-game, though, the rationale behind why it's DM Fiat has been improved.

There is _one_ condition on raise dead in 3.x (barring the specific rules-related issues, of course): the target must be willing to return. This can create problems if the DM doesn't want a character to come back, but the character _should_ be willing. The obvious example is the benevolent king who gets assassinated by his wicked cousin who usurps the throne. Why wouldn't the king be willing to come back to relieve his people's suffering? Sure, you can say the afterlife is so wonderful most people just _don't_ want to come back, but that can feel like a betrayal of the character.

In 4E, it doesn't matter whether the character wants to come back or not (well, it _might_, but it's the secondary condition): If the Raven Queen/Kelemvor/Other God of Death doesn't allow you to come back, you're not coming back--at least, not with the raise dead ritual. It's still DM Fiat, but it's DM Fiat that can be more easily explained by characters in the world than "Good King Daxall doesn't love us anymore."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 8, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> I am going to address these bullets here:
> 
> * - Poison doing ability damage causes poisons to be much more dangerous than they need to be.*
> As opposed to poisons that arent' very dangerous at all?  I mean, of the poisonous substances in the world, a good many of them are simply _lethal_.  No saving throw.  Certain spider poison will cause necrosis of tissues for months or _years_ after the initial bite.



Sword Chucks and Arrows in your chest are also very lethal. Many people used to die to this when such weapons where still commonly applied. And then there was tetanus and similar unfriendly things that could kill or debilitate you even if you were just wounded, not killed. 
But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to use such stuff in a game where you do combat more then the few times regular humans do or did it...



> * - Grappling giving a size bonus meant that large creatures would nearly always succeed on grapple checks since they would also have very high strength values and a CR appropriate Bab.*
> So, an Ancient Dragon should have roughly the same chance to grapple as a Kobold?



As an extreme opinion: Why not? In turn, he deals a lot more damage, and can fling grappled targets around? And even if his chance is better, does it need to become auto-success? Why aren't his normal attacks auto-success? I mean, if he'd jump on a heavy armored Fighte,r that guy could move the required distance to evade the attack?



> * - Ability bonuses being tied into so many different things that changing a score via a buff or a poison / ability drain would require a bunch of recalculation.*
> Only when you used them.  I understand 4e has a crapload of overlapping auras and such that need to be adjusted and re-calculated during combat.  Much higher handle time.



I'd say that's plain wrong. A +2 bonus to attacks is a +2 bonus to attacks. It might change from round to round, but it's only a single change. But a +4 enhancement bonus to Constitution means +2hp/level more hit points, a +2 to your fortitude save, and a +2 bonus to your Concentration Checks. But wait, didn't you already have another +2 enhancement bonus item that you already calculated in? Oh, and then you did get 1d10+Con temporary hit points from Heroes Feast. Did you remember that?



> * - Monsters playing by exactly the same rules would often result in more book keeping than would be ideal.*
> DMs who are _forced at gunpoint_ to stat out every goblin child in the game world will be faced with a great deal of bookkeeping.  DMs who wisely stat out major NPCs only will not have a substantial task ahead of them.



Such DM brains are doomed to explode. But what is with DMs that just like to run a 10th level group against a Yuan-Ti Temple. Did you consider how many stats you have to create just to have enough Yuan-Ti in the apporpriate level range, without every encounter being a rehash? Considered how much effort it is to stat-up the Yuan-Ti High Priest alone?



> * - Monsters getting abilities that make sense flavor wise but are meaningless in actual game play*.
> Such as?



Spell-Like abilities of considerably lower level then typical for the CR. Or spell-like abilities plainly inferior to any other options. Dragons with full sorceror spell-casting that was usually inferior to their regular attack routine. (But at least two buffs could totally break them - Mage Armor & Shield)



> * - A skill system that guaranteed it would be impossible to have a skill based challenge that would be reasonable for everyone in the party to have to attempt.*
> How is that bad?  Is Rope Use _really_ applicable when negotiating with a sphinx?  Will Diplomacy _really_ help you detect a trap better?



Why is Use Rope a skill at all? How many situations do you need it, compared to, say, Spot or Diplomacy? What are the in-game effects of a typical Use Rope skill compared to that of a typical Spot or Diplomacy check? How do I even know what DCs are appropriate for a party (without becoming to difficult or becoming a unintented cake-walk). I can use CR to eyeball monster encounters. Why isn't there anything that allows me to do the same for skills?



> * - The implementation of Disarm / Sunder / BullRush essentially being crappy.*
> In your estimation.  Much like Grapple, some have problems, others don't.



Oh, the mechanics do what they are intented to do. But they are usually so much inferior to regular types of attacks, why bother?


----------



## Xyl (Apr 8, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Now, it might be that the flavor of a Con-18 dwarf shrugging off a blow with his 30 hp is much different than the flavor of a highly-leveled 30-hp Con 10 nimble elf doing the same.  It is almost certain that the fluff of a 30-hp door experiencing the same hit will be different than both.  But if the rules are physics, then despite the difference in fluff, you will need to apply about the same amount of violence to each in order to break it.



HP make a lot more sense when you think of them as a way of determining how many rounds a PC will last against a set of opponents. The 30 hp dwarf can take more physical punishment than the 30 hp elf, but the elf is better at dodging and lessening the effects of blows, so they both last about the same amount of time against the same angry orc (if you control for AC).


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> You can keep on healing them until they run out of healing surges. Just like a PC.
> 
> As always, that's up to the DM.



So, no real changes to either, then.  Meaning that NPCs sometimes play by the same rules as PCs, but sometimes not.  Which means, internal consistency is rather compromised.



> No one outside NDA knows just how raise dead is described to work in 4E. Keith Baker leaked a bit about needing a destiny to be raised but later said that 'destiny' was his word and not necessarily in the rules at all.



But, it still describes the philosophy.  PCs only.  Unless the DM says otherwise.  _Which is not a change at all_.  Everyone seemed to breathe a sigh of relief because those pesky NPCs aren't getting raised all over the place now.  Except, they weren't before either, unless the DM allowed it.



> The rules may be as simple as saying that nobody below Paragon tier can be raised without direct divine intervention. It fits the available data reasonably well. (Supposedly, when Heroic tier PCs die, the typical response is to roll a new character, whereas Paragon tier characters can be resurrected with the expenditure of monumental effort, and Epic tier characters see death as a "speed bump". Since the vast majority of NPCs wouldn't make it to Paragon tier, and even those that did would still need some pretty major work done to resurrect them, most NPCs just won't get raised, even if they technically could be).



Which is more or less precisely how it works now.  Access to a high level cleric and 5-10 thousand in diamonds isn't exactly a common graduation gift for first level adventurers in any previous edition.  Until 'Paragon Tier' in previous versions, it was pretty difficult to get raised also.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Let me restate the matter clearly.  Many high level monsters in 3e grapple, because a huge monster that picks up your PC and bashes him into the floor is kind of cool.  Your primary defenses against having this happen to you are, first, your touch AC,



While the larger point of high-level monsters being impossible to beat in a grapple is mostly true (there are a few feats for fighter-types that enable them to hold their own), it should be noted that grappling monsters are not targetting your touch AC.  They have to hit your real AC, which is much easier to pump up.  They also have to know where you are, which makes concealment effects (_blur, displacement_, or _blink/darkness_/cloud spells if you don't mind giving the monster concealment too) yet another defense against getting eaten.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 8, 2008)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> if the rules give a clear model of how events are be judged in the rules I don't care if its a physical model or not




Hr.  I was using a particular well-known physical model as an example, but this has nothing to do with requiring game-rules to be physical models.  Let me try it another way...

The complaint I was responding to was about how the rules don't really cover everything, and the question was how "the rules aren't physics" somehow excuses that.

My point is that it doesn't - even in the real world, it is understood that the "rules of physics" as we understand them, have holes, edge cases, and things that otherwise don't behave as intuition or logic tells you they would.  Ergo, the rules having holes is _just like physics_.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 8, 2008)

senna said:
			
		

> * - Poison doing ability damage causes poisons to be much more dangerous than they need to be.*
> 
> Poison was dangerous because it ruined your character in no time, It was TOO dangerous, a simple poison witch does 1 to 3 con damage were realy dangerous, a little less danger would be a good thing, not no danger at all, but now that poison does damage AND can have carier efects i think we can have the better of the two worlds.




Poison doesn't "ruin" any character in 3E. It temporarily debilitates them, which is far less dangerous than outright killing them if they blow the save. Plus, there are more spells that can fix the problem than there were in previous editions including Lesser Restoration and Restoration. 
In my opinion, the shift in poisons in 3E is, I think, one of the most welcome changes they made.




			
				senna said:
			
		

> * - Mounted combat that leads to a 'kill the horse' strategy always being the best.*
> 
> 
> but the only problem its that make the battle boring, you have a cheap shot, a charge, and thats it the players kill the mount, and the knight is toast because every single one of his abilities are about making him a beter knight. This is a case where playability trumps reality!




Then the knight shouldn't be built so that "every single one of his abilities" is based on being on a horse. I have a player in my game who has maxed out her mounted abilities and she still kicks ass and chews plenty of bubblegum on foot. She just kicks more ass on the horse because her charges are better.

If we get into the playability vs reality debate too much, what's the dividing line between appropriately playable and just plain dumb? If the knight is really effective on his horse and is relatively neutralized without it, then the _smart_ tactic is to deprive him of his horse by any means necessary. But if the knight whines about losing his horse too much, then what's to stop other players from whining about any tactic that neutralizes their powers? Do the rules then have to remove the ability to grapple with spellcasters? Remove the possibility of setting up anti-magic zones? Remove the possibility of energy resistant defenses because that would neutralize my fire-specializing wizard?

Does the penalty have to shift to the side defending against the cool powers and builds by making them unmootable rather than hitting the side that overspecialized in their cool powers and tactics?


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> And no, this doesn't mean that a kobold gets to grapple just as well as an ancient dragon.  Unless its a kobold with 23 character class levels in a martial class, and an elite ability score array, in which case it might get close.  I don't know why you thought otherwise, but consider the matter settled.



I considered it settled when I raised the question originally in response to the complaint that 'size category affects grapple'.  Of course it does.  An enormous dragon is going to have an enormous bonus to grapple, much like a medium sized PC is going to have an enormous advantage over a Fine size creature.

But, I appreciate you doing the math for me.  I am lazy,and don't have my books available.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 8, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> So, no real changes to either, then.  Meaning that NPCs sometimes play by the same rules as PCs, but sometimes not.  Which means, internal consistency is rather compromised.




I'm not sure how. I mean, Wizards use the same rules as Commoners, except when they don't.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> But, it still describes the philosophy.  PCs only.  Unless the DM says otherwise.  _Which is not a change at all_.  Everyone seemed to breathe a sigh of relief because those pesky NPCs aren't getting raised all over the place now.  Except, they weren't before either, unless the DM allowed it.




Right. Because DMs were either adding fluff/mechanics to exclude it, handwaving the issue, or allowing NPCs to get raised all over the place.

The change is that DMs who don't want NPCs getting raised all over the place don't have to invent new fluff/mechanics to prevent it or handwave the issue anymore, and DMs who want NPCs to get raised have to remove or alter that fluff/mechanic.

Naturally, those for whom creating the fluff/mechanic and/or handwaving wasn't a big deal, this is "no change". For those who didn't like having to do that, they're happy. For those who were fine with NPCs getting raised all over the place, they probably won't be happy, unless they also think that loosening the fluff/mechanic and/or handwaving it away isn't a big deal.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Which is more or less precisely how it works now.  Access to a high level cleric and 5-10 thousand in diamonds isn't exactly a common graduation gift for first level adventurers in any previous edition.  Until 'Paragon Tier' in previous versions, it was pretty difficult to get raised also.




"More or less" precisely? For varying degrees of "more" or "less", sure.

According to the demographics in the 3E DMG, 9th-level clerics aren't _all_ that hard to find. I mean, it can take some work, but you can do it. And 5,000 in diamonds doesn't typically happen at first level, but a party of 3rd-4th characters with PC wealth could scrape together the money to raise their friend if they were willing. Heck, it only takes a 10% 'tithe' or 'property tax' from about 60 1st-level NPCs to gather the wealth necessary to raise a dead king. Spread that out over a kingdom and it's a pittance.

There are plenty of reasons why that king (or the 3rd-level PCs) might not get raised. It's not even that hard, IMO, to come up with one in most cases, but sometimes it's a stretch. For people who encountered those stretches with some frequency, the change is meaningful.


----------



## drjones (Apr 8, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> So, no real changes to either, then.  Meaning that NPCs sometimes play by the same rules as PCs, but sometimes not.  Which means, internal consistency is rather compromised.




Monsters and PCs also both have hit points. Oh noes!


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 8, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> While the larger point of high-level monsters being impossible to beat in a grapple is mostly true (there are a few feats for fighter-types that enable them to hold their own), it should be noted that grappling monsters are not targetting your touch AC.  They have to hit your real AC, which is much easier to pump up.  They also have to know where you are, which makes concealment effects (_blur, displacement_, or _blink/darkness_/cloud spells if you don't mind giving the monster concealment too) yet another defense against getting eaten.



I'm not sure what you mean.  Step 2 in grappling is a touch attack.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean.  Step 2 in grappling is a touch attack.




Most of the monsters that _initiate_ grapples do so with improved grab, which is usually performed by a regular melee attack and not a touch attack.


----------



## Andor (Apr 8, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> To be more accurate, Newtonian physics that make spaceships behave like WWII-era _aircraft_ that clumsy database admins and teenagers could pilot work for space flight sims, at least the ones people play for fun.
> 
> Or, said another way, playability trumps simulation every damn time. This guiding principle can also be applied to other games.




Unless of course, you're someone like me who, not being dog ignorant of physics, cringes every time he sees 'airplanes in space' and wonders what the hell is so hard about making an accurate space flight sim. 

Similarly, if the rules are not actually how things work in the game world, but merely how my character perceives things to work, then I'm not really playing that character as far as I'm concerned. I'm playing what that character hallucinates as he sits in the corner of his padded cell. This is not good playability.

The 4e discussion is making it quite clear that some players want to do cool stuff, and don't care about what the world they do it in is like any more than Roy cares about listening to NPCs.

Others like to look at all that cool stuff and see a world in which it makes sense. A decanter of endless water means you can have a watermill anywhere. A permanant heat metal means you can have central heating. ("But they didn't have central heating in medieval europe!" someone whines. So what? The Romans did, although powered by slaves instead of magic.) A permanant chill metal = refrigerators. Only when we ask about these things the type 1 GM tells us we are thinking too much. Which tells us that the entire world is populated by dribbling morons, despite all those 18 ints.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> No, not disingenuous. I genuinely don't understand what you're saying.
> 
> NOTE: I just noticed that you clarified that the heart of your problem with 4e was my wilful misinterpretation. OK, fair enough. I'm not bundled with the 4e rulebooks*, though, so your dislike of me shouldn't affect your enjoyment of the game.
> 
> *I do, however, come with DDI, via the Virtual Rex Table!



I apologize, then, for my own misinterpretation, and there is no dislike between us from my end.  I hope I haven't engendered any from yours.



> I understand your point 2, "raise dead has not changed one whit". No problem there. But I don't understand your point 1 at all:
> 
> "The first point is, why is healing different than raise dead for NPCs?"
> _How_ is healing different from raise dead for NPCs? Is this difference unique to 4e?
> ...



Actually, it rather is.  Allow me to clarify: there is a comparison, and a sub-point.  The comparison is between healing and raise dead.  Why are NPCs allowed one and not the other?  Not the fluff, really, not the mechanics, but what problem was this intended to fix?  This bring us to the sub-point:  who was having a problem with NPCs getting raised all the time?  In this edition and all previous ones, it was ultimately the DMs choice.  There were already limitations in place.  9th level Cleric (suspiciously close to Paragon level.   ).  5,000 gp in _diamonds_.  Not cash, not a +3 Flametongue, not a suit of Mithril Plate of Etheralness.  Diamonds.  Plus an intact corpse no more than a week dead.  For Resurrection, the financing was even more stringent.  10,000 in diamonds and a 13th level Cleric.  Perhaps the king has a stash of diamonds and a high level cleric on retinue for such exigencies, but even a smidgin of verisimilitude suggests that the king won't be trotting out the cleric and a pile of diamonds every time some Tom, Duke or Baron gets themselves killed in a peasant uprising.



> "Does it work when they are at zero? Or negatives?"
> These are questions we haven't been told the answer to. However, I seem to remember a developer saying that the DM can just declare that all the dropped enemies are dead, so you don't have to go around the battlefield slitting throats after the battle. So this is an area where you may have a point that PCs will be explicitly treated differently than NPCs.



I would say that part is an indicator that NPCs are dead at zero, full stop.  As a tactical option, I am not sure if that is what I would want in a game.    Having your followers/henchmen falling out every battle could end up a problem.



> "Does the DM let the entire mission fail because the NPC dies without an 'epic destiny' to allow them to be raised? Or does mission failure count as a 'destiny' for that NPC?"
> I am sure that the intent is that the DM can choose to allow this NPC to be raised, if it allows the PC's mission to continue. However, if it makes things more interesting, the DM can mandate that the NPC stay dead. As you say, no different from 3e. So, this is not where your criticism of 4e lies.



That is correct.  I don't necessarily have a problem with this in 4e.  What sets me off is the notion that it is some great innovation.  Especially since the later few announcements seem to comprise the same notion.  A re-statement of how things are currently done so as to sound like a quantum leap of advancement.



> "More importantly, how is that different than how it was handled in 3.x? I hear all kinds of people talking about how NPCs can be raised by high level clerics, but no talk of DMs simply saying "No, they can't be raised". I didn't seem to have a problem with NPCs getting raised behind my back when I was DMing."
> Agreed. You maintain that 4e raise is no different from 3e raise dead - it's up to the DM. So this is not where your criticism of 4e lies.



I should have included this in the quote above.  



> I hope you'll understand my confusion and excuse me from the charge of being disingenuous. It seems to me that you are criticizing 4e, but I can't find any specific charges you level at it - except that it's unclear whether NPCs participate in the "dying" rules. Is that your problem with 4e?



As a factor of the strict-ish separation of PC and NPC rules, that would be more or less accurate.  As an adjunct of the point that the rules are more streamlined, as well.  To me, having NPCs following different rules than PCs by design will add to the handle time, at the very least.  I have pointed out in other places how monster sub-systems will also add to handle time, and raise conflicts with players.  Bugbear strangling, for example, or kobold firepots.  Using rules to separate these things is problematic.

Again, I apologize for my earlier comments, and I hope I have clarified my views on this.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Sword Chucks and Arrows in your chest are also very lethal. Many people used to die to this when such weapons where still commonly applied. And then there was tetanus and similar unfriendly things that could kill or debilitate you even if you were just wounded, not killed.



Not as often as common knowledge would indicate.  For example, unlike TV shows, it is rare for someone to fall over dead from a single knife stab.  Without getting too morbid, I would advise looking up some crime statistics before basing an argument on the assumption that people are as frail as blown glass.



> But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to use such stuff in a game where you do combat more then the few times regular humans do or did it...



There have been career soldiers for as long as there have been armies.  Not all survivors of a battle were the ones that stayed in the back lines and didn't get hit.



> As an extreme opinion: Why not? In turn, he deals a lot more damage, and can fling grappled targets around? And even if his chance is better, does it need to become auto-success? Why aren't his normal attacks auto-success? I mean, if he'd jump on a heavy armored Fighte,r that guy could move the required distance to evade the attack?



Off the top of my head, I would say a dragon is about the size of a 747.  Further, it is about 100ft away from someone bearing down on them at about 300mph, which means that person has about a quarter second to get out of the way.  With a wingspan of roughly 200ft, that person would have to run at about 600mph to get clear of the wing before the plane/dragon hits them.

Where would you place those odds?  Further, where would you place the odds of that person knocking the front landing gear out of the way?



> I'd say that's plain wrong. A +2 bonus to attacks is a +2 bonus to attacks. It might change from round to round, but it's only a single change. But a +4 enhancement bonus to Constitution means +2hp/level more hit points, a +2 to your fortitude save, and a +2 bonus to your Concentration Checks. But wait, didn't you already have another +2 enhancement bonus item that you already calculated in? Oh, and then you did get 1d10+Con temporary hit points from Heroes Feast. Did you remember that?



Except we are talking about an aura bonus to Spot checks, for example, that may change suddenly when the Elf moves too far away.  But not too far away from everyone, just a couple of characters.  One of which might be the Cleric with a healing aura.

Additionally, a +2 bonus to attacks at first level for a fighter is 200% better than they had.  at 20th level, it is an increase of 10%.  Clearly, a static bonus to attacks is level dependent.



> Such DM brains are doomed to explode. But what is with DMs that just like to run a 10th level group against a Yuan-Ti Temple. Did you consider how many stats you have to create just to have enough Yuan-Ti in the apporpriate level range, without every encounter being a rehash? Considered how much effort it is to stat-up the Yuan-Ti High Priest alone?



Without every encounter being a re-hash?  Like the 12th group of Kobold Skirmishers for the day?  Like the Bugbear Strangler that everyone knows to keep pushing away with the Warlord's powers?

How many stats are needed to populate a Yuan-Ti temple?  One Yuan-Ti's worth.  Vary weapons if you want, add or subtract d20 hit points as needed.  Stat up the High Priest and his three servitors.  Fifteen minutes, tops.



> Spell-Like abilities of considerably lower level then typical for the CR. Or spell-like abilities plainly inferior to any other options. Dragons with full sorceror spell-casting that was usually inferior to their regular attack routine. (But at least two buffs could totally break them - Mage Armor & Shield)



These two?



> Mage Armour
> Level:  	Sor/Wiz 1
> Components: 	V, S, F
> Casting Time: 	1 standard action
> ...



You are claiming a +8AC bonus will _totally negate_ a dragon?  Or even it's spell casting?  Or are you claiming the +8AC bonus applies to all saving throws?  If that is the case, why doesn't the dragon cast the same spells and negate the party Wizard?



> Why is Use Rope a skill at all? How many situations do you need it, compared to, say, Spot or Diplomacy? What are the in-game effects of a typical Use Rope skill compared to that of a typical Spot or Diplomacy check? How do I even know what DCs are appropriate for a party (without becoming to difficult or becoming a unintented cake-walk). I can use CR to eyeball monster encounters. Why isn't there anything that allows me to do the same for skills?



Do you mean something like this?

Rope Use has as many uses as rope does, I guess.  I mean, it really feels like the development team or marketing or whoever are inventing these problems, and people run with them, then repeat them endlessly like gospel truth.  If a particular group doesn't use each and every skill for every situation, it hardly means the skill is useless.  It may be useless in that group.  It may be that particular DM can't or won't create situations where a diverse set of skills is usable.  None of that is particularly relevant.  If a specific group doesn't use a skill, that is not even remotely evidence the skill is useless.



> Oh, the mechanics do what they are intented to do. But they are usually so much inferior to regular types of attacks, why bother?



I have heard similar things about many at-will powers from playtesters at DDXP and other playtests.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> Monsters and PCs also both have hit points. Oh noes!



And AC!  Where does the madness stop??

Well, roughly there, it appears.  Monsters have their own mini-system of powers that PCs can't access, among other differences.


----------



## DandD (Apr 8, 2008)

As has been pointed out, Player Characters also have their own mini-system of powers that monsters can't access. 

It's not that bad.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Apr 8, 2008)

5,000 gp in diamonds is exactly the same as 5,000 gp in cash - by definition.  As long as there is ANY fleck of diamond dust to be had, the spell should work.  It does not say a 5 carat diamond.  Value, in terms of gp, is determined not by size, but by supply and demand.


----------



## Kordeth (Apr 8, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> 5,000 gp in diamonds is exactly the same as 5,000 gp in cash - by definition.  As long as there is ANY fleck of diamond dust to be had, the spell should work.  It does not say a 5 carat diamond.  Value, in terms of gp, is determined not by size, but by supply and demand.




Suddenly I have the image of a Lawful Evil tyrant painstakingly throttling the import of diamonds into his kingdom so that the value of one fleck of diamond dust is worth 5,000 gp, just so the Royal Diamond Vault can be used to resurrect him a million times.

Hmm...is resurrection magic influenced by the local economy, or by the act of purchasing? If the former (i.e., if I take diamonds I bought for 50 gp to a place where diamonds are worth 100 times as much, does the spell work?), it suggests that economics is a real, tangible force in the D&D world akin to gravity or the strong nuclear force and opens up a potentially fascinating field of arcane study. (_protection from inflation, 10' radius_, anyone?) If the latter, it suggests that the gods are monitoring your offering purchase and, as Greek myth proves (and as is borne out by D&D deities having stat blocks), it should be possible for a twinked-out Bluff-focused rogue to pull a fast one and have the king raised for the offering of three pebbles and a bit of string.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 8, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Unless of course, you're someone like me who, not being dog ignorant of physics, cringes every time he sees 'airplanes in space' and wonders what the hell is so hard about making an accurate space flight sim.



No-one said making more accurate space sims was difficult. They'd appeal to a tiny audience that you happen to belong to. Me, I'd rather spend my free time zooming around in a virtual Tie-Fighter...  



> Similarly, if the rules are not actually how things work in the game world, but merely how my character perceives things to work, then I'm not really playing that character as far as I'm concerned.



What? 



> A permanant heat metal means you can have central heating. ("But they didn't have central heating in medieval europe!" someone whines. So what? The Romans did, although powered by slaves instead of magic.) A permanant chill metal = refrigerators.



This is only important if the thrust of the campaign involves a kingdom going condo.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean.  Step 2 in grappling is a touch attack.



Which grappling monsters bypass via the Improved Grab ability.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 8, 2008)

Stormbringer, no offense taken. I just like to debate, and don't take it personally. I think I understand your position now. 

Personally, I believe the tweak to Raise Dead is a change, and a good one. I'll offer my argument:

(NOTE: Before anyone mentions it, I know that a good DM can get around the problems I'm going to mention. I'm just saying that, if it's now easier, then hooray!)

One interesting thing about the 3.5 rules as written is that Raise Dead is not very hard to achieve.

1) 9th level clerics are common. On page 139 of the DMG we see that the highest-level cleric in a small city is of level 6+1d6 (roll twice). So the odds are, I believe, 8 in 9 that a small city has at least 1 9th-level cleric. (Large cities are just brimming with clerics of level 9+.) Knowing this, I'd imagine that most smart kings, dukes, and barons would live within a week's ride of a city. (A pretty safe bet in any case.) In order to prevent access to 9th-level clerics, you'll have to run a campaign with lower-level NPCs than the rules assume. Also, if the clerics refuse to cast Raise Dead for the king, duke, or mayor, that sounds like it's pretty close to treason - at least, it will be difficult, politically, to pull off. I think Eberron was partly inspired by a dissatisfaction with the ubiquity of high-level magic like Raise Dead.

2) Money is not that scarce. A 9th-level NPC, for instance, has wealth of 12,000. That means that the very same cleric who raises the king can probably afford to pay the entire price himself (even if he has to sell all his gear at 1/2 of its actual value). Not that he'd be asked to: I'm sure that most royalty and nobles have put away 5000 GP if it means that they can cheat death. In order to prevent important political figures to have access to 5,000, you'll have to choose to live in a fairly impoverished world. 

3) Diamonds aren't mentioned as particularly tough to acquire. As Thyrwyn mentioned, by definition, 5,000GP of diamonds are as much diamonds as you can buy on the open market for 5,000GP. And since a small city has a GP limit of 15,000, it'll be hard to explain why the diamonds can't be raised. Especially since royalty and nobles tend to have a lot of jewelry anyway. In order to prevent people with 5,000 GP from acquiring 5,000 GP of diamonds, you will have to resort to non-rule-supported DM fiat.

When making up campaign-world history, I occasionally like to make up bits like "Then Good King Roderigo was slain tragically on the battlefield in his moment of greatest triumph," without adding riders like "and unfortunately his body was lost/his cleric was unavailable for a week/they just couldn't find any diamonds/he decided he really liked the afterlife after all, thank you very much."

Furthermore, I would like to be able to run a "murder mystery" adventure without too much complication. Court intrigue is hampered when every assassination can be undone unless people are soul-trapped or the court unaccountably doesn't have any high-level clerics - not to mention the PCs' ability to cast Raise Dead. Sure, the DM can disallow or prevent Raise Dead - it's just that the DM has to fight the rules a little bit to do it. A minor tweak which prevents rules-wrestling is a good thing, in my opinion.

Now, believe it or not, these problems I had with Raise Dead were all things I thought of BEFORE the 4e developers mentioned them, so I personally am not just repeating things by rote. I went so far as to work on tweaks and rule adjustments to fix them (i'll admit, I like an internally consistent campaign world - I plead guilty to simulationist leanings). In 4e, I may have to houserule other things, but not the raise dead rules, I believe.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 8, 2008)

Bill Slavicsek told me access to raise dead is not restricted to PCs.  It is really not much different for 3e, except the "ritual" is needed as opposed to it being someones class ability


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> 5,000 gp in diamonds is exactly the same as 5,000 gp in cash - by definition.  As long as there is ANY fleck of diamond dust to be had, the spell should work.  It does not say a 5 carat diamond.  Value, in terms of gp, is determined not by size, but by supply and demand.



But the spell requires 5,000 gp worth of _diamonds_.  I would be relatively sure that most temples or other places of Clerical worship don't have hundreds of thousands of gp worth of diamonds lying around in order to change out for gold when people need to be raised.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> As has been pointed out, Player Characters also have their own mini-system of powers that monsters can't access.
> 
> It's not that bad.



That is the other side of the problem.  In 3.x, you knew there was a fairly consistent setup.  While often abused in a number of places, it was still consistent and you could call shenanigans.  Now, a monster can have any number of possibly wildly unbalanced powers, and there is no legitimate way of calling it without seeing first if it is really a party killing power.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 8, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Bill Slavicsek told me access to raise dead is not restricted to PCs.  It is really not much different for 3e, except the "ritual" is needed as opposed to it being someones class ability



So, we can put to rest the notion of how much better Raise Dead is handled in 4e?


----------



## Andor (Apr 9, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Similarly, if the rules are not actually how things work in the game world, but merely how my character perceives things to work, then I'm not really playing that character as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If you encounter someone who thinks that by wiggling his fingers he can shoot balls of fire from his hands, you have in fact met a crazy person. His perceptions, have little to do with reality as you and I and the car he thinks he just blew up experience it.

Conversely if my PC encouters a group of NPCs with a problem and says "Well why don't you just do _blah_, that always works for me." only to have the NPCs say "Yeah but that only works for you, we couldn't do that even if Smaug and Santa Claus got out and pushed." then my character is going to start to have serious doubts about his own sanity. Did he actually slay the dragon of blackrock or is he giggling to himself in a straightjacket somewhere? Am I playing this character, or merely describing his hallucinations?

Do you see? If PC and NPCs visibly operate under different rules, it produces a cognitive dissonance that shatters my suspension of disbelief and reduces my enjoyment in the game.  :\


----------



## Kordeth (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> But the spell requires 5,000 gp worth of _diamonds_.  I would be relatively sure that most temples or other places of Clerical worship don't have hundreds of thousands of gp worth of diamonds lying around in order to change out for gold when people need to be raised.




But by the wacky rules of the D&D economy, they _do./_



			
				DMG v3.5 said:
			
		

> *Community Wealth and Population*
> Every community has a gold piece limit based on its size and population. The gold piece limit (see Table 5–2) is an indicator of the price of the most expensive item available in that community. Nothing that costs more than a community’s gp limit is available for purchase in that community. Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical. While exceptions are certainly possible (a boomtown near a newly discovered mine, a farming community impoverished after a prolonged drought), these exceptions are temporary; all communities will conform to the norm over time.




In other words, a Small City or larger should easily be able to produce the goods required for a _raise dead_ spell.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 9, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> 5,000 gp in diamonds is exactly the same as 5,000 gp in cash - by definition. As long as there is ANY fleck of diamond dust to be had, the spell should work. It does not say a 5 carat diamond. Value, in terms of gp, is determined not by size, but by supply and demand.







			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> But the spell requires 5,000 gp worth of _diamonds_.  I would be relatively sure that most temples or other places of Clerical worship don't have hundreds of thousands of gp worth of diamonds lying around in order to change out for gold when people need to be raised.




You completely missed the point.

Economics and Supply/Demand equate the worth of a diamond, to an individual, exactly what they are willing to pay.

The single 1/4 carat diamond in my signet ring is worth $5000 to me. I'd want it back, and would reward for it, were it lost. 

I wouldn't pay $5K for a raw 1 carat diamond, without serious cause.


----------



## xechnao (Apr 9, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> If you encounter someone who thinks that by wiggling his fingers he can shoot balls of fire from his hands, you have in fact met a crazy person. His perceptions, have little to do with reality as you and I and the car he thinks he just blew up experience it.
> 
> Conversely if my PC encouters a group of NPCs with a problem and says "Well why don't you just do _blah_, that always works for me." only to have the NPCs say "Yeah but that only works for you, we couldn't do that even if Smaug and Santa Claus got out and pushed." then my character is going to start to have serious doubts about his own sanity. Did he actually slay the dragon of blackrock or is he giggling to himself in a straightjacket somewhere? Am I playing this character, or merely describing his hallucinations?
> 
> Do you see? If PC and NPCs visibly operate under different rules, it produces a cognitive dissonance that shatters my suspension of disbelief and reduces my enjoyment in the game.  :\




Right just before each session of D&D with your group get to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4tFzD13hmc

At least once every six months watch this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/

Otherwise you won't be able to play D&D


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 9, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> If you encounter someone who thinks that by wiggling his fingers he can shoot balls of fire from his hands, you have in fact met a crazy person. His perceptions, have little to do with reality as you and I and the car he thinks he just blew up experience it.
> 
> Conversely if my PC encouters a group of NPCs with a problem and says "Well why don't you just do _blah_, that always works for me." only to have the NPCs say "Yeah but that only works for you, we couldn't do that even if Smaug and Santa Claus got out and pushed." then my character is going to start to have serious doubts about his own sanity. Did he actually slay the dragon of blackrock or is he giggling to himself in a straightjacket somewhere? Am I playing this character, or merely describing his hallucinations?
> 
> Do you see? If PC and NPCs visibly operate under different rules, it produces a cognitive dissonance that shatters my suspension of disbelief and reduces my enjoyment in the game.  :\





There is *nothing* that we are aware of that prevents an NPC from accessing a PC's abilities. At all. Ever.
Its simply a matter of statting an NPC to have that ability.  Which is completely up tho the DM.

There is no reason a DM cannot stat an NPC with PC Classes. 
It is simplt acknowledge there are better methods, for throw-away characters, than a full stat block, and as opposed to simple experience, there are now guidelines and rules on doing this.

Equally, NPC abilties are perfectly suited to give DM's the ability to quickly, and with a solid degree of balance, expand the powers available to the PCS.

People, on this forum, some of them in particular, have this truly bizzare idea that the DND ruleset is self-contained.

Only one part of DND has ever been designed to be self-referential and self-contained, and that is the basic conflict resolution systems. 4e, IMO, is the first edition of the game to actually come close to realising that goal.

Everything else is left to the DM, AS IT SHOULD BE.

This isn't heroquest. Its not trying to be. It *can* be, if you want it to, be no more than a board-game. That's all the ruleset needs to be. That's the part that is simply too hard for most groups to establish and create. 

If the new rules give guidelines to other parts of world creation, like the DMG has previously, (And there is every reason to believe there is even more of a focus on this) then that is fantastic.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Unless of course, you're someone like me who, not being dog ignorant of physics, cringes every time he sees 'airplanes in space' and wonders what the hell is so hard about making an accurate space flight sim.




Nothing is particularly hard about it. There simply aren't that many of you, compared to the number of people who want to blow things up in Tie Fighter. So you just have to suck it up, or write it yourself.



> Similarly, if the rules are not actually how things work in the game world, but merely how my character perceives things to work, then I'm not really playing that character as far as I'm concerned. I'm playing what that character hallucinates as he sits in the corner of his padded cell. This is not good playability.




If thinking leads to pain, and hallucinating leads to fun, I choose hallucinating!


----------



## Andor (Apr 9, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> If thinking leads to pain, and hallucinating leads to fun, I choose hallucinating!




Some of us find thinking fun...


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Some of us find thinking fun...



 But in this case, it is causing you pain. So you can choose to either continue suffering the pain, or stop it and have fun.


----------



## xechnao (Apr 9, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> But in this case, it is causing you pain. So you can choose to either continue suffering the pain, or stop it and have fun.




Heh. You speak as if D&D being fun is a law of reality.

EDIT: I know. I need to take a course of physics.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 9, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Heh. You speak as if D&D being fun is a law of reality.




If it isn't, then it should be, because otherwise, what's the point?


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 9, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> You completely missed the point.
> 
> Economics and Supply/Demand equate the worth of a diamond, to an individual, exactly what they are willing to pay.
> 
> ...




Yes, that's true in our world.  In our world, a man in a nightdress flinging sulphrous bat poo at you is not a deadly threat, human-shaped creatures taller than about eight feet start suffering from massive health problems, and dragons can't breathe fire and don't fly.

In D&D, these facts, like the absence of an absolute standard worth, are true.  In D&D, they aren't.  Items intrinsically have a price, and a number of metaphysical effects in the game world are dependent on them.  5000 gp worth of diamonds is an absolute amount of diamond, totally independant of what any or all people are willing to pay for diamonds.  It's a term-of-art thing.


----------



## xechnao (Apr 9, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> If it isn't, then it should be, because otherwise, what's the point?




To find out if or how we can succeed in this?


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 9, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> To find out if or how we can succeed in this?




Success in regards to a game is meaningless if enjoyment is lacking.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> To find out if or how we can succeed in this?



 Andor has already admitted that thinking is causing him pain. Therefore, to succeed at having fun and not having pain, he simply has to stop thinking.


----------



## xechnao (Apr 9, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Success in regards to a game is meaningless if enjoyment is lacking.




 I was talking about success in enjoyment. It is not guaranteed. Some people are not convinced by some games and perhaps never will. Yet they might succeed (enjoying themselves) in some others.


----------



## xechnao (Apr 9, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Andor has already admitted that thinking is causing him pain. Therefore, to succeed at having fun and not having pain, he simply has to stop thinking.




But thinking is a method that it may lead to new ideas and thus perhaps the solutions one needs to find. So, some humans may have more success to arrive to their aim by thinking rather than faith and the fact is that they are completely aware of this (thus Andor's claim of thinking being fun to him).


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Yes, that's true in our world.  In our world, a man in a nightdress flinging sulphrous bat poo at you is not a deadly threat, human-shaped creatures taller than about eight feet start suffering from massive health problems, and dragons can't breathe fire and don't fly.
> 
> In D&D, these facts, like the absence of an absolute standard worth, are true.  In D&D, they aren't.  Items intrinsically have a price, and a number of metaphysical effects in the game world are dependent on them.  5000 gp worth of diamonds is an absolute amount of diamond, totally independant of what any or all people are willing to pay for diamonds.  It's a term-of-art thing.




Yes.. and under the terms that it is true in DND, those diamonds will be available anywere the population can support a max price of 5000g.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 9, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> Yes.. and under the terms that it is true in DND, those diamonds will be available anywere the population can support a max price of 5000g.




Oh, yes.  Most people either turn their D&D worlds into full-on dungeonpunk worlds that bear no resemblance to any genre but high-level D&D, or treat the expected wealth and leveled NPC by community charts the same way they do cleave and the bag of rats.  The rules produce bad results, so they're axed and better rules are substituted.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> But thinking is a method that it may lead to new ideas and thus perhaps the solutions one needs to find.




And indeed, many people have suggested ideas and solutions to the problems mentioned. Unfortunately, all the thinking that has gone on does not appear to have facilitated the acceptance of these ideas and solutions. The answer, therefore, is to stop thinking.



> So, some humans may have more success to arrive to their aim by thinking rather than faith and the fact is that they are completely aware of this (thus Andor's claim of thinking being fun to him).




And if it is fun, he will no longer be having pain. The solution to this conundrum is obvious.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Oh, yes. Most people either turn their D&D worlds into full-on dungeonpunk worlds that bear no resemblance to any genre but high-level D&D, or treat the expected wealth and leveled NPC by community charts the same way they do cleave and the bag of rats. The rules produce bad results, so they're axed and better rules are substituted.




I guess you could almost say that... the rules... should not be treated like the physics... of... nah, I almost had a good thought, but I lost it.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 9, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> And indeed, many people have suggested ideas and solutions to the problems mentioned. Unfortunately, all the thinking that has gone on does not appear to have facilitated the acceptance of these ideas and solutions. The answer, therefore, is to stop thinking.




You presume that the objective of these debates is to facilitate the conception and adoption of solutions.  This is, of course, entirely false.  Most of the posters have already hashed and rehashed all the ideas under discussion.  The objective of these debates is the thrill of rhetorical cut and parry, interspersed with the occasional verbal blow to the head.


----------



## ogre (Apr 9, 2008)

> I guess you could almost say that... the rules... should not be treated like the physics... of... nah, I almost had a good thought, but I lost it.




 
... and that finishes the thread (for me). Thank you. Rex.


----------



## Andor (Apr 9, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Andor has already admitted that thinking is causing him pain. Therefore, to succeed at having fun and not having pain, he simply has to stop thinking.




Not in the least, and I'd rather you didn't put words into my mouth. Thinking is fun. What is painful to me is when other people fail to think. Particularly when they then get angry about the fact that I like to think and they don't. This phenomenon is not limited to D&D btw.

If you don't like to think, by all means don't, but don't presume to judge me or my fun. After all, exercising judgement unpleasant to you.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 9, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> I guess you could almost say that... the rules... should not be treated like the physics... of... nah, I almost had a good thought, but I lost it.




I have had an epiphany.

The 'rules are not the physics of the game world' mean 'the rules as presented in the default materials are not necessarily the final word on how the world operates'.  As I understand it, you all aren't saying 'there are no rules'; instead, you're simply reserving the right to modify the rules and get new (and generally better) results.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Apr 9, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Most awesome crit & fumble tables eva.




I don't know, what could be better than 'Head pulped and spattered over a wide area' from the original Arduin Grimoire?

Ken


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

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




From WAY upthread.  What do you do?  Well, that's what a DM is for.  If the rules and the physics never conflicted, then we could model it perfectly well with a computer and cut the DM out entirely.  Heck, even without a computer, you still wouldn't need a DM whatsoever.  You could pull out a random generator and play D&D without any problems.

When the rules conflict with the expectations of the game world (a better phrase IMO than physics) then it's up to the DM to fix things.  If the rules on their own could produce perfect game worlds, then we'd have the ultimate gaming system.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Oh I get it. You judge the effectiveness of any ability just by its value in combat as if D&D consisted only out of a endless string of combat encounters.




Nice straw man that.  

Look at the list of abilities that many creatures got.  Most of them were never, ever used.  Sure, the option was there, but, if it's never used, it's just wasting page count.  OTOH, how do you explain how mind flayers have mind controlled slaves when, by RAW, they have no charm/domination powers?

We can play this game all day long.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> I have had an epiphany.
> 
> The 'rules are not the physics of the game world' mean 'the rules as presented in the default materials are not necessarily the final word on how the world operates'.  As I understand it, you all aren't saying 'there are no rules'; instead, you're simply reserving the right to modify the rules and get new (and generally better) results.




Pretty much.  The rules as presented are simply mechanics for determining the outcome of actions taken by the players.  They may apply to the wider world, or they may not.  Again, that's what the DM is for.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Not in the least, and I'd rather you didn't put words into my mouth. Thinking is fun. What is painful to me is when other people fail to think.




This practice of getting pained by things over which you have no control, it is self-destructive. Perhaps you should get pained by the things over which you do have control.



> Particularly when they then get angry about the fact that I like to think and they don't. This phenomenon is not limited to D&D btw.




Of course, they are the ones having fun, and you are the one complaining.



> If you don't like to think, by all means don't, but don't presume to judge me or my fun. After all, exercising judgement unpleasant to you.




You are entirely free to continue thinking, no matter how much pain it causes you. I simply point out the alternative.


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 9, 2008)

I'm siding with the OP on this issue, but that is probably because I am an engineering student.  _Everything_ is physics to me nowadays.      I haven't read this entire thread (my Snark Meter pegged out after the first two pages), but in case nobody has said it yet, I'll chime in:

DM fiat and flipping a coin are perfectly legitimate methods of solving conflict.  So is explaining the difference between physics and make-believe, if that works for your group.  It doesn't work for us, but we engineering nerds are a special case.  So when/if I go to 4E, I am looking at doing a lot of creative writing and improv.

That said, "because the rules say so" is and will always be a lousy explaination for anything.  "This ain't the real world" is not any better.   I'm not asking for a three-hundred page thesis on the biochemical processes involved in Healing Surges, but a paragraph or two about what happens to our burns, cuts, and bruises when we use them would rock.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 9, 2008)

If its divine, they close up. If its martial, or a second wind, nothing. You soldier on. Later, over night, at camp, you bandage and cleanse.

Also, being an engineer student has nothing to do with, sorry.

I have a doctorate of chemistry, a civil engineer, a material scientist, a programmer and myself, in my group. We all understand the difference between a ruleset, and the 'reality' of a fantasy world.

The fantasy world is its own reality. It is not supposed to model our world. It should be internally consistent, unless you're deliberately playing something where reality itself is fluid.


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 9, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> If its divine, they close up. If its martial, or a second wind, nothing. You soldier on. Later, over night, at camp, you bandage and cleanse.



This makes sense...I can easily describe that from a narrative point of view, without having to get into psychology and morale and whatnot.  My players want to know that when they hit a monster, they are rending flesh and smashing bone...so if that monster uses a healing surge, they don't want to hear how all of that hacking and slashing "wasn't real" or "wasn't as bad as it first seemed."  The monster soldiering on in spite of his wounds works for me, but I can see where some might find it unsatisfying.



			
				VannATLC said:
			
		

> The fantasy world is its own reality. It is not supposed to model our world.



This is still a lousy explaination, though.  The last time I said something to that effect, I got a lot of sarcastic "so are my _torches_ still working?" questions for the next two hours.

It is fine for our fantasy worlds to have a different reality...they _must_, since magic and elves and unicorns are all possible somehow.  But we have to convey those differences in our narrative as we describe the world to the players...not with a blanket statement that makes the players feel silly for asking a simple question.  That doesn't satisfy anyone's imagination.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 9, 2008)

I don't follow.

Its lousy, but its true?

You could, probably, build a world were torches didn't work under the same principles. It would take a *lot* of work for me to be happy with it, mind you. But it would be do-able.

And yes, those differences come across in Narrative, in whatever form it takes in your campaign. (I supply background 'common knowledge' for anything significantly out-of-the-expected.)

The blanket statement is fundamentally true. But it doesn't change the requirement for internal consistency. 

And most of the things I've seen in DnD of any flavour, that break consistency, are functions of the economic and social systems, not the combat rules, not anything else.
3.x had lots of interesting little things that offered SFA, for me. The skill system, functionally, offered little significant difference, in actual play, to that I've seen for 4e
The thing that most simulationsists seem to skip is how fundamentally broken the who DND economy is. >.>


----------



## Mallus (Apr 9, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Conversely if my PC encouters a group of NPCs with a problem and says "Well why don't you just do _blah_, that always works for me." only to have the NPCs say "Yeah but that only works for you, we couldn't do that even if Smaug and Santa Claus got out and pushed then my character is going to start to have serious doubts about his own sanity.."



Seeing as PC's have class levels and most NPC's do not (or they have a few non-adventuring class levels), what you describe is going to happen frequently, so your PC should probably start looking for a good therapist. 



> Am I playing this character, or merely describing his hallucinations?



Ask your DM.



> Do you see?



Not really.



> If PC and NPCs visibly operate under different rules, it produces a cognitive dissonance that shatters my suspension of disbelief and reduces my enjoyment in the game.



Haven't PC's and NPC's traditionally operated under different rules? Most NPC's don't have class levels. Which means that most of the observable people in the game space are going look like they are operating under 'visibly different rules'. The majority of NPC's can't fly, survive crossbows bolt to their bare chests, heal with a touch, etc. They don't gain XP, or they gain less/more slowly. They don't become superhuman. In other words, they don't behave at all like PC's, barring a few rare antagonists. The universe, so to speak, treats them differently. Kinda like protagonists, as a matter of fact.

Isn't 'different rules for different characters' the norm in D&D, throughout the different editions?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 9, 2008)

Before I begin, I'd like to say that I HAVE seen the rules, which may color my opinion slightly.  Although I can't really talk about the rules, I have a little bit of insight into the idea of "the rules are not the physics of the world."

The point of this idea is the meta-game acknowledgment that some things are more fun when playing a game than others.  It's no fun to sit in a corner for 2 hours waiting to be brought back after failing a save against poison the first round of combat.  It's no fun to realize that nothing you do on your turn matters at all because it is ineffective.  There are many other things in the list, but this gives you an good example.

However, when faced with a choice between two options, you need to make a choice one way or another.  For example, you are faced with:
1. Some poisons generally kill people within seconds
2. It is no fun to write pages of background for a character, show up to a game week after week getting attached to your character only to die with (nearly) no chance to stop it.  It's also no fun to have the BBEG drop dead immediately for the same reason.

Some DMs would be in favor of number 1 being the dominating factor and telling players to suck it up since they aren't going to break realism in order to make a player feel better about themselves.

Other DMs would simply make all poisons slow acting and make it impossible for the king to die in a round after eating some poisoned food.  That way when it is used against PCs, it won't immediately kill them.

The 4e philosophy is simply: Understand that both can be true.  The rules are used to describe PC and monster actions 95% of the time.  In terms of practicality, only 5% of the time do you use them for generic NPC #1.  So, simply write the rules so they only apply to the PCs.

The idea is then that PCs don't die to poisons in one round.  Neither do monsters.  The king does, however.  The PCs are simply hardier, blessed with a destiny, being watched over by the gods, and...well, are more fun to play that way.


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Apr 9, 2008)

Its just another way of saying the DM sometimes needs to operate outside the rules for the sake of the story.  Some people hate that idea, others don't.  Personally, I'm in favor of whatever makes the game the most fun.


----------



## Fenes (Apr 9, 2008)

The healing surge can be easily explained if one (like the official rules) sees the hitpoints not as actual health/flesh/bone, but avoidance pool. Until the last blow that fells the target, one does not really hit it, one glances, tires it, bruises it, and so on, until luck and "evasion-stamina" are used up.

(It also works very well with the "the last blow decides whether someone is killed or knocked out" stance.)


----------



## xechnao (Apr 9, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Before I begin, I'd like to say that I HAVE seen the rules, which may color my opinion slightly.  Although I can't really talk about the rules, I have a little bit of insight into the idea of "the rules are not the physics of the world."
> 
> The point of this idea is the meta-game acknowledgment that some things are more fun when playing a game than others.  It's no fun to sit in a corner for 2 hours waiting to be brought back after failing a save against poison the first round of combat.  It's no fun to realize that nothing you do on your turn matters at all because it is ineffective.  There are many other things in the list, but this gives you an good example.
> 
> ...




I think what is missing from D&D as part of the fun is that there are no rules for PC goals apart from leveling in your class. PCs are more of the archetype classes than human beings. Through mechanics PCs should explicitly have a goal, know the risks and even if they die in the process know that they have accomplished something. D&D is missing a mechanism of this kind but I believe if done correctly, it could answer this whole problematic over here.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> I think what is missing from D&D as part of the fun is that there are no rules for PC goals apart from leveling in your class. PCs are more of the archetype classes than human beings. Through mechanics PCs should explicitly have a goal, know the risks and even if they die in the process know that they have accomplished something. D&D is missing a mechanism of this kind but I believe if done correctly, it could answer this whole problematic over here.




With the Epic Destiny, you may well get something very close to what you want, depending on how easy it is to conceptualize lower-level version.

There's also been a lot of hints dropped about some sort of "quest" mechanic, which may satisfy this craving.


----------



## Andor (Apr 9, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> The fantasy world is its own reality. It is not supposed to model our world. It should be internally consistent, unless you're deliberately playing something where reality itself is fluid.




Yes, exactly. Just so. 



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Haven't PC's and NPC's traditionally operated under different rules? Most NPC's don't have class levels. Which means that most of the observable people in the game space are going look like they are operating under 'visibly different rules'. The majority of NPC's can't fly, survive crossbows bolt to their bare chests, heal with a touch, etc. They don't gain XP, or they gain less/more slowly. They don't become superhuman. In other words, they don't behave at all like PC's, barring a few rare antagonists. The universe, so to speak, treats them differently. Kinda like protagonists, as a matter of fact.
> 
> Isn't 'different rules for different characters' the norm in D&D, throughout the different editions?




Yes, and it always drove me nuts. Frex in the early days of RPGs (not just D&D) the making of magic items was almost always restricted to NPCs. This drove me mad, that I could play a mage powerful enough to reshape reality or challange the gods, but making a +1 Sword was beyond me. Simply because I was a PC and it was restricted to NPCs because it was assumed the GMs couldn't deal with PCs with the power make a Hanky of Infinite Noseblowing.

If I want to wander around in a world where everybody but my character is a souless, nameless cipher I will play a computer game. If I walk into the closest 7-11 and start talking to the clerk they will have a name, a family, hobbies, and opinions. In a RPG I expect my character to experience that same degree of verisimilitude. Yes, my character (past a few levels) can take a crossbow bolt to the chest and the clerk probably can't. So what? At the start of his career the character couldn't either. IRL there are a lot of things I can do that some other people can't, and vice versa. Some of these are simply a matter of training. I can't run a marathon right now, but if I were to spend a year training, I could.

What there is not however, is laws of physics that work for me but not for other people. If an NPC can perform a trick with a weapon, I expect that my PC weaponsmaster, with the same or greater strength and dexterity, can also learn that same trick. Being told that harpoons don't work right for PCs is not an answer I'm prepared to put up with. I had enough of that crap in older editions of D&D and I see no need to switch to 4e if it means I have to put up with that garbage again. 



			
				Hong said:
			
		

> This practice of getting pained by things over which you have no control, it is self-destructive. Perhaps you should get pained by the things over which you do have control.




You mean like what RPGs I choose to play, based on how they match my expectations? Yes that's exactly what I intend to do, thank you.


----------



## xechnao (Apr 9, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> With the Epic Destiny, you may well get something very close to what you want, depending on how easy it is to conceptualize lower-level version.
> 
> There's also been a lot of hints dropped about some sort of "quest" mechanic, which may satisfy this craving.




Still no good. It has to be a mechanic tied to your development. As long as the mechanic of development is class levels there has been no solution yet.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 9, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> I think what is missing from D&D as part of the fun is that there are no rules for PC goals apart from leveling in your class. PCs are more of the archetype classes than human beings. Through mechanics PCs should explicitly have a goal, know the risks and even if they die in the process know that they have accomplished something. D&D is missing a mechanism of this kind but I believe if done correctly, it could answer this whole problematic over here.



But that's the entire point to playing D&D.  It is a cooperative fantasy game.  The point is that each player plays a character who has abilities which compliment each other in order to accomplish a shared goal.  It's a game.  It isn't meant to model human beings.  It is meant to model characters who are the "avatars" of the players in the game world.

Even if it tried to do the things you want, it wouldn't be a solution to the problem I listed.  Even if they DM said, "You worked to accomplish your goals for the last 6 months of playing, you died in the pursuit of those goals and you did well, you get X benefit.  Now roll up a new character to continue playing.  Let me know in 2 hours when you are done." I know that I would say, "I don't want the benefit, could I just not have died?"

There are even rules for this in 4e with the quest mechanics modeling personal goals and giving out rewards for accomplishing them.  But they are all character rewards.  Your character dies, you lose them all.  And certainly, not all players are story motivated(in fact, I've met very few who are) so they don't care what they've accomplished, only that they don't want to deal with the hassle of making a new character.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> Stormbringer, no offense taken. I just like to debate, and don't take it personally. I think I understand your position now.



As do I. 



> Personally, I believe the tweak to Raise Dead is a change, and a good one. I'll offer my argument:
> 
> (NOTE: Before anyone mentions it, I know that a good DM can get around the problems I'm going to mention. I'm just saying that, if it's now easier, then hooray!)
> 
> One interesting thing about the 3.5 rules as written is that Raise Dead is not very hard to achieve.



I wrote this after Charwoman Gene mentioned that Raise Dead hasn't changed, but the ideas were running through my head for a bit, so I wanted to post them anyway



> 1) 9th level clerics are common. On page 139 of the DMG we see that the highest-level cleric in a small city is of level 6+1d6 (roll twice). So the odds are, I believe, 8 in 9 that a small city has at least 1 9th-level cleric. (Large cities are just brimming with clerics of level 9+.) Knowing this, I'd imagine that most smart kings, dukes, and barons would live within a week's ride of a city. (A pretty safe bet in any case.) In order to prevent access to 9th-level clerics, you'll have to run a campaign with lower-level NPCs than the rules assume. Also, if the clerics refuse to cast Raise Dead for the king, duke, or mayor, that sounds like it's pretty close to treason - at least, it will be difficult, politically, to pull off. I think Eberron was partly inspired by a dissatisfaction with the ubiquity of high-level magic like Raise Dead.



Yes, I think this is the crux of the issue, really.  The spell itself is not exceptionally easy to obtain.  The real problem lies with the expected number of 'classed' NPCs running around, but I think I have a reasonable explanation for that:  magic items.

In order to have a magic item shop, there needs to be people around producing magic items.  In other words, a passel of Wizards churning out doo-dads like an overseas plastic novelty factory.  Of course, Wizards are the most fragile of classes, and the least likely to get high levels without help/protection.  So, of course, there will have to be several times more other classes around, gaining experience like the Wizards.  In order to have even an iota of verisimilitude, a given city would need something like one fighter, cleric and rogue for every Wizard; essentially, an adventuring party for every magic shop, probably more than one.

So, this presents a variety of problems and solutions.  Clearly, the easiest is to cut back on the magic shops and the concomitant need for Wizards, which will lead to a more reasonable number of 'classed' NPCs in a given town.  This will require a bit of tweaking to the tables, certainly, but it will also help cut down on the 'Christmas Tree' effect, as there will be less around to simply buy.  Each magical item will again be a treasure instead of a temporary boost to be traded in as soon as convenient.



> 2) Money is not that scarce. A 9th-level NPC, for instance, has wealth of 12,000. That means that the very same cleric who raises the king can probably afford to pay the entire price himself (even if he has to sell all his gear at 1/2 of its actual value). Not that he'd be asked to: I'm sure that most royalty and nobles have put away 5000 GP if it means that they can cheat death. In order to prevent important political figures to have access to 5,000, you'll have to choose to live in a fairly impoverished world.
> 
> 3) Diamonds aren't mentioned as particularly tough to acquire. As Thyrwyn mentioned, by definition, 5,000GP of diamonds are as much diamonds as you can buy on the open market for 5,000GP. And since a small city has a GP limit of 15,000, it'll be hard to explain why the diamonds can't be raised. Especially since royalty and nobles tend to have a lot of jewelry anyway. In order to prevent people with 5,000 GP from acquiring 5,000 GP of diamonds, you will have to resort to non-rule-supported DM fiat.



And you hit the tricky parts right on the head.  Even on a small scale like a thorp or village, the economy is a _pain in the a_ to keep track of.   



> When making up campaign-world history, I occasionally like to make up bits like "Then Good King Roderigo was slain tragically on the battlefield in his moment of greatest triumph," without adding riders like "and unfortunately his body was lost/his cleric was unavailable for a week/they just couldn't find any diamonds/he decided he really liked the afterlife after all, thank you very much."
> 
> Furthermore, I would like to be able to run a "murder mystery" adventure without too much complication. Court intrigue is hampered when every assassination can be undone unless people are soul-trapped or the court unaccountably doesn't have any high-level clerics - not to mention the PCs' ability to cast Raise Dead. Sure, the DM can disallow or prevent Raise Dead - it's just that the DM has to fight the rules a little bit to do it. A minor tweak which prevents rules-wrestling is a good thing, in my opinion.



Excellent on both counts.  As a side-bar bit of fluff, I have absolutely no problem with it.  It does seem to help out with the type of adventure you mentioned, at least, and probably a good deal of other types.



> Now, believe it or not, these problems I had with Raise Dead were all things I thought of BEFORE the 4e developers mentioned them, so I personally am not just repeating things by rote. I went so far as to work on tweaks and rule adjustments to fix them (i'll admit, I like an internally consistent campaign world - I plead guilty to simulationist leanings). In 4e, I may have to houserule other things, but not the raise dead rules, I believe.



Certainly.  Not everyone suddenly had these problems at the same time the 4e team mentioned it.  It just didn't seem to have the traction that something like CoDzilla had until recently.  So, I would say it wasn't a glaring problem for most people.  What triggered me is the 'this is so much better' posts, when it was really no different at all, mechanically.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 9, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> Still no good. It has to be a mechanic tied to your development. As long as the mechanic of development is class levels there has been no solution yet.




Fruitful void.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Certainly.  Not everyone suddenly had these problems at the same time the 4e team mentioned it.  It just didn't seem to have the traction that something like CoDzilla had until recently.  So, I would say it wasn't a glaring problem for most people.  What triggered me is the 'this is so much better' posts, when it was really no different at all, mechanically.



Mechanically, it IS different though.  Following the rules as they were written(as I did in 3.5) meant that nearly anyone who died during an adventure would be brought back to life: nobility of all sorts lived in or near cities which had ready access to the components and people necessary to cast raise dead and they had the political power to make it happen.

If the PCs were involved, they would have the resources necessary to do it themselves.  And the rules said that the only time the spell wouldn't work is when the recipient was unwilling.  So, being bound by the rules I have to allow them to be brought back since they DO want to return.

Knowing that, I have to make sure my plots don't revolve around someone staying dead.  Either that or I have to give every assassin the ability to steal the souls of their victims.

With the new system it says that the ritual only brings back those whose souls are still on the Shadowfell.  The amount of time someone stays on the Shadowfell before moving on to their final destination varies from person to person.  Most of the time it is near immediate and sometimes it takes a while.  Mostly it depends on the strength of their soul and whether the "universe" or the "impersonal forces" or whatever creates destiny are attempting to keep them around longer.

I can follow these rules and am perfectly within my right to say "He doesn't come back...he's gone."  So, mechanically, I see a big difference.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Apr 9, 2008)

*Responses to Storm-Bringer*



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> * - Poison doing ability damage causes poisons to be much more dangerous than they need to be.*
> As opposed to poisons that arent' very dangerous at all?  I mean, of the poisonous substances in the world, a good many of them are simply _lethal_.  No saving throw.  Certain spider poison will cause necrosis of tissues for months or _years_ after the initial bite.




Creatures with poison in 3rd edition essentially do not scale well with the given assumptions of how a characters durability changes as they increase in level.  Because they elected to use ability damage, spamming a bunch of creatures able to do some ability damage circumvents HD.  If I apply the Swarm template to something like common snakes, or create a situation where I can circumvent AC, the players will likely get wiped out.  While the system does a good job of keeping poison dangerous, it does not really add much entertainment to the game.

On top of that, you get the fun of forcing your player to recalculate a bunch of stuff on the fly.  Saving throws, attack and damage modifiers, AC, HP, and Spell save DC's for casters is just the obvious stuff.  Encumberance and skill checks can also come into play (Dex poison vs mounted combat, etc)  A Str poison also affects your Grapple modifier.  All these things can be overlooked.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> * - Grappling giving a size bonus meant that large creatures would nearly always succeed on grapple checks since they would also have very high strength values and a CR appropriate Bab.*
> So, an Ancient Dragon should have roughly the same chance to grapple as a Kobold?




Based on Bab, no.  But should grapple be able to function as a "Screw the Player" button for the DM?

 - It uses a melee touch attack, so you disregard most of a front line fighters AC.
 - Spell casters generally suck at grapple, so you shut down casters.
 - Front line fighters tend to specialize in a non light weapon.  If you grapple, that weapon cannot generally be used.  Against a 10th level opponent, that will have a huge affect on damage (especially if the player uses a 2 handed weapon) and attack roll (you lose the +X enhancement bonus, weapon focus, and weapon mastery).
 - Players cannot break the grapple unless they roll great AND you roll crappy if the size bonus is from a Huge or larger creature.  Against large creatures, front line fighter types can probably still break out reasonably often, but for all other classes, its still a longshot.




			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> * - Ability bonuses being tied into so many different things that changing a score via a buff or a poison / ability drain would require a bunch of recalculation.*
> Only when you used them.  I understand 4e has a crapload of overlapping auras and such that need to be adjusted and re-calculated during combat.  Much higher handle time.




The problem was never Str + X.  The problem was determining Str + X + Y, and then applying that to WpnDmg + A + B, and Bab + N.  Just way too many different modifiers that could reasonably come into play.

My understanding is that for 4th edition, there will be fewer things in play which can affect your stats directly.  You may be right though.  We will find out in June I guess.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> * - Monsters playing by exactly the same rules would often result in more book keeping than would be ideal.*
> DMs who are _forced at gunpoint_ to stat out every goblin child in the game world will be faced with a great deal of bookkeeping.  DMs who wisely stat out major NPCs only will not have a substantial task ahead of them.




No one is talking about statting out every goblin child in the game.  And I think I should have used a phrase other than book keeping to describe what my intent was.  But the current system does indeed have flaws when statting out high level NPC's.  A good example is applying the 4th level INT increase to acquired skills, and working out a reasonable spell selection for an arcane caster that avoids looking like the last 6 such casters you used.  If you multi-class, you also get to flip around the book to work out the saving throws and attack rolls.

A better point worth making is that "Having the monsters use the same rules as the players has unintended consequences".  The players are meant to be a balanced part of a team.  That is not the case for monsters.  But it is pretty hard to create monsters that are a viable tactical threat to the players without them being screwy in some way.  Solo Monsters will often have much better Fort saves than intended because the only other way to kick up the HP is to add Hit dice, which will kick up all saves as well as Bab.

A DM is perfectly entitled to just skew things, at least on paper.  If I want to have a Hill giant that can go solo against the party, I could just kick up the AC a few points and kick up the HP a great deal, as well as improve some of the saves.  But many people are leery of disregarding the rules as written, especially when they do not have a clear understanding of how the underlying system is meant to work.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> * - Monsters getting abilities that make sense flavor wise but are meaningless in actual game play*.
> Such as?




A good example here would be the spell like abilities of Outsiders, as well as some dragons.  How often does the Black Dragons ability to befoul water come into play?  How often do you give Juvenile dragons 1st level spells other than Shield and Mage Armour?  Do you even use the dragons Cantrips?



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> * - A skill system that guaranteed it would be impossible to have a skill based challenge that would be reasonable for everyone in the party to have to attempt.*
> How is that bad?  Is Rope Use _really_ applicable when negotiating with a sphinx?  Will Diplomacy _really_ help you detect a trap better?




Your counter examples are deeply flawed.  How about these skill challenges:
 - Narrow and slippery walkways calling for a Balance check
 - A chase scene that puts a river in the path of the party.  Crossing could greatly help, but it calls for a difficult Swim check.  Could also be a cliff and a Climb check.  Or a gap with a Jump check.

Oh, and on that subject, a Swiss Army Knife wizard tends to render many good skill based encounters moot due to having spells that allow you to skip them entirely.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> * - The implementation of Disarm / Sunder / BullRush essentially being crappy.*
> In your estimation.  Much like Grapple, some have problems, others don't.




The problem with Disarm and Trip are that the consequences of failure make them not worth trying unless they were guaranteed to succeed.  Grapple is a bit over complicated.  Sunder is actually pretty good aside from the sudden book keeping of Item HP, and having to look up item hardness.




			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> * - Mounted combat that leads to a 'kill the horse' strategy always being the best.*
> Which, historically, was the best strategy.  How is this a problem?




If you had a cleric in every fight against the party open with casting silence on the weapon of some cannon fodder type, and than having that fodder opponent stand within 15 feet of a spell caster, it would get old fast.  Why build a spell caster at all if he will suddenly be nerfed?  Do you always disarm the guy who put alot of feats into weapon spec / weapon focus / weapon mastery?  Probably not, but at least you have access to better defences against that tactic, such as better saving throws / opposed rolls.

But mounted combat suffers because your mount is very damn easy to neutralize with Area of Effect spells and will probably have a very low AC.  It ought to be a good strategy, but it should not be trivial to counter a character concept that put at least 3 feats and a bunch of skill points into a character being skilled at it.  Tying the mounts defenses to the rider would not have been difficult and would not have harmed the game.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Mallus (Apr 9, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Yes, and it always drove me nuts.



Did it stop you from playing? If not, perhaps it's not so suspension of disbelief shattering after all. I mean, there are always going to be places where the priorities of the game system rub up uncomfortably against the fictional space created using the game system.



> If I want to wander around in a world where everybody but my character is a souless, nameless cipher I will play a computer game.



You'll note this has nothing to do with the mechanics used to create and/or govern an NPC. Conversely, fulling statting an NPC does nothing to guarantee they won't come off in play as a nameless cypher.



> If I walk into the closest 7-11 and start talking to the clerk they will have a name, a family, hobbies, and opinions. In a RPG I expect my character to experience that same degree of verisimilitude.



And depending on the particular DM, you might get it.  



> Yes, my character (past a few levels) can take a crossbow bolt to the chest and the clerk probably can't. So what? At the start of his career the character couldn't either.



The point is that there is a fundamental difference between an NPC clerk and a PC hero. The reason for this has to do with playability issues. 



> What there is not however, is laws of physics that work for me but not for other people.



That's because you aren't a PC in a role-playing game. The world is a comprehensive simulation of itself. RPG's are a comprehensive simulation of... not much. 



> If an NPC can perform a trick with a weapon, I expect that my PC weaponsmaster, with the same or greater strength and dexterity, can also learn that same trick.



Why? People have different talents. Since verisimilitude seems so important to you, why would you expect that you're character can automatically emulate an NPC's skill, without regard to the NPC's background and training? Perhaps it took the NPC 10 years to master the 5 Points Exploding Palm Technique...


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Certainly.  Not everyone suddenly had these problems at the same time the 4e team mentioned it.  It just didn't seem to have the traction that something like CoDzilla had until recently.  So, I would say it wasn't a glaring problem for most people.  What triggered me is the 'this is so much better' posts, when it was really no different at all, mechanically.




It seems likely to me that one of the reasons it didn't get much 'traction' before that, is that the people who were bothered with it knew they could apply houserules and guidelines to get what they wanted, and there wasn't any point in complaining about it on a messageboard, except maybe to get suggestions on how to modify it*. Now that they don't _have_ to, a lot of them are openly breathing a sigh of relief, so you get a lot of posts along the lines of "this is so much better," because the game these people want to play is more closely aligned with the game that's written in the rulebook.

*(My personal answer would be to have all the Raise Dead spells use a component like Psionic Revivify's XP cost that scales up in cost each round after the body dies and can be shared between the caster and recipient, so that PCs can typically Raise each other in or right after combat, but if I want the king to not get raised, he only has to be dead for a couple of minutes before the XP cost gets high enough that he's gone for good. Adjust costs and time period by spell level and to taste.)


----------



## Andor (Apr 9, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Did it stop you from playing? If not, perhaps it's not so suspension of disbelief shattering after all. I mean, there are always going to be places where the priorities of the game system rub up uncomfortably against the fictional space created using the game system.




I played because playing a game with annoying bits is better than not playing at all. However playing a game without annoying bits is better yet.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> That's because you aren't a PC in a role-playing game. The world is a comprehensive simulation of itself. RPG's are a comprehensive simulation of... not much.




We're on fundamentally different pages here. What is an RPG? If it's an exercise in creative joint storytelling then I don't need rules at all. If it's a tactical game of combat then I don't need named characters and local towns and economies. I play an RPG to assume the identity of a character in a world, and both the character and the world have to feel real to me. That does not mean the world has to be like our world, but it does mean it has to be internally consistant enough that I can empathise with the viewpoint of a character within that world.




			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Why? People have different talents. Since verisimilitude seems so important to you, why would you expect that you're character can automatically emulate an NPC's skill, without regard to the NPC's background and training? Perhaps it took the NPC 10 years to master the 5 Points Exploding Palm Technique...




Where did I say my PC should be able to do it automatically? I said "can also learn". If it took the NPC 10 years to learn, then having it take 10 years for my PC is perfectly fine. Saying, no that's NPCs only, is not.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> But by the wacky rules of the D&D economy, they _do./_



Not really.



> In other words, a *Small City* or larger should easily be able to produce the goods required for a _raise dead_ spell.



I bolded the important part.  While not crippling, that is still a limitation.  Also, the text refers to _mundane_ items.  Not in the context of 'non-magical', but in the context of 'every day items'.  I am pretty sure diamonds are not an every day item for most inhabitants of a small city.  In other words, while there may very well be 5000gp in diamonds around a city, they are not likely to be sitting in a pile on the burghermeister's desk.

Of course, I would be extremely hesitant to have 5,000gp worth of easily transportable gems of any kind in a city.  That is the kind of thing that traveling rogues and bandits live for.  I would have a harder time believing several fistfuls of gems always remain with their rightful owner than someone being raised from the dead.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 9, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> However playing a game without annoying bits is better yet.



No argument there.



> What is an RPG? If it's an exercise in creative joint storytelling then I don't need rules at all. If it's a tactical game of combat then I don't need named characters and local towns and economies.



Both of those elements are part of my working definition, with some others, including 'naked adolescent power fantasy', and by naked I mean unbridled, not unclothed.



> I play an RPG to assume the identity of a character in a world, and both the character and the world have to feel real to me.



OK. Sure. But what goes into creating that sense of a real world? Personally, having protagonists and antagonists governed by the same algorithms just doesn't do it for me, verisimilitude-wise (in part because I try not think too much about said algorithms when I'm playing. Ironically, that damages my suspension of disbelief, kinda. A little.)

A game world is satisfying real to me if it's reasonably rich in detail and populated with reasonably well-motivated and well-characterized characters, and more so the latter than the former. The rules that under gird the faux physical space and faux population, not so much. 



> I said "can also learn". If it took the NPC 10 years to learn, then having it take 10 years for my PC is perfectly fine. Saying, no that's NPCs only, is not.



Given a typical campaign structure, explain the difference between telling a player "it'll take 10 years of dedicated training" and "no you can't" in something other than philosophical terms.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 9, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> I play an RPG to assume the identity of a character in a world, and both the character and the world have to feel real to me. That does not mean the world has to be like our world, but it does mean it has to be internally consistant enough that I can empathise with the viewpoint of a character within that world.



A certain amount of whether the game world feels real to you is a function of the rules.  But perhaps a larger portion is an act of will.  This is the lesson which Hong has endeavored to teach you, but as his efforts at instruction through zen koan have failed, I have an alternate solution- thou shalt go forth, and play a game of Og: Unearthed with thy drinking buddies, and then a game of Faery's Tale with your eight year old niece.  Observe how your drinking buddies accept the game world and revel in it precisely because the rules are highly abstract, and how your eight year old niece accepts the game world simply because it pleases her to do so.

This shall cleanse thy spirit, and thou shall be renewed.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I can follow these rules and am perfectly within my right to say "He doesn't come back...he's gone."  So, mechanically, I see a big difference.



But you always were within your rights to deny an NPC revival.

Also, while you may see a big difference, Charwoman Gene has confirmed that, in fact, there is no mechanical difference.



			
				Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Bill Slavicsek told me access to raise dead is not restricted to PCs. It is really not much different for 3e, except the "ritual" is needed as opposed to it being someones class ability




I believe the general assumption is that a 'ritual' takes anywhere from 1 minute or more.  Possibly hours or days.  While that does entail a bit of a limitation, it's not like your dead PC will be pre-occupied with the adventure for a bit.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 9, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> We're on fundamentally different pages here. What is an RPG? If it's an exercise in creative joint storytelling then I don't need rules at all. If it's a tactical game of combat then I don't need named characters and local towns and economies.




What...what....if it is all of the above? What if RPGs are about playing a character in a consistent world, a tactical game, _and_ an exercise in storytelling? What if a game has to support all three?

Also, I am officially declaring an moratorium on the statement "joint storytelling then I don't need rules!" It's over. No one can ever use it again, because if you do, my head will explode with anger. And I'm not talking just like a little explosion, like my brains get all over my computer and my housemates have an awkward cleaning bill. I am talking a kiloton range explosion. Say a 550 KT warhead, going off on the ground right here in the city in which I live. We're talking at least a half million deaths from fires, the explosion and the resulting fallout. 

Do you want to kill 500,000 people? No, I didn't think so. Storytelling games need rules. That's why they all have them. Or hadn't you noticed that all the various folks who advocate storytelling in games or say "hey these narrativist games are the bomb" are using rules? Are they just lobotomized space chimps to you? 

The rules serve a purpose in a storytelling game- they add an element of tension and unpredictability. The rules serve a purpose in a tactical game- they define the gameplay and so forth. The rules serve a purpose in a simulation- they do the simulating. 

But a RPG is all of these things, all at once. And guess what? Playability trumps simulation. Playability trumps tactical complexity. Playability trumps storytelling needs. All of these serve the central Gods of "Fun" and "Ease of Use."

Hit points do not model anything at all. They aren't an abstraction of damage, health, willpower, luck and dodging- they represent nothing but a gameplay tool. Literally just how many hits you can take. Nothing more, nothing less.

See all those rationalizations about "what hit points are" that people have argued over for decades now...they mean nothing. Hit points aren't a model of anything. It's why Max Payne can take painkillers and get over a gunshot wound, but in a cutscene he suffers from them normally. It's why Aeris dies. It's why in Call of Duty 4 you can be next to a grenade when it goes off and badly injured- but a few moments later you're up to full health again. And yet in a cinematic or a cutscene, you'd suffer real injury. 

Why? Gameplay. It would suck for a first person shooter to say, "Okay! You got shot in the stomach! After six months of intensive care, you're able to return to duty." Call of Duty 4 would end pretty quickly- and you'd miss all the cool action sequences that game offers. 

Even Call of Cthulhu, a game where I once lost an investigator's foot to frostbite and ended up dying of infection after the amputation, has ridiculously fast healing times. 2d3 HP a week is entirely possible- you can get taken down to the verge of death by gunshot wounds and be back on your feet in a month or two. And unless the GM exercises the "Keeper's Discretion" rule on injuries, you'll never need a colostomy bag, a reconstructive skin transplant for your face or anything that real people need. You won't die of sepsis after a punctured pancreas. You won't even bleed to death unless the Keeper says you do. Why? Gameplay- knocking an investigator out for a couple of weeks is bad enough if there's only a year before the Great Ceremony of Doom. 

Even Call of Cthulhu, explicitly set in the real world, thematically organized around "regular, plain jane humans with no cinematic qualities", is generous (well, for CoC) in recovery.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 9, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> A certain amount of whether the game world feels real to you is a function of the rules.  But perhaps a larger portion is an act of will.  This is the lesson which Hong has endeavored to teach you, but as his efforts at instruction through zen koan have failed, I have an alternate solution- thou shalt go forth, and play a game of Og: Unearthed with thy drinking buddies, and then a game of Faery's Tale with your eight year old niece.  Observe how your drinking buddies accept the game world and revel in it precisely because the rules are highly abstract, and how your eight year old niece accepts the game world simply because it pleases her to do so.
> 
> This shall cleanse thy spirit, and thou shall be renewed.



I think you're starting to suffer from oxygen deprivation up there on your high horse.  Perhaps you should climb down.


----------



## Warbringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Of course, I would be extremely hesitant to have 5,000gp worth of easily transportable gems of any kind in a city.




huh... no gem merchants in your world


----------



## DandD (Apr 9, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> A certain amount of whether the game world feels real to you is a function of the rules.  But perhaps a larger portion is an act of will.  This is the lesson which Hong has endeavored to teach you, but as his efforts at instruction through zen koan have failed, I have an alternate solution- thou shalt go forth, and play a game of Og: Unearthed with thy drinking buddies, and then a game of Faery's Tale with your eight year old niece.  Observe how your drinking buddies accept the game world and revel in it precisely because the rules are highly abstract, and how your eight year old niece accepts the game world simply because it pleases her to do so.
> 
> This shall cleanse thy spirit, and thou shall be renewed.



hong's method are outdated and not scientific. He should make the eight year old niece drunk, and then watch how and if she still accepts playing a game of Faery's Tale. 

FOR SCIENCE!!!


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 9, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> I think you're starting to suffer from oxygen deprivation up there on your high horse.  Perhaps you should climb down.



Pretending to be an elf is more fun when you're a bit light headed.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 9, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Pretending to be an elf is more fun when you're a bit light headed.



That's why I used to drink gin and tonics out of water tumblers when I gamed... ah youth.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 9, 2008)

Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> On top of that, you get the fun of forcing your player to recalculate a bunch of stuff on the fly.  Saving throws, attack and damage modifiers, AC, HP, and Spell save DC's for casters is just the obvious stuff.  Encumberance and skill checks can also come into play (Dex poison vs mounted combat, etc)  A Str poison also affects your Grapple modifier.  All these things can be overlooked.




I've never found this much of a problem. I just note down on a sticky note or note card, whenever I'm down some strength, "-4 to strength: -2 to hit, -2 to damage (-3 two-hand), -2 to Strength skills"
And that's usually enough to go with for on-the-fly use of the modified ability. Does it mean calculations? Yes. But they're always done at need when I'm already in the process of modifying a die roll so my brain is already primed for the calculations.

And I have to do this sort of thing a lot considering I have a player whose PC is a shadow dancer and they're fighting a lot of giants without magic weapons. Her shadow companion is sucking giant strength right and left.

If a modifier of a few points gets overlooked every once in a while, it's not a game breaker by any means. Close is good enough.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 9, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Pretending to be an elf is more fun when you're a bit light headed.



Tell that to a Vampire player [/cheap shot against people I never personally met or played with]


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 9, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> Do you get it yet?  Though flavor is important flavor is mutable... and honestly... have you ever had a DM destroy all the equipment something is wearing after the PC's dump fireball after fireball on it?   Just because they fluff says something doesn't mean you can assume anything about it's combat use.  Also... lead melts very easily... not a point of instant death for anything...




Personally, I think that the fluff should have an influence.  Either the fireball melts lead or it doesn't.  This makes the choice of whether to use particular spells resource management of a different sort.

You want to recover valuable items an enemy fighter is using?  Maybe it's not a good idea to throw five fireballs at him....because if he is carrying valuable documents or plans, they might get burned to a crisp.  That magical leather armour might be damaged.  His backpack full of coins might combust, and become a fused lump of mishapen coin and leather that can't be easily sold.  I *want* my players to have to take that kind of thing into consideration.

Frankly, I'd like the game to be set up in a way where it is similar to many fantasy stories.  In many novels, when the characters fight a wizard, it's not the fighter who goes up against the wizard and butchers him in one round with 4 attacks against a low AC.  The fighter knows that if he goes against the wizard, he's going to be held, or disintegrated or teleported into a trench in the ocean or whatever, before he ever gets close.  Instead, the enemy wizard is an opportunity for the fighter's buddy the mage, to shine, because he has the powers to have a wizardly duel or whatever, and take out the enemy mage, while the fighter deals with the bodyguards, or the demon the enemy wizard summons, or whatever.

Banshee


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 9, 2008)

*writes joke about blood loss then deletes it*


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Instead, the enemy wizard is an opportunity for the fighter's buddy the mage, to shine, because he has the powers to have a wizardly duel or whatever, and take out the enemy mage, while the fighter deals with the bodyguards, or the demon the enemy wizard summons, or whatever.




So it's like Rock-Paper-Scissors except that rock beats rock, and paper beats paper, but paper also gets to beat rock?


----------



## Spatula (Apr 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Storytelling games need rules. That's why they all have them.



Storytelling games all have rules because they are games (by definition), and all games have rules.  You don't need rules for co-operative storytelling, just a shared set of assumptions amongst the participants.  It comes down to what you're primarily after - telling a story, or playing a game.  But as with most of the concepts in these discussions, there's a range of possible states between "storytelling" and "game," and people will pick different points in the range as their individual ideal.

So, yes, games have rules.  But you don't need rules to tell stories, if that's what you're mainly interested in.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> And guess what? Playability trumps simulation. Playability trumps tactical complexity. Playability trumps storytelling needs. All of these serve the central Gods of "Fun" and "Ease of Use."



Playability trumps X is not an absolute statement; it can't be, as different people have different ideas of what's playable and what's too complex, and furthermore those beliefs depend on the context.  And what's "fun" to you isn't necessarily "fun" to others.  "Fun" for some folks _is_ the simulation or tactical complexity.  Take a look at some historical wargames, or stuff like that old Star Trek space battle game (Starfleet Battles?).  Those types of games aren't for me, but I'm not going to denigrate others for enjoying them.

If ease of use is your goal, then D&D in any incarnation probably isn't for you, as any particular incarnation is rather complex compared to most other games.  Which is especially true of 3e & 4e.  You obviously want some simulation, and some tactical complexity, or you wouldn't be interested in 4e at all.  Some people want more.  Some people want less, and play other games than D&D.  There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Playability trumps X is not an absolute statement; it can't be, as different people have different ideas of what's playable and what's too complex, and furthermore those beliefs depend on the context.




Playability trumps X for nearly every X because everyone who buys an RPG wants to play a game, but not everyone wants X. That playability is subjective does not stop this from being true.


----------



## xechnao (Apr 9, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Even if it tried to do the things you want, it wouldn't be a solution to the problem I listed.  Even if they DM said, "You worked to accomplish your goals for the last 6 months of playing, you died in the pursuit of those goals and you did well, you get X benefit.  Now roll up a new character to continue playing.  Let me know in 2 hours when you are done." I know that I would say, "I don't want the benefit, could I just not have died?"
> 
> There are even rules for this in 4e with the quest mechanics modeling personal goals and giving out rewards for accomplishing them.  But they are all character rewards.  Your character dies, you lose them all.  And certainly, not all players are story motivated(in fact, I've met very few who are) so they don't care what they've accomplished, only that they don't want to deal with the hassle of making a new character.




If you ever have the chance to read Burning Empires or even better Reign I would advice you to not lose this chance. I suspect that they could provide you a helpful insight regarding your idea of the limits of possibilities in roleplaying games.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 9, 2008)

I guess what I am saying is that "but the rules don't simulate the world!" is a false contradiction. That isn't what gameplay is for, and the rules are for gameplay.

Again, let me use Call of Duty 4 as my worked example. It is set in the real world, using real weapons. The characters are, ostensibly, real people who can bleed to death, have indigestion, pay taxes and drink beer.

Your character can soak up bullets and so long as he isn't killed and has time to recover, eventually returns to full health. People do not do this in the real world. Even worse, in cutscenes, normal human vulnerabilities return! 

The simulationist (apparently) says: "Contradiction! Inconsistent! I cannot buy into the story or the characters as a result!"

This is clearly not a problem for a great many people, as it is a very popular game. But why, if there is a intrinsic, crippling contradiction to it?

Because the three elements are served in different ways, and because it would be far, far worse to have bad gameplay as a result of attention to "realism."

The world is simulated by all the Tom Clancy crap- real world weapons and jargon, etc. The story isn't told by gameplay but by characters, dialogue and plot twists. The gameplay is served by the (very popular) regenerating health mechanic. There are no contradictions here, because the three elements have different needs. 

That is why D&D has hit points. To serve gameplay. 

If you want simulation, then do it the same way all other gamers everywhere have always done- keep your world and characters consistent whilst the story is told. 

Searching for a "reason" for hit points or second wind or anything is fruitless. It has dominated discussion on this forum and it all ends up in the same place- _there is no explanation_. Sure, people come up with all kinds of great rationalizations for rules (there was one a while back on why Rings were so powerful) but they're unnecessary. 

Why are they unnecessary? Because it's a false contradiction to begin with. Just like someone playing Call of Duty 4..._don't worry about it_. Everyone at your table is going to be aware they are playing the game. They are sitting at a table. There is a bag of Cheetoes. They have to edit these elements out for their imagination anyway if they're going to get any degree of immersion, and it's trivial to do the same for gameplay artifacts and their "intrusions" on the story or the world building. 

In other words, don't worry about whether or not you can explain what a Healing Surge is. You don't have to worry about it. Why don't more games have detailed, realistic wound systems? Because they're bad for gameplay. I mean, Phoenix Command had a way of determining how a bullet traveled through the body. It could take several minutes to resolve a single gunshot. Is that fun?

It is not the role of the rules system to tell you what the world is like. That's both impossible (no system could ever reflect the complexities of a world) and counterproductive (in the trying you'd need to sacrifice ease of play and other considerations).


----------



## Rex Blunder (Apr 9, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> In many novels, when the characters fight a wizard, it's not the fighter who goes up against the wizard and butchers him in one round with 4 attacks against a low AC. The fighter knows that if he goes against the wizard, he's going to be held, or disintegrated or teleported into a trench in the ocean or whatever, before he ever gets close. Instead, the enemy wizard is an opportunity for the fighter's buddy the mage, to shine, because he has the powers to have a wizardly duel or whatever, and take out the enemy mage, while the fighter deals with the bodyguards, or the demon the enemy wizard summons, or whatever.




Not in many fantasy novels written before 1972 or thereabouts, I bet. That sounds like D&D-influenced novels. Sword and sorcery novels have plenty of wizards butchered by fighter types.

Also: I agree with the good professor. D&D rules are 99% totally laughably ridiculous! Never let us forget that in our rules arguments. (It just so happens that D&D is also totally awesome and fun. There is a strong correlation between laughably ridiculous and totally awesome. See: The Scorpion King)


----------



## Andor (Apr 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> But a RPG is all of these things, all at once. And guess what? Playability trumps simulation. Playability trumps tactical complexity. Playability trumps storytelling needs. All of these serve the central Gods of "Fun" and "Ease of Use."




Unless of course what you call playability makes the game less fun for me. Then it has utterly failed in it's stated objective. Because in seeking to make the game less complex, less 'simulationist', less 'tactical' in the name of playability you may have stripped out the elements that bring me joy and therefore cause the game to become unplayably annoying or boring.

And... *I'M NOT WRONG!* My fun is not badwrongfun. Your fun is not badwrongfun. If (and it has not firmly been established yet) 4e moves in a direction that make it less fun for me to play then 3e or other games then the designers will have failed in their goals _for me_. That will not prevent you or anyone else from playing with great joy. And neither of us are wrong. 

Incidently I do not demand complex economic or tactical simulation tools in my games, I love a good game of Amber for example. However a game earns a degree of contempt from me when they try to include such rules, and they are self destroying. (3e I'm looking at you.) There is no need to include such rules in a game, but it you do put them in they should make sense, _in the context of the world they portray._ Why is this hard to understand?



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Hit points do not model anything at all. They aren't an abstraction of damage, health, willpower, luck and dodging- they represent nothing but a gameplay tool. Literally just how many hits you can take. Nothing more, nothing less.




Depends on the game and the hit point system. For a look at three different games with very different but more narrowly defined hit point systems check out Albedo, Morrow Project and World Tree.


----------



## comrade raoul (Apr 9, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> 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.



Fair enough.

But it still seems that all you need is enough consistency to know when the rules model an event in a way that dictates a clear outcome, and when they don't. It seems like most tactical combat situations in 4e fit into the first camp, while other situations might not. They should be transparent enough so that it should be clear to everyone when DM fiat is involved. Because that would be clear to everyone, the players should be okay with asking their DM if they're not sure how DM fiat will go.

It seems to me that the rules are just asking for trust and communication between the players and the DM, but that seems like something you'd need anyway.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 9, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> And neither of us are wrong.




You are wrong.  The 4e deisgner goals are not to make the game more fun for *YOU*.

It is to make the game fun for as large a playerbase as they can.  YOU cannot pass judgement on their success.  They may also have other sub goals which again have nothing to do with you.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 10, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> There is a strong correlation between laughably ridiculous and totally awesome. See: The Scorpion King




See Also:  D&D The Movie.


...what?

As an aside, I'd like to thank Cadfan for introducing me to Og and Faery's Tale.  I look forward to picking them up.


----------



## xechnao (Apr 10, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> You are wrong.  The 4e deisgner goals are not to make the game more fun for *YOU*.
> 
> It is to make the game fun for as large a playerbase as they can.  YOU cannot pass judgement on their success.  They may also have other sub goals which again have nothing to do with you.




No. The designers goal is to make a game that will satisfy certain criteria and by satisfying these criteria to make sales. More fun for a commercial hobby practically does not mean anything actually. It is just a marketing slogan by Wotc that aims to hit any perceived and acknowledged problems of 3e.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 10, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> No. The designers goal is to make a game that will satisfy certain criteria and by satisfying these criteria to make sales.



To make sales they need to make the game fun for as large a playerbase as they can. 



> More fun for a commercial hobby practically does not mean anything actually. It is just a marketing slogan by Wotc that aims to hit any perceived and acknowledged problems of 3e.



In june, when we actually have the books in our hands, when can judge that.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 10, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I guess what I am saying is that "but the rules don't simulate the world!" is a false contradiction. That isn't what gameplay is for, and the rules are for gameplay.
> 
> Again, let me use Call of Duty 4 as my worked example. It is set in the real world, using real weapons. The characters are, ostensibly, real people who can bleed to death, have indigestion, pay taxes and drink beer.
> 
> ...




Point the first: I may be misremembering.  In what cases to simple bullet wounds in cut scenes inflict crippling injury?  There appears to be a distinct corellary between proximity to crashing helicopters and long-term injury in the CoDiverse, and headshots are generally always lethal (to you as well on the hardest difficulty level).  Was there a specific scenario in which something happened in a cutscene or scripted sequence that the gameplay lead you to believe shouldn't have happened?

Point the second: There is a difference between rules as Newtonian physics and rules as Aristotelian physics.  A good set of rules is like Newtonian physics; they accurately describe the game reality within the vast majority of the cases that come up in play.  The CoD mechanic reflects general expectations; if you get shot a little, it is possible that it was a graze and you can duck behind cover and take a moment to recover, but if you get shot a lot at once, the odds of this happening are negligible, and you die.  The edge case in this scenario is popping up to get shot, ducking back down, popping up again, and repeating.  In this case, the rules fail to accurately describe the effect desired.  However, in general, the rules produce the result desired.

In Aristotelian rules, someone gets a bright idea, makes it a rule, then complains when the result that emerges isn't what they wanted.  In Aristotelian rules, there is little actual connection between the outcome desired and what the rules actually produce.  The D&D leveled-NPC-by-community guidelines, and many aspects of the magic system seem to be Aristotelian, as does the version of the Divine Challenge power from DDXP.

Mechanics aren't just fun or not-fun.  I personally find turning Aristotelian mechanics into simulation rules and observing the world that results very fun.  Mechanics have to be fun in order for there to be a game, of course; a purely-simulationist CoD4 that implemented realistic bullet injuries, disabled saving, and uninstalled itself upon character death would not be fun to play.  However, even within the constraint of 'must be a fun system', rules can still be rated on a scale of how well they, when interpreted, produce the results they were designed for.


----------



## xechnao (Apr 10, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> To make sales they need to make the game fun for as large a playerbase as they can.




 No. To make sales they need to convince people to buy and succeed in making a trend. They simply dressed with the "fun" word the redesign of potential problems of 3e. And the redesign of problems their initial redesign created (playtesting). 




			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> In june, when we actually have the books in our hands, when can judge that.




Judge if D&D succeeds? Perhaps in June, perhaps a bit later, perhaps never. There are time frames and thresholds put by those in business. We simply may never know.


----------



## Andor (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> My fun is not badwrongfun. Your fun is not badwrongfun. If (and it has not firmly been established yet) 4e moves in a direction that make it less fun for me to play then 3e or other games then the designers will have failed in their goals for me. That will not prevent you or anyone else from playing with great joy. And neither of us are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm wrong in deciding what I do and do not enjoy? Are you seriously claiming the right to walk into my house, up to my gaming table and tell me that I'm playing wrong, am not actually enjoying the game I'm playing, and have to play it your way to truly enjoy myself? If so that is simultaneously the ballsiest and stupidist thing I have ever read on the internet.

I am a portion of the D&D player base. WotC and TSR have been given a great deal of my money over the years. Obviously they would like to keep getting my money. If 4e does not inspire me as $ worthy they they will have failed to retain me in their player base, and guessing from some of what others have posted I won't be the only one lost.

If they manage to add new customers in greater proportion than they lose old ones it will still be a net gain but not the ideal situation. Obviously the ideal situation from their point of view is to add all those new customers while retaining all of their existing base. 

I cannot pass judgement on their success? I certainly can where my private spending is concerned and also for as how I play. Can I pass judgement on their commercial success? No, of course not, and nor can you. In fact it's possible that WotC themselves don't have that right, but their success or failure will be decided by a Hasbro exec who will terminate the RPG line if the fail to generate profits on the scale of Pokemon. 

Which, in case you're unfamiliar with the profit margins of RPGs, ain't gonna happen.

I never claimed the right to determine the total success or failure of 4e, and never claimed that my playstyle was the only right one. 

So what the hell was the point of your post?


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 10, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> No. To make sales they need to convince people to buy and succeed in making a trend. They simply dressed with the "fun" word the redesign of potential problems of 3e. And the redesign of problems their initial redesign created (playtesting).



But who would put up such a scheme? The game designers? The Rouse? The Hasbro suits?
I'm feeling so silly now, I really believed Mike Mearls was just trying to create a nice game. I'm a fan of his work you know, well at least I "was", now that I know what they are planning to do.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Unless of course what you call playability makes the game less fun for me.




I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just explaining why I think you have what I consider a faulty expectation. It's like expecting a cat to bark like a dog. It'll never track. 

I guess I just don't understand where you developed this idea, and why you persist in holding to it. If it's preventing you from enjoying a game, why not discard this preconceived notion? 



> There is no need to include such rules in a game, but it you do put them in they should make sense, in the context of the world they portray.




You go on to ask what is so hard to understand about this sentence. Let me highlight what I fail to understand. I'm also going to assume this statement extends to other rules- if there are rules for injuries in a game, they should make sense in the context of the world, and so on. (gunfights, negotiations, whatever)



> There is no need to include such *rules* in a game, but if you do put them in they should make sense, in the context of the *world they portray*.




I don't understand why you think rules are supposed to portray a world. It just doesn't make any sense to me how that expectation could be maintained. It especially doesn't make sense to me in the context of a message board primarily devoted to Dungeons and Dragons, which has _never_ done anything like this or even attempted to do so. D&D rules have never made sense in the context of the world they portray.

Again, I think it's an unrealistic and counterproductive expectation, and I heartily recommend you discard it, because I think it narrows the range of gaming available to you so greatly it isn't worth keeping. Just shrug your shoulders, go kill some dragons and don't worry about it.


----------



## xechnao (Apr 10, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> But who would put up such a scheme? The game designers? The Rouse? The Hasbro suits?
> I'm feeling so silly now, I really believed Mike Mearls was just trying to create a nice game. I'm a fan of his work you know, well at least I "was", now that I know what they are planning to do.




What scheme? That trend is Wotc's number one priority for D&D? Or what trends generally are and how they function?  :\


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> You mean like what RPGs I choose to play, based on how they match my expectations? Yes that's exactly what I intend to do, thank you.




If I was WotC's pimp, I would be pained by the implications of this. However as I am WotC's bitch and not WotC's pimp, I will agree, choosing an appropriate ruleset (and zeitgeist) that matches your expectations is an important part of having fun.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> hong's method are outdated and not scientific. He should make the eight year old niece drunk, and then watch how and if she still accepts playing a game of Faery's Tale.
> 
> FOR SCIENCE!!!



 I'm not listening! You're not real, DandD! Not real, I tell you!!!1


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> I'm wrong in deciding what I do and do not enjoy? Are you seriously claiming the right to walk into my house, up to my gaming table and tell me that I'm playing wrong, am not actually enjoying the game I'm playing, and have to play it your way to truly enjoy myself? If so that is simultaneously the ballsiest and stupidist thing I have ever read on the internet./snip




Nope, you are not wrong in deciding what you do or do not enjoy.

Where you are mistaken is assuming that your preferences are any metric to use for judging the game.

In other words, you are using your personal preferences to say that 4e is a bad game instead of trying to judge it based on whether or not it achieves its stated goals - faster gameplay, easier on the DM, etc.

That the game doesn't live up to your expectations is, quite frankly, irrelevant to anyone other than you.  

You're saying that because it breaks with simulationism, it's a failure.  But, the goal of 4e wasn't simulationist play.  So, whether or not it lives up to your expectations of sim play doesn't really matter in the larger scheme.  In order to judge the game, it has to be judged on its own merits (or lack thereof), not in what you wish it would be.

I could say that GURPS (for example) is an absolute failure because it takes too bloody long to resolve combat.  But, that's judging it based on my preferences.  GURPS is intended as a sim play system.  Thus, you want all those fiddly bits that better model the reality of the setting.

Now you could argue that earlier editions did better model reality and thus appealed to a more simulationist bent.  That's fine.  I think it's mistaken and that no version of D&D modeled anything other than D&D, but, at least we can speak from a common metric.  

But, you're trying to say that cars are bad because they don't float, thus boats are better.  Cars aren't meant to float.  4e is not meant to simulate.  Judging something based on what its not meant for doesn't make a lot of sense and can only lead to very frustrating conversations.


----------



## Andor (Apr 10, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just explaining why I think you have what I consider a faulty expectation. It's like expecting a cat to bark like a dog. It'll never track.
> 
> I guess I just don't understand where you developed this idea, and why you persist in holding to it. If it's preventing you from enjoying a game, why not discard this preconceived notion?




But it's not a faulty expectation. One of the things I find delightful about RPGs from a DM or Worldesign standpoint is either taking the games starting assumptions and figuring out how things might progess from there, or by taking the rules and making a world that would result from those rules. *

Having the standards and expectations I do do not prevent me from enjoying RPGs, they are one of my most loved hobbies, it simply means I may prefer to play a different set of them than you do. 



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> You go on to ask what is so hard to understand about this sentence. Let me highlight what I fail to understand. I'm also going to assume this statement extends to other rules- if there are rules for injuries in a game, they should make sense in the context of the world, and so on. (gunfights, negotiations, whatever)
> 
> I don't understand why you think rules are supposed to portray a world. It just doesn't make any sense to me how that expectation could be maintained. It especially doesn't make sense to me in the context of a message board primarily devoted to Dungeons and Dragons, which has _never_ done anything like this or even attempted to do so. D&D rules have never made sense in the context of the world they portray.




*You are kind of correct here. It is pretty much true that D&D game worlds never make sense in the context of the rules for D&D. Eberron perhaps comes closest. But so what? No one holds a gun to my head and forces me to play in those worlds. I am free to take those rules and create a world that looks however I want, and that makes sense to me in the context of those rules. If I choose not to do so, and play in someone elses game while they use a more mainline D&D world I'm obviously giving up the right to bitch about their world as that would be plain bad manners. The first thing I ask when playing in someone elses game is "How can I make a character to fit into your world, and is there any way I can construct my character that will help you with your plot?" Mind you I rarely get an answer that's not "Whatever you want man."  :\ 

Why do I think the rules are intended to portray a world? I'm not sure I understand what other role the rules could possibly have, to be honest. The rules exist to tell me how my character can interact with the world and other characters, and include a conflict resolution method designed to prevent the "No you didn't! Yes I did." arguments observable on any playground where kids point imaginary guns at each other. If I have a climb skill of 10 and a typical DC for climbing a tree is 15, then I can reasonably expect that my character can climb most trees. If we remove me from the equation and pretend that my character is an actual being in an actual world, then he too will be able to anticipate climbing most any tree as he is a skilled and experienced climber. 

If I am playing in a Supers game and my character has superman like toughness then I can reasonably expect him to ignore small arms fire. If bullets suddenly start hurting my character he would have every reason to think something unusual was happening. 

If a mage wakes up in the dark, casts a light spell and still can't see, something is wrong. He could be in a magical darkness more powerful than his light spell. He could be in an anti-magic zone. He could have gone blind. But it is reasonable for him to immedately assume some other problem exists other than he is simply in a dark room. 

If I am playing a D&D mage, and my character wakes up in a dark room, casts a light spell, and still can't see. The GM should not be surprised if I look for another explanation for my blindness. The rules of the game portray a world where light spells do not simply fail. If the GM has decided to change those rules because he wants a world where magic sometimes just fails, he has to tell me that, because otherwise I will be playing a mage who after years of studying magic has somehow never learnt that spells sometimes just fail. 

Spell failure is an observable phenomena inside the game world, and it is rediculous to think that a Mage might some how not know about it. 

The rules effect how character interact with their world, and to pretend that they don't have some level of understanding of how those rules work is to make a disconnect that seems to completely preclude any immersion in the characters. 

If the rules weren't intended to portray a world, then why do we use different rule sets for different worlds? Why does Oriental adventures offer rules for Honor instead of alingment? Why is a Wu-jen given a different spell list than a wizard? Why does a planescape character have the ability to sense portals while a spelljammer character does not? Why does mainstream D&D include clerics while Darksun and Midnight do not?

Role playing to me means that to some extent I am assuming the role of my character. If I cannot understand how my character views his world, then how can I possibly assume that role?


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> If the rules weren't intended to portray a world, then why do we use different rule sets for different worlds? Why does Oriental adventures offer rules for Honor instead of alingment? Why is a Wu-jen given a different spell list than a wizard? Why does a planescape character have the ability to sense portals while a spelljammer character does not? Why does mainstream D&D include clerics while Darksun and Midnight do not?




Genre emulation. Tone modification. Narrative facilitation.



> Role playing to me means that to some extent I am assuming the role of my character. If I cannot understand how my character views his world, then how can I possibly assume that role?




Consider playing a character in a movie, instead of a character in a world.


----------



## Andor (Apr 10, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> In other words, you are using your personal preferences to say that 4e is a bad game instead of trying to judge it based on whether or not it achieves its stated goals - faster gameplay, easier on the DM, etc.
> 
> You're saying that because it breaks with simulationism, it's a failure.
> 
> Now you could argue that earlier editions did better model reality and thus appealed to a more simulationist bent.




Nng. Would you care to show me where I ever said any of these things?


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> But it's not a faulty expectation. One of the things I find delightful about RPGs from a DM or Worldesign standpoint is either taking the games starting assumptions and figuring out how things might progess from there, or by taking the rules and making a world that would result from those rules.




There's not a game I can think of that wouldn't inevitable run into a silliness problem, with this assumption. I can't follow your logic.



> Having the standards and expectations I do do not prevent me from enjoying RPGs, they are one of my most loved hobbies, it simply means I may prefer to play a different set of them than you do.




I'm not saying anything contrary to that. I'm saying your position on rules-setting transition makes no sense.



> If the rules weren't intended to portray a world, then why do we use different rule sets for different worlds?




Because we're using different rules sets to tell different kinds of stories. The rules can prioritize elements that we want to see appearing in a game. The world is the backdrop for those stories. It doesn't need to be reflected in the rules, because the game isn't about the world, it's about the characters and their story. 



> Why does Oriental adventures offer rules for Honor instead of alingment?




Critical to the _characters_, and to the story.



> Role playing to me means that to some extent I am assuming the role of my character. If I cannot understand how my character views his world, then how can I possibly assume that role?




Again, the problem is- the character doesn't view the world through the rules. The character is completely unaware of the rules. If it helps, think of it more as if the campaign is the legend of your characters, told through the ages, and exaggerated. In the game, Hero Protagonist was stabbed by a goblin, spent a healing surge, and kept fighting, despite a deep wound to the stomach. In reality, it wasn't even a goblin, but a particularly angry house cat, and Hero Protagonist spent two months with a fever because of the infection. But a thousand years later, as the story is told, he has mythological qualities. The rules aren't building the world. The world is presumably more complex than the rules can reflect. 

No one in Call of Cthulhu expects to be up on their feet so quickly after a gunshot, or for a man of sufficient health and size to be flat-out immune to dying from a single wound from a .22 pistol. That doesn't mean the Call of Cthulhu rules don't work or have no utility- they're simple, they're fast, they emphasis the things the game emphasizes, etc. It just means you need a little common sense to cover the edge cases, offscreen events, and the like. No one would ever say, if I had a really large and healthy man turn up in the morgue with a .22 bullet to his brain, "But that can't happen! A .22 maxes out at 16 HP and he had 17!" It can't happen to PCs and it can't happen to NPCs the PCs are shooting at. But presumably, since Call of Cthulhu is explicitly set in the real world, it still happens. While it might be helpful to have a rules set that more accurately represents the potential lethality of the .22 caliber round, I would never in a million years want such a set unless it was at least as simple, flexible and playable as BRP. Every rule in a game has to justify its existence with a direct correlation to some positive benefit to play. If it doesn't, it is an unwelcome and unwholesome imposition on my time. 

I mean, every time this discussion comes up it's the same bits. "That ruins immersion!" Well, if your priority is solely and exclusively total immersion in the game world, and that this demands a rules set completely consistent with that world (even if only at an abstracted level), then frankly I can't think of a single game that has ever existed that is right for you. 

I mean, what about the other priorities? A lot of the changes to how monsters work are designed to make it easier for a GM. They're not designed with world building concerns in mind. The hue and cry against this is all about this perceived inconsistency, and yet...it _makes things easier for the DM_. How can this be ignored? 

Why is simulation the most important thing for a game?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Why do I think the rules are intended to portray a world? I'm not sure I understand what other role the rules could possibly have, to be honest. The rules exist to tell me how my character can interact with the world and other characters, and include a conflict resolution method designed to prevent the "No you didn't! Yes I did." arguments observable on any playground where kids point imaginary guns at each other. If I have a climb skill of 10 and a typical DC for climbing a tree is 15, then I can reasonably expect that my character can climb most trees. If we remove me from the equation and pretend that my character is an actual being in an actual world, then he too will be able to anticipate climbing most any tree as he is a skilled and experienced climber.




But, the examples you give are not the rules portraying the world.  They are mechanics designed to portray how the players interact with the world.  Once the PC's are off stage, the rules generally are not in use.  

Unless, of course, you grant xp to every farmer who survives a tornado or a forest fire.  Entire towns would suddenly jump a level every tornado season.  

Trying to say that the rules model the reality leads to OOTS like situations.  

You are right that the rules would allow you to understand how your character views his world.  However, you are mistaken in thinking that every person in that world needs those rules.  The DM doesn't bother using the rules to model every element of the world, and he really couldn't anyway, the rules are far too contradictory and outright silly in many cases.  

For example, if I seal a room and light a candle, the candle will eventually go out.  However, fireball does not cause any sort of vacuum.   I could fireball in a sealed room all day long and nothing would happen by RAW since there is nothing in the rules that say that Fireballs use oxygen.

Unless, of course, you rule that candles don't use oxygen either.  

Trying to model reality with mechanics is an exercise in futility.  You can poke VERY large holes in any attempt to do so.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 10, 2008)

Honestly, I think I already did this thread. I should just link back to that argument. 

Look, I like simulation as much as the next guy. My absolute favorite moment as a player was when I lost a foot to frostbite and died of the infection after the amputation (in CoC). That was great. 

But stuff like healing surges and six hour rests is clearly meant to prevent the 15 minute adventure problem. The game wants characters to keep going. It's a little bit of resource management and a lot of endurance for play. That, to me, has a direct and positive impact on play.

Likewise, the monster stats have nothing to do with the full behavior or capabilities of monsters in the world. They're clearly intended to make preparation quick and their in-game use easy. That is added utility. 

It isn't as if I can't maintain all the other aspects of the "simulation" just fine if the rules are serving multiple masters.


----------



## Andor (Apr 10, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Again, the problem is- the character doesn't view the world through the rules. The character is completely unaware of the rules. If it helps, think of it more as if the campaign is the legend of your characters, told through the ages, and exaggerated. In the game, Hero Protagonist was stabbed by a goblin, spent a healing surge, and kept fighting, despite a deep wound to the stomach. In reality, it wasn't even a goblin, but a particularly angry house cat, and Hero Protagonist spent two months with a fever because of the infection. But a thousand years later, as the story is told, he has mythological qualities. The rules aren't building the world. The world is presumably more complex than the rules can reflect.




Remember what I said earlier about if the rules don't match the reality of the game world my character might as well be tied up in a metal hospital hallucinating? That is exactly the example you just gave back to me. It may please you to imagine a character slaying dragons while the GM imagines a psychiatrist making notes about his patients intricate fantasy world, but that does not interest me.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Why is simulation the most important thing for a game?




I never said it was. In fact I challange you to show me where I said any such thing. I am saying that internal consistancy is important to me because a lack of it ruins my suspension of disbelief.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Remember what I said earlier about if the rules don't match the reality of the game world my character might as well be tied up in a metal hospital hallucinating?




So, since D&D has never really had rules for reproduction, how'd you manage to play in fantasy worlds where people obviously reproduce (since your character has a dad and a mom who had to get busy to make him) without the 'physics/rules' to allow them to do so?


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 10, 2008)

On the matter of NPCs and PCs using different rules:

In game, this will have no effect. It provides a DM the means to stat up only the information he thinks will be relevant for an NPC or monster, and that's it. A DM can give his NPCs abilities that are the same as some PC abilities. He can even, very easily, give a player a monster ability, though this, I imagine, will take a simple House Rule.

The only thing lacking is their using the same 'level progression' rules. NPCs don't have to be progressed, level to level, like a PC does, because this is usually a waste of time. HOWEVER, should the desire ever arise, NPCs can be given PC levels and leveled up as much as you want.

I don't think there's anything to worry about. The game still has Templates, for instance. I think anything with Templates is going to provide us enough options to manipulate our NPCs however we want.

Er, carry on with the rest of the thread I guess.


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Remember what I said earlier about if the rules don't match the reality of the game world my character might as well be tied up in a metal hospital hallucinating? That is exactly the example you just gave back to me. It may please you to imagine a character slaying dragons while the GM imagines a psychiatrist making notes about his patients intricate fantasy world, but that does not interest me.




Okay, I'll add one more thing.  

I think I know what you're saying, but let me add my own interpretation: The end result of the DM's adjudication should be consistent with the reality of the game world the PC experiences.

What I mean by that is that if we need, in the game world, to see the number 12 or less (just an abstract example) then it doesn't matter if behind the DM's screen the number was generated on 3 d4's, 2 d6's, or 1 d8 + 1 d4. 

Having different rules for different things, like PCs and NPCs, doesn't make any real difference if on the Players' side of the screen the results remain consistent. I think that's what 4E is aiming for, in part: consistent results with the simplest rule possible given the particular situation, even if this means different rules for some things.

I'm not sure if that made any sense, but it's what I've come to believe.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Remember what I said earlier about if the rules don't match the reality of the game world my character might as well be tied up in a metal hospital hallucinating?




Why? 

I guess a better question is: Can the rules govern a specific subset of the world's interactions, based on the assumption that it is that very category of event the game as a whole is interested in? 

Or must the rules govern the totality of the game world?


----------



## Andor (Apr 10, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, since D&D has never really had rules for reproduction, how'd you manage to play in fantasy worlds where people obviously reproduce (since your character has a dad and a mom who had to get busy to make him) without the 'physics/rules' to allow them to do so?






			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I guess a better question is: Can the rules govern a specific subset of the world's interactions, based on the assumption that it is that very category of event the game as a whole is interested in?
> 
> Or must the rules govern the totality of the game world?




The answer to both these questions is something I said a page ago. To quote:"Incidently I do not demand complex economic or tactical simulation tools in my games, I love a good game of Amber for example. However a game earns a degree of contempt from me when they try to include such rules, and they are self destroying. (3e I'm looking at you.) There is no need to include such rules in a game, but it you do put them in they should make sense, in the context of the world they portray."

The problem is not a lack of rules to cover monster reproduction. The problem would be including those rules and yet to write them so badly that the only possible result of using those rules is the world being overrun with monsters.

An example from 3e, oft cited, is the poor economic rules. A game may or may not include those rules as the writer pleases, but if they are included they should work.

In a similar vein if an NPC Humanoid warrior has an ability that a PC cannot aquire, even if it is plainly a mundane use of a weapon, I need a better explaination for that than "He can do it because he is an NPC. You cannot because you are a PC." Having PCs be exceptional is okay. Having them be unique in the world (until one dies and another similarly gifted invididual pops out of the woodwork) is not.

If the PCs are truly unique in the world. The offspring of gods say, or inheritors of an ancient prophecy. Then that too is fine, as long as that is the premise of the campaign from the start, and I dammed well expect the NPCs to act like it as well. 

But in the standard D&D world adventurers are, if not a dime a dozen, at least reasonably common. John the farm boy can aspire to be an adventurer. He may make it, or he might get cut down by a goblin, but by the standard model of the game there is no reason for him to think it's impossible. 

In other words in D&D as we have all known and loved through 3 editions the difference between an NPC and a PC is one of degree not type. The PCs are not Gods, subject only to divine law, and unconcerned with the trials of mortals. That may be what 4e is going to be, but if so they should say so from the outset.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> In a similar vein if an NPC Humanoid warrior has an ability that a PC cannot aquire, even if it is plainly a mundane use of a weapon, I need a better explaination for that than "He can do it because he is an NPC. You cannot because you are a PC."




And when you divest of yourself of that need, you will no longer have such problems.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> But in the standard D&D world adventurers are, if not a dime a dozen, at least reasonably common.




Maybe in your world. Not in mine. If adventurers were around every corner, there'd be no point to the player characters, since there's always someone else capable and willing to tackle that mess. And that bores me to frakin' tears.

I don't run games so my players can be just Adventuring Party #317, with Wizard #874 and Cleric #922. I run games so they can be the Champions of Baldwar Mountain, led by Kelson O' the Thorn.



> John the farm boy can aspire to be an adventurer. He may make it, or he might get cut down by a goblin, but by the standard model of the game there is no reason for him to think it's impossible.




*If* he has a destiny... and if he doesn't, then his hopes and dreams of becoming the next Champion will be dashed upon the rocks, because all fate has in store for him are some turnips.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 10, 2008)

Could you be more specific? 

Also, I don't think you've really answered the question. Do the game rules have to cover the totality of game world interaction, or can they focus on a specific kind of interaction? I'm not talking about specific sub-systems, I'm talking about the rules as a whole. 



> In other words in D&D as we have all known and loved through 3 editions the difference between an NPC and a PC is one of degree not type.




Oh! Well, that's easy enough to resolve then. The difference between PCs, Major NPCs (who might well be written with PC rules) and Minor NPCs is one of degree, not type. Degree of _attention required_. 

A quick little stat block for a random city guard isn't supposed to represent a fundamental, intrinsic game world difference between the PC and the guard. It's supposed to represent the different degree of interest we have in that guard. The guard is a mook. We do not care about all the finer details of the guard. The DM shouldn't have to spend a lot of time statting out the guard. Simplified monsters, minions, etc, all that serve this ultimate purpose of determining the degree of mechanical attention paid to different characters. The PCs get the most, because we pay the most attention to them. Major NPCs, presumably, also get extensive attention. 

Likewise, PCs, being run by players, deserve special consideration. We don't particularly care about random NPC soldliers bleeding out on the battlefield. But given the "Heroic Fantasy" vibe of D&D, we do care about preventing PCs from dying from anything other than a heroic confrontation. Winning a battle and then dying from infection a few days later is something that only happens to NPCs based on DM fiat, not because of some "in world" difference between NPC and PC, but because of wholly metagame differences. The PCs are the main characters of our story, and more importantly, they're run by actual people whose thoughts and opinions matter.

You could always just say "The PCs are heroes/have destinies" etc, if you really need some kind of justification for how awesome they are.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> The answer to both these questions is something I said a page ago. To quote:"Incidently I do not demand complex economic or tactical simulation tools in my games, I love a good game of Amber for example. However a game earns a degree of contempt from me when they try to include such rules, and they are self destroying. (3e I'm looking at you.) There is no need to include such rules in a game, but it you do put them in they should make sense, in the context of the world they portray."
> 
> The problem is not a lack of rules to cover monster reproduction. The problem would be including those rules and yet to write them so badly that the only possible result of using those rules is the world being overrun with monsters.
> 
> An example from 3e, oft cited, is the poor economic rules. A game may or may not include those rules as the writer pleases, but if they are included they should work.



A very good 3.x example is spawn propagation of certain incorporeal undead, (In fact this actually came up in a recent game) where a strict following of RAW allows a single Wraith to create a chain reaction and depopulate entire citys in minutes.

"The Rules aren't the Physics of the World" allows the DM to limit this, to say "this is how it works in combat, but for these reasons the obvious implications do not come about", but it doesn't really prevent it from being annoying and arguably sloppy.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 10, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> "The Rules aren't the Physics of the World" allows the DM to limit this, to say "this is how it works in combat, but for these reasons the obvious implications do not come about", but it doesn't really prevent it from being annoying and arguably sloppy.




I would say that something like that should probably be an in-world thing, since I love the idea of an incorporeal undead apocalypse. Still it's something their Monster Manual entry should probably mention.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 10, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I would say that something like that should probably be an in-world thing, since I love the idea of an incorporeal undead apocalypse. Still it's something their Monster Manual entry should probably mention.



Well, yes, it's a cool idea for a setting, but it's obviously not something that was intended as a basic assumption for all 3.x settings.


----------



## Campbell (Apr 10, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> In a similar vein if an NPC Humanoid warrior has an ability that a PC cannot aquire, even if it is plainly a mundane use of a weapon, I need a better explanation for that than "He can do it because he is an NPC. You cannot because you are a PC."




The absence of particular ability within the confines of the Player's Handbook is not evidence that a player's character cannot learn that particular ability. It's simply evidence that if a player wants his character to learn that ability some design work needs to be done in order to balance the ability for PC use.


----------



## danzig138 (Apr 10, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> And when you divest of yourself of that need, you will no longer have such problems.



Zen master you ain't. But at least now I've figured out how you got such a high post count.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2008)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Zen master you ain't.




Yes, that's what they all say.



> But at least now I've figured out how you got such a high post count.




It would be lower, but, you know, NOONE LISTENS TO ME


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 10, 2008)

If this is to be a *roleplaying* game, then there needs to be enough believability and consistency in the game world to allow me (as player) to play my role (as character), at least somewhat secure in the knowledge that something that worked in x-y-z manner once will do so again in the same situation.  In other words, the "fluff" that is the world my character interacts with needs to be supported by the "crunch" of the rules that govern how the game works...the two should be seamless.  How hard is that?

Example: FLUFF: As the ship sails off despite our party's best attempts to stop it, my fighter wearily drops his sword and it falls to the ground.  Then, in a fit of frustration he rips off his helmet and vainly throws it at the fast-retreating vessel; it sails out over the harbour in a graceful arc before splashing into the water and slowly sinking.  
CRUNCH: A sentence in the DMG "Assume gravity works much the same in the game world as it does on Earth."
Simple.  Seamless.  No headaches.

Whether that believability and consistency comes from the rules (where it should) or the DM (where it usually does) really doesn't matter very much, as long as it is present.

As for PCs and NPCs being different, I really disagree with the apparent 4e philosophy where PCs are heroes before they start.  I'd far rather have every adventurer come from a non-adventurer's background - be it noble, common, or whatever - and by their deeds *become* heroes.  The same rules apply.  And yes, commoners should gain ExP if they survive a tornado...but they'd need to survive an awful lot of 'em to start gaining levels. 

In other words, 4e will be like the mid-series movie that needs a prequel or two to explain how things got to the start point.

Playability vs. realism: if realism can be preserved without affecting playability too adversely, then preserve the realism.  How hard is that?  (and yes, everyone will have different ideas on where the boundary of "too adversely" lies; so be it...)

Lanefan


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 10, 2008)

PCs may be assumed to be "heroes" but they aren't much more powerful than anyone else. They ARE more powerful than their 3E counterparts, but not when measured against the average 1st level NPC or Monster. So they have some abilities to make them more "hardy" than others, but they clearly aren't superheroes. 

Also, a PC doesn't have an "epic destiny" at first level. He has to get up there first. The only real "specialness" he has is his survivability, which isn't even all that hot as a pair of 1st level human guards will take him out like a punk. 

PCs can only be considered to be heroes-from-the-start if you compare them to their 3E versions, which isn't a good comparison, since they'll be living in a world populated by other 4E creations.


----------



## essenbee (Apr 10, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> CRUNCH: A sentence in the DMG "Assume gravity works much the same in the game world as it does on Earth."
> Simple.  Seamless.  No headaches.



You really need to have that explicitly stated in the DMG?


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 10, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> PCs can only be considered to be heroes-from-the-start if you compare them to their 3E versions, which isn't a good comparison, since they'll be living in a world populated by other 4E creations.



I'm comparing them to their 1e versions.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 10, 2008)

essenbee said:
			
		

> You really need to have that explicitly stated in the DMG?



Yes, as it's exactly the sort of thing that discussions like this revolve around: do the rules as written support believability.  Even something as simple as that one statement gets the point across that things are intended to be believable, and that the game world *does* have internal physics and the DM had better keep this in mind.  (what I'd really like to see in the DMG is some brief discussion of the physics of magic, it'd save a lot of arguments; but I'm not holding my breath)  Even more useful would be some discussion in the DMG on how to usefully alter fundamental physics and keep things consistent/believable...for example, half-strength gravity, planets orbiting each other at real-world impossibly close range, removal of magnetic forces, etc.

Lanefan


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Apr 10, 2008)

What I don't understand is how the rules are the physics of the world rather than the physics of the player controlling the character in the world.

I've always thought of the rules as an interface system rather than an operating system.

Treating it otherwise always breaks verisimilitude for me because it inevitably leads to Red Mage from 8-bit theater.


----------



## essenbee (Apr 10, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Yes, as it's exactly the sort of thing that discussions like this revolve around: do the rules as written support believability.  Even something as simple as that one statement gets the point across that things are intended to be believable, and that the game world *does* have internal physics and the DM had better keep this in mind.  (what I'd really like to see in the DMG is some brief discussion of the physics of magic, it'd save a lot of arguments; but I'm not holding my breath)  Even more useful would be some discussion in the DMG on how to usefully alter fundamental physics and keep things consistent/believable...for example, half-strength gravity, planets orbiting each other at real-world impossibly close range, removal of magnetic forces, etc.
> 
> Lanefan



Personally I'd be horrified if such things filled out the pages of the new DMG, but thats just me I guess.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Yes, as it's exactly the sort of thing that discussions like this revolve around: do the rules as written support believability.  Even something as simple as that one statement gets the point across that things are intended to be believable, and that the game world *does* have internal physics and the DM had better keep this in mind.




Har har. "The game world doesn't require fires to use oxygen; if it did, it would have said so just like the rule for gravity!"


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 10, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is how the rules are the physics of the world rather than the physics of the player controlling the character in the world.
> 
> I've always thought of the rules as an interface system rather than an operating system.
> 
> Treating it otherwise always breaks verisimilitude for me because it inevitably leads to Red Mage from 8-bit theater.




Well, to continue the metaphor, players expect to belong to the same inheritance hierarchy as every other roughly humanoid creature.  When it's obvious that other creatures are using neither constructor or logic but public setter functions to access their vital stats ("He has 50 hp, despite his level, Con mod, and feats.  Because."), and that each individual creature is scratch-built and using their own functions rather than generic, properly debugged helper methods, verisimilitude isn't.



			
				small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> A very good 3.x example is spawn propagation of certain incorporeal undead, (In fact this actually came up in a recent game) where a strict following of RAW allows a single Wraith to create a chain reaction and depopulate entire citys in minutes.
> 
> "The Rules aren't the Physics of the World" allows the DM to limit this, to say "this is how it works in combat, but for these reasons the obvious implications do not come about", but it doesn't really prevent it from being annoying and arguably sloppy.




Again, "The physics of the world are the rules of the game, modified and clarified in places" is  different than "Rules aren't physics."

Also, I've found that such clarifications tend to produce worse results; they give any apocalyptic villain a simple goal to shoot for, with word-of-god confirmation that if the villain can overcome the limitation, the world go boom.  At some point, you need to expose the physics of the world in order for your players to make meaningful choices, and given time, it is expected that the characters should have worked these laws of nature out.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 10, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> A very good 3.x example is spawn propagation of certain incorporeal undead, (In fact this actually came up in a recent game) where a strict following of RAW allows a single Wraith to create a chain reaction and depopulate entire citys in minutes.
> 
> "The Rules aren't the Physics of the World" allows the DM to limit this, to say "this is how it works in combat, but for these reasons the obvious implications do not come about", but it doesn't really prevent it from being annoying and arguably sloppy.



I disagree.  I don't want to have to go through the books with a fine tooth comb, looking for things like this.  I don't want to find out that "Well, since I'm using the rules as the physics of the game world it is only a matter of time before everyone in the world is an incorporeal undead because of the rate they can turn people into themselves."

I can say "During combat with the PCs, the Wraiths turn one of them into another Wraith when X happens.  However, that's not the case for Wraiths fighting NPCs all over the place.  They have a different process to turn them into Wraiths or they never become Wraiths.  Therefore, the rules don't get in the way of creating a fun world."

The same thing with economic systems.  If the rules say, "The PCs can find anything below X GPs in a town of size Y" then I can sit back and know that it is for ease of play that such a thing happens, not the economic rule of the whole planet.  It isn't that every magic item in the book below a certain gp value is all sitting in a store in every town of size Y.  It is that the PCs are lucky and manage to come across someone who is traveling through who has one when they look for it.

When the PCs gain levels they also gain hitpoints.  Which let them survive longer.  This isn't necessarily true for everyone else on the planet.  Other people can be the most powerful mage in the world and still die by a simple dagger wound.

Yes, gravity still applies to everyone.  Yes, fire still burns normally.  However, the game effects that these things have on players is different from other people.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 10, 2008)

A whole lot of the arguments in this thread seem to boil down to this:

"When I review the stats of the monsters I fight...  blah blah blah...  crunch the numbers on his stats...  blah blah blah...  find discrepancies with how my character works versus the monster...  blah blah blah... breaks verisimilitude."

I have a very fast solution for that problem.

We like to pretend that there's no wrong way to play D&D.  This is of course false.  Any manner of playing D&D that involves intentionally engaging in behavior that makes you miserable is a wrong way of playing D&D.  If finding out that the monster's hit points don't match his con score and level wrecks your verisimilitude, stop doing it.  Leave that information alone.  It's like Dorothy, complaining that ever since she looked behind the curtain she just doesn't believe in the big floating green head anymore.  Of course she doesn't.  If she wanted to believe, she shouldn't have looked.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 10, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> At some point, you need to expose the physics of the world in order for your players to make meaningful choices, and given time, it is expected that the characters should have worked these laws of nature out.



This claim is false.

Players can make meaningful choices in RPGs in which the rules are not the physics of the gameworld, but rather a metagame device for distributing narrative control (in such a game, the physics of the gameworld are to be deduced from the totality of the narrative contributed by GM and players). It's just that the meaning of the choice will typically be what the _player_ wants, rather than what the GM wants.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 10, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> If finding out that the monster's hit points don't match his con score and level wrecks your verisimilitude, stop doing it.



That's why they call it the 'willing suspension of disbelief'.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 10, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This claim is false.
> 
> Players can make meaningful choices in RPGs in which the rules are not the physics of the gameworld...



Exactly right. As DM, I've offered players plenty of meaningful choices that had nothing to do with the melting point of lead, the acceleration due to gravity, or the general physical characteristics of like-sized hominids.

I've always offered players dramatic choices based on characters, motivations, and conflicts. I try to focus on the Shakespearean rather than the Newtonian or Aristotelean (though I usually end up with the 3rd-rate Pratchettarian... go figure).   

It's with some curiosity that I note these discussions of verisimilitude never seem to involve the fictitious persons/personalities in a campaign world and the underlying drama beneath the comic book fantasy violence. The physics of the gameworlds I'm familiar with is narrative, not, well, simulated physics.


----------



## Derren (Apr 10, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This claim is false.
> 
> Players can make meaningful choices in RPGs in which the rules are not the physics of the gameworld, but rather a metagame device for distributing narrative control (in such a game, the physics of the gameworld are to be deduced from the totality of the narrative contributed by GM and players). It's just that the meaning of the choice will typically be what the _player_ wants, rather than what the GM wants.




When the rules are not the physics of the game you can offer the players a list of options and they can pick one. The players can only make free choices when the physics of the game world don't depend on DM fiat.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 10, 2008)

For the record, in the game Og: Unearthed, there are 18 words a character can know.  For fast character generation, it is recommended that you select which if the 1d6+2 words you actually know by drawing them from a hat.  These are the possible words.

You, Me, Rock, Water, Fire, Stick, Hairy, Bang, Sleep, Smelly, Small, Big, Cave, Food, Thing, Shiny, Go, and Verisimilitude.

That last word is _crucial_ for certain types of players.  Mostly the type that gets stomped by a dinosaur very, very fast.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 10, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> A whole lot of the arguments in this thread seem to boil down to this:
> 
> "When I review the stats of the monsters I fight...  blah blah blah...  crunch the numbers on his stats...  blah blah blah...  find discrepancies with how my character works versus the monster...  blah blah blah... breaks verisimilitude."
> 
> ...



Assuming people can't change their preferences due to good or bad experiences, this is true. Don't play something that's not fun for you. 

But let me say it this way. When I was first introduced to D&D 3E (after Shadowrun), I cringed at the idea of hit points and the absurd spellcasting system. These days, I appreciate the hit points, versimilitsdfingsdingsidnisdnfwerirenwtn aside, simply because of their pure game play value. I even began to like some parts of the spellcasting system (D&D spells seemed extremely unformulaic and evocative to me, with spells like Scry, Bigby's Grasping Hand, Mordekainen's Magnificent Mansion, compared to Shadowruns Level 5 Manabolts, Level 3 Armor spells and Level 4 Fire Elementals) 

Experience can change your likes and dislikes a lot.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The players can only make free choices when the physics of the game world don't depend on DM fiat.



This is patently false. It's only true when and if the players/DM cannot agree on what's reasonable.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 10, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Players can make meaningful choices in RPGs in which the rules are not the physics of the gameworld, but rather a metagame device for distributing narrative control (in such a game, the physics of the gameworld are to be deduced from the totality of the narrative contributed by GM and players).




That's been my experience with Prime Time Adventures, where the mechanics have _nothing_ to do with the physics of the gameworld.  (The conflict resolution mechanics are basically this: Get a number of cards equal to your [the player's] investment in this conflict.  Red cards are 1 point each.  Whoever gets the most red cards gets what he wanted out of the conflict.  Whoever gets the highest card gets to narrate what happens.)


----------



## billd91 (Apr 10, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Exactly right. As DM, I've offered players plenty of meaningful choices that had nothing to do with the melting point of lead, the acceleration due to gravity, or the general physical characteristics of like-sized hominids.




I think you're jumping the gun on whether the claim is false or not. I think the post you and pemerton are responding to was imprecise in talking about making a meaningful choice. The players do have to have an understanding of what the rules mean about the game's physics model for interacting with parts of the _physical_ world, particularly for understanding the boundaries for cinematic action, in order to make some meaningful choices without simply appealing to referee authority.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> When the rules are not the physics of the game you can offer the players a list of options and they can pick one. The players can only make free choices when the physics of the game world don't depend on DM fiat.



In any game you will not have free choice.  There are always limitations on what you can do.  Some games have more limitations than others.

Even a game where the rules ARE the physics of the game world has limitations of choice. They are just things like "You can't fly at will unless you have an ability that lets you ignore gravity", "You can only jump X high" and the like.

Whereas, if you have a game where the GM is firmly in charge of how the physics work and they (could) change every minute you end up with either just as much choices as you had before or less.

However, less choice isn't always bad.  Less choice creates a more focused game.  Assuming your choices somehow got reduced to:
-Attack the Dragon and save the princess
-Attack the Beholder and save the princess

All of your options advance the plot of the game, involve an exciting combat, give you the chance to work together with your party to accomplish a heroic and spectacular feat.

If your options are nearly infinite the game could just as likely consist of sitting in a bar drinking as it does adventuring.  And this game is fine for some people whose idea of fun is sitting in a bar talking to each other.  However, when I sit down to play a game for a couple hours, I want to skip all of those parts and go directly to the action and the story.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Yes, as it's exactly the sort of thing that discussions like this revolve around: do the rules as written support believability.  Even something as simple as that one statement gets the point across that things are intended to be believable, and that the game world *does* have internal physics and the DM had better keep this in mind.  (what I'd really like to see in the DMG is some brief discussion of the physics of magic, it'd save a lot of arguments; but I'm not holding my breath)  Even more useful would be some discussion in the DMG on how to usefully alter fundamental physics and keep things consistent/believable...for example, half-strength gravity, planets orbiting each other at real-world impossibly close range, removal of magnetic forces, etc.
> 
> Lanefan




But, in that direction madness lies.  Where do you stop?  Looking at published settings throughout all time, I see settings that are written by people whose grasp of physics and whatnot is no better than mine.  Expecting a proper explanation of fundamental physics in a game world is pretty much beyond the expertise of (I'm guessing here) the overwhelming majority of RPG writers.

There has to be a limit on how much the DMG has to provide for the DM.  The DM should be able to pick up the slack.  To make D&D even remotely believable you'd have to do massive reworks on the rules.  Heck, look at Harn.  That's about as Sim as it gets in fantasy RPG's.  The rules are certainly grandfathered from D&D, but, they're not even close anymore.

If 4e actually attempted to do what you propose - provide a believable framework for designing entire worlds, you'd need a DMG that's about 5000 pages long.


----------



## Derren (Apr 10, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> And this game is fine for some people whose idea of fun is sitting in a bar talking to each other.  However, when I sit down to play a game for a couple hours, I want to skip all of those parts and go directly to the action and the story.




And how does the existence of many choices prevent you from going adventuring? You seem to imply that more choices = only boring choices which of course is completely false. 

Some people simply want to be able to decide if they instead of attacking the dragon/beholder negotiate instead. Or that they instead of attacking can sneak past the dragon and get the princess out. But all those choices are barred unless the DM offers those options as the PCs can never know if their plans would really work as the physics of the game world are not known to them and something which works inside the combat might not work outside of them.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And how does the existence of many choices prevent you from going adventuring? You seem to imply that more choices = only boring choices which of course is completely false.
> 
> Some people simply want to be able to decide if they instead of attacking the dragon/beholder negotiate instead. Or that they instead of attacking can sneak past the dragon and get the princess out. But all those choices are barred unless the DM offers those options as the PCs can never know if their plans would really work as the physics of the game world are not known to them and something which works inside the combat might not work outside of them.




That is a very, very large leap that you simply cannot make.

You are assuming that all choices only work in combat.  Why would you assume this?  We already know that there are mechanics for resolving skill challenges, for example.  The players know that their plan has a chance of working because the mechanics are there to resolve the results of their actions.  

Actions =/= combat.

However, rules=physics means that all rules must apply equally to everything that exists within the setting.  You cannot possibly achieve that goal within the framework of an RPG.  Exceptions have to be made and will be made constantly.  Omissions will likewise be made, simply because the DM is assumed to fill in those gaps.

You effectively arguing that because there are no rules covering it, no one could possibly swim in 1e D&D.  Since 1e lacked any skill based mechanics (other than thief abilities) there is no possible way that anyone could make a sword in that system.  

Likewise, in 3e, since there is no penalty for not sleeping, my character in your world should never have to sleep.  Makes guarding a whole lot easier I suppose.

The only way you could create a system where rules=physics is if you place hard limits on what the players can do.  In order for the system to work, you would have to forbid any action that isn't expressly covered by the rules.  In other words, you'd have to turn the game into a video game.  That's precisely what a system where rules=physics looks like.  You cannot step outside the phyics in a video game ever.  

I doubt that's your goal.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 10, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The players do have to have an understanding of what the rules mean about the game's physics model for interacting with parts of the _physical_ world, particularly for understanding the boundaries for cinematic action, in order to make some meaningful choices without simply appealing to referee authority.




Not true.  See my post above yours about Prime Time Adventures.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Some people simply want to be able to decide if they instead of attacking the dragon/beholder negotiate instead. Or that they instead of attacking can sneak past the dragon and get the princess out. But all those choices are barred unless the DM offers those options as the PCs can never know if their plans would really work as the physics of the game world are not known to them and something which works inside the combat might not work outside of them.




That's why I like to resolve things using dice.  That way I don't have to know the physics of the game world, an neither does the DM, and we don't get in huge arguments about the melting point of steel or something like that.


----------



## Derren (Apr 10, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> You are assuming that all choices only work in combat.  Why would you assume this?  We already know that there are mechanics for resolving skill challenges, for example.  The players know that their plan has a chance of working because the mechanics are there to resolve the results of their actions.




The goal of a good plan is not to have a skill challenge. You don't need a plan for that. You can walk up to the dragon and start rolling skill checks. A good plan still involves skill checks, but tries to minimize them (random element) and instead uses the unique abilities of each characters to their full effect. But when rules are not the physics of the world the players can never be sure how their abilities work when applied outside of their normal territory which makes planning rather hard to do.







> > However, rules=physics means that all rules must apply equally to everything that exists within the setting.  You cannot possibly achieve that goal within the framework of an RPG.  Exceptions have to be made and will be made constantly.  Omissions will likewise be made, simply because the DM is assumed to fill in those gaps.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And how does the existence of many choices prevent you from going adventuring? You seem to imply that more choices = only boring choices which of course is completely false.



No, I was just suggesting that sometimes restricting choices to only the fun ones can make a more fun game.  It's certainly possible (and perhaps even likely) that a group given infinite choice will still choose the fun options.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Some people simply want to be able to decide if they instead of attacking the dragon/beholder negotiate instead. Or that they instead of attacking can sneak past the dragon and get the princess out. But all those choices are barred unless the DM offers those options as the PCs can never know if their plans would really work as the physics of the game world are not known to them and something which works inside the combat might not work outside of them.



I can tell you now, 4e doesn't restrict things as much as my above example.  I was just using it to illustrate that even if those were the only 2 options they were both still fun options.  I think it's a matter of having fun using the options you have instead of complaining about the options you don't.

They aren't all barred, however.  The idea is that there IS still physics.  The rules just don't simulate them.  If we had rules that simulated physics exactly then we'd want to determine how much noise was made by the armor and equipment you are wearing each second of your movement and how heavy your footfalls were and then figure out the propagation of sound waves through the chamber, figuring out where they bounce to and how loud they were when they reached the dragon...and so on.  You can abstract some of that if you want the rules to be less precise, but you want to model those exact circumstances IN the rules somehow.  That means a roll of some sort to try to be quiet a roll of some sort to see if the dragon hears it, modifiers for distance and the like.

You can still sneak past the dragon if the rules are not the physics of the world.  You just attempt to model it differently.  The questions become: Do I WANT the players to sneak past the dragon?  Is it more fun for them or me if it happens one way or another?  How difficult should it be to sneak past the dragon?  What are the consequences of failure?  What are the benefits of succeeding?  Does it help the story I want to tell if they succeed?  How about if they fail?

Then you use the answer to those questions to determine a DC.  If it should be really hard set a hard DC, should be average set an average one, should be easy set an easy one.  If it doesn't matter if they succeed or fail might as well resort to the default and use a standard stealth vs perception roll.

However, it gives the DM the power to say "A pure roll would have the PCs discovered every time.  I want them to get past this as it makes a more interesting encounter if they do, so I'll set it low."  Once again, yes, this is always something the DM COULD have done.  The difference is in the rules.  One system ENCOURAGES changing it based on those factors, the other one discourages it.


----------



## Derren (Apr 10, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> No, I was just suggesting that sometimes restricting choices to only the fun ones can make a more fun game.  It's certainly possible (and perhaps even likely) that a group given infinite choice will still choose the fun options.




If the PCs want to play something which is in your opinion boring why stop them? When they want it then it apparently is fun for them.







> They aren't all barred, however.  The idea is that there IS still physics.  The rules just don't simulate them.




At some point you must still decide how the rules interact with the physics of the game world and unless you do it by DM fiat (imo bad) then you need rules for that. And imo it is nearly always preferable to directly say that rules = physics instead having "conversion rules". But those are still preferable to DM fiat.







> Do I WANT the players to sneak past the dragon?




Here our opinions simply differ. Imo a DM shoud not want any specific outcome. The PCs should be able to decide what to do, no matter if it is fun or boring in the eyes of the DM who in turn should provide realistic, logical consequences to the actions to their actions. Of course that doesn't work if you have players who don't think about what they do and instead charge, hoping that the DM will save them but I normally don't tend to DM for such people.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Some people simply want to be able to decide if they instead of attacking the dragon/beholder negotiate instead. Or that they instead of attacking can sneak past the dragon and get the princess out. But all those choices are barred unless the DM offers those options as the PCs can never know if their plans would really work as the physics of the game world are not known to them and something which works inside the combat might not work outside of them.




As contrived as it might be, the simple fact remains that no amount of rules can give more options or less options than a DM is willing to allow.  Crappy DM's don't get better with more rules.


----------



## Derren (Apr 10, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> As contrived as it might be, the simple fact remains that no amount of rules can give more options or less options than a DM is willing to allow.  Crappy DM's don't get better with more rules.




Rules can give you more options. There is a difference between:

Leader: Hey Eladrin. We distract the dragon while you Feystep into its lair, get the Princes and Feystep out again
Eladrin: I can't Feystep through solid objects.
Leader: Thats bad. We have to find an air hole for this to work. Or you teleport through the front entrance and hope that the dragon doesn't see you.

and

Leader: Leader: Hey Eladrin. We distract the dragon while you Feystep into its lair, get the Princes and Feystep out again
Player of the Eladrin. I don't know if that works, can I carry the princess when I Feystep? And last time the DM didn't let me Feystep through that door so I don't know if I can do it now through the stone wall.


PS: I know that we can't say if those examples are really correct. They are just to demonstrate why having concrete rules is sometimes better than having to rely on the DM for definite rulings.


----------



## Kordeth (Apr 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Leader: Leader: Hey Eladrin. We distract the dragon while you Feystep into its lair, get the Princes and Feystep out again
> Player of the Eladrin. I don't know if that works, can I carry the princess when I Feystep? And last time the DM didn't let me Feystep through that door so I don't know if I can do it now through the stone wall.




And unless your DM is a complete and total jerk who delights in watching his players fumble blindly in the dark, you left out the last line of this conversation.

DM: Yeah, I've ruled that _fey step_ doesn't work through solid objects. I hadn't considered carrying someone before, but we'll say you can _fey step_ carrying anything up to your encumbrance limit. Better hope that princess is in good shape.

_Even if there is no rule on the subject_ (and I'm willing to say with virtually 100% certainty that "teleport" is a movement type like fly or swim now, and has its own entry that tells you how teleporting works), in ordinary circumstances the DM should be telling the players whether what they're asking will work, not work, or require a check _before they attempt it._ Anything else is just being a jerkstore.

Granted, exceptions can be made if the player is trying something so out of bounds as to be something the character would have no way of gauging the success of the action ("Can I teleport into the dragon's stomach and survive long enough to cut my way out?"), but in 90% of circumstances where the DM has to make up an ad hoc ruling about something, he should inform the player of the ruling _before_ the player attempts the action. This is what is known as "good DMing," and until we perfect both the infinite monkey-typewriter writing room and the technology to store 18-trillion page rulebooks on transdimensional hypercubes, there's never going to be a game that doesn't require it.


----------



## cwhs01 (Apr 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Rules can give you more options.





You have some very good points here, i'll give you that. I think the important word in the sentence above is CAN. 

Wether a comprehensive ruleset is a good thing or bad, when it comes to choices in possible ingame actions, is entirely dependent on the premise and the design goal of the system. And also very much dependent on the expectations of the players and dm.

Spirit of the Century is a rpg, were the intended goal of the rulesystem is to emulate the pulp genre of fiction in an uncomplicated way ruleswise. There are no real limitations in the actions that can be taken as long as they would work in an pulp novel. This is the definition of the games physics (imo and as i interpret the intent of the rules). is it fun and would it work for the shadow, doc savage or the spirit? if yes, then go ahead.

Also. I've played in ruleless rpg's and not felt i lacked any choices in actions. I've played complicated systems, such as GURPS, where i felt restricted in what i could do. And i've played in games where i didn't really know the rules and tried things where i had no real chance of succeeding (WoD).

If the players have a different idea of what should be possible than the GM, then a lighter less comprehensive rulessystem could cause problems. Especially if the purpose and intent of the rulesystem isn't as obvious as Spirit of the Century, a comprehensive ruleset can be a very good thing.

However, i think that it has been stated numerous times that 4e is about high action cinematic fantasy (inspired perhaps by tolkien, but not really resembling his works in the slightest anymore). If a given action would be fun and look good in the movie based on the campaign, there should be a good chance it works and doesn't kill any pc's. maim them perhaps (or give them a fleshwound and a nice scar for the collection).

imo this is enough for me, but we'll get more rules, DC's, etc. to adjudicate and explain/understand the gameworld when we see the final 4e ruleset. Ofcourse we will.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 10, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Yes, as it's exactly the sort of thing that discussions like this revolve around: do the rules as written support believability. Even something as simple as that one statement gets the point across that things are intended to be believable, and that the game world *does* have internal physics and the DM had better keep this in mind.




Well, I was reading through this thread, and I think I have some new light to shed on this "the rules aren't physics" debate.

I believe myself to be firmly in the camp that believes "the rules of the game do not reflect the physics of the gameworld." However, I would state it more accurately as: the probabilities laid out for actions occurring in game according to the rules do not accurately reflect all of the available probabilities for events in the game world.

In other words, things that might happen frequently to the PCs do not necessarily ever happen to an NPC. Similarly, actions that might happen to any given NPC are not necessarily common enough that there's a reasonable chance of them happening to a PC.

This is based on the fundamental conceit that the PCs are touched by luck, destiny, divine providence, or some other _thing_ that makes their lives _different_ from those of the people around them.

When a PC gets "hit" by a sword blow and survives a cut that would kill a shopkeeper, it's not that _the physics are different_. In reality, the shopkeeper could take a mighty blow and survive (in the same way that a convenience store clerk today can be shot in the head and survive). The _difference_ is that the PC, through luck and skill (and whatever supernatural forces come into play), is not likely to die when this happens, whereas, most of the time, an ordinary person would. The PCs operate under different rules than the rest of the world, but most people _in the game world_ would only notice that the PCs (and _some_ NPCs) seem to be especially skilled, lucky, blessed, or whatever.

This is done for two reasons:

1) Most people would rather play the guy who's touched by luck or destiny than the random shopkeeper.
2) From a game perspective, most players don't want their characters to die easily.

When I (and others) say that PCs are "heroes" or "the protagonists of the story," what we're really talking about is skewing the rules of the game (specifically, the conflict resolution probabilities) to facilitate ongoing action adventure stories. Yes, there's still a risk of death in what the characters do, but for the PCs, it's reduced by all the things that make them _different._

Most NPCs don't enjoy that kind of protection because, from the standpoint of the fun of those playing, they're disposable. If someone guts the shopkeeper with a sword, or if he gets knifed in a bar fight, he's likely to die. Sure, that shopkeeper should have a wife, children, hopes, dreams, and maybe a nice lawn gnome collection, but isn't his personality more important to the game being played than properly statting him out as a 4th-level commoner?

Personally, I'd argue that an NPC with a well-developed personality and no stats is a more "real" part of the game world than a fully-statted one with no personality. But that's just how I play.

And in the case of 4E, we're actually talking about "minimal stats" as opposed to "none."


----------



## D'karr (Apr 10, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Rules can give you more options.




And as has already been stated none of those options are even viable unless the DM allows them.

For an example let's go to the ranger.  He has an ability that gives him bonuses to his rolls in and out of combat against certain enemies.  That is pretty well defined.  According to you that provides more options.

But the chance to even use that ability is entirely dependent on the DM providing that enemy.  If you have a good DM he will find a way to make sure your ability doesn't go to waste.  He either, purposely, places those creatures into the narrative so that you can exercise your cool schtick, or he told the player ahead of time that the game includes a lot of monster X so that the player can tailor his character with favored enemy (Monster X).

A poor DM does the opposite.

Let take a look at cleave.  A pretty nifty feat...  If you ever face more than one creature in combat.  If your DM never puts more than one creature into a combat that feat is wasted character sheet space.

So the options are provided not by the rules but by the DM.  That is true of any edition of D&D.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 10, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> And unless your DM is a complete and total jerk who delights in watching his players fumble blindly in the dark, you left out the last line of this conversation.
> 
> DM: Yeah, I've ruled that _fey step_ doesn't work through solid objects. I hadn't considered carrying someone before, but we'll say you can _fey step_ carrying anything up to your encumbrance limit. Better hope that princess is in good shape.
> 
> ...




What we have here is a persistent failure to communicate.  At the point when the DM decides that you can fey step with another person as long as they're under your encumberance limit, we've got a rule.  We've got a statement about how the physical universe works.  We have, in fact, a game rule that is part of the physics of the world.

And here's the great part: the rules books can agree, disagree, or be totally silent on the subject.  There's a reason that we have the term RAW, and use it as distinct from The Rules.

Really, past a certain point it becomes tautological.  All conflicts are resolved by metagame mechanics, then the physics of the universe is that there are no physics of the universe; a player can win a conflict causing the world to explode for no reason next round.  Characters, of course, can be convinced otherwise; if the conflict-resolution follows certain patterns, characters may try to understand the world ("Hey, certain types of threats that aren't dramatic never seriously hurt me.  I guess that spikiness and weight take a back seat to theatrics on determining how hazardous an event is!"), but ultimately, there is no paradigm to comprehend.

And I'm pretty much unable to get inside the head of a character who believes this and doesn't stick his head into the Far Realms and call out, "You know what, guys? This multiverse sucks.  You all can have it.  I'm going to go off and make a better one."


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Apr 10, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I guess what I am saying is that "but the rules don't simulate the world!" is a false contradiction. That isn't what gameplay is for, and the rules are for gameplay.




That pretty much nails the situation.  The rules are, in general, not meant to be a reasonable simulation of real situations.  The rules are meant to be a plausible abstraction of real situations.

If the abstraction is reasonable enough to serve suspension of disbelief within the context of the game, than that should be good enough.  And with respect to D&D, while having the monsters and the players use exactly the same rules is ideal on paper.  In practice, there is not much benefit to gameplay, and it causes more work than the abstraction requires.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 10, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> So it's like Rock-Paper-Scissors except that rock beats rock, and paper beats paper, but paper also gets to beat rock?




Not at all.....

Maybe my players aren't playing wizards correctly, but fighters tend to butcher them.  Generally the fighter saves against what the wizard throws at him, and then the fighter gets his 3 attacks in or whatever, and the wizard is toast.

The system seems dependent upon an assumption that the wizard has all his buffs in place ahead of time, and the fighter is standing far enough away that he can't reach the wizard in one round of charging (or running).

If the fighter is standing there, with his sword in the scabbard, and the wizard doesn't have his buffs on, and they see each other, and the fighter is close enough that he can get to the wizard in one or two rounds of running, the wizard generally doesn't last long.

Fighters just do such massive damage when played properly, particularly when equipped for their level etc.  In contrast, it's not like wizards have lots of bracelets that maximize their fireballs at no extra cost, etc.

Maybe the players of fighters in my groups have been better than the players of wizards, but that's been my experience.

I can't be the only one, because for every person who says fighters are useless, and wizards too powerful, I hear someone else say the opposite.

Banshee


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 10, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> All conflicts are resolved by metagame mechanics, then the physics of the universe is that there are no physics of the universe




Um...

My recent game of Prime Time Adventures only had metagame mechanics, and there were physics in that fictional universe.


----------



## Derren (Apr 10, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> And as has already been stated none of those options are even viable unless the DM allows them.




If Rules = Physics everything goes only the DM disallows it. If not then nothing works unless the DM allows it.

Or in other words, with rules=physics the players know, by knowing the rules what will work in the game and what not. If that is not the case then the players always have to guess how the DM will rule in the case and never can be sure how their powers work in the situation because the DM might "railroad" them elsewhere to preserve the story.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 10, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Not at all.....
> 
> Maybe my players aren't playing wizards correctly, but fighters tend to butcher them.  Generally the fighter saves against what the wizard throws at him, and then the fighter gets his 3 attacks in or whatever, and the wizard is toast.




I guess your wizards never learn _Hold Person_ then?



> *Hold Person*
> Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
> Level: Brd 2, Clr 2, Sor/Wiz 3
> Components: V, S, F/DF
> ...




Emphasis mine. Will negates. On a fighter? He's hosed. And that's just off the top of my head.

Don't target his Fort save - go for his weakness: Will.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 10, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> What we have here is a persistent failure to communicate.  At the point when the DM decides that you can fey step with another person as long as they're under your encumberance limit, we've got a rule.  We've got a statement about how the physical universe works.  We have, in fact, a game rule that is part of the physics of the world.



True or possibly false.  It might just be that one character in particular has the power to take people with him while others don't.  It might be that this particular power can take people with him but other teleports can't.

But, the idea is that not ALL rules are the physics of the world.  And you shouldn't necessarily assume that since it works for you that it'll work for everyone.  Some rules certainly might align themselves with the physics of the world.  Others may not.

A rough example is:  Say it is a DC 15 jump check to jump 15 feet according to the rules.  It works that way every time the PCs try it.  Jump checks are strength based and you roll a d20 plus your strength modifier.  Which means any NPC with a strength of 14 should be able to make that roll 40% of the time.

Now, say you think 15 feet is an awfully far distance to jump and think that non-heroic types should never be able to jump that far unless they are special somehow.  So, you make the physics of the world such that jumping 15 feet can only be done by NPCs you think could make it.  Everyone else fails.  Those you think can make it almost always succeed unless there is a reason for them to fail.

So, you have a set of rules that let you determine if the PCs can do something.  And then you have a set of physics.  One disagrees with the other, but it doesn't matter because the physics of the world don't apply to the PCs, the rules do instead.

They can base consistent decisions based on the rules and what is possible FOR them.

For instance, maybe not all Eladrin have the ability to teleport but PC Eladrin do.  The physics of the world don't say "All Eladrin have this power", the rules of the game do.


			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> Really, past a certain point it becomes tautological.  All conflicts are resolved by metagame mechanics, then the physics of the universe is that there are no physics of the universe; a player can win a conflict causing the world to explode for no reason next round.  Characters, of course, can be convinced otherwise; if the conflict-resolution follows certain patterns, characters may try to understand the world ("Hey, certain types of threats that aren't dramatic never seriously hurt me.  I guess that spikiness and weight take a back seat to theatrics on determining how hazardous an event is!"), but ultimately, there is no paradigm to comprehend.



They never think that because they don't have that information.  They don't know what is dramatic and what isn't.  They don't know how hazardous something is by the game rules.  If the player rolls a 1 on a Jump skill roll  for a total of 5 on the roll and the DM says "You make it the 20 feet to the other side, just barely, you have to grab on to the ledge on the other side an pull yourself up.  You breathe a sigh of relief as you were THAT close to falling to your death" your character isn't thinking "I'm glad that was dramatic and the DM wanted me to get to the other side so I succeeded.  I wasn't worried because that's the way things ALWAYS work for me."  He is instead thinking "I'm glad I didn't die, but I could have."

Thinking that they always seem to succeed anyways is what is called metagaming.  Knowing that you are slightly above normal people and seems to succeed where an average peasant couldn't is normal for them however.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 11, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> If Rules = Physics everything goes only the DM disallows it. If not then nothing works unless the DM allows it.



This isn't true.  Rules=Physics creates upper and lower limits.  It says "Walls above this difficulty cannot be climbed by you, you cannot fly, you take 10d6 damage for falling 100 feet, you can tumble past people if you are good enough".  It both gives you options and gives you restrictions.

The other way around gives you options and restrictions as well.  However, SOME of the restrictions are put in by the DM instead of the physics of the game world.  Some of the options are put in by the DM instead of the physics of the game world as well.

As an example:
Physics=rules says the longer you fall the more damaging the fall.  As you learn to fight better you can survive longer falls.  Everyone who is a good fighter can jump off 100 ft tall cliffs and expect to survive.  This is because the rules say that as you gain levels you gain hitpoints and the more hitpoints you have the higher falls you can survive.

Physics<>rules says that a 100 ft fall kills everyone.  There are rumors that some people have luckily survived such a fall, but it would be rare indeed.  The game rules say that PCs survive the fall every time at high levels, however.  They actually break the laws of physics because they are the PCs.  However, given that the laws of physics haven't changed, it doesn't mean that just because some NPC is good at fighting that he'll survive the fall.


			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Or in other words, with rules=physics the players know, by knowing the rules what will work in the game and what not. If that is not the case then the players always have to guess how the DM will rule in the case and never can be sure how their powers work in the situation because the DM might "railroad" them elsewhere to preserve the story.



There are still rules.  If the DM follows the rules then the PCs know what to expect.  They use rules to figure it out instead of physics.

Things that need to be codified still are.  Your powers still tell you exactly how they work in the game.  They just aren't the actual physics of the world.

You might have a power that says "Shift an ally 6 squares and they can make a basic attack." that you can use as a standard action.  It doesn't necessarily mean that your ally suddenly went into super speed mode and was able to move double the speed he normally does.  It could simply mean that during his last turn he moved very efficiently.  You retroactively cause him to have moved a different direction and found an opportunity for an extra attack when an enemy was distracted.

The game effect is that your ally has taken 12 squares worth of movement and 2 standard actions during a round.  The physics of the situation is different from the actual rules, mind you.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> /snip
> 
> 
> 
> ...






			
				Derren said:
			
		

> At some point you must still decide how the rules interact with the physics of the game world and unless you do it by DM fiat (imo bad) then you need rules for that. And imo it is nearly always preferable to directly say that rules = physics instead having "conversion rules". But those are still preferable to DM fiat.




Do you see the inherent conflict in these two quotes.  First, you say that if the rules don't cover a situation, you should make a rule, but, in the second quote, you say that making new rules (DM's Fiat) is bad.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 11, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> True or possibly false.  It might just be that one character in particular has the power to take people with him while others don't.  It might be that this particular power can take people with him but other teleports can't.
> 
> But, the idea is that not ALL rules are the physics of the world.  And you shouldn't necessarily assume that since it works for you that it'll work for everyone.  Some rules certainly might align themselves with the physics of the world.  Others may not.
> 
> ...



Yes, this is a failure to communicate here.  Physics describe something (generally something physical) that happens in the world.  If the nature of the game world is that some characters are PCs, and have their ability to jump gaps resolved by a d20 roll plus a modifier, and some characters are NPCs, and make or fail jumps regardless of what their modifier would have been were they PCs, then the physics of the world say that there are two classes of being with regards to jumping (PC and NPC), and that they jump differently.

Likewise, once a ruling is made that some eladrins teleport in a particular way and that others don't, physics are being established.  "The world works like X for these situations and Y for these other situations." is certainly within the bounds of physics, as is "X in this case is, as far as we can tell, totally non-deterministic, at least with regards to what determines Y."

Physics support the idea of a world where there are special classes of beings who interact with reality in a totally different manner.  If that is the way events are resolved at the table, _then those are the physics of the gameworld_.




> They never think that because they don't have that information.  They don't know what is dramatic and what isn't.  They don't know how hazardous something is by the game rules.  If the player rolls a 1 on a Jump skill roll  for a total of 5 on the roll and the DM says "You make it the 20 feet to the other side, just barely, you have to grab on to the ledge on the other side an pull yourself up.  You breathe a sigh of relief as you were THAT close to falling to your death" your character isn't thinking "I'm glad that was dramatic and the DM wanted me to get to the other side so I succeeded.  I wasn't worried because that's the way things ALWAYS work for me."  He is instead thinking "I'm glad I didn't die, but I could have."
> 
> Thinking that they always seem to succeed anyways is what is called metagaming.  Knowing that you are slightly above normal people and seems to succeed where an average peasant couldn't is normal for them however.



Well, yes.  A character that knows that in ordinary conditions, they can jump between 5 and 25 feet with a running start should expect that he could succeed or fail. A plate-clad halfling low-Str halfling (or, conversely, a thri-kreen) should not experience a moment of drama.  Possibly dying is an expected result of failing a DC 20 jump check with a +5 modifier.  However, the tenth time a character has been forced to make a jump check under pressure and 'just made it' or so, the character should have noticed that the world seems to work differently under certain conditions.

And observing the world and drawing conclusions about it is the exact opposite of metagaming.  Metagaming is using knowledge your character shouldn't have.  Your character should notice if he can't do something, then suddenly can, then can't again, and he should wonder why.



> As an example:
> Physics=rules says the longer you fall the more damaging the fall. As you learn to fight better you can survive longer falls. Everyone who is a good fighter can jump off 100 ft tall cliffs and expect to survive. This is because the rules say that as you gain levels you gain hitpoints and the more hitpoints you have the higher falls you can survive.
> 
> Physics<>rules says that a 100 ft fall kills everyone. There are rumors that some people have luckily survived such a fall, but it would be rare indeed. The game rules say that PCs survive the fall every time at high levels, however. They actually break the laws of physics because they are the PCs. However, given that the laws of physics haven't changed, it doesn't mean that just because some NPC is good at fighting that he'll survive the fall.



Well, no.  The physics of the real world say that humans don't come in a category of 'tough enough to shrug off a 100' fall casually'.  The physics of the real world also say that humanoid-shaped creatures don't come in sizes above about eight feet without massive health problems, that dragon-shaped, -strength, and -weighted creatures can't fly, and that you can't wave a magic wand and conjure up bunnies.

Obviously, the physics of the real world do not describe the world of D&D.

It is assumed that when the assumptions of reality and the written rules clash, the rules win.  Reality assumes no magic and extremely limited heroism; D&D assumes copious amounts of both.  Problems happen when one side or the other decides to stop assuming a set of rules that form a basic set of assumptions about how the world works.  F'rex, I assume that if the rules say that a character can survive a level of trauma that is unrealistic, that I am playing a character not meant to stand within the bounds of what is physically possible here on Earth and move on.  Some characters can invoke magic; others can punch through steel with their bare hands; some can avoid area attacks effortlessly even though there appeared nowhere for them to go, and some can get thrown off cliffs and bounce.  If this is what happens, then this is the physics of the world.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 11, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Do you see the inherent conflict in these two quotes.  First, you say that if the rules don't cover a situation, you should make a rule, but, in the second quote, you say that making new rules (DM's Fiat) is bad.




I see no conflict.  JIT (with just-in-time being before anyone made a decision in which the rule would b a factor) rulemaking is not fiat, it's houseruling.  More to the point, "Make a new rule and stick to it." is not the same thing as "Arbitrate without apparent rhyme or reason."  DM fiat is not making new rules; it's overwriting existing ones.

Declaring beforehand that falls should be potentially lethal and that every fall above 50' carries with it a DC 15 Fort save to avoid death is houseruling.  Telling a player with 100 hp and the ability to avoid failing Fort saves on a one "You fall 50' off a a cliff and die." is fiat.

Making rules ensures that elements in the game world mesh.  A character with 12 levels of barbarian is one tough hombre; he started out tougher than 99% of Earth's population in terms of trauma and can now literally shrug off minor stab wounds with absolutely no injury.  But falling off a cliff is really deadly.  How deadly?  Is the hurty-mojo of the cliff enough to overcome the not-be-hurty-mojo of the barbarian?  Roll the dice and find out.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Apr 11, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Well, to continue the metaphor, players expect to belong to the same inheritance hierarchy as every other roughly humanoid creature.  When it's obvious that other creatures are using neither constructor or logic but public setter functions to access their vital stats ("He has 50 hp, despite his level, Con mod, and feats.  Because."), and that each individual creature is scratch-built and using their own functions rather than generic, properly debugged helper methods, verisimilitude isn't.




Why would they expect that?  Isn't it inefficient for the system to mimic player control settings for elements that clearly don't need them?  All they need are rules governing how they interact with player controlled elements.  And, theoretically, each other.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2008)

Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia does not require a citation to support the assertion than Abraham Lincoln was a president of the United States.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 11, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> But falling off a cliff is really deadly.  How deadly?  Is the hurty-mojo of the cliff enough to overcome the not-be-hurty-mojo of the barbarian?  Roll the dice and find out.




All 1s = 10 hp. Not enough to kill a 1st-level fighter.

The rules are about tilting the laws of what's probable in the character's favor, not distorting them beyond all reality.

Arguments like "there's magic" and "in the real world, creatures over 8 feet tall have major health problems" are utterly spurious in this context. In the parlance of fiction, those are what are called "genre assumptions." In other words, they are utterly irrelevant to a discussion of what is "believable" or "realistic" in the game world.


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 11, 2008)

Wow, this thread took quite an effort to slog through.

Here's my contribution: *granularity.*

First, physics of the real world, our world, is granular.  The easiest and popular example is Newtonian versus Relativity.  Both are "correct," despite being differing theories.  Newtonian physics covers _most_ situations, _most_ of the time.  You need Relativity to explain the fringe cases of the very big and the very fast.  Of course, even Relativity can't explain the very small, let alone when you divide by zero...

The point is, the Rules of the Game are extremely granular: they provide the physics of the game world _only insofar as they can be translated to the players in the context of a role playing game._  You could say it's physics, but they are Newtonian, and do not reveal the intricacies or detail of the _actual_ game world, if you wish.

You could even go so far as to say that the PCs, and those they interact with, use "Relativity" physics, while the rest of your game universe uses Newtonian.  Those rules _are_ accurate, and _do_ describe the game world, but because the PCs are the protagonists, they necessarily are considered a fringe case.  And even that doesn't cover all that is possible in the game universe... and that is what the DM is for.

NPCs and PCs, on-camera actions and off-camera actions *DO* follow the same physics, and the rules *DO* reflect this.  NPCs simply do not require the same level of detail or labor (mechanically, this issue has nothing to do with creative storytelling or "roleplaying") - hence they use Newtonian physics, while the PCs use the more fantastic Relativity.

Besides, the whole "physics of the game world" issue is far more prevalent in 3E.  If you want your character to have a particular special ability, oftentimes it required 10+ levels of planning, multiple prestige classes, and a fintely tuned feat and skill selection in order to pull off.  In 4E, this 1) seems far less so, and 2) far easier to tinker with, from a DM perspective.  In 4E, the DM has much greater leniency to change the physics/rules of the game world as he or she sees fit.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2008)

RL said:
			
		

> I see no conflict. JIT (with just-in-time being before anyone made a decision in which the rule would b a factor) rulemaking is not fiat, it's houseruling. More to the point, "Make a new rule and stick to it." is not the same thing as "Arbitrate without apparent rhyme or reason." DM fiat is not making new rules; it's overwriting existing ones.




Sorry, but that's needlessly splitting hairs.  In any case, the DM is making a judgement call to determine the results of the action.  DM's fiat in no way requires the DM to make different judgements when presented with similar situations.  Most house rules come into being after a particular in game event, not before since most of us cannot possibly determine how to resolve every in game event beforehand.

Take Derren's swimming example above.  I think he's actually talking about two different things.  He's right, if a character has a swim speed of 30, then he should always have that.  But, if another character has no swim speed, can he swim?  In the absence of a swim skill (pre 2e), can a character swim?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 11, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> When the rules are not the physics of the game you can offer the players a list of options and they can pick one. The players can only make free choices when the physics of the game world don't depend on DM fiat.



This is not really true. Given that, in the typical purist-for-system RPG (RM, RQ, GURPS) it is the GM who actually has overriding authority to narrate the world, the choices the players can make are quite circumscribed by what the GM establishes as the parameters for those choices.

Those rule systems do allow players to estimate the likely success of various actions once the GM's narration has been clearly undertaken. Given the importance of die rolls in such systems, it is important to note that the players can't choose for their PCs to achieve things, only for them to try things. This is a significant limitation on choice. It is what tends to give those games a rather gritty feel.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> The PCs should be able to decide what to do



I think you mean "the players should be able to decide what actions their PCs attempt".



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Some people simply want to be able to decide if they instead of attacking the dragon/beholder negotiate instead. Or that they instead of attacking can sneak past the dragon and get the princess out. But all those choices are barred unless the DM offers those options as the PCs can never know if their plans would really work as the physics of the game world are not known to them and something which works inside the combat might not work outside of them.



The availability of these options has nothing to do with whether or not the rules are the physics of the gameworld. In fact they depend on such things as the scope of the game's action resolution system. In most versions of D&D negotation is actually primarily an example of GM's fiat. It is more typical for more narrativist games (eg The Dying Earth), in which the rules are not the physics of the gameworld, to have adequate action resolution mechanics for negotiations.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> At some point you must still decide how the rules interact with the physics of the game world and unless you do it by DM fiat (imo bad) then you need rules for that.





			
				Derren said:
			
		

> with rules=physics the players know, by knowing the rules what will work in the game and what not. If that is not the case then the players always have to guess how the DM will rule in the case and never can be sure how their powers work in the situation because the DM might "railroad" them elsewhere to preserve the story.



Are you aware of the actual realworld existence of RPGs that have non-simulationist character build and action resolution mechanics? To mention The Dying Earth again, it has very detailed rules for resolving a wide range of PC actions. Those rules do not model the physics of the gameworld. Rather, they distribute narrative control across the various players of the game (including the GM).

In short: it is possible to have rules which the players can rely upon in playing the game, without those rules having to be the physics of the gameworld.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> the DM who in turn should provide realistic, logical consequences to the actions to their actions.



You seem to be saying that players have more choice when the GM has the sole authority for determining the consequences of their actions. That is not quite contradictory, but it's far from obviously true.



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> The players do have to have an understanding of what the rules mean about the game's physics model for interacting with parts of the _physical_ world, particularly for understanding the boundaries for cinematic action, in order to make some meaningful choices without simply appealing to referee authority.



This is not necessarily so. The rules can tell the players what choices are permitted without those rules being the physics of the gameworld. The rules, for example, may tell players what the limits are of their narrative control - perhaps no more than 1 friendly NPC to be introduced by the player per session. Such a rules would have no implications for the natural laws that govern demography of the gameworld.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> All conflicts are resolved by metagame mechanics, then the physics of the universe is that there are no physics of the universe; a player can win a conflict causing the world to explode for no reason next round.



Most FiTM action resolution systems require the player to narrate the action so as to explain the outcome. Thus, winning a conflict would not cause things to happen for no ingame reason. The player's narration would explain what the reason is.

A general question to all those who say that rules _must be_ the physics of the gameworld: do you actually deny the existence of RPGs (eg The Dying Earth, Prince Valiant, HeroWars, etc) which do have action resolution mechanics, but in which those mechanics are not the physics of the gameworld? Or do you think that the people who play those games don't understand what they are really doing when the play them?


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 11, 2008)

The important thing here is: Clerics can, indeed, Heal NPCs. 

Wait, sorry, what's this thread about? They're all blurring together.


----------



## Andor (Apr 11, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is how the rules are the physics of the world rather than the physics of the player controlling the character in the world.




The only ruleset covering how the player controls the character in the world that I have ever encountered is having to throw 25¢ in the kitty whenever someone says a word the host doesn't want their kid to hear.

1d6 damage per 10' fallen tells me how my character suffers in a fall, not how I do.


----------



## Andor (Apr 11, 2008)

Good lord. This thread is almost entirely people talking past each other. There are a dozen examples of people saying "No you're wrong! It works in exactly the way you described with slightly different phraseology!" 

People keep attacking points that nobody made, and refuteing playstyles that no one claimed.

I think this entire board needs to take a remedial reading comprehension class.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Good lord. This thread is almost entirely people talking past each other. There are a dozen examples of people saying "No you're wrong! It works in exactly the way you described with slightly different phraseology!"
> 
> People keep attacking points that nobody made, and refuteing playstyles that no one claimed.
> 
> I think this entire board needs to take a remedial reading comprehension class.




Could you be more specific?  All I see is you and Derren endlessly repeating the mantra that rules MUST EQUAL physics or the game is completely ruined and unbelievable.  

This has been proven to be false since numerous systems, particularly rules lite systems, obviously don't follow this pattern.

So, instead of insults, how about trying to actually address the points?


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Good lord. This thread is almost entirely people talking past each other. There are a dozen examples of people saying "No you're wrong! It works in exactly the way you described with slightly different phraseology!"



Behold the power of the internet!     Don't worry, this often happens when a thread grows to more than 3 pages.

Some people like a completely realistic game, and that's cool.
Other people like a completely unrealistic game, and that's cool too.
Almost everyone likes a mix of both, and it's still cool.

Now for me,  I like mine over ice, with a splash of soda.

Wait...what are we talking about again?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Behold the power of the internet!     Don't worry, this often happens when a thread grows to more than 3 pages.
> 
> Some people like a realistic game, and that's cool.
> Other people like a completely unrealistic game, and that's cool too.
> ...




See, the problem is, Rules=Physics =/= realistic.  

You can have rules that are not physics that are perfectly consistent, but, are not meant to model physics.  The split between PC and NPC, for example, is perfectly consistent.  Diplomacy works on NPC's but doesn't work on PC's is a consistent rule.


----------



## Xyl (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> I think this entire board needs to take a remedial reading comprehension class.



In 4e, they replaced the reading comprehension class with a paragon path.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 11, 2008)

> Some people like a realistic game, and that's cool.
> Other people like a completely unrealistic game, and that's cool too.
> Almost everyone likes a mix of both, and it's still cool.




How can we believe that you really mean this when you have categorically refused to admit that viewpoints other than your own are valid?


----------



## Andor (Apr 11, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Could you be more specific?




Certainly!    For example earlier we had this exchange:



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And you apparently did not comprehend my words becuase you have certainly failed to cite any place where I said any of those things.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> All I see is you and Derren endlessly repeating the mantra that rules MUST EQUAL physics or the game is completely ruined and unbelievable.
> 
> This has been proven to be false since numerous systems, particularly rules lite systems, obviously don't follow this pattern.




Again, can you please quote me as saying any of those things? Because if you cannot I am forced to conclude you are not in fact understanding any of my posts. You instead seem to be attacking a series of statments that are at best a distortion of my position, and at worst have nothing to do with me at all.


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 11, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> How can we believe that you really mean this when you have categorically refused to admit that viewpoints other than your own are valid?



Believe what you like, I won't mind.

I don't know you personally, Stogoe.  (At least, I don't think I do.)  I must have offended you on a fairly personal level to merit such harsh criticism, however, so I apologize for any tresspass.  If I have ever "categorically refused to admit viewpoints other than my own are valid," then clearly I was wrong.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Good lord. This thread is almost entirely people talking past each other. There are a dozen examples of people saying "No you're wrong! It works in exactly the way you described with slightly different phraseology!"
> 
> People keep attacking points that nobody made, and refuting playstyles that no one claimed.
> 
> I think this entire board needs to take a remedial reading comprehension class.




How dare you talk about my mother that way?!



> Most FiTM action resolution systems require the player to narrate the action so as to explain the outcome. Thus, winning a conflict would not cause things to happen for no ingame reason. The player's narration would explain what the reason is.



"Suddenly, for no apparent reason, the world explodes."
Whoops.  Either you have actual physics that says things like "Regardless of general consensus

A general question to all those who say that rules must be the physics of the gameworld: do you actually deny the existence of RPGs (e.g. The Dying Earth, Prince Valiant, HeroWars, etc) which do have action resolution mechanics, but in which those mechanics are not the physics of the gameworld? Or do you think that the people who play those games don't understand what they are really doing when the play them?

There are games whose mechanics for resolving action within the world depend entirely on out-of-game-universe arbitration. Many of them are good games.  These are games with _very simple_ physics that _do not generally resemble the physics of reality_.  But all games that are recognizable as games have rules that serve as the physics of the gameworld.

Also, because I'm pedantic:



> All 1s = 10 hp. Not enough to kill a 1st-level fighter.




The odds of a 50-foot fall doing ten damage are 0.000129.  See previous points about the odds of surviving long-ass falls.

Also, check the point that this is not only a character who partakes of nascent heroic mojo (by having PC class levels), he also is in the top 10% of those types  (having max hp).

The D&D falling rules work.  Long falls are appropriately lethal to things they should be lethal to.  There are many things in reality that can survive a 50-foot fall (tungsten-steel alloys in the right shape, for instance).  At high levels, your capacity to resist damage bears more resemblance to said alloys than it does to average-human.  There are solutions to this sort of thing (called E6, or, for proper realism, E1 with d20 modern classes.)

The rules provide a mechanism for determining the outcome of events.  If you think that the outcome of a particular set of rules is wonky, you can change the rules.  But whatever method you use to resolve events _is_ the physics of the world.


----------



## Andor (Apr 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Could you be more specific?
> 
> Also, I don't think you've really answered the question. Do the game rules have to cover the totality of game world interaction, or can they focus on a specific kind of interaction? I'm not talking about specific sub-systems, I'm talking about the rules as a whole.




I'm really not sure how I could be more clear or specific, but I'll take a shot at it.

When I say the rules are the physics of the game world I do NOT mean to say that the rules must cover the entirety of what is physically/magically/socially possible in the game world. Nor do I mean that they must attempt to model the physics of our world.

What I do mean is this: The rules are the lens through which we view aspects of that game world. We can best comprehend what our characters may or may not achieve when that aspect of the rules is spelled out clearly. While the rules do not, and cannot, cover every eventuality what they do cover can be viewed as certainty. In D&D an object with a hardness of 7 cannot be harmed by a 10' fall. In Ars Magica 4e a magical spell cannot pierce the lunar sphere. In both games a human cannot normally fly but can with the aid of suitable magic. These things are a given and a character inside that world who deals with these things can be expected to know them.

Therefore a rule that clearly and correctly portrays an aspect of the world to the players is a good rule. A rule that misleads or confuses the player as to what is or is not taking place in the world is a poor rule.

For example: In 3e a normal melee attack adds the Str mod to damage. This lets the player know that a strong foe hits harder than a weak one and his character can guess that someone bulked out like a pro-wrestler is probably a bigger threat in melee that one who looks like Don knotts. 

OTOH, as frequently cited in this thread, the rules make it quite clear that bringing the dead back to life to fairly easy to the rich and powerful and yet this is frequently not a facet of the world that GMs want to portray. Therefore this is a poor rule.

Similarly a midlevel character may easily have 60 HP and yet may be expected to somehow not know that a 40' fall cannot possibly kill him. Therefore this is also a poor rule, in the eyes of those who dislike regarding HP totals as existing in game.


My problem btw is not with large HP totals, but with GMs who expect my characters to act as though they do not know that they have a lot of hit points. To my mind expecting a character to go toe to toe with a giant swinging blows that could crush a car and somehow not know he is tough after taking a few of those blows is laughable.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 11, 2008)

Which is why anybody treating HP as meat-points is doomed.

On the other hand, my combat descriptions involve a lot description (And always have) of how you just avoid being nailed by that tree-sized club. Or of how you got swotted, but your armour holds out, or wall of force, etc.

Getting a real blow from that club is just as damaging as you expect a 40ft fall to be.

I still don't really understand how anybody can treat HP as an indicator of anything wholly physical, in the game.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> When I say the rules are the physics of the game world I do NOT mean to say that the rules must cover the entirety of what is physically/magically/socially possible in the game world. Nor do I mean that they must attempt to model the physics of our world.




Okay I'm definitely not making myself understood here. I am not talking about things within the game world the rules do not cover, like Economics. I am talking about the rules modeling a particular set of interactions of a class that do not exclusively represent _even those interactions_ within the game world. In an Economics game, the rules do not represent all of Economics, just Cinematic Economics. I am talking about _genre_. 



> What I do mean is this: The rules are the lens through which we view aspects of that game world.




_The_ lens, or _a_ lens? I am going to return to this later.



> Therefore a rule that clearly and correctly portrays an aspect of the world to the players is a good rule. A rule that misleads or confuses the player as to what is or is not taking place in the world is a poor rule.




Is this the only criteria for good/poor rules? 




> My problem btw is not with large HP totals, but with GMs who expect my characters to act as though they do not know that they have a lot of hit points. To my mind expecting a character to go toe to toe with a giant swinging blows that could crush a car and somehow not know he is tough after taking a few of those blows is laughable.




As a DM, I expect my players to have a certain degree of "wink and nod" behavior in certain cases. If, for example, I have a hostage with a dagger to their throat, I expect the players to react as if that throat can be opened and the life's blood of the hostage spilled. I expect them to recognize that while someone going after someone with a dagger in combat couldn't ever do that in one slash, in this kind of circumstance, it can happen. 

I would even go so far as to expect the same behavior from a player character. In that instance I would say: "I won't roll damage- if you do some funky maneuver, you'll make a Dexterity check. If you fail, then you have a slashed throat, if not, you break away. The other guy's success will determine whether it's just a scratch or a grievous injury. A slashed throat needs medical attention in five minutes or so or you'll be dead." The threshold of medical attention being pretty low. I wouldn't even have them subtract hit points. It's not an abstract "hit" but a tangible injury emerging from the story.

In other words, because the damage model doesn't govern this eventuality, I'm declaring it by fiat. I'd certainly make these sorts of stakes clear at the outset, but I'd have no trouble introducing this sort of situation nor would I expect revolt from my players. I guess you could characterize my style as a hybrid of the much derided "mutual rules-free narrative" and "we're playing a board game ironclad rules.' I am comfortable switching between the two as necessary. As a player, I have found GMs unwilling to do this to be extremely tedious. 

I think the root of our disagreement is over the whether or not the rules are the _exclusive_ lens of game world interaction, or just one of many. I certainly recognize that players are going to make decisions based on their expectations of the rules. But what I do not expect is that this is the only sort of information they'll base decisions on- I expect them to engage with my expectations (and vice versa), I expect them to engage with the ongoing narrative and the genre considerations of the game in question. I expect engagement with common sense and a willingness to discard the rules when they do not seem to apply. I expect them to engage with me if they don't like something or have a request and all that.


----------



## Ahglock (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> T
> For example: In 3e a normal melee attack adds the Str mod to damage. This lets the player know that a strong foe hits harder than a weak one and his character can guess that someone bulked out like a pro-wrestler is probably a bigger threat in melee that one who looks like Don knotts.




I don't know, Don Knotts was feisty.


----------



## drjones (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Good lord. This thread is almost entirely people talking past each other. There are a dozen examples of people saying "No you're wrong! It works in exactly the way you described with slightly different phraseology!"
> 
> People keep attacking points that nobody made, and refuteing playstyles that no one claimed.
> 
> I think this entire board needs to take a remedial reading comprehension class.



if I wanted to read I wouldn't be on the internets!  I came here to pontificate pointlessly and chew bubble gum.  And I'm all out of bubble gum.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> As a DM, I expect my players to have a certain degree of "wink and nod" behavior in certain cases. If, for example, I have a hostage with a dagger to their throat, I expect the players to react as if that throat can be opened and the life's blood of the hostage spilled. I expect them to recognize that while someone going after someone with a dagger in combat couldn't ever do that in one slash, in this kind of circumstance, it can happen.
> 
> I would even go so far as to expect the same behavior from a player character. In that instance I would say: "I won't roll damage- if you do some funky maneuver, you'll make a Dexterity check. If you fail, then you have a slashed throat, if not, you break away. The other guy's success will determine whether it's just a scratch or a grievous injury. A slashed throat needs medical attention in five minutes or so or you'll be dead." The threshold of medical attention being pretty low. I wouldn't even have them subtract hit points. It's not an abstract "hit" but a tangible injury emerging from the story.
> 
> ...





Ahh.. thank you. See, this is what should have happened in that other thread (The one regarding the sentry in the tower.) No combat resolution system was necessary, because combat never occured. Combat might have occured should the skill-based roll (Which abstracts the stealth required, the guards senses, etc) have failed.

I hate the fact that people seem to limit themselves into believing that the combat systems are designed to model all violence in the game. Its not. Its designed to model *combat*

Slashing the throat of  an unprotected/unaware person is not combat.

Again, I think this arises out of the idea that HP = meatpoints.

Edit: I'm not sure what a throad was. Oh well.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Apr 11, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> Do you get it yet?  Though flavor is important flavor is mutable... and honestly... have you ever had a DM destroy all the equipment something is wearing after the PC's dump fireball after fireball on it?




Yes, and it also was MY stuff the baddie was wearing.


I never played with that DM again


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 11, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> Ahh.. thank you. See, this is what should have happened in that other thread (The one regarding the sentry in the tower.) No combat resolution system was necessary, because combat never occured. Combat might have occured should the skill-based roll (Which abstracts the stealth required, the guards senses, etc) have failed.




Right. Now, I know I'm about to get hit with a lot of accusations of being a fiat-happy abuser of players, but let me relate a pair of anecdotes:

I'm playing. This is a long time ago in a game not D&D. I come upon a door. A wooden door you might find in a modern suburban home (the kind I'm sure we've all angrily kicked a hole in whilst in our angsty teenage years). It is locked. I say, "I bash open the door, what with this big sledgehammer I have." The GM, thankfully, didn't make me roll to hit...but he had me roll damage until the door was broken. This took three-four rolls, 'cause I was rolling 1s that night. Now, granted, there were rules for breaking things and he was using them. And if there had been some time element involved, I'd have had no problem. I've used that trick myself. But there wasn't any time element involved. The house was empty. I was just tearing it apart for clues. So why was I rolling damage? It was a waste of time. 

Later, same game as it so happens, I have a vicious cultist at my mercy. Tied up to a chair. We (the group), having been rudely abused by this cult and driven to desperation, decide to torture the guy. So I say, "I cut out his eyeball with my pocket knife." The GM said I couldn't do it because there were no rules for hit locations. He said I could stab him (with a to hit roll and everything!) but not do any kind of specific injury. And that's exactly what I'm talking about here- I should have been able to do that. Just because the rules cover combat and injury doesn't mean they cover all violence and injury. If you really demand a roll to adjudicate eye-poppin' torture, I'm sure an "Intimidate" or "Interrogate' or a "Torture" or a "Knife" roll would have sufficed. Special case, adjudicated on the fly using common sense- and it would have improved the game experience tremendously.



> I hate the fact that people seem to limit themselves into believing that the combat systems are designed to model all violence in the game. Its not. Its designed to model *combat*




Yes! I was trying to get at this very idea, but my clumsy fingers could not articulate it!


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> The rules provide a mechanism for determining the outcome of events.  If you think that the outcome of a particular set of rules is wonky, you can change the rules.  But whatever method you use to resolve events _is_ the physics of the world.




That is not the point. The point is, depending on who you talk to:

1. Whether you need that method of resolution to be written up in a 500-page book composed of 2-column, 9-point serif text. Many rulesets do not have 500 pages. They don't even have 50 pages. This does not mean they are useless.

2. Whether that method of resolution depends on whether someone is a PC or an NPC. A perfectly clear, unambiguous rule is "a PC can do X, an NPC can do Y". There is never (presumably) any vagueness about whether a character is a PC or not, but this distinction is a metagame one.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Certainly!    For example earlier we had this exchange:
> 
> 
> 
> And you apparently did not comprehend my words becuase you have certainly failed to cite any place where I said any of those things.




Sorry, actually missed that post.  So, you didn't say this:



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> If I want to wander around in a world where everybody but my character is a souless, nameless cipher I will play a computer game. If I walk into the closest 7-11 and start talking to the clerk they will have a name, a family, hobbies, and opinions. In a RPG I expect my character to experience that same degree of verisimilitude. Yes, my character (past a few levels) can take a crossbow bolt to the chest and the clerk probably can't. So what? At the start of his career the character couldn't either. IRL there are a lot of things I can do that some other people can't, and vice versa. Some of these are simply a matter of training. I can't run a marathon right now, but if I were to spend a year training, I could.




or this:



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> Unless of course what you call playability makes the game less fun for me. Then it has utterly failed in it's stated objective. Because in seeking to make the game less complex, less 'simulationist', less 'tactical' in the name of playability you may have stripped out the elements that bring me joy and therefore cause the game to become unplayably annoying or boring.









> Again, can you please quote me as saying any of those things? Because if you cannot I am forced to conclude you are not in fact understanding any of my posts. You instead seem to be attacking a series of statments that are at best a distortion of my position, and at worst have nothing to do with me at all.




Certainly:



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> The rules effect how character interact with their world, and to pretend that they don't have some level of understanding of how those rules work is to make a disconnect that seems to completely preclude any immersion in the characters.




This:



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> Unless of course, you're someone like me who, not being dog ignorant of physics, cringes every time he sees 'airplanes in space' and wonders what the hell is so hard about making an accurate space flight sim.
> 
> Similarly, if the rules are not actually how things work in the game world, but merely how my character perceives things to work, then I'm not really playing that character as far as I'm concerned. I'm playing what that character hallucinates as he sits in the corner of his padded cell. This is not good playability.
> 
> The 4e discussion is making it quite clear that some players want to do cool stuff, and don't care about what the world they do it in is like any more than Roy cares about listening to NPCs.




So, I got your quotes.  What part didn't I understand.  You've stated that 4e is a bad game because it breaks your sense of verisimilitude.  I replied that the quality of the game is irrelavent to your sensibilities.  You claimed that 4e is akin to being insane and poor role playing (ignoring the NPCs).

So, how exactly have I mischaracterized your points in such a way that everyone else in this thread has mischaracterized them in pretty much the same way?


----------



## Andor (Apr 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Okay I'm definitely not making myself understood here. I am not talking about things within the game world the rules do not cover, like Economics. I am talking about the rules modeling a particular set of interactions of a class that do not exclusively represent _even those interactions_ within the game world. In an Economics game, the rules do not represent all of Economics, just Cinematic Economics. I am talking about _genre_.




I truly do not know what you are trying to say here. Could you clarify?



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> _The_ lens, or _a_ lens? I am going to return to this later.




There are only two ways for a player to perceive the world his character exists in. One is the rules, the other is the people he plays with, especially the GM. 



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Is this the only criteria for good/poor rules?




Of course not. This isn't a discussion of good vs bad rules. It's a discussion of the meaning of the rules in the context of the game world.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> As a DM, I expect my players to have a certain degree of "wink and nod" behavior in certain cases. If, for example, I have a hostage with a dagger to their throat, I expect the players to react as if that throat can be opened and the life's blood of the hostage spilled. I expect them to recognize that while someone going after someone with a dagger in combat couldn't ever do that in one slash, in this kind of circumstance, it can happen.
> 
> I would even go so far as to expect the same behavior from a player character. In that instance I would say: "I won't roll damage- if you do some funky maneuver, you'll make a Dexterity check. If you fail, then you have a slashed throat, if not, you break away. The other guy's success will determine whether it's just a scratch or a grievous injury. A slashed throat needs medical attention in five minutes or so or you'll be dead." The threshold of medical attention being pretty low. I wouldn't even have them subtract hit points. It's not an abstract "hit" but a tangible injury emerging from the story.
> 
> In other words, because the damage model doesn't govern this eventuality, I'm declaring it by fiat. I'd certainly make these sorts of stakes clear at the outset, but I'd have no trouble introducing this sort of situation nor would I expect revolt from my players. I guess you could characterize my style as a hybrid of the much derided "mutual rules-free narrative" and "we're playing a board game ironclad rules.' I am comfortable switching between the two as necessary. As a player, I have found GMs unwilling to do this to be extremely tedious.




I think you are conflating two things here. One is house rules, which I think are a great thing. The other is a GM ruling for a situation which the rules cover poorly or not at all. While I think house rules are a great thing I think they should be presented at the start of a campaign, which shows that the GM has a clear idea of how and why he wants to alter the game. When house rules keep appearing midsession it is rarely a good sign in my experience. 

As far as cutting a throat goes the rules do in fact address that exact circumstance. It's call a coup de grace. As a player in your game I would be very puzzled why you would feel the need to make a new mechanic to cover an existing rule on the fly rather than in your pre-game house rules packet.

I have no desire at all to turn this into a 'are hp real or abstract' argument, but I will note that if the D&D hp mechanics are prone to leading to that kind of confusion between you and your players then they are a very poor mechanic for the type of game you like to play. Because of this you are forced to say "In spite of the fact that these are the rules, there will be times when I feel they do not apply and I will use some other rules which I might make up on the fly." This will lead to uncertainty and confusion on the part of your players and possibly the characters. Confusion that would not be there if you played as if the rules were the physical rules of the game world. I dislike that confusion and thus prefer to play in games with clearly spelled out rules. 



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I think the root of our disagreement is over the whether or not the rules are the _exclusive_ lens of game world interaction, or just one of many. I certainly recognize that players are going to make decisions based on their expectations of the rules. But what I do not expect is that this is the only sort of information they'll base decisions on- I expect them to engage with my expectations (and vice versa), I expect them to engage with the ongoing narrative and the genre considerations of the game in question. I expect engagement with common sense and a willingness to discard the rules when they do not seem to apply. I expect them to engage with me if they don't like something or have a request and all that.




Of course the players should engage the GM about the playstyle and rules of the game. I thought I had made that very clear. What you don't seem to understand is that I see no difference between a house rule and a published rule. They both tell me how things work. If instead of clear rules or guidelines the GM make a lot of 'look and feel' comments then I am left with a much vaguer notion of how things work in that world. It may be more accurate than the clear but _wrong_ impresson I had from the written rules, but it is still vague and leaves both me and my character less sure.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 11, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> See, the problem is, Rules=Physics =/= realistic.
> 
> You can have rules that are not physics that are perfectly consistent, but, are not meant to model physics.  The split between PC and NPC, for example, is perfectly consistent.  Diplomacy works on NPC's but doesn't work on PC's is a consistent rule.




The way I look at the issue, it doesn't have to only model physics per se. But if I have a power that I can use during the course of an encounter that recharges after a 5 minute rest, then I should be able to use it pretty much any time as long as I get about a 5 minute rest in between. That doesn't necessarily deal with physics either but it defines a certain game world behavioral model that should be observable and repeatable... just as if I were testing certain observations in physics.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 11, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> You've stated that 4e is a bad game because it breaks your sense of verisimilitude.  I replied that the quality of the game is irrelavent to your sensibilities.  You claimed that 4e is akin to being insane and poor role playing (ignoring the NPCs).




Since the quality of the game is an entirely subjective assessment, his sensibilities are not irrelevant at all.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The way I look at the issue, it doesn't have to model physics per se. But if I have a power that I can use during the course of an encounter that recharges after a 5 minute rest, then I should be able to use it pretty much any time as long as I get about a 5 minute rest in between. That doesn't necessarily deal with physics either but it defines a certain game world behavioral model that should be observable and repeatable... just as if I were testing certain observations in physics.




The way I do it, if you have a power that can be used once per encounter, then it can be used once per encounter, even if those encounters are less than 5 minutes apart. This is perfectly observable and repeatable. The player simply has to ask me "is this a new encounter?" and if I say yes then it can be used. 99% of the time if I have stopped counting initiative, then it's a new encounter, and so they don't even have to ask.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 11, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The way I do it, if you have a power that can be used once per encounter, then it can be used once per encounter, even if those encounters are less than 5 minutes apart. This is perfectly observable and repeatable. The player simply has to ask me "is this a new encounter?" and if I say yes then it can be used. 99% of the time if I have stopped counting initiative, then it's a new encounter, and so they don't even have to ask.




Which leads right into my point. Without a rule to the contrary, for some people, once you stop counting initiatives, you're now in that space *between* encounters. Can a per encounter power be used then? (I would hope so in the final 4e rules but the admonition that the "rules are not physics" gives me pause because it says those rules don't inform or aren't informed by how the world works outside of the specific playable aspects of "the encounter".)


----------



## Andor (Apr 11, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, I got your quotes.  What part didn't I understand.  You've stated that 4e is a bad game because it breaks your sense of verisimilitude.  I replied that the quality of the game is irrelavent to your sensibilities.  You claimed that 4e is akin to being insane and poor role playing (ignoring the NPCs).
> 
> So, how exactly have I mischaracterized your points in such a way that everyone else in this thread has mischaracterized them in pretty much the same way?




I haven't said any such thing about 4e. I haven't seen 4e. It's not out yet. I would be an idiot to make declarative statements about something of which I have only seen tiny tidbits. This is a discussion about 'rules as physics' which to me means whether or not the rules closely portray what the characters are experiencing within their world. 

I feel that if there is a disconnect between what the rules portray and what the GM thinks is happening such that the rules do not allow me to closely understand what my character is experiencing then it detracts from the experience of the game in the same way that an out of focus projector detracts from the experience of watching a movie. 

A hypothetical example drawn from what may or may not be true in 4e, based on speculation drawn from the back of a DDM card is the existence of a monster ability that allows one to use a mundane weapon in a nonmagical way that cannot be replicated by a player character. If this is the case (and neither you nor I have the slightest idea if it is or not) it will detract from my opinion of the game if there is not an in game rational for why a hobgoblin can use a pogostick while my character cannot.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Which leads right into my point. Without a rule to the contrary, for some people, once you stop counting initiatives, you're now in that space *between* encounters. Can a per encounter power be used then?




Just ask me. Have I stopped counting initiative?


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> I feel that if there is a disconnect between what the rules portray and what the GM thinks is happening such that the rules do not allow me to closely understand what my character is experiencing then it detracts from the experience of the game in the same way that an out of focus projector detracts from the experience of watching a movie.
> 
> A hypothetical example drawn from what may or may not be true in 4e, based on speculation drawn from the back of a DDM card is the existence of a monster ability that allows one to use a mundane weapon in a nonmagical way that cannot be replicated by a player character. If this is the case (and neither you nor I have the slightest idea if it is or not) it will detract from my opinion of the game if there is not an in game rational for why a hobgoblin can use a pogostick while my character cannot.




The rules portray an NPC extra. The GM thinks it is an NPC extra. There is no disconnect between the rules and GM. The only disconnect is between the rules and you. And this disconnect is easily rectified by not thinking too hard about fantasy.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> A hypothetical example drawn from what may or may not be true in 4e, based on speculation drawn from the back of a DDM card is the existence of a monster ability that allows one to use a mundane weapon in a nonmagical way that cannot be replicated by a player character. If this is the case (and neither you nor I have the slightest idea if it is or not) it will detract from my opinion of the game if there is not an in game rational for why a hobgoblin can use a pogostick while my character cannot.




Who says your character cannot? This is again, part of the problem I have with so many of the arguments on this board.

DnD is a toolset. It is emphatically not a board game. That does not, in any way, appear to have changed between 3.x and 4e.

As a toolset, its allows you, just like earlier versions, to create new content, based on guidelines. Previously, a lot of those guidelines had to be reveresed engineered.. and rarely supported.

There's been quite a bit of noise around the fact that the new monster guidelines are actually useful, so this gives me much hope that there is advice for better kit-bashing in the DMG, as opposed to prior versions, where it was simply a 'do it if you want'.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Since the quality of the game is an entirely subjective assessment, his sensibilities are not irrelevant at all.




Really?  Quality is entirely subjective?  

So, I can say that 1e is a terrible game because I don't like it?  And that's true?  I don't think so.  Just like anything else, a game must be judged on its own merits.  That I or you happen to not like it is not a reflection of its quality.

Or, put it another way.  I don't like Go.  I understand it, I can play it, but I don't like it.  However, I would in no way say that Go is a bad game.  It's just not the game for me.

Conflating personal tastes with any sort of value judgement is just bad.  

Saying that a system where the rules=/=physics results in unbelievable and inconsistent settings may be true for your tastes, but, it is not objectively true.  Numerous systems out there show this to be untrue, all the way from Basic D&D to The Dying Earth.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> I truly do not know what you are trying to say here. Could you clarify?




Yeah, let me give it a shot. Think about applying a "genre template" to the rules of a game world. Think about how the "rules" are different for the main characters in a television show and the extras. Gaming isn't just a simulation of a world but it's about specific characters and their story- and people in stories don't follow the same rules as people-in-reality. Even a fictional reality. Think of the rules as provisionally applied to only a certain subset of interactions within the world- heroic deeds, sword-and-sorcery stuff for D&D, romantic intrigue for a game about romance, horror investigation in Call of Cthulhu, etc. Everything else is literally just up to the GM. (Though in some games this power is shared w/ the players via bizarre mechanisms of a blasphemous and sordid aspect)




> There are only two ways for a player to perceive the world his character exists in. One is the rules, the other is the people he plays with, especially the GM.




What about fluff? Setting information? Common sense?





> I think you are conflating two things here. One is house rules, which I think are a great thing. The other is a GM ruling for a situation which the rules cover poorly or not at all. While I think house rules are a great thing I think they should be presented at the start of a campaign, which shows that the GM has a clear idea of how and why he wants to alter the game. When house rules keep appearing midsession it is rarely a good sign in my experience.




See, no, I disagree. People here have a tendency to exaggerate how rigid the rules are intended to be. They are a loose framework of guidelines. Midsession special case adjudication is not only necessary and expected, it is _desirable_. House rules are more formal alterations to the existing framework, not special-case applications of the pre-existing framework. Think of a house rule as me attaching a flamethrower to my hammer, and GM adjudication as me swinging the hammer differently.  

If, for instance, in Call of Cthulhu I vary the consequences for failure on a skill roll depending on all manner of circumstances, this is not a "house rule." The skill descriptions present only guidelines for that sort of thing. If I say a character rolling a Surgery skill for a comparatively minor injury under good conditions with adequate tools can't kill the patient even if he fails, but later I say a surgery done under terrible conditions with improvised tools with only a terrified Boy Scout Troop Leader's shaking flashlight for light will kill the patient with a failed roll, _I have not established a house rule, I have just applied the rules in a manner appropriate to the situation._



> As far as cutting a throat goes the rules do in fact address that exact circumstance. It's call a coup de grace. As a player in your game I would be very puzzled why you would feel the need to make a new mechanic to cover an existing rule on the fly rather than in your pre-game house rules packet.




Coup De Grace specifically applies only to "helpless" opponents.



> This will lead to uncertainty and confusion on the part of your players and possibly the characters.




Look, this is just not true. I've never had a player who didn't "get" what I am saying. Never once have I seen someone who couldn't handle this stuff. 



> Confusion that would not be there if you played as if the rules were the physical rules of the game world. I dislike that confusion and thus prefer to play in games with clearly spelled out rules.




As Hong has been trying to tell you, this confusion is entirely a construct of your own preconceptions, and if you discard them, then you will not be burdened by it anymore. 



> It may be more accurate than the clear but _wrong_ impresson I had from the written rules, but it is still vague and leaves both me and my character less sure.




Why can't you ask? This topic keeps coming up- "uncertainty! I don't know what I can do!" and I can only shudder to think at how bad your DMs have been to have taught this kind of learned helplessness. If you're not sure if a given thing will work, just say, "Hey I'm going to try this, is it going to work?" and the DM can say "Yes, No, Maybe- Roll!" This is how it is supposed to work. Does your gaming group laugh at you if you get this sort of thing wrong? 

And how it makes your _character_ less sure...your character can't do anything, it is not an independent agent. It's only as confused as you say he is, and again, this confusion isn't at all necessary between people who can communicate with one another. You have to separate your knowledge of the game from your character's knowledge.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> And how it makes your _character_ less sure...your character can't do anything, it is not an independent agent. It's only as confused as you say he is, and again, this confusion isn't at all necessary between people who can communicate with one another. You have to separate your knowledge of the game from your character's knowledge.




I can't agree more.

A staggering amount of generally simulationist pedagogy seems to come from a variety of metagaming.

As opposed to the general idea, where your character has access to information that he wouldn't, as it is based on your RL observations, not his.. we also have metagaming were a Player underattributes the knowledge their PC may have.

There is *nothing* wrong, with asking a DM is something is do-able or plausible. It is not your character asking.. your character already *knows*.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> The only ruleset covering how the player controls the character in the world that I have ever encountered is having to throw 25¢ in the kitty whenever someone says a word the host doesn't want their kid to hear.
> 
> 1d6 damage per 10' fallen tells me how my character suffers in a fall, not how I do.




This is an interesting problem of taxonomy.

I would have said that the first rule doesn't at all apply to issue of player control over character.  Unless you have to put the money in the kitty only when the you, as the player, have your character say the dirty word.

And I would have also said that every rule governing character creation does apply and would have had very little to do with the physics of the game world.

Unless assigning skill ranks has some sort of physical analogue, which is honestly, mind blowing.  And I'm not certain in what sense.

And the second rules gives you, as the player, a consequence for your future actions involving the character in lost hit points based on your decision to fall, anything that happened to the character in the game world is entirely abstracted.

Not to mention that the specific physics of that situation, in the game world, are pretty unknowable from that rule alone.   Since the actual physical consequence of the damage is so hugely dependent on the class and level of the character involved.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Why can't you ask? This topic keeps coming up- "uncertainty! I don't know what I can do!" and I can only shudder to think at how bad your DMs have been to have taught this kind of learned helplessness. If you're not sure if a given thing will work, just say, "Hey I'm going to try this, is it going to work?" and the DM can say "Yes, No, Maybe- Roll!" This is how it is supposed to work. Does your gaming group laugh at you if you get this sort of thing wrong?



Until somebody (not me, because I agree with your point here) squawks about how awful this "mother may I" gaming style is, and declares instead "Hey, I'm going to do this and it *is* going to work".  That's where DMs are learning to be helpless.


> And how it makes your _character_ less sure...your character can't do anything, it is not an independent agent. It's only as confused as you say he is, and again, this confusion isn't at all necessary between people who can communicate with one another. You have to separate your knowledge of the game from your character's knowledge.



Yes, but your *character's* knowledge should be the framework for whatever decision you're making...the problem is, too many things are left out of the "character knowledge" folder and instead have to rely on player assumptions - which may well disagree with DM assumptions.  I go back to my earlier somewhat-silly-but-still-valid example of gravity in the game world...if there's nothing saying different, players and DMs alike assume it to be the same as our own, and the characters act using that in-character knowledge.  But if it's different - if the DM has decided sea-level gravity in the game world is equal to about .5g here on Earth, for example - things like falls suddenly become much less lethal, jumps become more cinematic, and so on. (side note: hey, maybe that's why falls in D+D don't hurt so much - there's less gravity!)

Lanefan


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 11, 2008)

With reference to the falling rules and HP/Level interactions;

Which is why falling should be percentage HP based, capped at something like 75%, with an additional roll of height/10 vs fortitude, or be reduced to 1hp above your death level.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 11, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Which leads right into my point. Without a rule to the contrary, for some people, once you stop counting initiatives, you're now in that space *between* encounters. Can a per encounter power be used then?




Sure, why not?

It just won't get you anywhere, because you're not in an encounter.


----------



## Campbell (Apr 11, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Yes, but your *character's* knowledge should be the framework for whatever decision you're making...the problem is, too many things are left out of the "character knowledge" folder and instead have to rely on player assumptions - which may well disagree with DM assumptions.  I go back to my earlier somewhat-silly-but-still-valid example of gravity in the game world...if there's nothing saying different, players and DMs alike assume it to be the same as our own, and the characters act using that in-character knowledge.  But if it's different - if the DM has decided sea-level gravity in the game world is equal to about .5g here on Earth, for example - things like falls suddenly become much less lethal, jumps become more cinematic, and so on. (side note: hey, maybe that's why falls in D+D don't hurt so much - there's less gravity!)




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 (Apr 11, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Until somebody (not me, because I agree with your point here) squawks about how awful this "mother may I" gaming style is, and declares instead "Hey, I'm going to do this and it *is* going to work". That's where DMs are learning to be helpless.




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 (Apr 11, 2008)

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._


----------



## billd91 (Apr 11, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really?  Quality is entirely subjective?
> 
> So, I can say that 1e is a terrible game because I don't like it?  And that's true?  I don't think so.  Just like anything else, a game must be judged on its own merits.  That I or you happen to not like it is not a reflection of its quality.
> 
> ...




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 (Apr 11, 2008)

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.").


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 11, 2008)

billd91 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.




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 (Apr 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Yeah, let me give it a shot. Think about applying a "genre template" to the rules of a game world. Think about how the "rules" are different for the main characters in a television show and the extras. Gaming isn't just a simulation of a world but it's about specific characters and their story- and people in stories don't follow the same rules as people-in-reality. Even a fictional reality. Think of the rules as provisionally applied to only a certain subset of interactions within the world- heroic deeds, sword-and-sorcery stuff for D&D, romantic intrigue for a game about romance, horror investigation in Call of Cthulhu, etc. Everything else is literally just up to the GM. (Though in some games this power is shared w/ the players via bizarre mechanisms of a blasphemous and sordid aspect)



The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry.

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.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 11, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> 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_.




How many hit points do you lose when you get shot in the face?


----------



## Andor (Apr 11, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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.




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.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 11, 2008)

Some people, even in the real world, are also just that lucky.

I've never been shot. Most of us haven't. But most of us don't lead dangerous lives.

There's this guy who was born in the old west. He was as much a model of the cowboy hero as you're likely to find. He rode shotgun on a stagecoach. He worked as a lawman in Dodge City. He was involved in a very famous gunfight. He served as a sheriff and a U.S. Marshall. He got shot at - a lot, including one rather infamous scene where he stormed armed men in wide open territory. And in his entire, danger-filled life, he NEVER, ever, took one single bullet.

His name was Wyatt Earp and he died in 1929 at the age of 80.

And I won't even go into men like Francis Drake, Walter Raleigh, Henry Morgan, George Washington, Davy Crockett, T.E. Lawrence, or hundreds of other famous (and very real!) people who led adventurous lives and remained fairly hail and heart until their death at reasonably advanced ages. Francis Drake died at sea while raiding Spanish galleons at nearly 60 years of age. After a life of adventure, Walter Raleigh had his _head cut off_ when he was 66 years old to appease the King of Spain. He spends an hour leading the crowd in prayer, tests the axe for sharpness, smokes a pipe, then lays his head on the block and practically ORDERS the headsman to strike. Now THAT is hardcore.

That's the kind of character most players want to play. They don't want to play Joe-Bob Smith who takes one bullet and has a lame arm for the next 30 years because of it. Joe-Bob retires to become a farmer. 

Some people are just born special or they survive circumstances that make them that way. The PCs are lucky enough to BE _those people._


----------



## Surgoshan (Apr 11, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> How many hit points do you lose when you get shot in the face?



Not all of them.  Dick Cheney shot an old man in the face with a shotgun and the old guy is apparently fine and dandy.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor 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.




Appropriate decision. They knew the risks, they must suffer the consequences.



> 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.




Well, hopefully the GM provides some indication of how the normal risk of the Troll Swamp is being mitigated in this instance. That or by making it some kind of necessity that requires the near-suicidal risk to be taken (say a kidnapped villager or somesuch). Ultimately, adventurers are _supposed_ to take risks. If your characters are realistically concerned for their health and safety, they wouldn't be adventurers. 

And yes, players should have a degree of faith that however deadly the Troll Swamp is supposed to be, it's not so deadly as to be guaranteed suicide. Again, _unless_ it isn't the GM prodding the players into the Troll Swamp with a plot hook but the players going in themselves. At which point it can be as instantly deadly as necessary, so long as they were aware. 

I mean, it is kind of the point. No sane person would go in to the Haunted Tomb of the Dread Evil Guy. Sane people raise their children and hope the next harvest is good. We're talking about adventurers.



> Do you see? By enforcing genre conventions you compel players to metagame which ,by definition, forces you to come out of character.




Players _should_ metagame their character decisions. It can't just be "This is what my character would do" to the exclusion of all the other considerations. There are other elements to gameplay that require consideration. I'm not saying they shouldn't do things based on what their characters would do- on the contrary, I encourage and endeavor to support such decisions as a GM. But they should also be thinking about what is good for the game, the other players, me (the GM) and, hell, what would make for a good scene. 

Most of them can be controlled by making characters who are willing to adventure in the first place, but if I have to pick between Angsty McLoner or Cowardly WontAdventure and the momentary disruption of a player being "in character", I'll take the latter, thanks. You're not in character every time you reach for the snacks, either.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 11, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> How many hit points do you lose when you get shot in the face?



The amount of Hit Points lost determines the gravity/type/location of the wound, not the contrary.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 11, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> The amount of Hit Points lost determines the gravity/type/location of the wound, not the contrary.



This.


----------



## Andor (Apr 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> What about fluff? Setting information? Common sense?




Fluff and setting information are deseminated by either print (almost always in a rulebook) or the GMs voice. If you have some other way of passing along this information I'm curious to know it. In any event this is information the player is given to let him come closer to understanding the world his character inhabits, it will inform his decisions in the same way that his understanding of the rules of the world do. If the fluff states that the Knights of the Greasy Hampster are the most puissant fighters on the plane then he will treat them as such until he learns otherwise. 



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Coup De Grace specifically applies only to "helpless" opponents.




If someone is tied up and has their throat cut is uses the coup de grace rules. If someone is paralyzed and has their throat cut the coup de grace rules are used. But if someone is held hostage it really seems more reasonable to you to invent an entire other system, that circumvents the normal mechanics of the game entirely, than to make a minor change to an existing mechanic?

More to the point, let me paint you the same scene done twice: 

For PCs we'll use our Iconic 4 and like most career criminals Lidda will be a bit of a rules lawyer.

_The nefarious Simon-bar-Sinister has kidnapped Princess Vapid and is being pursued by our heros who have tracked him to his lair. They burst into the room and see the villain in the corner holding the Princess tightly with his knife at her throat. "Hold it right there do gooders." He sneers. "Take one more step and I'll cut her throat."_

Lidda: "Wait, how can he do that?"
GM: "I won't roll damage. if you do some funky maneuver, you'll make a Dexterity check. If you fail, then she has a slashed throat, if not, you break her away. The other guy's success will determine whether it's just a scratch or a grievous injury. A slashed throat needs medical attention in five minutes or so or she'll be dead." 
Redgar: "5 minutes? Bleeding out normally takes one minute tops."
Jozan: "Okay.. so if there is no damage will I be able to heal her?"
GM: "The threshold of medical attention being pretty low. I won't have them subtract hit points. It's not an abstract "hit" but a tangible injury emerging from the story."
Jozan: "So is that a yes?"
GM: "Yes, it's a deadly wound but a cure minor will fix it I guess."
Redgar: "If it's a deadly wound why is it more easily cureable and take 5 times as long to kill as a normal wound?"
Lidda: "Never mind that. How can I do this to NPCs? Or Miallee?"
Miallee: "What?"
Simon-bar-Sinister: "Hello? Heroes? Still over here."
Redgar: "Yeah whatever villain. We can patch her up in a heart beat so go ahead and cut her and we'll get to kicking your ass."
Princess Vapid: "What?"

*Scene Redux:*

_The nefarious Simon-bar-Sinister has kidnapped Princess Vapid and is being oursued by our heros who have tracked him to his lair. They burst into the room and see the villain in the corner holding the Princess tightly with his knife at her throat. "Hold it right there do gooders." He sneers. "Take one more step and I'll cut her throat."_

Lidda: "Wait, how can he do that?"
GM: "Sure. As a terrified non-combatant the princess counts as helpless so he'll coup-de-grace her."
Lidda: "Crap. That could kill her instantly. Jozan?"
Jozan: "I can raise her, but we don't have the diamonds and his evil lair is too far from the castle for us to make it back in time."
Lidda: "Hey GM, can I do that?"
GM: "Sure, when you find a noncombatant NPC you want to murder."
Mialee: "Lidda you worry me sometimes."
Redgar: "Shush"
Redgar: "Okay foul villain just don't hurt the Princess. What are your demands?"

*End scene*

Which of those flowed better to you? Which required less out of game discussion and character breaking? Which suited the genre better?

For my money, the less you disrupt the flow of the game with on the spot rulings the more enjoyable the game is.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> If, for instance, in Call of Cthulhu I vary the consequences for failure on a skill roll depending on all manner of circumstances, this is not a "house rule." The skill descriptions present only guidelines for that sort of thing. If I say a character rolling a Surgery skill for a comparatively minor injury under good conditions with adequate tools can't kill the patient even if he fails, but later I say a surgery done under terrible conditions with improvised tools with only a terrified Boy Scout Troop Leader's shaking flashlight for light will kill the patient with a failed roll, I have not established a house rule, I have just applied the rules in a manner appropriate to the situation.




Yes, exactly. Situational modifiers are already a part of the existing rules scheme and require no breaking of immersion or stopping the flow of the game. A character in the game would easily be able to anticipate them with a fair degree of accuracy.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Why can't you ask? This topic keeps coming up- "uncertainty! I don't know what I can do!" and I can only shudder to think at how bad your DMs have been to have taught this kind of learned helplessness. If you're not sure if a given thing will work, just say, "Hey I'm going to try this, is it going to work?" and the DM can say "Yes, No, Maybe- Roll!" This is how it is supposed to work.




I think it's pretty clear that I have seen many more bad GMs than you have. However what you don't seem to appreciate is that every single time I have to stop the action of the game to ask you how things are going to work in _this_ situation I am forced to break the flow of the narrative. The action stops. The other players look bored. The dice stop rolling. All of this lessens immersion in the character. If you don't see that then you must experience roleplaying very differently than I do.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 11, 2008)

Oh, nevermind. I can't keep this up. You win.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Forcing metagame decisions on the players is disruptive. As an example from the very last session I played in...




That's a nice example of why it's disruptive to _not_ metagame.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 11, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Oh, nevermind. I can't keep this up. You win.



Don't worry professor, in subjecitve discussions, nobody wins, everybody loses.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 11, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Don't worry professor, in subjecitve discussions, nobody wins, everybody loses.




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.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 12, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> The amount of Hit Points lost determines the gravity/type/location of the wound, not the contrary.




Precisely. If the answer isn't "all of them" then you can't have suffered a lethal blow. Thus, if you want your system to treat a shotgun blast to the face as a lethal blow, you can only use that description after rolling damage and checking to see if you got "all of them". Otherwise, the wound is decidedly non-fatal.

This has nothing to do with healing surges at all. You can't use any HP system without this being fundamentally true.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 12, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Lidda: "Wait, how can he do that?"
> GM: "Sure. As a terrified* non-combatant* the princess counts as helpless so he'll coup-de-grace her."
> Lidda: "Crap. That could kill her instantly. Jozan?"
> Jozan: "I can raise her, but we don't have the diamonds and his evil lair is too far from the castle for us to make it back in time."
> ...



...so the solution is different game mechanics for PCs and NPCs, coupled with the creation of a category called "noncombatant" into which... some group of people including princesses... except when the princess in question isn't the fainting type... fall?  And since this is a codified rule, it has to be consistent and robust, and function for the whole monster manual, instead of being adjusted on the fly.  Maybe we can give every monster a new keyword to sort things out.

And you know what the absolute WORST, most head-asplodey part of all of this is?

The fact that you used an ad libbed game mechanic as an example of the superiority of written, codified game mechanics over ad libbed ones.

"Oranges are better than apples.  See this orange?  Its moldy.  Here, look at this apple *holds up a different orange.*  It is clearly superior to the moldy orange."


----------



## billd91 (Apr 12, 2008)

Professor Phobos 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 simply means that your criteria for judging whether a game is a quality game differ from the criteria you use to determine whether it is a preferred game for you. Had those criteria been the same, Go would probably not be a quality game in your estimation.

We are all free to choose the criteria we want in judging both the quality and preferredness of a game. We also typically have differing opinions on how well a game may meet the criteria laid out. Put those two together and you've got a subjective decision on your hands.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2008)

Storm said:
			
		

> 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.




Now, this I have no problems with.  I actually agree with you.  I would say that they are leaning the game towards a high action cinematic experience.  I'm not sure if you are correct in saying that the devs are saying its the best for everyone.  They are saying that it is the best way to present D&D.  There is a difference.

But, yes it is limiting.  



			
				Andor 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.




It depends why your party is going into the Troll swamp.  If they hear about it and decide for themselves to go in, then, well, have at them.  They've been fairly warned.  OTOH, if your plot hooks lead into the Troll Swamp, you shouldn't be dumping two or three trolls on them at the same time.  That's just piss poor adventure design and has nothing to do with metagaming or mechanics.



> 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.




Again, blaming piss poor adventure design on mechanics is futile.  This isn't metagaming at all.  It's simply poor adventure design.  It's railroading.  There is only one possible right solution and no other solutions work.  



> 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.




Actually, they were right to boo you.  You decided to metagame and declare that the DM will never set something before you that you cannot handle.  It would be the same if I walked into your Troll Swamp, despite being warned in game that it was suicidal and then complaining that we met trolls as trolls are certainly not level appropriate for 1st level characters.

I fail to see how this remotely relates to the idea of physics=rules.  This is just poor adventure design.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> This simply means that your criteria for judging whether a game is a quality game differ from the criteria you use to determine whether it is a preferred game for you. Had those criteria been the same, Go would probably not be a quality game in your estimation.
> 
> We are all free to choose the criteria we want in judging both the quality and preferredness of a game. We also typically have differing opinions on how well a game may meet the criteria laid out. Put those two together and you've got a subjective decision on your hands.




But, you are conflating two criteria though.  "Do I like this game" is a criteria.  And, by and large, it's fairly objective - yes or no.  But, that criteria in no way is related to "Is this a good game?"  All sorts of things come into play when determining whether something is a good game or not - does it do what it's supposed to do?  are the rules presented in a reasonable manner?  do the rules cover the situations in game?  etc. etc.

Go is a good game.  It does what it's supposed to do - present a tactical challenge for two players.  The rules are straight forward and there are no exceptions.  Play is challenging and deep.  The game is not repetitive and can be enjoyed for years.  In all meaningful criteria, it's a good game.

That I don't like it in no way changes that fact.


----------



## Andor (Apr 12, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> ...so the solution is different game mechanics for PCs and NPCs, coupled with the creation of a category called "noncombatant" into which... some group of people including princesses... except when the princess in question isn't the fainting type... fall?  And since this is a codified rule, it has to be consistent and robust, and function for the whole monster manual, instead of being adjusted on the fly.  Maybe we can give every monster a new keyword to sort things out.
> 
> And you know what the absolute WORST, most head-asplodey part of all of this is?
> 
> ...




No actually I said (not as clearly as I thought) that the minimum disruption to the rules leads to the minimum disruption to the game. 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. 

Ideally you could find a way to make the scene work without even needing that non-combatant tag. With more time to think about it I think it would be better to either give Bar-Sinister a feat that allows him to treat a pinned grapple buddy as helpless (isn't there such a feat?) or simply declare that Princess Vapid has fainted and is therefore as helpless as any other unconcious person.

But if you did decide to codify the Noncombatant as a house rule why would it be different for PC and NPCs or require an entry in the monster manual? A PC (a bookish wizard say, or priest of a pacifist god) could declare themselves a noncombatant if they wanted to. Perhaps treat it as a UA style flaw and let them get a feat out of it.


----------



## Andor (Apr 12, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Oh, nevermind. I can't keep this up. You win.




 I'm not trying to 'win'. I was enjoying a discussion about the merits of treating the rules as physics.  

I'm still not clear on why you would rather issue a stream of on the spot adjudications to make the game fit into the genre you want it to be, rather than simply using a genre appropriate rules set.

I really like 3e D&D, but if I were going to do a Swashbuckling game I'd think long and hard about using 7th sea first. If I did go with D&D there would be variant rules for armour class to allow for lightly armed characters to be viable fighters. If I were going to do a Supers game I wouldn't even try to use D&D, I would go with the Hero system or possibly M&M although I don't yet have a copy. Either way there would be a pre-game document passed around to the players on play style, game expectations and what rules variant were in effect.


----------



## Andor (Apr 12, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I fail to see how this remotely relates to the idea of physics=rules.  This is just poor adventure design.




I was replying to John Snows post stating level appropriate encounter design is a genre rules that he employs in his game as a modifier to the 'rules as physics' model.

Which would rapidly lead to what you and I seem to agree is poor adventure design because it requires the PCs to act in a way contrary to their in game knowledge, or 'metagaming'.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> I was replying to John Snows post stating level appropriate encounter design is a genre rules that he employs in his game as a modifier to the 'rules as physics' model.
> 
> Which would rapidly lead to what you and I seem to agree is poor adventure design because it requires the PCs to act in a way contrary to their in game knowledge, or 'metagaming'.




I don't think it leads to anything of the sort actually.

Not dropping insta-kill monsters on the party is pretty basic DM advice.  It's no fun.  Engineering a situation where these uber monsters are actually not so uber is just bad design.  Your DM could have come up with any number of alternative explanations and reason for you to let these creatures out of their cells to deal with them, but, he chose poorly.  

But, the basic premise that adventures should be challenging without being instant deathtraps is still very much true.  Adventures that ignore this are poorly designed.  But, they are better fitting with the idea that physics=rules.  

I know that people tend to laud the virtues of sandbox play to the point where the world never be altered to fit with the players.  That's fine.  And, if the players choose, fully knowing that its suicidal, to go into that situation, then, fair enough.

However, just because you roll Blue Dragon on the random encounter table when the players are 1st level, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to drop that encounter on them.

Killing PC's is ridiculously easy.  Challenging PC's in a way that carries the threat of failure is hard.  If the rules=physics, then you should never, ever tweak an encounter to fit your group.


----------



## hong (Apr 12, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> For PCs we'll use our Iconic 4 and like most career criminals Lidda will be a bit of a rules lawyer.
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...




I thought you said Lidda was a rules lawyer?


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 12, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 12, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 12, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 12, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 12, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 12, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 12, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 12, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 12, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> ainatan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Primal (Apr 12, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> 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".


----------



## D'karr (Apr 12, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> 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".





I'm sorry but you obviously don't understand, your opinions do not matter.

4e is the GREATEST, BESTEST edition ever, I must defend it.

I *LOVE* the game.

You're just afraid of change and fail to see the superiority of the new mechanics.  It seems you lack the imagination to play 4e.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 12, 2008)

Ah yes, "some people."  Its always great to attribute things to "some people" because then everyone will think, "I remember pro 4e people saying X, and now I see pro 4e people saying Not-X, so they must be the same people if Primal says so, right?" and since no one can categorically show that no 4e people ever have switched positions, no one can actually prove you wrong.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 12, 2008)

I won't ascribe motives to anyone on these boards, but I know for a fact (internet facts) that there are a majority of people (about 6) that simply get into these arguments to increase their post count.  Because I KNOW that they really love 4e.  Since I'm such a tool, I want to increase mine too.

I'm looking at you 4e haters.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 12, 2008)

Just for the record, 4e is the only edition of D&D I'll have ever owned (just preordered) I am neither familiar with nor a fan of 3rd. I mean I'm playing in a game right now, but the rest of the group basically walks me through character generation and combat. 

I didn't hate 3rd with the fiery intensity I thought I would. I only hate maybe 9/10ths of it. This told me that I might like 4th, so I looked into it and took the gamble that I'd enjoy it enough to justify a pre-order.

More importantly, I find I like the "D&D Game" (as I get in 3rd, right now) so it's a niche in my gaming library I feel I should feel (which I never expected). 4th looks like it will handle it to a degree more conducive to my tastes than 3rd.

In other words, I am one of those _new_ people 4th is hopefully going to attract. I am not switching, upgrading, downgrading or anything of the sort.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 12, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

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




I think you just invented Hong's 4th Law of Gamerdom.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 13, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> 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.




You don't mean to insult them, but you suggest that their change of heart is merely giving up free-will to marketing, instead of genuinely having changed their minds based on things they've seen?

Would you find it insulting if I said that you don't actually like 3e, you're just so afraid of change and having to learn new things that you'd reject a good game simply because it's not in your pre-defined comfort zone?


----------



## Andor (Apr 13, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 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.




I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. It's not possible to prove that one playstyle is superior to another. It's a subjective subject.

I am trying to clearly explain why I feel that treating the rules as a consistant and internally visible part of the setting leads to a more enjoyable game for me. The converse of this is that a rule that violates the internal logic of the game world detracts from the feel of the game. 

As an exaggerated example if we are trying to play a swashbuckling game but the rules forbid the use of off hand parry weapons it's a pretty poor portrayal of several fencing styles like Florentine and thus detracts from the feel of the game.


----------



## Stoat (Apr 13, 2008)

Rule of Thumb:  

Anyone who begins a sentence with "I'm not trying to insult you . . ."

Is trying to insult you.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 13, 2008)

Stoat said:
			
		

> Rule of Thumb:
> 
> Anyone who begins a sentence with "I'm not trying to insult you . . ."
> 
> Is trying to insult you.




Corollary: If you read something that begins with "I'm not trying to insult you" and contains no ", but...", you should maintain the benefit of the doubt that the author isn't trying to insult you.

If you write something that begins "I'm not trying to insult you...", you should probably rewrite whatever it was so that no clarification is necessary.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 13, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> 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.



Do you mean "game" here, or "gameworld"?

By all accounts the 4e rules have no obvious holes, given the typical sort of RPG one might try to play using D&D as one's system. So no brain turn-off required in that respect.

Provided that the GM and players are half-sensible, they can ensure that the narration of the gameworld which they engage in makes sense and doesn't have any gaping holes. So no brain turn-off is required simply because the rules move from a simulationist approach towards a "distribution of narrative control" approach.

If you _choose_ to interpret the relationship between non-simulationist mechanics, and the gameworld, in a way that does not make sense for such mechanics, that is your choice. Interpret otherwise and the problem will disappear.


----------



## hong (Apr 13, 2008)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I think you just invented Hong's 4th Law of Gamerdom.



 Actually, that would just be a corollary to Hong's 2nd law.

Hong's 4th law of fantasy: if you can't fix it with a sword, fix it with a fireball. If you can't fix it with a fireball, it isn't worth fixing.


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 13, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Do you mean "game" here, or "gameworld"?
> 
> By all accounts the 4e rules have no obvious holes, given the typical sort of RPG one might try to play using D&D as one's system. So no brain turn-off required in that respect.
> 
> ...




Well, by the preview materials, they do have large and obvious holes, the biggest so far revealed being the lack of transparency between PCs and NPCs.  The characters don't know that goblin picadors and bugbear stranglers are meant to be single-encounter monsters; if they encounter mundane, unpowered weaponwork that can do new and interesting things, they should ask how it was that the humanoids came to learn those tricks, and how they can, as well.  A sensible GM can reverse-engineer exotic weapon proficiency and weapon maneuver feats, explain to the PCs that if they invest these resources that they can do these tricks, or they can try untrained at this penalty, yes, but from what we've seen, the rules don't do this for you.  It is possible to come up with an accurate simulationist way to interpret this lack; the problem is that it ends up enshrining a difference in kind between PCs and NPCs severe enough to justify the Belkars of the game world.


----------



## DandD (Apr 13, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> A sensible GM can reverse-engineer exotic weapon proficiency and weapon maneuver feats, explain to the PCs that if they invest these resources that they can do these tricks, or they can try untrained at this penalty, yes, but from what we've seen, the rules don't do this for you.



According by Mike Mearls himself, the rules will exactly be able to do this.


----------



## hong (Apr 13, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Well, by the preview materials, they do have large and obvious holes, the biggest so far revealed being the lack of transparency between PCs and NPCs.  The characters don't know that goblin picadors and bugbear stranglers are meant to be single-encounter monsters;




But the players do.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 13, 2008)

Personally, I'm a GM and anything that makes my life easier means my players will actually get to PLAY more often which I think should be the ultimate goal of any game.

Thus, for me, dividing PCs from NPCs gets a "Hell yeah".

For example, Solo Monsters. The idea of the BBEG has been with us since time immemorial but it never works well in D&D because even in 1E, THACO was tied to HD. But here's the thing, a fun BBEG has to be able to survive the attacks from multiple PCs (high HP) but at the same time, I don't want to auto-hit/TPK the party (high BAB/spellcasting level)

4E is saying to me as a GM. "Yes, we recognize what you need to make for a fun game, here's the solution" whereas the previous versions were "Well, here's what makes for a consistent world".

It's the same thing with special abilities. I like using special abilities on monsters that can stand out but I don't necessarily want to have PCs utilizing them ALL the time. Another example, 

Supposedly, the 4E version of Improved Trip is akin to the Setting Sun school Trip manoeuvers in that they are limited to once an encounter. For many people, this breaks "realism" in that why can't I use it again? But I've run 3E with a chain tripping fighter and it becomes so damn tiresome that I purposely send creatures that can't be tripped as the effect of him with his Spiked Chain/Improved Trip combo was detrimental to the game itself. In 4E, if Improved Trip is an encounter power, I'm not going to go out of my way desiging encoutners just to screw the player over


----------



## robertliguori (Apr 13, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> According by Mike Mearls himself, the rules will exactly be able to do this.




I cheerfully await the possibility of an exotic weapon talent tree, which gathers all of the nifty things we've seen monsters do with nonstandard weapons in one place, and gives rules for how to access the talents and what this access represents in-game (I.e.: whether the talents represent simple training and practice, or are themselves fueled by the martial power source).

I'm just worried about things like trip being an encounter power.  This does not jive with the above design pattern.  We see monsters performing powerful, useful maneuvers with harpoons, garottes, and the like, and nothing about these maneuvers being encounter powers.  It may well be that trip is just different than what we've seen, there is a pile of exotic martial powers, and trip appears as an encounter and harpooning and garotting are both at-will.  This is the only real way to reconcile what we've seen statted with the ability of monsters to perform certain tricks.



> For example, Solo Monsters. The idea of the BBEG has been with us since time immemorial but it never works well in D&D because even in 1E, THACO was tied to HD. But here's the thing, a fun BBEG has to be able to survive the attacks from multiple PCs (high HP) but at the same time, I don't want to auto-hit/TPK the party (high BAB/spellcasting level)
> 
> 4E is saying to me as a GM. "Yes, we recognize what you need to make for a fun game, here's the solution" whereas the previous versions were "Well, here's what makes for a consistent world".



I would disagree.  To me, the fun comes from putting together a world out of discrete, understood elements, combining the elements in interesting ways, and watching the players respond in kind.  I like a ruleset well-designed enough to be turned up to eleven, that can handle extreme creativity and being pushed to the limits of its well-defined boundaries and still produce comprehensible results.  Most of all, I like a ruleset which doesn't produce suboptimal results when the results of it are observed and analysis applied.  For example, the design we've seen so far in 4.0 suggests that setting up a dungeon with individual, discrete encounters is a horrible strategy to defend against adventurers, and that a much better strategy would be to provide a warning system, so that when adventurers were discovered, every minion in the dungeon could rush in, denying the all-important five-minute recovery period.

Really, my problem is that fun is often the opposite of smart.  The ideal tactic, which should be chosen by PCs and NPCs alike, is often one that results in trivial encounters, or no encounters at all.  I like rule systems that get around this by having both sides be a bit desperate, so that the fun game elements can be more easily lampshaded.  I might design a dungeon to provide appropriate, interesting encounters, but I need an in-game reason why the makers of the dungeon didn't put brutally effective ones instead.  Generally, resource economy and solving a different problem are my watchwords.  Dungeons are primarily built to delay armies; when you're three weeks away from performing the Ritual of the Falling Sky, you retreat to a dungeon, load up on minions, and hope your defenses against the Alliance of Light hold.  Meanwhile, the Alliance, knowing that a direct assault not only has a large chance of failure to succeed before the ritual will be complete but will devastate their armies and leave them vulnerable, instead send five to go where five thousand may not.

The corollary of this, of course, is that later on, when the party faces a dangerously genre-savvy dungeoneer who builds a fortress utterly unassailable to an adventuring party, returns to the Alliance and says "We'd like to borrow a company or two.  We'll give them back when they're done."

Pure intellectual tactical puzzles are interesting, as is the visceral thrill of slaying evil and claiming its loot.  But, to my mind, games are superior when they combine complex tactical challenges, action and adventure, and a world consistent within its explicitly-stated premises with potential for unexpected and interesting emergent behavior.  I'm most definitely in favor of the changes we've seen in 4E that increase the first two; I simply disagree that you need to sacrifice the third in order to acheive them.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 14, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Well, by the preview materials, they do have large and obvious holes, the biggest so far revealed being the lack of transparency between PCs and NPCs.



This is not a hole: there is no gap in the action resolution rules for PCs, for NPCs, or in the interaction between the two (at least as far as we know).

The build rules for the two are different - but the build rules are not part of the gameworld, and so generate no inconsistencies in the gameworld.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> The characters don't know that goblin picadors and bugbear stranglers are meant to be single-encounter monsters; if they encounter mundane, unpowered weaponwork that can do new and interesting things, they should ask how it was that the humanoids came to learn those tricks, and how they can, as well.



And nothing stops the PCs doing this. Presumably they can, in-game, get answers to their questions.  



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> A sensible GM can reverse-engineer exotic weapon proficiency and weapon maneuver feats, explain to the PCs that if they invest these resources that they can do these tricks, or they can try untrained at this penalty, yes, but from what we've seen, the rules don't do this for you.



You now seem to be talking not about the PCs, but about the players. The _players_ know that, unless they or the GM has purchased the appropriate sourcebook (or done some houseruling), they cannot play PCs with abilities X, Y or Z. But this has always been the case in RPGs, that the character build rules are incomplete (in the sense that they do not cover everything that can be conceived of as existing in the gameworld - whether this be for reasons of balance, or complexity, or flavour, or whatver) to a greater or lesser extent.

In short: Hong is correct when he replies



			
				hong said:
			
		

> But the players do.






			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> It is possible to come up with an accurate simulationist way to interpret this lack; the problem is that it ends up enshrining a difference in kind between PCs and NPCs severe enough to justify the Belkars of the game world.



My point was that choosing to play in a simulationist mindset is just that: a choice. If you drop the assumption that player = PC, and are prepared to recognise that there are other ways of understanding the relationship between game (and rules) on the one hand, and gameworld on the others, then there will not be problems. Which was the point of my original question about whether Derren was critiquing the game, or the gameworld.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 14, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Corollary: If you read something that begins with "I'm not trying to insult you" and contains no ", but...", you should maintain the benefit of the doubt that the author isn't trying to insult you.




Bull.  I've seen enough post history from these "I'm not trying to insult you..." vagabonds to know that they're not arguing in good faith, and probably never were.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 14, 2008)

I'm not trying to insult you, but your style of play sucks...


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 14, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> I'm just worried about things like trip being an encounter power.  This does not jive with the above design pattern.  We see monsters performing powerful, useful maneuvers with harpoons, garottes, and the like, and nothing about these maneuvers being encounter powers.  It may well be that trip is just different than what we've seen, there is a pile of exotic martial powers, and trip appears as an encounter and harpooning and garotting are both at-will.  This is the only real way to reconcile what we've seen statted with the ability of monsters to perform certain tricks..




Even here, I have to applaud this. The design recognizes that a monster is only going to be on-screen when I intentionally as a DM use it. If I use said monster, monster uses ability maybe once or twice and that's it. Whereas in 3.x, with Improved Trip, the fact that it could be spammed on the player side and thus making it annoying to such an extent that DMs purposely go out of their way to nerf it, is poor design.




			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> I would disagree.  To me, the fun comes from putting together a world out of discrete, understood elements, combining the elements in interesting ways, and watching the players respond in kind.  I like a ruleset well-designed enough to be turned up to eleven, that can handle extreme creativity and being pushed to the limits of its well-defined boundaries and still produce comprehensible results.  Most of all, I like a ruleset which doesn't produce suboptimal results when the results of it are observed and analysis applied.
> .



To me though, that basically doesn't make a good GAME as the rules treat the world the same as the player and this ISN'T how the game is played. Getting back to SOLO monsters, the game itself needs to recognize that a BBEG that is intended to be a solo threat can NOT be designed using the same criteria that regular monsters/pcs use since it is operating under different assumptions.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> For example, the design we've seen so far in 4.0 suggests that setting up a dungeon with individual, discrete encounters is a horrible strategy to defend against adventurers, and that a much better strategy would be to provide a warning system, so that when adventurers were discovered, every minion in the dungeon could rush in, denying the all-important five-minute recovery period.
> 
> .




Actually, in 4E, either one works. Healing Surges are limited on the character being healed so even if the encounter is under the xp budget (equivalent to a party facing an under their level CR creature), you can still drain a couple of healing surges from said party. 

Repeat ad nauseum and even a 5th level party will have to retreat from 1st level kobolds much earlier than in any other edition.

In fact, sending low-level threats against the party works much better in 4E than any other edition since characters do have an innate limit to how much healing surges they can have.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> 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".




I think you've drastically misinterpreted the points in two ways.

First off, it could very easily be that people have been convinced that the new rules are better than the old, despite earlier objections.  That happens all the time.  Heck, I was a pretty staunch 2e supporter for a brief period of time, at least until I actually got to play 3e.  Just looking at the rules without actually playing them can lead to some really weird trains of thought. 

Secondly, and this is something I tried to argue with Andor above, is that games should not be judged solely based on personal preferences.  The quality of a given rule, as to whether or not it can get the job done, is independent of whether or not you LIKE the rule.  Just as I can say that Go is a well designed game with plenty of tactical depth of play AND I hate it.  I find it mind bogglingly boring.  

But, that's my problem, not a problem with the game.

The question before us is whether or not decoupling rules from physics leads to inconsistencies within the game world.  The answer is no.  The existence of numerous games where the mechanics have next to nothing to do with the game world - 1e D&D with its lack of skill mechanics, Villains and Vigilantes with its complete lack of non-supers rules, or rules light games like Amber or The Dying Earth - prove that you can have rules sets where the world is largely left unmodeled and still have consistent, enjoyable games.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 14, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> IThe question before us is whether or not decoupling rules from physics leads to inconsistencies within the game world.  The answer is no.  The existence of numerous games where the mechanics have next to nothing to do with the game world - 1e D&D with its lack of skill mechanics, Villains and Vigilantes with its complete lack of non-supers rules, or rules light games like Amber or The Dying Earth - prove that you can have rules sets where the world is largely left unmodeled and still have consistent, enjoyable games.



QFT, although I'm not sure that "The Dying Earth" is really all that rules-light.

Looking over Ron Edwards' essay "Gamism: Step On Up" I found this passage describing one of the similarities between Gamism and Narrativist play:



			
				 Ron Edwards said:
			
		

> Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.




It is this "casual negotiation", under constraints delivered by the action resolution (and other relevant) mechanics, which ensures the coherence of the gameworld without it being the case that the rules are phyiscs.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> For example, the design we've seen so far in 4.0 suggests that setting up a dungeon with individual, discrete encounters is a horrible strategy to defend against adventurers, and that a much better strategy would be to provide a warning system, so that when adventurers were discovered, every minion in the dungeon could rush in, denying the all-important five-minute recovery period.



I find this comment a little odd, for a few reasons.

1) It's almost always been the case that it is optimal (from the NPCs' point of view) to swarm the PCs. D&D has always been about the GM (with a nod and a wink from the players) contriving in various ways that this not come about.

2) The 5-minute rest is mainly a metagame contrivance, to allow the players to reset a certain list of options. If for some reason or other it is not going to work in your game (because, consistently with verisimilitude) it is impossible to introduce 5-minute rests, then the rule needs to be changed. (Just as one way to avoid the 15-minute adventuring day would be to reduce spell-recovery time, although this of course would introduce further intra-party balance complications.)

3) The point of a number of features of the 4e mechanics appears to be to increase player (not PC, but _player_) control over the resolution of action in the game. Per-encounter powers are just one example of this. They are essentially metagame devices. It defeats their purpose if one assumes that they are part of the physics of the gameworld, and thus that the NPCs who populate the gameworld can plan and calculate taking them into account.

An analogy would be this: in a game of Conan OGL, the NPCs won't take into account that a player might spend a Fate Point to save her PC from death. The point of spending the Fate Point is that the PC does not die, _despite the situation appearing to the contrary to everyone in the gameworld, including the NPCs_. It is a metagame, "plot immunity" mechanic, not a representation of the causal laws of the gameworld.

Likewise with per-encounter powers: the "per-encounter" aspect is best interpreted as a metagame, director's stance mechanic (ie the player dictates that circumstances are now propitious, and the rules allow the player to do this once per 5-to10-minutes of ingame time). NPCs are already assumed to be doing their best to avoid exposing themselves to powerful attacks, and the use of the per-encounter power shows that they failed to do so.

Why would one want to deliberately negate the gameplay point of these mechanics, by treating them as part of the mechanics of the gameworld (and thus have NPCs engage in such reasoning as "despite appearing dead, she might really be alive - I better decapitate her" or "once per 5 minutes certain people can twist luck and fortune in their favour, but only if they get a rest, so I better swarm them before they can take a quick break")?

If you don't want to play a game with metagame mechanics, fine (RQ and RM2/RM classic are, IMO, great games). But why criticise a game that contains metagame mechanics for not delivering a metagame-free play experience? Or interpret those mechanics in some strange non-metagame fashion and then complain that the resultant simulation is wonky?


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 14, 2008)

The simulationists can have every odd numbered edition and the rest of us can have every even numbered edition. Sounds fair to me.


----------



## Andor (Apr 14, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Secondly, and this is something I tried to argue with Andor above, is that games should not be judged solely based on personal preferences.  The quality of a given rule, as to whether or not it can get the job done, is independent of whether or not you LIKE the rule.  Just as I can say that Go is a well designed game with plenty of tactical depth of play AND I hate it.  I find it mind bogglingly boring.
> 
> But, that's my problem, not a problem with the game.
> 
> The question before us is whether or not decoupling rules from physics leads to inconsistencies within the game world.  The answer is no.  The existence of numerous games where the mechanics have next to nothing to do with the game world - 1e D&D with its lack of skill mechanics, Villains and Vigilantes with its complete lack of non-supers rules, or rules light games like Amber or The Dying Earth - prove that you can have rules sets where the world is largely left unmodeled and still have consistent, enjoyable games.




Ahhh. I think I see at least one area where we are using the phrase "Rules as physics" to mean different things. I tried but apparently failed to be clear that when I say "rules as physics" I do not mean, in the least, that the rules must cover every eventuality. As we agree, it's both impractical and impossible to try to cover everything from how dragons digest pearls to how the thermal conductivity of adamatine make it perfect for frying eggs. Any aspect of the world not covered by the rules is of course up to the GM possibly with input from the players and it's his job to portray them in a way that reflects the world accurately. 

Instead what I mean is that I find it impossible to reconcile the effect of rules that have in game consequences with an insistance that they have no in game existence. EG: Hitpoints. You can argue that they are merely luck, and that poison, gravity, fire, ants, etc are corner cases, but frankly there are so many corners they frame the topic perfectly. There are of course rules which are not visible in game, EG: No evil PCs. Since there are evil people with PC classes within the game world that rules effects only the 4 to 6 pcs and is too small to be visible in the world at large.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Apr 14, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> The simulationists can have every odd numbered edition and the rest of us can have every even numbered edition. Sounds fair to me.




Good. So how long do I need to wait for 5E?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 14, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Good. So how long do I need to wait for 5E?



I suppose 8 years?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2008)

Re: Hit Points and Luck

This has been done to death, but, I'll take another stab at it.  Hit points can represent physical toughness.  They also can represent luck, karma or whatever.  The point of HP's though is that what they represent can easily vary with whatever fits the scene at the time.

Hit points don't have to ONLY be luck.  They don't ONLY have to be physical toughness.  They're an abstract concept.  Thus, they can be pretty much whatever you need them to be at the time.  Thus, people within a game world need not have any concept of hit points.  From their point of view, (if they actually had one) hit points don't exist because hit points only reflect the results of the scene.

If I have 50 hit points and get hit with an axe for 5 points of damage, the narrative would read something like, "Korgan is shaken by the scratch."  OTOH, if I had 10 hit points, the narrative would read differently.

This is why I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that rules =/= physics.  Given that many of the game concepts are abstractions at best, why would they need to be coupled with any sort of physics?


----------

