# Game rules are not the physics of the game world



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 4, 2008)

Picking up on something from the "Stephen Radney-Macfarland" thread that I thought deserved its own discussion.

I offer this up for debate:  Game rules are not intended to model the physics of the game world.  Rather, game rules are intended to offer up a *rough simulation* of the game world that will yield useful narrative results.  There are and should be occasions in the game universe where things happen that appear to break the rules, because the story has gone to a place the simulation fails to adequately cover.

This is something seen often in real life.  We frequently create simulations of complex systems that yield results "close enough", even though real life will occasionally throw results inconsistent with the simulation.  An example most people will be familiar with is Newtonian physics versus Einstein's relativity theory.  Newton yields results close enough to the real world that it's useful and taught in classrooms, but ultimately it's just an estimate for how the real world works.

Examples for places where D&D rules might fail.

1. A strong, skilled, and uninjured fighter might fall from a horse, break his neck, and die.  It would be a million to one, but it could happen in the game world even though the hitpoint model says it can't.

2. A (by the game rules) 3rd level wizard might be able to cast a planar binding spell and accidentally call an efreet.  Maybe he fumbled his way through with his master's spellbook as aid and accidentally got it right.  The game rules say this could never happen, but the game rules are merely a guide to probable outcomes.  There's nothing physically preventing him from managing the right gestures and words.

3. You might be able to sell a magic item for twice the gold piece value listed in the DMG, though the rules say you'll only give half value.  This is a "physics" that most DMs seem to have no trouble ignoring, though it's no more or less a part of the game world physics than either of the examples above.

4. A fighter might study with a fighting master and be extra deadly with a weapon, though the rules say he's not high enough level for weapon specialization.

Anyway, the point is that a lot of things in the game world do not and should not follow the rules set forth for the PCs. 4E seems set up to acknowledge this in a way that 3E does not.  That's why monsters and NPCs are treated differently, because it's more useful to use a slightly different (and simplified) simulation for them than the simulation used for PCs.  Neither simulation really captures everything that's going on in the game world.  Both simulations are expected to yield results that make sense enough to then be sensibly described in the context of the game world.

Now, I think the reason that this frustrates a lot of people is that player characters generally do follow the rules.  They have to live with the results of the simulation, because this is a game and we want characters to be on even footing.  One complaint I saw on another board was (paraphrased):

"What if I have a wizard character with an NPC mentor who has powers built using the NPC rules?  Suppose that mentor dies and my PC studies his notes to learn his powers.  If both characters are human, it makes no sense to me that my PC could never learn those abilities.  It would break my suspension of disbelief."

The answer, of course, is that within the context of the game world it is possible for the PC to learn those powers.  However, to do so requires stepping outside the standard rules simulating the game world.  You have to move to realm of the narrative and have a talk between the player and the DM to see if it is appropriate to break the simulation in this case and still have a fun game for everyone.

And that is why I think it is a mistake to equate the rules to the physics of the game world.  In the game world, 1 out of 20 swings do not miss and 1 out of 20 swings do not always hit (for given value of "swing, which could be several attacks).  It's simply a convenient assumption for the simulation.


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 4, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> And that is why I think it is a mistake to equate the rules to the physics of the game world.




I think this discussion came up in at least 3 or 4 thread recently, which is a good thing of course, so I'll give my impression regarding all the talking so far.

There is a difference between equating the rules to the phsysics of the game world and having an in-game rationalization for every rule. I believe most people that are in the "simulationist" side really don't care about the previous and is actually looking for the later.

Personally, I don't care if the town guard has only 4 stats, AC, HP, Attack roll and damage, but if his AC is 19 and he is wearing a leather armor, I'll want to know where that AC comes from.
I'm really satisfied with an answer like "town guards in this city train more defensive combat than offensive, so his attack roll is low but AC is good". But I won't accept an answer like "because that's the number for an average level 6 NPC soldier", I'll just leave the game table.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 4, 2008)

> Examples for places where D&D rules might fail.




For me, a lot of these are unsatisfying at the table, and break apart my suspension of disbelief.



> 1. A strong, skilled, and uninjured fighter might fall from a horse, break his neck, and die. It would be a million to one, but it could happen in the game world even though the hitpoint model says it can't.




If he dies just because it's narratively convenient, this strikes me as exceptionally lazy storytelling, and it robs all sorts of interesting potential from the scenario. Perhaps he was cursed by a warlock? Perhaps his horse was as tall as a 30-story building? Perhaps he was a braggart with little true skill? And in each instance, I'd expect the rules to reflect that so that the PC's can have interesting and narratively appropriate adventures. If he was cursed, perhaps the PC's can brave similar cures to put an end to the black magic. If his horse was immense, perhaps the PC's can find this land of enchanted gigas-mares. If he was really a braggart, perhaps the PC's can find out who actually was accomplishing those great deeds, and why they decided to remain silent.



> 2. A (by the game rules) 3rd level wizard might be able to cast a planar binding spell and accidentally call an efreet. Maybe he fumbled his way through with his master's spellbook as aid and accidentally got it right. The game rules say this could never happen, but the game rules are merely a guide to probable outcomes. There's nothing physically preventing him from managing the right gestures and words.




Eh. It'd be a lot cooler if we had rules that let a wizard try and cast a spell beyond their capability. In fact, scrolls already include such a mechanic, and I'd say that rituals, in the next edition, could and maybe should, too. If the wizard does it just because it's narratively convenient, that, again, strikes me as lazy and as robbing all sorts of potential interesting adventures from it. 



> 3. You might be able to sell a magic item for twice the gold piece value listed in the DMG, though the rules say you'll only give half value. This is a "physics" that most DMs seem to have no trouble ignoring, though it's no more or less a part of the game world physics than either of the examples above.




Economy's a funny thing. When you get money involved, it becomes subject to the whims of relative demand, and sometimes, something is specifically in high demand. 

The rules of gravity and magic are not usually so subjective.



> 4. A fighter might study with a fighting master and be extra deadly with a weapon, though the rules say he's not high enough level for weapon specialization.




There's other ways to model 'deadly with a weapon.' And it would be more interesting if he obeyed the rules and gained power under this fighting master, gaining levels while the rest of the PC's do. If he becomes extra deadly just as a matter of narrative convenience, again, it seems lazy and robs the cool potential of many other explanations from the world. 



> The answer, of course, is that within the context of the game world it is possible for the PC to learn those powers.




Then it appears lazy and devoid of imagination to not provide us rules for how that happens. 

I think 4e will at least give solid nods to DMs who demand and enjoy a bit more rules, and a bit less advice just to make stuff up.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 4, 2008)

I'm not seeing the issues mentioned.  If you feel that it should be possible for a high-level fighter to die from falling off a horse, then falls from horses should be capable of dealing in excess of 50 damage.  If you think that it should be possible to accidentally Call a 10-HD outsider with a second-level spell, include rules for that.  If you don't think that Weapon Specialization should have a minimum fighter level, remove the minimum level.

Do you think it is important for the GM and players to share assumptions about what is possible within the confines of the rules?  If not, how do you expect the characters to act meaningfully?  

Do you start from the assumption that there should be laws of physics in the gameworld,  which the GM is obligated to follow regardless of the drama of the situation?  If so, why are the examples given particularly problematic?  Play simply happens to take place in a universe where there is a hard limit on how badly apprentice mages can flub up on their own, in which high-level fighters can not only survive falls from horses but can shrug off direct hits from lances, and which certain martial techniques are only available to people who are of a certain level of experience and accomplishment.  It is assumed, if you're playing D&D, that these are shared expectations.  If you don't share these expectations, feel free to communicate your new expectations to the players, and even feel free to announce that you intend to communicate your new expectations solely through non-precedent-setting encounters in the game world, and that in these cases, anything, regardless of the rules, can happen.  Some players like having a story told to them.  However, the majority of the hobby like, when they play RPGs, to be playing a game, and games have rules.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Feb 4, 2008)

I disagree partialy - rules of a game TOUCH Physics in parts.

Look by example at the strict limitations magic have in Shadowrun - you can't create matter from absolutly nothing, no teleportation, no resurection.... It's tied to natural laws.


----------



## Roger (Feb 4, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> I offer this up for debate:  Game rules are not intended to model the physics of the game world.




This is problematic for a number of reasons:

1.  It's very difficult, perhaps impossible, to determine what game rules are _intended_ to do, even if we manage somehow to answer the question of intended by _whom._

2.  It's not at all clear that the intentions that some people may or may not have with respect to some game rules have any relevance.

3.  With respect to 4E, even the game rules themselves are not generally known.


These factors make it very difficult to derive any sort of value from the debate.


Cheers,
Roger


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 4, 2008)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Look by example at the strict limitations magic have in Shadowrun - you can't create matter from absolutly nothing, no teleportation, no resurection.... It's tied to natural laws.




Not really. If it related to any law of biology or physics, resurrection would be eminently possible. People who've been "dead" in every measurably way (in very cold water) for really considerable spans of time have been brought back to life, and if magic can knit together horrible shotgun injuries my SR character has sustained, then, well I don't see it doing anything that couldn't bring someone back to life unless you're claiming the spirit leaves immediately or whatever (which again, directly contradicted by reality, and real cases of science bringing people back to life after longer spans).

I think all three of those rules are in place to control the gameplay, rather than to "simulate a magical reality".

As to the OP, well, sure, but I kind of liked it when that WAS what they were, like in 1E/2E.


----------



## Xyl (Feb 4, 2008)

How come these arguments never spring up about, say, Risk?

Or to take an RPG example, what about D20 Modern? It's set in something close to the real world - should its rules be taken as the physics of the game?


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 4, 2008)

Roger said:
			
		

> This is problematic for a number of reasons:
> 
> 1.  It's very difficult, perhaps impossible, to determine what game rules are _intended_ to do, even if we manage somehow to answer the question of intended by _whom._
> 
> ...




Perhaps I didn't put it the right way then.  Let me try again.

"It is fundamentally impossible for the rules of any RPG to accurately and completely model the physics of the game world, and thus any rule set will always be a rough simulation.  You're just fooling yourself if you think they do."


----------



## Imban (Feb 4, 2008)

Xyl said:
			
		

> How come these arguments never spring up about, say, Risk?
> 
> Or to take an RPG example, what about D20 Modern? It's set in something close to the real world - should its rules be taken as the physics of the game?




Uh, because Risk is a board game and we're playing the straight rules of the game. What they represent is totally abstract and totally unaddressed.

I see no reason you *shouldn't* take d20 Modern's rules as the physics of the game, on the other hand. It's just likely to produce an unsatisfying experience, because neither people's assumptions that being shot is quite bad for you nor their assumptions that engaging in fisticuffs with a huge demon is unwise hold.


----------



## Imban (Feb 4, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Perhaps I didn't put it the right way then.  Let me try again.
> 
> "It is fundamentally impossible for the rules of any RPG to accurately and completely model the physics of the game world, and thus any rule set will always be a rough simulation.  You're just fooling yourself if you think they do."




That's certainly true. However, as Kamikaze Midget replied, there are those of us who reject the first, second, and fourth "failures" you mentioned, because the rules of the RPG *directly* say it isn't so. It's a rough model in that it cannot accurately and completely model everything, nor should it try to, but we prefer to accept that the rules accurately model the physics of the game world that they cover, and prefer rules that are designed to accurately model the physics of the game world that they cover.

For example, with the HP system as it is in 3e, Drizzt do'Urden could not die from taking a long walk off of a short cliff. The position of those who enjoy game rules as physics of the game world would be that this is just simply the case - extraordinary circumstances would have to be present, period, for Drizzt to have died from falling off a cliff.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 4, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> For me, a lot of these are unsatisfying at the table, and break apart my suspension of disbelief.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I consider it lazy and devoid of imagination to assume that there must be a rule covering everything that could possibly happen in the game world.

Something are not worth including in the simulation provided by the rules, because it is not desirable for them to happen by random chance.  Some things are not worth including in the rules because they are so rare and freakish that it's simply not worth the time to model them and they'll only happen if the DM wants them to happen.

Nobody wants to roll a 1-in-a-million chance for a high level fighter to fall off a horse and break their neck whenever they go for a ride.  It's a waste of time, and not desirable as a random outcome anyway.  That does not mean that it's impossible for a high level fighter to fall off a horse and break their neck, entirely bypassing the hitpoint simulation.

Substitute any other freak accident for falling off a horse.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 4, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> That's certainly true. However, as Kamikaze Midget replied, there are those of us who reject the first, second, and fourth "failures" you mentioned, because the rules of the RPG *directly* say it isn't so. It's a rough model in that it cannot accurately and completely model everything, nor should it try to, but we prefer to accept that the rules accurately model the physics of the game world that they cover, and prefer rules that are designed to accurately model the physics of the game world that they cover.
> 
> For example, with the HP system as it is in 3e, Drizzt do'Urden could not die from taking a long walk off of a short cliff. The position of those who enjoy game rules as physics of the game world would be that this is just simply the case - extraordinary circumstances would have to be present, period, for Drizzt to have died from falling off a cliff.




Why couldn't he?  Is his flesh impervious to being hit with great force at the bottom of the fall?  Is he physically different in some way from a 1 HD dark elf?

Under the game simulation he won't die, because it's a heroic simulation where he'll somehow land just right or catch a bush on the wya down to break his fall.  That doesn't mean he or anyone else in the game world should assume they won't die, though.  And if he jumps off a cliff every day, I'll argue that the second or third time the DM should rule that the hitpoint model has been bypassed entirely and he dies.  His luck has run out.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Feb 4, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Uh, because Risk is a board game and we're playing the straight rules of the game. What they represent is totally abstract and totally unaddressed.



D&D's rules are abstract too, just like Risk.  "The math" required to very accurately simulate falling, or being hit with a sword, or being breathed on by a dragon, can be quite complex.  Super-computer complex.



			
				Imban said:
			
		

> I see no reason you *shouldn't* take d20 Modern's rules as the physics of the game,



For the very reasons stated in this thread. And the fact that the designers have said "These rules do not supplant, replace or claim superiority to Newtonian physics."  They are simple models for determining outcomes to situations you often encounter playing this game.



			
				Imban said:
			
		

> there are those of us who ... prefer rules that are designed to accurately model the physics of the game world that they cover.



You may think you prefer it, but I don't think you actually would have fun with that game.  I've played more "realistic" games, with weapon and armor damage, to-hit location tables, complicated feinting and shield maneuvers. etc. etc.  It was basically a tabletop version of a super-realistic Mortal Kombat.  It wasn't really that fun.  I sure prefer the more abstract D&D model, and I know that if WotC went with a "realistic" combat model I'd probably play something else.


----------



## Imban (Feb 4, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> I consider it lazy and devoid of imagination to assume that there must be a rule covering everything that could possibly happen in the game world.




I do not consider it lazy or devoid of imagination to assume that things the rules directly imply *cannot* happen in the game world, however, cannot happen.


----------



## Imban (Feb 4, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> D&D's rules are abstract too, just like Risk.  "The math" required to very accurately simulate falling, or being hit with a sword, or being breathed on by a dragon, can be quite complex.  Super-computer complex.




Irrelevant. I was saying that Risk was 100% "the rules" and 0% a simulation of anything - there's no story, no characters, no world.



> You may think you prefer it, but I don't think you actually would have fun with that game.  I've played more "realistic" games, with weapon and armor damage, to-hit location tables, complicated feinting and shield maneuvers. etc. etc.  It was basically a tabletop version of a super-realistic Mortal Kombat.  It wasn't really that fun.  I sure prefer the more abstract D&D model, and I know that if WotC went with a "realistic" combat model I'd probably play something else.




Saying that you know my preferences better than I do is _amazingly_ arrogant. Regardless, you misjudged my preferences, so that's irrelevant: I don't at all want some sort of crazy super-realism, but I can't have fun playing a traditional RPG unless the rules of the game - the rules the PCs have to live and die by - are being played as the rules of physics. They might not be *our* rules of physics, and there's certainly room for expansion beyond them and DM judgment calls, but in my games Drizzt do'Urden really doesn't have anything to worry about if some idiot puts a crossbow to his back and tells him to drop his weapons. It won't do that much damage anyway.

Basically, in games I enjoy, any rule that sets down a truth about the system sets down a truth about the game world. If no healthy heroic mortal can *possibly* die from licking an arrow frog once in Exalted (which is the case), I don't expect to hear of it happening without an explanation that works within the rules that define how the game world operates.


----------



## Victim (Feb 4, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Is he physically different in some way from a 1 HD dark elf?




Well, deriving from XP costs for spells and level drains, the higher level character has more 'life force.'  So he's METAphysically different.  In a setting with explicit dieties, afterlives, alignment, etc, that's probably more important.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 4, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> I do not consider it lazy or devoid of imagination to assume that things the rules directly imply *cannot* happen in the game world, however, cannot happen.




I fundamentally disagree.  The rules may say something cannot happen, but that doesn't mean a situation can't arise where it wouldn't happen anyway if it makes sense within the context of the game world.

Or in other words, fluff trumps crunch.  Always.  The fluff is that Drizzt is a flesh-and-blood elf who escapes death through superior skill, quickness, and luck.  Therefore it is possible for him to die from falling 30 feet, no matter what the crunch says.

He won't in fact die, unless a specific decision is made to discard the crunch result, but the possibility is there within the reality of the game world.


----------



## Imban (Feb 4, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> I fundamentally disagree.  The rules may say something cannot happen, but that doesn't mean a situation can't arise where it wouldn't happen anyway if it makes sense within the context of the game world.
> 
> Or in other words, fluff trumps crunch.  Always.  The fluff is that Drizzt is a flesh-and-blood elf who escapes death through superior skill, quickness, and luck.  Therefore it is possible for him to die from falling 30 feet, no matter what the crunch says.




Well, now we're just going to say "nuh-uh" at each other. For me, the fluff has to follow naturally from the crunch, or it looks to me like someone just plain didn't think things through.

So, er, *nuh-uh*.


----------



## Oliviander (Feb 4, 2008)

*basically right*



			
				Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Perhaps I didn't put it the right way then.  Let me try again.
> 
> "It is fundamentally impossible for the rules of any RPG to accurately and completely model the physics of the game world, and thus any rule set will always be a rough simulation.  You're just fooling yourself if you think they do."




Basically I'm totally your opininion,
and so far I have only one rule of 4E discovered in the previews, which totally fails to 
represent a believable simulation in even a very roughly manner:

A diagonal movement counting as 1 says that a Character can move up 40% faster 
in a specific direction.       

Not even plausible ! 

Unless you assume the following.

Such a rule implies that there happens to be a strange metric System in the world,
where all points with the same distance of one single point are a square not a circle.

This would result in cubic Fireballs. 

Ok funny but:

When you approach foes from afar 
and you set up the battle grid, 
it will depend on the direction of the grid whether you can Charge a foe on sight 
or not !

Not good in my opinion,
(ok you can rule that the winner of initiative can lay out the grid
but not really good too)

I think the old rule was a good and easy.

The new rule is easy only but only a suiting simulation of Limbo

(but not even that regarding that you 
can go diagonal round a wall with your first square move but not your second)


----------



## Irda Ranger (Feb 4, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> I do not consider it lazy or devoid of imagination to assume that things the rules directly imply *cannot* happen in the game world, however, cannot happen.



I'm not sure it's lazy to assume this, but it is devoid of imagination.  Rule 0 comes before all the other rules for a reason.  The DM is expected to use his god-given natural intellect to recognize when the rules (which are a short-hand, abstract resolution mechanism) do not produce a sensible outcome within the game's internal narrative/context.


----------



## IanB (Feb 4, 2008)

I don't think he literally meant physics, as in what you learned in physics class, and I feel like I see a lot of people making that assumption in the threads on this topic.

When he says "physics of the game world" I think he is talking about how things work in the game world in a more metagame-y sort of sense: the idea that the characteristics, society and behavior of NPCs in the game world is actually determined by the ruleset, instead of using the ruleset to represent the game world.


----------



## Roger (Feb 4, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> "It is fundamentally impossible for the rules of any RPG to accurately and completely model the physics of the game world, and thus any rule set will always be a rough simulation.  You're just fooling yourself if you think they do."




I'd suggest that the authors of Neverwinter Nights would disagree.


Cheers,
Roger


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I'm not sure it's lazy to assume this, but it is devoid of imagination.  Rule 0 comes before all the other rules for a reason.  The DM is expected to use his god-given natural intellect to recognize when the rules (which are a short-hand, abstract resolution mechanism) do not produce a sensible outcome within the game's internal narrative/context.




Not only that, but the god-given intellect of the GM allows him to recognize when the provisionally applied abstraction of the rules does not produce an enjoyable outcome within the metagame context.

For example, a thousand climb checks just to get to the top of a mountain, instead of just one damn climb check for the whole bloody thing...


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 4, 2008)

Roger said:
			
		

> I'd suggest that the authors of Neverwinter Nights would disagree.




What do you call everything that happens during cutscenes if not fluff over rules?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 4, 2008)

> I consider it lazy and devoid of imagination to assume that there must be a rule covering everything that could possibly happen in the game world.




That's fine. I'd say it's foolish, myself, but the point is that neither of us want such a thing.



> Something are not worth including in the simulation provided by the rules, because it is not desirable for them to happen by random chance. Some things are not worth including in the rules because they are so rare and freakish that it's simply not worth the time to model them and they'll only happen if the DM wants them to happen.




In both cases, such things happening in the game reek strongly of DM Fiat. And if there's no way the PC's can interact with such a thing (using the rules), then it really is largley equivalent in feeling to saying "Rocks fall, everyone dies." The DM just took a big ol' broom and swept away any feeling like I, as a player, have any true influence over the world. After all, if the DM decides, I could just fall off a horse and die. So if it's all in the DM's hand, why bother having rules at all? Why bother having a game? The DM can just sit and tell us his story, because he gets to dictate what happens without rules anyway.

I mean, that's hyperbolic, but it's the feeling I get when the DM breaks with the rules of the game so dramatically just to justify some sort of narratrive contrivance that, 9 times out of 10, a little imagination could have worked within the bounds of the rules to create something the players COULD interact with, and thus could have added to the game, rather than made me feel like I was just along for the DM's ride. 



> Nobody wants to roll a 1-in-a-million chance for a high level fighter to fall off a horse and break their neck whenever they go for a ride. It's a waste of time, and not desirable as a random outcome anyway. That does not mean that it's impossible for a high level fighter to fall off a horse and break their neck, entirely bypassing the hitpoint simulation.




Sure it does. I don't know of once in all the tales of epic heroes where someone fell off their horse and died. That's not heroic fantasy at all. That's the cold, hard, jagged stone of unnecessary realism cutting to ribbons my little fantasy world where heroes make flying leaps from falling dragons and land on the backs of their trusty steeds. 

A one-in-a-million chance doesn't, effectively, from the POV of the table, ever, really, truly exist. And if the DM calls it in, it blows my suspension of disbelief right out of the water, because no longer does my character adhere to the heroic archetype I thought she was. Now, she's as vulnerable as a peasant just, out of the kindness of the DM's heart, lucky.

That's immensely unsatisfying for me.


----------



## hobgoblin (Feb 4, 2008)

can someone say bastardized rpg theory?


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 4, 2008)

I agree with the central premise of the original post (game rules are not physics) but disagree with the conclusions made by the OP. To me, rules are designed to drive the game. Thus, if you want an appreantice summoning an efreet, some construct should be in place for that. Handwavium is ok, but that should be set forth in the governing rules of the game. For the most part, i prefer a simple, generally useful rule to handwaving, even if I have to adjudicate special cases of the rule from time to time.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I mean, that's hyperbolic, but it's the feeling I get when the DM breaks with the rules of the game so dramatically just to justify some sort of narratrive contrivance that, 9 times out of 10, a little imagination could have worked within the bounds of the rules to create something the players COULD interact with, and thus could have added to the game, rather than made me feel like I was just along for the DM's ride.




You have an incredibly unreasonable perspective. Frankly I would consider you a bad player and eject you from my game. 

What you ask is tantamount to asking the DM to not have any fun. To be bound to some mindless set of rules instead of his own imagination. You're also asking for every other player in the game, unless they happen to share your rigid expectations, not to have any fun.

Because, and this might shock people here who claim a DM who does anything not explicitly described in the rules is abusive, DM's discretion works in the player's favor and the character's favor. 

As a GM, I see my objective as "Ensure everyone has fun", which typically means figuring out what a given player wants out of the game and providing it. I count as a player, though, and what I want out of a game is to see a rousing good story emerge from play. I will break, ignore, or modify any rule at any point for any reason if I think it'll make the game more fun for everyone involved.

And if providing fun for you means I can't do that to provide fun for myself or for the other players, then you can walk away. The rules are a tool. They serve at my pleasure, and in a wider sense at the pleasure of the group. We do not serve the rules.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 4, 2008)

> What you ask is tantamount to asking the DM to not have any fun. To be bound to some mindless set of rules instead of his own imagination. You're also asking for every other player in the game, unless they happen to share your rigid expectations, not to have any fun.




I dunno, I don't think it's too much to ask that all the players (including the DM) follow the rules of the game. And I think those specific examples above would shatter my suspension of disbelief about my character and the game world, and make me feel like I was just along for the DM's ride.

That's what happens when the DM violates the trust of the players: it no longer feels like a collaborative game, and it instead feels like the DM's story that the players are just along for the ride for. People will have different breaking points for that. Mine comes at about the point that the DM is killing high-level knights with accidental falls from horses. It jerks me out of heroic fantasy very roughly, and I become very suspicious of such blatant manipulation of the world.



> Because, and this might shock people here who claim a DM who does anything not explicitly described in the rules is abusive, DM's discretion works in the player's favor and the character's favor.




In an ideal situation, sure. But DMs are not infalliable, and a DM who would pull almost any of the tricks mentioned in the OP would be ruining my fun right quick, and obviously not taking into consideration the fact that some people's fun comes from playing a game, not watching the DM describe events that are out of my control, as a player.



> it. I count as a player, though, and what I want out of a game is to see a rousing good story emerge from play. I will break, ignore, or modify any rule at any point for any reason if I think it'll make the game more fun for everyone involved.




The examples in the OP don't make the game any more fun for me, though. So if you were to do those, you'd be failling your job as a DM, because it wouldn't be fun for me.



> And if providing fun for you means I can't do that to provide fun for myself or for the other players, then you can walk away. The rules are a tool. They serve at my pleasure, and in a wider sense at the pleasure of the group. We do not serve the rules.




The rules are the shared common ground of the game. If you're not going to use them, I'm not sure I should, either, as a player. Perhaps I should just choose the outcome that I think is the most adventurous. There are many systems that agree with this sentiment. D&D is not one of them.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I dunno, I don't think it's too much to ask that all the players (including the DM) follow the rules of the game. And I think those specific examples above would shatter my suspension of disbelief about my character and the game world, and make me feel like I was just along for the DM's ride.




And what if something comes up that's not in the rules? Or the DM thinks of a cool monster with a special ability not in the rules? Neither the players nor the DM can do anything, by your standards. 

I don't give a damn about the examples above. You can think of an example to prove any point; it's meaningless. I could come up with a dozen good examples of breaking the rules for wider gameplay benefit. As a player I want a GM who'll run with some crazy scheme I cook up that's not covered by the rules. As a player I want to face some new beast the GM cooked up. As a player I want the world to appear more complicated and nuanced than the abstract, simplified rules establish, because I want the world to be interesting.

You said "Along for the DM's ride" again. You're equating railroading with rule-bending/breaking/modifying/ignoring. Which is _wrong_. 



> That's what happens when the DM violates the trust of the players: it no longer feels like a collaborative game, and it instead feels like the DM's story that the players are just along for the ride for. People will have different breaking points for that. Mine comes at about the point that the DM is killing high-level knights with accidental falls from horses. It jerks me out of heroic fantasy very roughly, and I become very suspicious of such blatant manipulation of the world.




I don't give a good god-damn about some straw man BS about a PC knight breaking his neck on a horse. What I take issue with is the idea that it's all the same- if I let a PC do something not in the rules, I've violated their trust. That's nonsense.



> In an ideal situation, sure. But DMs are not infalliable, and a DM who would pull almost any of the tricks mentioned in the OP would be ruining my fun right quick, and obviously not taking into consideration the fact that some people's fun comes from playing a game, not watching the DM describe events that are out of my control, as a player.




You continue to equate things that do not equate, or at least do not always equate. False dichotomy all over the place, here.

Let's look at the four examples, because I'm too lazy to come up with more examples that better fit my point. The first- the neck breaking, is obviously bad DMing if it happens to a PC. But to an NPC, off-screen? I can't see the problem. Presumably some knights break their necks, after all.

The second- the accidental summoning of something more powerful than the summoner. "Do not call up what you cannot put down." This is a classic plot device for starting stories. If you said to me, the DM, that "That can not have happened, this story hook you've offered is illegitimate" then I'd tell you to get out of my house. 

The third- are you really saying that the DM can't even establish the _economics_ of the game world? Seriously?

The fourth- really? "Trained by a Master" is a pretty common story device. Think of it like a permanent magical enchantment if you have to. 



> The examples in the OP don't make the game any more fun for me, though. So if you were to do those, you'd be failling your job as a DM, because it wouldn't be fun for me.




Yes, but again, your fun is bad for me, for every other player I have. If I have to choose between bad gaming and just kicking you out, I'll kick you out. What you're advocating is bad gaming. It's dull gaming. It's gaming without soul or creativity. 



> The rules are the shared common ground of the game. If you're not going to use them, I'm not sure I should, either, as a player. Perhaps I should just choose the outcome that I think is the most adventurous. There are many systems that agree with this sentiment. D&D is not one of them.




Maybe I'll use them sometimes, though. Maybe I'll use them most of the time. Maybe I'll break them only occasionally. Maybe I'll break some a lot and use the other rigorously.

The word "continuum" should crop up somewhere here.

EDIT: The rules are a fine shared _starting point_. But as a game goes on, it should look more and more unique.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 4, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> In both cases, such things happening in the game reek strongly of DM Fiat. And if there's no way the PC's can interact with such a thing (using the rules), then it really is largley equivalent in feeling to saying "Rocks fall, everyone dies." The DM just took a big ol' broom and swept away any feeling like I, as a player, have any true influence over the world. *After all, if the DM decides, I could just fall off a horse and die.* So if it's all in the DM's hand, why bother having rules at all? Why bother having a game? The DM can just sit and tell us his story, because he gets to dictate what happens without rules anyway.
> 
> 
> Sure it does. I don't know of once in all the tales of epic heroes where someone fell off their horse and died. That's not heroic fantasy at all. That's the cold, hard, jagged stone of unnecessary realism cutting to ribbons my little fantasy world where heroes make flying leaps from falling dragons and land on the backs of their trusty steeds.
> ...




Here's the thing, and the reason I put this in the 4E forum.

The DM does not get to do this to your character.  (At least, not without discussion and consent around the gaming table.)  Your character gets to operate within the assumptions of the rules that simulate reality.

NPCs/monsters do not need to be treated that way.  4E seems to acknowledge that even more openly than 3E.

An NPC fighter can fall out of his saddle and die if the story calls for it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 4, 2008)

> And what if something comes up that's not in the rules? Or the DM thinks of a cool monster with a special ability not in the rules? Neither the players nor the DM can do anything, by your standards.




Actually, the DMG includes rules for building new monster abilities. And for adjudicating things that the rules cannot cover. So, you know, rules for when the rules fail. And there's the ever-popular Rule 0 as well. All of these have a good reason for existing, and I'd expect a DM to adhere to them, too. 

Note that the DMG doesn't really include rules for arbitrarily killing a high-level knight for falling off of a horse. That's because there are many people who would have their games fairly well ruined by such an experience.



> As a player I want a GM who'll run with some crazy scheme I cook up that's not covered by the rules. As a player I want to face some new beast the GM cooked up. As a player I want the world to appear more complicated and nuanced than the abstract, simplified rules establish, because I want the world to be interesting.




Sure, sounds like fun. It's a good thing the DMG gives guidelines for setting DC's and making monsters and covering situations that aren't covered by the rules. Pretty good ones, IIRC. It's great when a DM plays by the rules.



> You said "Along for the DM's ride" again. You're equating railroading with rule-bending/breaking/modifying/ignoring. Which is wrong.




I don't see how you're breaking/bending/modifying/igoring the rules with crazy schemes and new monsters, though. The rules pretty much expressly state that there are circumstances they won't cover, and they give the DM ways to handle it. That's entirely within the rules.

Furthermore, I'm merely mentioning that when a DM takes a heavy-handed tactic like many of the OP's examples, without accounting for it in the rules, just to achieve some expidited narrative end, I get the feeling that this whole game is just an excuse for the DM to achieve his own expidited narrative end, and get the distinct feeling that my participation has no effect. Which is largely true, since the rules are the mechanism by which my character has an effect on the game world. If the DM doesn't use the rules, I can't affect the process, and my character is impotent.

It's not an accuastion of being railroady. It's an accusation of making the player impotent. Which is actually a much deeper, more pointed criticism. 



> What I take issue with is the idea that it's all the same- if I let a PC do something not in the rules, I've violated their trust. That's nonsense.




If the game just becomes round after round of the DM just saying "Yes" or "No" to my PC requests, it's not a game I particularly am interested in playing. Similarly, if the game just becomes the DM doing whatever they want without my character being able to affect it, it's very dull to me. In both instances, I feel like my character has no effect on the world other than that which the DM allows it to have. Which, again, is a feeling of impotence.



> The first- the neck breaking, is obviously bad DMing if it happens to a PC. But to an NPC, off-screen? I can't see the problem. Presumably some knights break their necks, after all.




Depends. If the knight was some NPC classed 1st level aristocrat nobody or something, maybe, sure, because falling of a horse does deal damage, and nobody 1st level NPC's aren't particularly known for their reslience. This doesn't break much suspension of disbelief. He was just "some knight," breakig his neck isn't a big deal. The rules allow for such a thing to happen.

But if that knight was the 20th level epic hero of the realm who slew the great red wyrm Galhadrarix and consorts with the gods nightly on Mount Maia, simply falling off an old nag in the country doesn't make sense. The rules don't really permit such a thing to happen. And because it sets off those flags, it has one of two possibilities: either there's more going on (warlock curses and the like), or the DM is beating my sense of believability with a mallet.

One of these is okay. The other is not.



> the accidental summoning of something more powerful than the summoner. "Do not call up what you cannot put down." This is a classic plot device for starting stories.




And the rules allow for it to happen, in a few different ways. And if the DM created rules that allowed for it to happen in broader contexts, I think that would be a great contribution to the game.

But if the DM just 'made it happen,' without an in-game explanation, I'd feel robbed and impotent as a player. "Oh. Well, I make it happen where I kill him. Game over!"



> The fourth- really? "Trained by a Master" is a pretty common story device. Think of it like a permanent magical enchantment if you have to.




Permenant magical enchantments are part of the rules, as are rules that allow you to be better at a specific weapon. If the DM uses those, I'm fine. If he doesn't, my sense of believability is bludgeoned. Oh, so your pet NPC can get something that no one else can? How _wonderful for him_.



> What you're advocating is bad gaming. It's dull gaming. It's gaming without soul or creativity.




Meaning what?

Specifically?



> The word "continuum" should crop up somewhere here.




Hey, as long as we all share in the ability to violate the rules enough to basically dictate our actions, I guess it's fair. If you can arbitrarily decide some knight breaks his neck, and I can arbitrarily decide some good dragon gives me his horde as a birthday present because he really doesn't need it anymore, I suppose we're even.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 4, 2008)

> The DM does not get to do this to your character. (At least, not without discussion and consent around the gaming table.) Your character gets to operate within the assumptions of the rules that simulate reality.
> 
> NPCs/monsters do not need to be treated that way. 4E seems to acknowledge that even more openly than 3E.
> 
> An NPC fighter can fall out of his saddle and die if the story calls for it.




Actually, how NPCs/monsters should be treated in the context of an RPG has been a hot topic of discussion all throughout 4e's announcements, and I doubt you'll find consensus as to how they need to be treated. 

Furthermore, 4e's mosnters seem to operate within the assumptions of the rules that simulate reality (they make attack rolls, they make saving throws, they roll damage, etc.), so I don't know where you're getting the idea that they don't from.

And finally, an NPC fighter falling out of his saddle and dying depends on a lot more, from a believability stance, than simple narrative convenience.

Heck, I'd even have problems in a BOOK if the Hero of the Realm fell off an old nag in the country and died simply because the author wanted him dead. I'd stand by the message that it's lazy and lacks creativity firmly here, too.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 4, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> That's certainly true. However, as Kamikaze Midget replied, there are those of us who reject the first, second, and fourth "failures" you mentioned, because the rules of the RPG *directly* say it isn't so.




Yeah, that's what I was wondering about -- for those things to happen, one must ignore the RAW, which seems to indicate that the rules _do_ reflect the physics of the game world. That is, unless one ignores the RAW, a very strong fighter with a boatload of Hit Points _can't_ break his neck by falling off of a horse. In order for that to happen in a D&D setting, the DM must ignore some very explicit rules.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Actually, the DMG includes rules for building new monster abilities. And for adjudicating things that the rules cannot cover. So, you know, rules for when the rules fail. And there's the ever-popular Rule 0 as well. All of these have a good reason for existing, and I'd expect a DM to adhere to them, too.




And if I can't get the ability I want from those rules? What then?



> Note that the DMG doesn't really include rules for arbitrarily killing a high-level knight for falling off of a horse. That's because there are many people who would have their games fairly well ruined by such an experience.




The high-level knight is only a high-level knight when there's high-level knighting to do. Otherwise, off-screen he's just some dude on a horse. Likewise, if a player retires his PC and later says that he's killed in a pointless bar fight, despite actually being capable of single-handedly wiping out whole kingdoms, that's fine too. 



> Sure, sounds like fun. It's a good thing the DMG gives guidelines for setting DC's and making monsters and covering situations that aren't covered by the rules. Pretty good ones, IIRC. It's great when a DM plays by the rules.




Oooh, ooh, what about when the rules cover a situation, but we don't want to apply them because it would be extremely tedious?

Take the following. Team Good (the PCs) and Team Evil (the enemy) are both going up a mountain to find the Temple of the Plot Device. It's a tall mountain. According to the Climb skill rules, they're only for an individual wall, or section of mountain, or cliffside. But instead of making six hundred and forty one climb checks for each side...

DM (me): "You all have Climb?"
PCs: "Yeah. Except for Dave."
DM (me): "Whoever's got it highest roll it, with the others Aiding him, and Dave giving a penatly of, oh, say -3, 'cause you got to help him climb. If you beat Team Evil, you get there first. If you don't, you get their after they do."

No falling off the mountain, because we don't care. No tedious mountain climbing, because all anyone wants to do is go fight team evil. All that matters is whether they get there first, and so can set up an ambush, or get there second, and walk into an ambush. But this breaks the rules for the Climb skill, doesn't it?

And yes, before you start yammering about how the players have no input here, if they had some other idea, I'd certainly listen and probably say yes. (Like, "Can we try to intercept Team Evil before the Temple? or, "Can we trigger an avalanche..." or "Can we bribe this nearby dragon to just fly us up..." and so on.)



> I don't see how you're breaking/bending/modifying/igoring the rules with crazy schemes and new monsters, though. The rules pretty much expressly state that there are circumstances they won't cover, and they give the *DM ways to handle it*. That's entirely within the rules.




(emphasis mine) And if I want to handle it some other way? Besides, you already established that changing the price of a magic item is a heavy-handed rules change that implies an abusive GM castrating his players, so clearly your threshold for "circumstances not in the rules" is pretty low.



> Furthermore, I'm merely mentioning that when a DM takes a heavy-handed tactic like many of the OP's examples, without accounting for it in the rules, just to achieve some expidited narrative end, I get the feeling that this whole game is just an excuse for the DM to achieve his own expidited narrative end, and get the distinct feeling that my participation has no effect. Which is largely true, since the rules are the mechanism by which my character has an effect on the game world. If the DM doesn't use the rules, I can't affect the process, and my character is impotent.




The rules are one way you have an affect on the game world, but not the only way. But keep in mind, just as I expedite a particular narrative effect, so can the players. 

And, again, the goal is an emergent narrative- you don't have the story prepared ahead of times, it grows from play in a mutual, cooperative fashion between DM and players.



> It's not an accuastion of being railroady. It's an accusation of making the player impotent. Which is actually a much deeper, more pointed criticism.




This doesn't make the player impotent. Roleplaying games are not zero sum, they are collaborative. It makes the players more potent, because they're range of power over the setting is not found just in the rules, but with some discussion with the GM, can extend to the game world itself.



> If the game just becomes round after round of the DM just saying "Yes" or "No" to my PC requests, it's not a game I particularly am interested in playing. Similarly, if the game just becomes the DM doing whatever they want without my character being able to affect it, it's very dull to me. In both instances, I feel like my character has no effect on the world other than that which the DM allows it to have. Which, again, is a feeling of impotence.




That's ridiculous. There is a huge in-between area. There is no reason to think your character cannot affect the world if NPC knights can break their necks.



> But if that knight was the 20th level epic hero of the realm who slew the great red wyrm Galhadrarix and consorts with the gods nightly on Mount Maia, simply falling off an old nag in the country doesn't make sense. The rules don't really permit such a thing to happen. And because it sets off those flags, it has one of two possibilities: either there's more going on (warlock curses and the like), or the DM is beating my sense of believability with a mallet.




The rules don't apply. He's off-screen. He's an NPC. He's not facing down the dragon, he's just some dude on a horse. The rules are a _provisionally applied abstraction_, designed for certain circumstances. NPCs don't follow the rules when the PCs aren't around- the whole world operates exactly how the DM imagines it does...until the PCs change things. The rules are there for the players, not the DM.



> But if the DM just 'made it happen,' without an in-game explanation, I'd feel robbed and impotent as a player. "Oh. Well, I make it happen where I kill him. Game over!"




What are you even talking about with this "game over" business?

Take another example. The PCs at some point in the past fought alongside Archbishop Preacher McGodly, the 15th level Fist of the Sun God or somesuch. He's the high priest of a city the PCs have left. Later, they learn via messanger that the archbishop has died under scandalous circumstances- a prostitute stabbed him whilst he secretly visited a brothel!

But wait! He's 15th level, isn't he? He can't die from a stab wound! Yes, yes he can. He can die from the flu. He can get run over by a cart crossing the street. He's only a 15th level Cleric when there is 15th level Clericing to do.

They return to the city. The players might expect it to have been dopplegangers or some 15th level threat- but no, it is all mundane. Just an old man indulging his vice and paying the consequences. Maybe I'm setting up a fall from grace themed story, or I expect the PCs to take over the church in the wake of the scandal, or are granted in the Archbishop's will some terrible knowledge of a dire threat that he wanted them to face if he were unable. Whatever.



> Permenant magical enchantments are part of the rules, as are rules that allow you to be better at a specific weapon. If the DM uses those, I'm fine. If he doesn't, my sense of believability is bludgeoned. Oh, so your pet NPC can get something that no one else can? How _wonderful for him_.




Unless, of course, you go find that same master and get the same training...Or maybe the master is long dead. Too bad! The world might be full of those little exceptions. Some might be available to the PCs, some not. 




> Meaning what?
> 
> Specifically?




I can attest from personal experience- I am loose with rules. I handwave. I fiat. I fudge. I ignore. I break. I bend. I modify. And yet my players are powerful actors within the setting and the driving force behind the narrative. And we still get good use out of the rules very regularly.



> Hey, as long as we all share in the ability to violate the rules enough to basically dictate our actions, I guess it's fair. If you can arbitrarily decide some knight breaks his neck, and I can arbitrarily decide some good dragon gives me his horde as a birthday present because he really doesn't need it anymore, I suppose we're even.




You known what? You are being disingenous. This is not honest discussion. I might as well ask you, "OH yeah? Well if the rules are so important, why even have a GM?"

It's ridiculous.

EDIT: Also note that I can use or not use the rules for different reasons. For storytelling purposes, I might run a scene as a rules-less roleplaying bit between players and NPCs, adjudicating NPC reactions based on how I think they would react.

At some other time, because I want an element of gamist challenge, I might do a full on combat scene with all the rules at work. 

Or, maybe I run the combat as a narrative excercise, and the conversation with all the rules. Different tools for different purposes.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 5, 2008)

Why does one start from the assumption that it should be possible for a high-level knight to die of a broken neck?  There is nothing in the D&D rules that suggests it should be possible; as reality does not have people who can survive brief immersion in lava, we can't cite real-world precedents for how a Ftr12 should interact with the environment, any more than we should cite wing ratios and unladen velocities for dragonflight.

You want to change the rules so that it is possible for a Ftr12 to die from falling from a horse? Change the rules for fighter12s, or damage, or falling, or horses.  If you can't countenance wrapping rules around an effect (and then watching a horde of powergamers attempt to gain wealth and slay enemies via the forceful invocation of said rules), you should find another way to achieve your dramatic effect.  Perhaps the fighter was merely the greatest warrior in the lands, and not a proper high-level fighter (that is to say, only level 4 or 5), and he relied heavily on his armor and shield, having rolled poorly for hitpoints, and took a few extra d6s of damage on account of the high speed, and landed squarely on his head (another d6 or two), and rolled max damage.  Perhaps the apprentice stumbled upon a spell-completion bit of wonderous architecture his master had produced, invoked the command word on accident, and Called the efreeti that way.  Perhaps there is a buyer who is willing to pay extra for a magical item right now, regardless of the fact that magical items are fungible goods and he could get a better deal if he was willing to wait.  Maybe the skilled apprentice doesn't need weapon specialization to represent his training with his mentor.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Why does one start from the assumption that it should be possible for a high-level knight to die of a broken neck?  There is nothing in the D&D rules that suggests it should be possible




Because we're not starting with the assumption that you can derive the rules of the world from the rules of the game.

Remember, it is a _game_. The rules are there for _game play_. They're designed for ease of use, fun, and all that good stuff. 

Real universes- even fictional ones, even ones with genres- are not designed for fun, or balance. They're designed for stories to be told within them. I derive my worlds from the kind of stories I want to tell with the world. I derive my game from the rules. Mixing the two takes a little careful attention and cooperation with the players, but it's not all that hard.


----------



## marune (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Because we're not starting with the assumption that you can derive the rules of the world from the rules of the game.
> 
> Remember, it is a _game_. The rules are there for _game play_. They're designed for ease of use, fun, and all that good stuff.
> 
> Real universes- even fictional ones, even ones with genres- are not designed for fun, or balance. They're designed for stories to be told within them. I derive my worlds from the kind of stories* I want to tell * with the world. I derive my game from the rules. Mixing the two takes a little careful attention and cooperation with the players, but it's not all that hard.




You mean that, as a GM, you want to tell stories to the players ?


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

I have to agree with the OP.

The game rules are a useful, simulative abstraction within the context of playing a game and constructing a narrative. At the point at which you decide they represent the "physics of the game world," you're on the verge of creating a game that has _Order of the Stick_ style silliness.

In the context of the game, we want the results to be mostly predictable, with a degree of randomness that it makes for an exciting gameplay experience.

Real world physics equations are far too complex for a game, so D&D (and every other RPG) instead creates a playable abstraction that has nothing to do with simulating _real probability_ and everything to do with simulating _narrative probability._ We don't need to know all the potential outcomes, just have a way of deciding between the ones that we've decided are acceptable in a story sense.

But just 'cuz we've decided it's bad for the game if "Kenjo the PC fighter" dies from falling off a horse doesn't mean that it's _impossible_ for a character to die from falling off a horse.

In the real world, people break bones. They lose limbs to serious injuries. Their eyes get put out or they go blind, sometimes by something as simple as getting kicked in the head. They get cancer. They can die if they slip in the bathtub and crack their skull or if they get an arrow in the eye. They get scars from injuries. And they can even get struck by lightning. D&D has no rules to cover the probability of *any of these things.* Does this mean that nobody in a D&D world ever breaks a bone, loses a limb or an eye, is scarred, gets cancer, or gets struck by lightning?

Of course not. Suggesting such a thing is patently absurd. So why don't the rules cover it?

Because for the most part, things like this just don't happen to the main characters in a narrative. Put another way, it isn't "fun" for the fighter's player if his character slips in the shower and breaks his neck, or falls off his horse and gets paralyzed on his way to town, or whatever. So that gets _left out_ of the rules because in our _game,_ we don't want the player to lose his PC to an ignominious death.

But if the local king, who's a mighty warrior, dies because he gets an arrow in his eye, or his heir dies from falling off a horse, either of those events can be the beginning of a great story arc, which *is* "fun" for the PCs, and the game.

Clearly, no DM rolls for every little thing that happens to every NPC in his gameworld. He usually just decides their fate, _unless they're interacting with the PCs,_ in which case their fate _is covered_ by the rules, because _it's tied to the fate of the PCs._

That's what the game rules are for. And that's *all* the game rules are for.

Deciding they mean anything about how the actual physics (or "rules of reality") of the game world differ from "real life" is just flat-out silly.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> You mean that, as a GM, you want to tell stories to the players ?




I want to tell stories with the players. I want to see stories emerge from game play. The only "story" I prepare in advance is whatever kicks off a given scenario or adventure, and the NPCs. Sometimes I don't even have to prepare the kick-off if the players are proactive. My scenario notes, aside from NPC stats, rarely run more than one or two sentences.

In that particular statement, though, I was talking about world building. My apologies for being vague. With world/campaign building, I decide what kinds of stories I want to tell with the players (usually with their input) and establish some tone and genre ground rules from there. 

I'm also entirely in charge of managing the world beyond the reach of the PCs, and I don't bother using the game mechanics to represent it or limiting myself to what the mechanics allow.

For instance, I can just decree a neighboring city's economy collapses. I don't need rules for that, I can just say it happens. I can just say the Grand Knight of the Empire broke his neck falling off his horse, if I so desire, since he's off screen.

EDIT: Also, what John Snow said.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> And if I can't get the ability I want from those rules? What then?



You find existing rules that model something similar to the effect you're looking for.  More importantly, you should note when you try to do something the game system is not designed to do.

You want a character to die from falling off a horse? He's not high-level.  You want a character to Call a high-HD outsider? He is high level.  You want a character that takes feats that require you to be high level to take? He's high level.




			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> The high-level knight is only a high-level knight when there's high-level knighting to do. Otherwise, off-screen he's just some dude on a horse. Likewise, if a player retires his PC and later says that he's killed in a pointless bar fight, despite actually being capable of single-handedly wiping out whole kingdoms, that's fine too.



Strangely enough, both not falling from a horse without some bastard Disintegrating it out from under you and surviving when someone does so and you happen to be rounding the corner over a 200-foot drop are both tasks requiring high-level knighting.  If this character can survive the 200-foot drop a million times (assuming he's healed each time), why should we assume that he might break his neck on the millionth-and-first, from 10 feet?




> Oooh, ooh, what about when the rules cover a situation, but we don't want to apply them because it would be extremely tedious?
> 
> Take the following. Team Good (the PCs) and Team Evil (the enemy) are both going up a mountain to find the Temple of the Plot Device. It's a tall mountain. According to the Climb skill rules, they're only for an individual wall, or section of mountain, or cliffside. But instead of making six hundred and forty one climb checks for each side...
> 
> ...



There is a difference between supplementing the rules, and ignoring them.  There are not explicit rules for long-distance climbing; inferring some from the way short-distance climbing works is a good idea.  This is the kind of thing that DM's should do.  Hurrah.

This is completely different than inferring something contradicted by the rules in other cases.    There exist rules for falling from horses, or calling up powerful outsiders and losing control of them; the events proposed do not refine the existing rules, but ignore them, in both spirit and letter.




> (emphasis mine) And if I want to handle it some other way? Besides, you already established that changing the price of a magic item is a heavy-handed rules change that implies an abusive GM castrating his players, so clearly your threshold for "circumstances not in the rules" is pretty low.



Well, yes.  You've been pretty free with terms of art in the D&D rule-set.  Note that an item's price, in D&D, is an absolute and inherent property of the item, totally independent of what any individual might be willing to pay for it.  This property affects how much XP you must spend to make an item, how much you get back when an artificer claims the item's essence, and so forth.  Changing these around is a big deal, because price in D&D works differently than in reality.




> The rules are one way you have an affect on the game world, but not the only way. But keep in mind, just as I expedite a particular narrative effect, so can the players.
> 
> And, again, the goal is an emergent narrative- you don't have the story prepared ahead of times, it grows from play in a mutual, cooperative fashion between DM and players.



Ever tried to run a narrative in which one player assumed entirely different genre conventions than everyone else, and due to no actual standards in reality, no one could prove their point?  (Hint: look at any alignment thread, ever.)

The rules exist to provide a common framework between all present, so that it's understood that the world works a certain way, and that when the world does not work this way, it's a big deal and meaningful of something.




			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> This doesn't make the player impotent. Roleplaying games are not zero sum, they are collaborative. It makes the players more potent, because they're range of power over the setting is not found just in the rules, but with some discussion with the GM, can extend to the game world itself.



OK.  Assume that you have an enraged midget (or myself) in your games.  We have discussed with you your changes to the rules, found them to be ass, and have decided to ignore them and assume that the high-level fighter was actually a low-level wizard's apprentice and that the wizard's apprentice was actually a high-level caster in disguise.  We reject, in and out of game, your assertion that ignoring the rules in this case makes the game better.  What now?




			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> That's ridiculous. There is a huge in-between area. There is no reason to think your character cannot affect the world if NPC knights can break their necks.



*shrugs* That depends.  Can our characters kill the blackguard on his nightmare mount by causing him to fall similarly?  If random chance can position the high-level knight to die in a means that bypasses his hit points, can our wizard do the same with a telekinesis spell?

If the answer is "Yes, you can; here are a detailed suite of rules for what conditions naturally produce risk of catastrophic falls, and here is the absolute upper limit on the damage from said falls.", then bliss and hurrah; you have extrapolated the existing rules to a new and interesting place, and there will be candy and flowers for all.  If not, however, and the reason the NPC happened to fall and break his neck was that you as DM wanted it to happen and didn't care enough to make it happen in a manner consistent with the game world as written, then yes, I'd get the distinct impression that when reality contradicted the DM's plan for events, reality would lose, and I would have no reason to assume that this applied to me any more than it would any NPC, when it came to crunch time.



> The rules don't apply. He's off-screen. He's an NPC. He's not facing down the dragon, he's just some dude on a horse. The rules are a _provisionally applied abstraction_, designed for certain circumstances. NPCs don't follow the rules when the PCs aren't around- the whole world operates exactly how the DM imagines it does...until the PCs change things. The rules are there for the players, not the DM.



So now we have Heisen-NPCs, who have a chance of their wave-form collapsing into an alternate reality state when not observed by a PC?

Well...OK, we can run with this.  I suppose that as a character in such a universe, I'd get a 24-7 form of remote viewing on anyone I cared about, to prevent them from accidentally tripping and dying.

In the game world, it can be experimentally confirmed that certain forms of injury are not life-threatening to some people, because those people are just that badass.  If you do not want this to be the case, gut the HP system and make new rules more in line with what you want.  (The damage save from M&Mm or True20 is one such excellent alternative.) But don't try to claim that something is realistic when every other facet of the game world being simulated says it isn't.  




> What are you even talking about with this "game over" business?
> 
> Take another example. The PCs at some point in the past fought alongside Archbishop Preacher McGodly, the 15th level Fist of the Sun God or somesuch. He's the high priest of a city the PCs have left. Later, they learn via messanger that the archbishop has died under scandalous circumstances- a prostitute stabbed him whilst he secretly visited a brothel!
> 
> ...




...

Yeah, I'm going to go with the cogent and consise reply from up-thread: nuh-uh.  If he's a 15th level cleric, he's a 15th level cleric all the time.  That's not to say he can't die from a stab wound; if he is helpless and the prostitute performs a CdG, and he fails a Fort save that ranges from DC 12 to DC 20 or so (call her a full-bodied prostitute), then he can die.  But if he is not either forcibly restrained or otherwise totally incapable of responding, then if he's a 15th-level cleric, than he can't die from a single stab wound.

See, that's the most annoying thing about your assertions.  It is possible, within the constraint of the rules, to produce the situations you want.  However, rather than accept the necessary subtleties to make your scenarios work (such as the cleric was asleep when he was knifed), you just assert stuff.  And asserting something contrary to expected knowledge of the universe without case is just plain bad storytelling, be it in a game or in a narrative.




> Unless, of course, you go find that same master and get the same training...Or maybe the master is long dead. Too bad! The world might be full of those little exceptions. Some might be available to the PCs, some not.



"He's dead? Oh, well.  Let's just rip the knowledge out of the living brain of the apprentice, then.  Free fighter feats for all!"
Yeah.  Wrap rules around it and see what happens.
Look, you can honestly decide that "Hey, the fighter feat tree is neat, but kind of restrictive.  I think I'll include a way to increase your effective fighter level, and a method to grant other characters a boost to effective fighter level, then watch as my players discover this, learn it, and the monk founds the Glorious Hero Fighting School, that blends the best of the monk and fighter talent trees.

That would be good DMing.  It's not the breaking the rules that's a problem; it's the ignoring what the rules mean.  Rules mean that things happening in contravention to them require explanation.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Because we're not starting with the assumption that you can derive the rules of the world from the rules of the game.
> 
> Remember, it is a _game_. The rules are there for _game play_. They're designed for ease of use, fun, and all that good stuff.
> 
> Real universes- even fictional ones, even ones with genres- are not designed for fun, or balance. They're designed for stories to be told within them. I derive my worlds from the kind of stories I want to tell with the world. I derive my game from the rules. Mixing the two takes a little careful attention and cooperation with the players, but it's not all that hard.




I will avoid invoking Forge jargon as much as possible, but I now see the disconnect.  Many of us consider everything that happens in the simulated universe provided by the rules both part of the game, and part of the story.  We consider the ability of high-level characters to keep fighting through a dozen arrows not a corner case or a failure of abstraction, but a feature, a glorious expected result of being high level.  This is not simply a tactical abstraction; non-tactical effects such as falling from a great height or being immersed in lava also do hit point damage, and can be resisted through sheer grit once you are past a certain threshold of cussedness. 

Consider this; the kind of stories you can tell are entirely contingent on the rules of the universe.  ("We need to take the ring to Mount Doom?  OK.  I cut off my left big toe, teleport to Mount Doom, and have my fellow Istari bull-rush me into the lava, teleport back, and Ressurect me.  How much XP did I get?")  Telling a story about a high-level fighter dying from a fall from a horse is like telling a story about Superman dying from the same; it utterly contradicts the expected results of reality.  One can assert that a high-level fighter is mortal, and should be vulnerable to mortal injury, no matter his skill; one can also assert that yellow sunlight does not grant superpowers to Kryptonians, and therefore Superman cannot fly.  In either case, it is likely that people who are expecting a story in-genre will simply ignore you, or look for how it came to be that expected reality was so egregiously violated.

If you don't want to tell stories in which the protagonists can shrug off dips in molten lava through sheer toughness, don't play high-level D&D, or allow high-level characters to exist.  Consider the E6 variant, where the high-level characters more closely resemble Odysseus than Hercules.  But for all that is good and nice and doesn't involve irate players gashing you to death with the sharp corners of the PHB, change the rules that prevent you from telling the stories you want to tell.  Don't just ignore them.


----------



## Jack7 (Feb 5, 2008)

Modern man far too often considers language to be reality. Not just his reality, but reality itself.

He thinks that if he can describe it, or formulate it, in some form of language, be that linguistic or legal or mathematical or by whatever means language is most situationally potent, that he has in effect controlled reality. 

He views the world as his best and most accurate description of it, and the same thing with his games and his entertainments. Rules everywhere as a descriptive metaphor of reality, but far too often he cannot even grasp the idea, in words or without them, that reality is not a description of that which can be described. It is something he's rarely even thought of in most instances, because thought itself has convinced him by word and by unexamined belief that words shape worlds and men, and not the other way around. The man cogitates and the world agitates.


*Modern man, Master and Commander of many words
Explorer of every thought that might lead to deed
Of no deed so ensorcelled as the bright musing
That one day, within his mind, he will become great, 
So great that nothing will be beyond him, except, of course, 
The adventure and the enterprise that will risk anything
Other than the word he has long ago overmastered...*


The idea that the way things are, or should be, and the way he describes, formulates, and constructs a definition for the way things are, could in any way be misaligned, even slightly or obliquely towards the real world, is extremely confusing and often upsetting to him. Deep in his soul. Rebellion brews, unasked and unbidden. He does not know why, but he has many words to rule the feeling that if things were just a bit more predictable then reality would be infinitely more correct by calculation. So by being correct he becomes ordered, and by being ordered he is ruled by what he creates, and yet upon encountering the grimly waiting monster and the enigmatically approaching prodigy who has slipped the noose of his insistent assumptions he is both instinctively horrified, and intuitively enthralled. 

He has a rules mania, a sort of psychological fetish that cannot imagine the world operationally independent of preconceived circumstances of observational apparencies. If he can state in a formula or equate by verbal or scripted association of certainty some ungoverned truth, then he feels that he alone has imposed a reality upon the world which supercedes both actual function and observed phenomena. There is a voodoo of the mind in covert corners, a conspiracy against him, to spirit out the secret places of the world where his persuasions are of lesser effect than the letters by which he notes them. So he details every aspect of life and the world about him in a categorical imperative to prevent the impression that the story of the world, much less his own, has some intention, purpose, or outcome beyond himself. Without the structured familiarity of his insistent rules he is afraid, alone, adrift, at the mercy of forces he fears might one day make him the exception to the rule, in whatever way he is most afraid to be exceptional. And modern man is above almost all other things, that kind of man who fears most to be exceptional. He dreams of it, desires it, hopes for it, has a secret faith it is possible, if only the rules allowed such a thing. But then again if the rules allowed such a thing then words would be an unnecessary and superfluous achievement compared to his other and more concrete exploits, wouldn't they? So the map is not the territory, or the game is not the reality, or the word is not the thing, or at the very least the thing is not worth the considering when you've already conceived all of the other possibilities and the mechanics say it just makes no sense. 

And that as they say, is just about enough of that.

Then again folks I could be wrong. Very, very wrong.
If the rules say I am then it's probably safe to assume that I am.

So on second thought just forget I mentioned it, and please, carry on.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Feb 5, 2008)

Jack7 said:
			
		

> Modern man far too often considers language to be reality. Not just his reality, but reality itself.
> 
> He thinks that if he can describe it, or formulate it, in some form of language, be that linguistic or legal or mathematical or by whatever means language is most situationally potent, that he has in effect controlled reality.
> 
> ...



My pompus-meter has overloaded, and that is not a good sign.  Also trying to psychoanalyze other posters on an internet board with whom you have no actual contact, just tacky.


----------



## Jack7 (Feb 5, 2008)

> My pompus-meter has overloaded, and that is not a good sign.





Are you sure the rules allow for that kinda thing?




> Also trying to psychoanalyze other posters on an internet board with whom you have no actual contact, just tacky.





Sometimes I think the internet takes words extremely seriously.
But I could be wrong.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> You find existing rules that model something similar to the effect you're looking for.  More importantly, you should note when you try to do something the game system is not designed to do.




But I'm still going off the reservation, am I not?



> You want a character to die from falling off a horse? He's not high-level.  You want a character to Call a high-HD outsider? He is high level.  You want a character that takes feats that require you to be high level to take? He's high level.




You will say later in your reply that "Events in contravention of the rules require explanation."
Fair enough.

Event: High level knight breaks his neck.
Explanation: "Level" is a metagame abstraction, not an in-world concept and is only selectively applied to the world.

Heck, if you really need an in-game explanation: "The Fates decreed he die in that manner at that time."



> There is a difference between supplementing the rules, and ignoring them.  There are not explicit rules for long-distance climbing; inferring some from the way short-distance climbing works is a good idea.  This is the kind of thing that DM's should do.  Hurrah.




There's no difference, though, to selectively applying the Climbing rules and selectively applying the Level rules to the world. Or anything really.



> This is completely different than inferring something contradicted by the rules in other cases.    There exist rules for falling from horses, or calling up powerful outsiders and losing control of them; the events proposed do not refine the existing rules, but ignore them, in both spirit and letter.




So? Having an NPC apprentice Call Up What He Cannot Put Down is interesting. It's a good way to start a story.

I can understand the idea of the game rules being an established groundwork for what players can and can not do. I can sympathize with that idea, though I prefer to give them more power than what the strict rules allow. What I cannot understand, nor agree with, is the idea that NPCs are bound to the same agreement. 




> Ever tried to run a narrative in which one player assumed entirely different genre conventions than everyone else, and due to no actual standards in reality, no one could prove their point?  (Hint: look at any alignment thread, ever.)




No, see, there is no "point proving." The group agrees on an appropriate tone and genre conventions beforehand. I've never tried to run a game where one player didn't speak anything other than Medieval French either.



> The rules exist to provide a common framework between all present, so that it's understood that the world works a certain way, and that when the world does not work this way, it's a big deal and meaningful of something.




No, that common framework is for how the players interact with the world, not how the world interacts with itself in the absence of the players.




> OK.  Assume that you have an enraged midget (or myself) in your games.  We have discussed with you your changes to the rules, found them to be ass, and have decided to ignore them and assume that the high-level fighter was actually a low-level wizard's apprentice and that the wizard's apprentice was actually a high-level caster in disguise.  We reject, in and out of game, your assertion that ignoring the rules in this case makes the game better.  What now?




I shrug, take down my screen, pack up my stuff, and depart the GM's chair. I would absolutely never compromise on this basic point. Almost anything else I'd change if the players desired it. But the fundamental idea that I have ultimate discretion over the rules? That I will never surrender. I wouldn't want to run a game without it, nor could I run a game without it.




> *shrugs* That depends.  Can our characters kill the blackguard on his nightmare mount by causing him to fall similarly?  If random chance can position the high-level knight to die in a means that bypasses his hit points, can our wizard do the same with a telekinesis spell?




Nope, because that Blackguard is interacting with the players, and so the rules apply.



> If not, however, and the reason the NPC happened to fall and break his neck was that you as DM wanted it to happen and didn't care enough to make it happen in a manner consistent with the game world as written, then yes, I'd get the distinct impression that when reality contradicted the DM's plan for events, reality would lose,




The DM decides what is reality, not the rules. The rules only govern the interaction of players with reality. They're only there to provide the tension of randomness, some fairness from PC-to-PC and that game mechanical crunchy goodness everyone likes so much.



> and I would have no reason to assume that this applied to me any more than it would any NPC, when it came to crunch time.




By the same logic, you have no reason to assume I haven't put poison in the mountain dew, no?



> So now we have Heisen-NPCs, who have a chance of their wave-form collapsing into an alternate reality state when not observed by a PC?




Well, in this case there's an omnipotent observer (the DM), but the mistake you are making is in thinking NPCs have any kind of independent existence. They're constructs, no different than the weather, or buildings, or wildlife, or forests. I can burn a forest down, can't I? Trigger an earthquake? A solar flare? I don't need rules for those, nor do I need rules for the mundane calamities that befall people.



> Well...OK, we can run with this.  I suppose that as a character in such a universe, I'd get a 24-7 form of remote viewing on anyone I cared about, to prevent them from accidentally tripping and dying.




It's a metagame thing, there is no in-universe explanation barring "The Fates" or somesuch. Besides, with NPCs important to a character (dependents, family, friends, etc) I'd clear storylines with the PC first, if only to share ideas.



> In the game world, it can be experimentally confirmed that certain forms of injury are not life-threatening to some people, because those people are just that badass.  If you do not want this to be the case, gut the HP system and make new rules more in line with what you want.  (The damage save from M&Mm or True20 is one such excellent alternative.) But don't try to claim that something is realistic when every other facet of the game world being simulated says it isn't.




It's not realistic. It's not even slightly realistic. It's a blatant abstraction for gameplay purposes. Hit points make no sense. Levels make no sense. Classes make no sense. These things are for the players, not for the world. One of the few things I want out of players is an absence of metagaming- the player is aware of the hit point total of his character, but the character is only aware of a rough idea of his wounds, morale, will to continue, etc. I expect characters to react to a dagger to their throat like it could kill them. even if it can't. 



> Yeah, I'm going to go with the cogent and consise reply from up-thread: nuh-uh.  If he's a 15th level cleric, he's a 15th level cleric all the time.  That's not to say he can't die from a stab wound; if he is helpless and the prostitute performs a CdG, and he fails a Fort save that ranges from DC 12 to DC 20 or so (call her a full-bodied prostitute), then he can die.  But if he is not either forcibly restrained or otherwise totally incapable of responding, then if he's a 15th-level cleric, than he can't die from a single stab wound.




Why not? 



> See, that's the most annoying thing about your assertions.  It is possible, within the constraint of the rules, to produce the situations you want.  However, rather than accept the necessary subtleties to make your scenarios work (such as the cleric was asleep when he was knifed), you just assert stuff.  And asserting something contrary to expected knowledge of the universe without case is just plain bad storytelling, be it in a game or in a narrative.




No, no it isn't, because these things are not the expected knowledge of the universe. They're metagame elements. They're out of the universe. To reference Vampire: The Masquerade, you can't discover the blood point. A vampire only knows he's full, or hungry, or starving. He doesn't know he has blood points. Blood points don't map to pints of blood. They're abstractions. 

In fact, I would propose the opposite: I expect a world, even a D&D world, to make sense. And by that I mean I don't expect it to be operating by the rules outside of the PCs and things interacting with the PCs. It makes much less sense to me that a world has people who can not die from a single stab. You put a knife in that cleric's eye, he dies no matter how many dragons or demons he's kicked the living hell out of. 



> "He's dead? Oh, well.  Let's just rip the knowledge out of the living brain of the apprentice, then.  Free fighter feats for all!"




Actually, I'd probably allow that if they had mind-ripping powers. Why not?



> That would be good DMing.  It's not the breaking the rules that's a problem; it's the ignoring what the rules mean.  Rules mean that things happening in contravention to them require explanation.




Not necessarily. I'd only want an in-universe explanation if I were breaking the rules for the PCs. If I had a PC Cleric die from a stab wound, I'd have to have a damn good explanation for it. But an NPC? They don't play by the rules. They don't have an independent existence. They have no rights.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Many of us consider everything that happens in the simulated universe provided by the rules both part of the game, and part of the story.




The only game I'm aware of that even tries is GURPS, and even that has mook rules, cinematic options, etc.



> Telling a story about a high-level fighter dying from a fall from a horse is like telling a story about Superman dying from the same; it utterly contradicts the expected results of reality.




Yes, here is the disconnect. Superman is a Kryptonian; he's invincible. He can't break his neck. Even a Superman who never went super-heroing, Clark Kent the tax accountant, couldn't break his neck. A high level fighter is still a mortal man. A man of exceptional skill, luck, daring, experience. A man who might be blessed by destiny or the fates, a man of great cunning or strength, but still just a man. His levels are not something people in the world can recognize- oh, sure, they know he's a great hero. They know he's dangerous. But he still has to go to the bathroom. He still gets stuck in the mud. He still gets indigestion from spicy food. And he can still break his neck. Particularly in a grim world where heroism yesterday means nothing today.

Hit points and levels are abstractions. They're not meant to map directly to in-world concepts like physical health, just like blood points don't map directly to actual blood. "Being a Kryptonian" isn't an abstraction. It's a concrete, in-world thing like being an Elf.

Being an Elf isn't an abstraction. Being "high level" is. 

A better example is Batman. Batman's neck can be broken. He could die in the shower as easily as he could die crashing through some warehouse skylight to punch a bunch of gangsters. But readers of Batman stories don't expect Batman to suddenly break his neck by accident, no? Because he's the main character. He's the focus of the narrative. Likewise, major supporting characters- Jim Gordon, Catwoman, the Joker- are not particularly likely to die meaningless accidental deaths, though in the universe it wouldn't contradict anything. A man of Jim Gordon's age could easily just have a heart attack or get in a car accident. From a narrative perspective, it's incongruous. Because these people regularly interact with Batman, readers get attached to them. They matter. 

And...who is the focus of the narrative in an RPG? Starts with a "P" and ends with a "C"...


----------



## Xyl (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I have to agree with the OP.
> 
> The game rules are a useful, simulative abstraction within the context of playing a game and constructing a narrative. At the point at which you decide they represent the "physics of the game world," you're on the verge of creating a game that has _Order of the Stick_ style silliness....



Well said, and I 100% agree.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 5, 2008)

> And if I can't get the ability I want from those rules? What then?




Well, since the rules say 'make up a rule,' I really don't know what else you'd be looking for. Aside from 'do whatever you want', meaning DM fiat, meaning, for me, the DM running roughshod over my believabilitometer and making me feel utterly impotent as a player.



> The high-level knight is only a high-level knight when there's high-level knighting to do. Otherwise, off-screen he's just some dude on a horse. Likewise, if a player retires his PC and later says that he's killed in a pointless bar fight, despite actually being capable of single-handedly wiping out whole kingdoms, that's fine too.




And that blows my believability completely out of the water and makes me feel impotent as a player, too.

In nothing I can do matters when the DM gets an idea in his head, why am I bothering to do anything?

If my high-level knight is only a high-level knight when the DM allows him to be, what is he the rest of the time?

You can't honestly see how I can reasonably have issue with this? And you think it's me that has the problem?



> No falling off the mountain, because we don't care. No tedious mountain climbing, because all anyone wants to do is go fight team evil. All that matters is whether they get there first, and so can set up an ambush, or get there second, and walk into an ambush. But this breaks the rules for the Climb skill, doesn't it?




Hey, if your group's happy, I'm not saying you need to change.

I am saying that *I wouldn't be happy*, and defending my *right to be unhappy, and play the game I want to play* against your continuous hostility, however. 

I think it's important to note that what you did there, you made a rule (according to the guidelines in the DMG no less!) and used it. 

And yeah, pulled out of nowhere, it would bug me, if I played the Heroic Mountaineer, and you just arbitrarily ruled that everybody could scale it just fine. It would also bug me if I played the Heroic Warrior and every combat was an opposed Strength check just because you thought the rules were boring. 



> And, again, the goal is an emergent narrative- you don't have the story prepared ahead of times, it grows from play in a mutual, cooperative fashion between DM and players.




The way the players interact with the narrative context is the rules via their characters. They make Strength checks to move statues and they make Attack Rolls to damage goblins and they cast spells and have hit points. 

If the DM just decrees things and the players just decree things, without reference to a shared, mutual middle ground of 'the rules,' I feel robbed of my character's ability to impact the world. I can tell a story with my friends without the need to resort to D&D. D&D lets me do it as part of a game, which needs to be played according to the rules, or why bother playing?



> This doesn't make the player impotent. Roleplaying games are not zero sum, they are collaborative. It makes the players more potent, because they're range of power over the setting is not found just in the rules, but with some discussion with the GM, can extend to the game world itself.




"Mother, may I?" play is not rewarding for me, either as a player or as a DM. I don't want my players to ask me if they can do something, I want them to try, and I'll tell them what happens as a consequence. As a player, I don't want to discuss with the GM. I come to D&D to play a game, not to help him craft a story. I want to roll some dice and break down some doors and thwart some evil. If the DM is willing to violate the rules just to tell his little tale, then I have no assurance that he won't do so when my player's turn comes up and I try to do something he doesn't want me to do, something that's not narratively expedient for him, something that ruins his precious story somehow.

When I collaborate with my players, I give them the rules with which they can accomplish their goals fairly, with the odds of the game standing against them. I mean, if it boils down to my choice as a DM, why have players? If it's not making a good story for them to loose, I'll let them win, if it's not making a good story for them to win, I'll make them loose, what purpose is the game serving, here?



> There is no reason to think your character cannot affect the world if NPC knights can break their necks.




There's plenty of reason to think my character cannot affect the world if you just decide when NPC knights break their necks, rather than creating rules by which people can break their necks and applying them to this specific NPC knight.

If the world serves at the DM's whim, so does everything my character does. 



> The rules don't apply. He's off-screen. He's an NPC. He's not facing down the dragon, he's just some dude on a horse. The rules are a provisionally applied abstraction, designed for certain circumstances. NPCs don't follow the rules when the PCs aren't around- the whole world operates exactly how the DM imagines it does...until the PCs change things. The rules are there for the players, not the DM.




And this is fundamentally unsatisfying for me as a player and as a DM. If the DM doesn't adhere to the rules, they feel meaningless. The DM can change the laws, but he cannot be above the laws. "NPC" isn't a distinction my character knows. It's an artificial construction of the game, and to have NPC's break their necks randomly at DM decree means, to my character, that people break their necks falling from horses, even when they're powerful knights of the world who should know how to ride horses, and thus I should never ride a horse, because they slay heroes. 

Which is absurd to me, as a player, and breaks the believability of the world. 



> Unless, of course, you go find that same master and get the same training...Or maybe the master is long dead. Too bad! The world might be full of those little exceptions. Some might be available to the PCs, some not.




Which just reminds me that it's the DM's story and I'm just along for the ride. The DM decides what's available and what isn't, not according to a mutually binding set of rules, but according to his own estimation of what makes a good story.

If you know what makes a good story, go write one. Leave me to play a good game.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 5, 2008)

Never mind rules for high-level knights falling off horses.  When talk turns to in-game physics I *do* think of physics as in the science, and I *would* like the game rules to at least acknowledge how those physics work...even if only to say "use real-world physics as a default and go from there"...because otherwise I have to make those rules up myself; it's less work for me if the designers do it. 

And it's surprising how often physics comes up in the game...without notice, sometimes.  How fast does something fall?  How much does something weigh?  How far can you throw it before gravity does its thing and brings it to ground?  Etc.

The game rules don't touch on any of this, and so it remains perhaps the last great realm of DM fiat and madly flapping wings behind the screen.  Not that I mind that as such, but if 4e wants to have a rule for everything there's a gaping hole right here to fill. 

Lane-"and how do physics work on the outer planes?"-fan


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, since the rules say 'make up a rule,' I really don't know what else you'd be looking for. Aside from 'do whatever you want', meaning DM fiat, meaning, for me, the DM running roughshod over my believabilitometer and making me feel utterly impotent as a player.




Well, maybe we're just talking past each other? "Make up a rule" is indistinguishable from fiat. I don't define fiat as running roughshod over anything. Rule 0 is just, "Feel free to employ fiat decisions."




> And that blows my believability completely out of the water and makes me feel impotent as a player, too.




Which bit did? The player deciding on how his PC ended up, or the knight?



> In nothing I can do matters when the DM gets an idea in his head, why am I bothering to do anything?




Where are you getting this? I didn't say anything about player actions not mattering. In my own campaign, they matter more than anything- barring certain edge cases where I negotiate for some kind of compromise, I let player whim trump my own. Admittedly this is because I am very lazy and if they want to drive the plot, I'm not going to stop them.



> If my high-level knight is only a high-level knight when the DM allows him to be, what is he the rest of the time?




Ah, the PC is always a high-level knight, because he's a PC. So long as it's a PC, it is assumed to be the dominant factor in the narrative (or "a" dominant factor, alongside the other PCs). If the player retires the character and hands him to the DM, then it changes, but in that case there's a reasonable expectation of the GM to treat it with reverence or allow the PC to fiat what happens next.

As for NPCs, what they are "the rest of the time" is a basically what they are unless they're somehow linked to the PCs- wholly disposable plot devices and setting elements. Basically, I don't believe anyone other than the PCs are "important." I try to make NPCs _interesting_ , but they should serve some purpose for the player's enjoyment. Other than that, I tend to go through them like a thresher machine.



> You can't honestly see how I can reasonably have issue with this? And you think it's me that has the problem?




Well, at the moment I'm just confused as to what exactly we're discussing. What is the "this" to which you h ave an issue?




> I am saying that *I wouldn't be happy*, and defending my *right to be unhappy, and play the game I want to play* against your continuous hostility, however.




Sorry for the hostility, actually, it was uncalled for. 



> And yeah, pulled out of nowhere, it would bug me, if I played the Heroic Mountaineer, and you just arbitrarily ruled that everybody could scale it just fine. It would also bug me if I played the Heroic Warrior and every combat was an opposed Strength check just because you thought the rules were boring.




Well, this is an important point- I only skip/ignore things the players are uninterested in. Recently they requested a session devoted to "Home and family life" rather than the life-and-death struggles, so we did a session on that. If they really enjoyed climbing a mountain, we'd do that, though I might try to negotiate a bit since I find mountain climbing terribly tedious and so maybe it'd only take a half-session for my sake.

It's just bad DMing not to enable the players however you can.




> The way the players interact with the narrative context is the rules via their characters. They make Strength checks to move statues and they make Attack Rolls to damage goblins and they cast spells and have hit points.




Yep, exactly, but I don't view this exclusively. For example, I usually let players define their family, friends, social position etc, up to and including starting up side-plots and whole storylines based on that. I tend to view that stuff as part of the wider penumbra of their character background and completely up to them.



> If the DM just decrees things and the players just decree things, without reference to a shared, mutual middle ground of 'the rules,' I feel robbed of my character's ability to impact the world. I can tell a story with my friends without the need to resort to D&D. D&D lets me do it as part of a game, which needs to be played according to the rules, or why bother playing?




The thing is, again, you're operating on the idea that the two are mutually exclusive. I like to use the combat rules when I want some tension and some tactical gameplay, or if the scene is important and dramatic. But I don't see the value in running a whole combat just for the sake of following the rules- if it isn't interesting, and the players don't care, I'd just skip it. Outclassed opponents? Slaughter 'em however you want. 

There are degrees of decree. I don't just decree that Santa shows up and saves the day, but I might decree that a villain, tired of blood and war, surrenders instead of fighting when confronted by the PCs. A player might decree that his character's brother shows up at his doorstep with a knife in his back, but not that he's suddenly an Elven Warlord with an army at his back. There's an expectation that game world decrees will be reasonable and fit within the established context of the setting.

Basically, RPGs are not like other games. There is a wide variety of game activity not covered by the rules, or for which the rules are only guidelines, or for which the rules are useful tools sometimes but not always.




> "Mother, may I?" play is not rewarding for me, either as a player or as a DM. I don't want my players to ask me if they can do something, I want them to try, and I'll tell them what happens as a consequence.




Well, let's look at some concrete examples, as I think we're definitely talking past each other here. 

"Can I grab the Hobgoblin and use him as a shield?" is a game-mechanics question; the player is asking if the game makes it possible. I would say, "Yes, make a grapple check to grab him and, oh, a dex check to get him in the way in time." Something like that. He's trying something not explicitly covered in the rules.

"Can I talk the Princess into making peace?" I would normally say, "You can try."

"Can I shove the folding boat into the creature's mouth, shout the command word, and have the boat enlarge inside it's skull?" I would definitely say, "Hells yes! Make a (appropriate roll) and if you succeed it dies!"

"Can I get a message from my father informing me my mother has died?" I would nod, and tell the player that he doesn't even need permission for that kind of thing.



> As a player, I don't want to discuss with the GM. I come to D&D to play a game, not to help him craft a story.




Let me give you an example from my game a while back. I thought it might be fun if one of the PCs got turned into a vampire and the other PCs had to kill him (this was for a horror game). It's not the kind of thing I'd just do to a PC, so I picked a player I'd think amenable and asked if he wanted to do that story. He said sure, played it to the hilt, and it was a great session. 



> I want to roll some dice and break down some doors and thwart some evil. If the DM is willing to violate the rules just to tell his little tale, then I have no assurance that he won't do so when my player's turn comes up and I try to do something he doesn't want me to do, something that's not narratively expedient for him, something that ruins his precious story somehow.




You'll have to understand my frustration when you deliberately phrase things like "precious story" and "little tale." That's not what I'm advocating at all- again I don't have a story in mind when I start an adventure, I just want to see a good one to have appeared by the end. And it's not _my_ story. I don't have any characters of narrative importance; all I have is the scenery. 

My goal is to give the players a good story of their characters- which involves working with them. More importantly, it involves giving them the narrative context to be awesome. I don't "want them to do" _anything_. Occasionally I have a player ask, "Hey, if I do this, will it screw up your deal?" and I say, "I have no deal! Do whatever you want!" About the only time I really do any railroading is the start of the adventure, as I"m fond of sudden paradigm shifts ("You all wake up in each other's bodies!") but even then, all I'm interested in is getting the ball rolling and seeing something cool come out of it at the end. 



> When I collaborate with my players, I give them the rules with which they can accomplish their goals fairly, with the odds of the game standing against them. I mean, if it boils down to my choice as a DM, why have players? If it's not making a good story for them to loose, I'll let them win, if it's not making a good story for them to win, I'll make them loose, what purpose is the game serving, here?




The game is serving to add tension and the risk of defeat. A good RPG story has no pre-determined ending; if they lose, then they lose. If they win, then they win. I'm entirely comfortable with having the apocalypse if they don't save the world. But what I'm not comfortable with is unsatisfying defeats and unsatisfying victories, so I try to arrange things that they only lose after an epic battle or only win after some great sacrifice or act of daring-do. 




> If the world serves at the DM's whim, so does everything my character does.




No, not at all. One certainly does not follow from the other. Remember, there are no rules for a lot of things. I can, as a DM, decree that a town the PCs have never visited in a kingdom they've never heard of suffers a landslide. There are no landslide rules. It's pure fiat. 

Now if they were in the town, and wanted to save the people, they'd have all kinds of rolling to do. It'd be an adventure. Not up to my whim since it is "on screen", it is part of the story of the PCs and they have input (both via game mechanics and via player whim) on the outcome. 




> And this is fundamentally unsatisfying for me as a player and as a DM. If the DM doesn't adhere to the rules, they feel meaningless. The DM can change the laws, but he cannot be above the laws.




The rules are tools for the players and GM. They serve at the pleasure of the group. The DM is above the law. Hell, in a sense, the players are above the law- this is why house rules get made. In most cases it's just agreed to follow the rules _for the player actions_, because that's part of the point of the game.



> "NPC" isn't a distinction my character knows. It's an artificial construction of the game, and to have NPC's break their necks randomly at DM decree means, to my character, that people break their necks falling from horses, even when they're powerful knights of the world who should know how to ride horses, and thus I should never ride a horse, because they slay heroes.




Yes! Of course they should think so. People in the real world still ride horses despite there being danger inherent to it. Batman doesn't know he's never going to get killed. He has no idea he's got plot immunity. He acts accordingly. 



> Which is absurd to me, as a player, and breaks the believability of the world.




People with unbreakable necks breaks the believability of the world. People who, by narrative logic, will just never break their necks is fine, because that's how almost any story works.




> Which just reminds me that it's the DM's story and I'm just along for the ride. The DM decides what's available and what isn't, not according to a mutually binding set of rules, but according to his own estimation of what makes a good story.




GM's have been deciding on what is and is not available in their world since the hobby began. I'm in a campaign that bans arcane magic. This is world-building. This is normal. 

Are you really suggesting that it is inappropriate for a GM to regulate the availability of magical items or obscure Trained by a Master abilities? Are you really saying that the GM can't decide compound bows or steel forging haven't been invented yet in his swords-and-sandals game? 

There are very, very few RPGs, particularly semi-generic ones (or at least, "Homebrewing is Encouraged") that operate on that level of restriction. Maybe Burning Wheel, I've never tried it. Wealth-by-level and all that malarkey are just guidelines.

I mean, GURPS is the only game I know that has the "rules=physics" design goal, and it's explicitly built around customized campaigns. 

This wasn't my campaign, but I know of a D&D game set in Mythic Medieval Russia. All kinds of things were changed. By all accounts, it was a great, flavorful campaign. This is _normal_. This is _expected_. This is _good_. 

World-building is one of the perks of GMing.


----------



## pkt77242 (Feb 5, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget, you talk alot about your believablity being blown out of the water or the DM is beating my sense of believability with a mallet a few times and that is your choice to feel that way.  

My thought is that I am playing a game in my head and on paper so I already threw believability out the window before I started playing.  It is meant to be a game and a fun, fast game to play.  If  I want to try some difficult and crazy thing, you are right my DM proably could look through the book and find a rule that is close and change it to fit the situation and give me a +/- to it but spend 5-15 minutes finding it and chaning it.  Or he can think about it for a couple of  seconds and give me a quick approximation, and hey maybe he is spot on or maybe he is off slightly but that doesn't ruin the game.  I think more games are ruined by dms who are rules strict and slow down the game by looking everything up then by DMs who wing it a little. 


It might just be that you are a rulesy person and that is ok, fine for you but not for me. If you want more rules then add some back in, no one is telling you, that you can't have them.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> The rules are tools for the players and GM. They serve at the pleasure of the group. The DM is above the law. Hell, in a sense, the players are above the law- this is why house rules get made. In most cases it's just agreed to follow the rules _for the player actions_, because that's part of the point of the game.




In this discussion, you are more wrong than right. The DM is not above the law. I agree more with KM.


Yes, the DM can bend or break the rules. But, the DM should rarely do it. It's fine to have a magical effect that cannot be explained by the rules in order to advance the story. For example, a magical explosion that ends up catapulting the PCs to another dimension.

But if a player makes a mistake in combat, the normal combat rules should apply. Here is where you are wrong. The DM should not change the combat rules to "save the PC and make the game more fun for the player". The reason is that "Who knows?". Maybe the game will be more fun if the PC dies.

DMs are people too. They are not omniscient, hence, they really do not know what is in the head of other players. They can guess, but they might be wrong as often as they are right.

The concept that "the rules take a back seat to fun" is totally arrogant and presumptuous of you. The DM knows best. Nonsense. Fun occurs in many different ways. It can be fun for the DM to break the rules, but for many players, it might be more fun for the DM to follow the rules.

Since it is a game, there will be players like KM who expect the DM to follow the rules. You stated:



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> You have an incredibly unreasonable perspective. Frankly I would consider you a bad player and eject you from my game.
> 
> What you ask is tantamount to asking the DM to not have any fun. To be bound to some mindless set of rules instead of his own imagination. You're also asking for every other player in the game, unless they happen to share your rigid expectations, not to have any fun.




KM is not a bad player. He just has different expectations than you do. He expects the game to be a game and as such, all players, including the DM, should follow the rules of that game.

Sure there can be exceptions, but those should be carefully considered by the DM, not just knee jerk decisions for some potential DM perceived fun. The best intentions when making on the fly rules changes or just flat out breaking the rules can torpedo a game just as quickly as a TPK.

Players have expectations. A DM cannot just ignore that, or he is not a good DM. If the players expect the game to have wierd rule breaking things occur, then your "anything goes in the name of fun" system would be fine. But, many players do not have those types of expectations.

Note: I think the phrase "for the sake of fun" is vastly overused by posters. It can be used to justify just about any DM or player behavior.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 5, 2008)

*Professor Phobos*, the reason many of us play D&D specifically is that the rules of D&D create a set of assumptions many of us find interesting.  We know that the D&D rules stop describing people in our world past about level 6 or so; this is a selling point for us.

And this is why having rules and keeping to them is important.  You find the idea of humans that can bathe in lava snaps you out of your immersion in the game world.  This is well and good; you can avoid this element simply by not creating representations of humans with this capacity in the game world, or optionally make use of one of the many supplemental rules for magma damage.

I don't like the idea of mechanically representing a character that should, according to the known rules of the game, be able to swim in lava, then die (with no save) simply because the GM thinks that lava should be super-extra-killy compared to the dragonfire I waded through last week.  If it breaks your suspension of disbelief for heroes to be able to survive such abuse, cap  level advancement at six.

Another question for you: Which is more realistic, Vanican magic or psionics?  The answer, of course, is neither; both magic systems reflect something that does not exist in reality.  The XP system and its real, tangible noticeable effects in the game world likewise does not have a real-world analogue, but claiming that it is an abstraction misses the point; although what exactly XP are is nebulous, their effect is as well-defined within the game universe as fire.

You do not have a clear idea how it is or why it should be that after a lifetime of adventuring, you should achieve superhuman levels of toughness and capacity.  This is well and good.  I, myself have no idea how it is or why it should be that Superman's Kryptonian metabolism can convert yellow sunlight into superhuman levels of toughness and capacity, but within the context of Superman comics, I don't claim that Superman's powers are an abstraction; he actually can fly, despite flight being conventionally impossible.

The world of comics contains rules and assumptions that (obviously) do not hold true in reality.  This is not generally a problem; to enjoy the story, we internalize the new rules, accept them, and judge the world based on its consistency to its own internal reality, as opposed to ours.  It bothers some people to recognize that their gritty fighter or streetwise rogue turned into Achilles or Gyges a few levels back, and that superhumanism has been thrust upon them.  However, this is the way D&D universes work; expecting otherwise is like killing Superman in an auto accident.

If you communicate beforehand that your world does not contain high-level characters of any stripe, that fifty points of damage are enough to kill any humanoid target guaranteed, and so forth, and then proceed to play in this gritty, dangerous setting, then this is good and interesting.  This is making a rule.  But deciding that a fall should be capable of killing a high-level knight in adventuring condition with full HP is making a ruling, which contradicts the existing rules and the internal reality set up by the games.  A high-level knight is, as we from Earth would understand it, about as human as Superman; he has a similar level of protection from harm, and if he's taken Power Attack, can also be inhumanly destructive.  (His, however, is ablative; enough damage will start to kill him, and beat him down to his last few HP and throw him from a horse, and he may well break his neck).

If you start from the inherent assumption that the world is low-magic, high-pulp adventure, with two-fisted (or two-sworded, or sword-and-shielded) adventurers questing after priceless relics and defeating bands of evil villains, then this is fine.  You probably don't need to enumerate that the party shouldn't expect to be playing Artificers, or crucians, and you probably don't need to mention that the party level will be capped somewhere before "Wait for the evil god to finish manifesting, then beat him into submission with our bare hands." becomes a viable strategy.  This is all well and good.  But D&D does not contain these assumtions from default; relying on them to be shared without explicitly communicating it will result in bad juju.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 5, 2008)

> You want a character to die from falling off a horse? He's not high-level. You want a character to Call a high-HD outsider? He is high level. You want a character that takes feats that require you to be high level to take? He's high level.




Just picked that one out as an example.

The strength, as I see it, from what we've been told of 4e is that you can do exactly any of these things without having to go too far afield.  After all, summoning something you shouldn't isn't too much of a stretch in fantasy.

Heck, go back to the old Thieves World collections and you'll find exactly this.  An apprentise wizard causes all sorts of disruptions all over the city.  Fantastic lead in and something I'd like to do in D&D.

But, I can't.  An apprentise wizard can't summon anything in D&D.  Spells never, EVER backfire in D&D.  If I want a spell to backfire, I'm going to have to go beyond the rules.  

But, with these new rituals rules, hopefully we'll be able to do exactly this.  Now the demon worshipping cultist doesn't need to be an archmage to create a gate.  I can have a gate without the tactical nuclear weapon.  Great!  

By relaxing the stringency of the mechanics, while still providing baselines for judging relative power, you gain a huge amount of flexibility.  

I'm really looking forward to these assumptions.  It seems we're getting the best of all editions.  The rules looseness of 1e and 2e without the complete and utter kludge that those rules were.  And the focus and ease of use of 3e without being locked down into certain concepts.


----------



## Imban (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> To reference Vampire: The Masquerade, you can't discover the blood point. A vampire only knows he's full, or hungry, or starving. He doesn't know he has blood points. Blood points don't map to pints of blood. They're abstractions.




Just as a point of order, a canon NPC (Dr. Netchurch) researched and discovered exactly what blood points are in-setting in Vampire: the Masquerade. Motes of Essence (and quite likely values of characters' attributes and abilities themselves, in the First Age) are things that were researched and talked about as *setting terms* in the past in Exalted.

White Wolf's actually very big on the idea that fluff should follow naturally from the crunch. (So is R. Sean Borgstrom, who did a bunch of the writing for Exalted.)


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

I have a question for all the folks who believe "NPCs must operate under the same rules as PCs." And here it is.

Do you use the game rules to adjudicate the outcome of every NPC vs. NPC fight in your game? In other words, when two nations in the game world go to war (or there's a tavern brawl that the PCs don't take part in), how do you resolve the battles?

Nobody's suggesting changing the rules at the point where they interact with the players. We're just talking about what kind of control the DM has over what happens in the game world _when the PCs aren't involved in the action_.


----------



## Imban (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I have a question for all the folks who believe "NPCs must operate under the same rules as PCs." And here it is.
> 
> Do you use the game rules to adjudicate the outcome of every NPC vs. NPC fight in your game? In other words, when two nations in the game world go to war (or there's a tavern brawl that the PCs don't take part in), how do you resolve the battles?
> 
> Nobody's suggesting changing the rules at the point where they interact with the players. We're just talking about what kind of control the DM has over what happens in the game world _when the PCs aren't involved in the action_.




If it doesn't matter, I don't care save that I'll try to avoid positing events that are rules-impossible. Tavern brawls happen all the time, and assuming a rules system that provides that two 1st-level commoners can meaningfully hurt each other, people get hurt. They're not people that *matter*, so I just don't care.

When two nations in the game world go to war, I'd probably look (again) to the rules to inform me, if possible. I may not have enough information for the rules to give input - if all that's given, information-wise, is that Human Nation A and Human Nation B have armies and are at war, essentially anything I come up with would be valid. However, I would still be careful to not posit rules-impossible events in such a narrative.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But if a player makes a mistake in combat, the normal combat rules should apply. Here is where you are wrong. The DM should not change the combat rules to "save the PC and make the game more fun for the player". The reason is that "Who knows?". Maybe the game will be more fun if the PC dies.




I never said anything about that, though. Presumably we're only playing D&D because we want the possibility of character death, after all. I wouldn't consider that a reasonable exercise of fiat, most of the time.

But there are exceptions. Let's say I completely overpowered an antagonist and the players are basically annihilated instantly. I'd probably fudge that. It is my mistake I'm correcting, not theirs. But if they know the risks, and there was the possibility of failure or success, then I usually let things stand as they are. 



> DMs are people too. They are not omniscient, hence, they really do not know what is in the head of other players. They can guess, but they might be wrong as often as they are right.




Sure, but if you make a mistake, you just try not to make it again in the future. It's not like this is life-or-death stuff here. People spill their beer on the Player's Handbook, it's okay. It's not the end of the world. I have enough confidence in my own ability to make judgment calls, and my player's willingness to call me on errors.



> The concept that "the rules take a back seat to fun" is totally arrogant and presumptuous of you. The DM knows best. Nonsense. Fun occurs in many different ways. It can be fun for the DM to break the rules, but for many players, it might be more fun for the DM to follow the rules.




Then maybe the DM should only break the rules when it is fun, and not do so when it is not-fun? I'm not suggesting anything else. You folks seem to be fighting some other argument. I disagree that it is reasonable for a player or a GM to operate on the extreme end of either curve. No player has the right to demand completely rigid adherence to the rules under penalty of death, nor should any GM discard the rules entirely. I maintain that there is a middle ground. There is good and bad fiat. I do not think adhering to the rules in one case demands adhering to the rules in every case. I do not think ignoring the rules in one case means ignoring the rules in every case.



> KM is not a bad player. He just has different expectations than you do. He expects the game to be a game and as such, all players, including the DM, should follow the rules of that game.




Yes, I shouldn't have called him out like that. It was unkind of me. I still maintain, however, that his play style is wholly incompatible with mine. I cannot accommodate him. This is relatively rare, as I have found I can incorporate a wide range of player expectations in my gaming. But zero-fiat? It's just not going to happen, if only because I am very lazy and I do not bother to look up rules when I do not think it matters.



> Sure there can be exceptions, but those should be carefully considered by the DM, not just knee jerk decisions for some potential DM perceived fun. The best intentions when making on the fly rules changes or just flat out breaking the rules can torpedo a game just as quickly as a TPK.




Not in my experience. If I wing it and it goes bad, I don't do it again next session. Or I say, "Man that was dumb. Sorry about that guys." Maybe I buy the pizza next time. It is, after all, just a game.



> Players have expectations. A DM cannot just ignore that, or he is not a good DM. If the players expect the game to have wierd rule breaking things occur, then your "anything goes in the name of fun" system would be fine. But, many players do not have those types of expectations.




But there are reasonable and unreasonable expectations. I'm entirely willing to pay a lot of attention to the rules, so long as the players are patient as, again, I am extremely lazy and often forget to ask for rolls. I have a "Say yes or roll the dice" policy, and I rarely say no, so most of my games don't involve a lot of rolling and only the occasional combat round.



> Note: I think the phrase "for the sake of fun" is vastly overused by posters. It can be used to justify just about any DM or player behavior.




Fun is the primary objective of any recreational activity. If it is fun, it is good. If it is not fun, it is bad. 

However, if your definition of "fun" is so constrictive as to impede the fun of others, as I believe to be the case here, then there is a problem.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Just as a point of order, a canon NPC (Dr. Netchurch) researched and discovered exactly what blood points are in-setting in Vampire: the Masquerade.




That was a joke, though. Netchurch broke the fourth wall regularly.


----------



## Imban (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> That was a joke, though. Netchurch broke the fourth wall regularly.




You never really know what's a joke joke and what's a serious joke with those Malkavians.


----------



## Patrick O'Duffy (Feb 5, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Just as a point of order, a canon NPC (Dr. Netchurch) researched and discovered exactly what blood points are in-setting in Vampire: the Masquerade.




And this is one of several bad ideas that were fixed and removed in *Vampire: the Reqiuem*, where Vitae aren't quantified and countable in the game's reality the way blood points were.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> *Professor Phobos*, the reason many of us play D&D specifically is that the rules of D&D create a set of assumptions many of us find interesting.  We know that the D&D rules stop describing people in our world past about level 6 or so; this is a selling point for us.




But D&D doesn't create a set of world assumptions. You aren't supposed to derive a world from the rules. The rules are just an abstraction. They're built to be a game, not a simulation. 



> However, this is the way D&D universes work; expecting otherwise is like killing Superman in an auto accident.




I disagree. Superman's invincibility is an in-world element. Superman's plot immunity is a meta element. Likewise, a PC's levels is a meta element. It isn't anything other than a rough approximation of experience and general badassitude in the game world. Hit points are an abstraction. They do not exist in the world, the only exist in the game. 

This is why Aeris couldn't be raised with a Phoenix Down. The needs of game, story and world are all sometimes contradictory and a balance must be struck between them. Some things are for the game, somethings are meant to simulate some element of the world, and some things are just for cracking good stories. 

Basically, if you're going to get me to accept that a 20th level fighter can not break his neck, you're going to have to establish some justification for it. Have the Fates blessed him? Has his soul strengthened so much he can subconsciously guide his own destiny as a result of being tempered by struggle after struggle? Something like that.

Because as it stands, I don't buy it as something in the world. I treat it as I would treat  Blood Points in Vampire: The Requiem. A simplified abstraction designed to produce a specific gameplay result, not simulate something in the world. 

I can accept narrative conventions- the 20th level fighter, when he's interacting with the PCs, is important to the story and so probably doesn't check out through some random, arbitrary death.

But let's say I'm starting a campaign following the unexpected (but natural), death of a powerful King who had done all sorts of heroic things and the political fallout of his accidental demise. Why shouldn't I say he fell and broke his neck? Because he's 20th level? What does 20th level mean?

When he's on screen, it's a relative measure of power. When he's off screen, it means nothing. Absolutely, positively nothing. He has no hit points when off screen. He has no skills. He is nothing more than a bit of the setting. He is no more than a tree, an apple, or a rock. He's a man. A man with certain powers and a certain reputation, but just a man.

Now, I'll certainly accept that entities in the game universe should behave reasonably, or at least have justification for their out-of-the-ordinary behavior. Apples should be apples, and if they display unapple-like behavior, I should probably eventually explain it as it being some monster disguised as an apple.

So I can understand it if players demand a reasonable expectation for a strange occurrence with regard to, say, our 20th level King. Like if he turns into President Eisenhower and starts talking about Communism. But I don't understand why they'd demand an explanation for why a 20th level fighter died to a 0th level accident, because to me "20th level" is just a provisionally applied abstraction representing how powerful he is as a significant character, not how powerful he is as window dressing. 

If it makes everyone feel any better, I'll establish the following rule: NPCs lose all their levels when it is no longer important that their capabilities be represented by levels. They get them back if it becomes relevant again.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> If it doesn't matter, I don't care save that I'll try to avoid positing events that are rules-impossible. Tavern brawls happen all the time, and assuming a rules system that provides that two 1st-level commoners can meaningfully hurt each other, people get hurt. They're not people that *matter*, so I just don't care.
> 
> When two nations in the game world go to war, I'd probably look (again) to the rules to inform me, if possible. I may not have enough information for the rules to give input - if all that's given, information-wise, is that Human Nation A and Human Nation B have armies and are at war, essentially anything I come up with would be valid. However, I would still be careful to not posit rules-impossible events in such a narrative.




I see. So at least from your perspective (although perhaps not all of the "simulationists"), it's the probabilities that matter, rather than rigid adherence to the rules. So you don't require all 2000 NPC soldiers to actually make a d20 attack roll against the other 2000 soldiers, but you assume that the only events that happen will be _possible_ according to the d20 rule set. So a 15th-level fighter could die if he was hit by 6 arrows, because they might all be max-damage crits from warriors with a 14 strength (30 hp each). As I understand, that's okay with you, because it's unlikely, but possible.

On the other hand, the real world scenario where he's killed by a single arrow just can't happen because it can't exceed his MDT, even on a crit, and it _certainly_ can't deplete all of his hit points. So a high-enough level fighter can just laugh if someone points a crossbow at his chest. Because he knows it won't kill him.

So the metagame rules actually dictate the ingame reality. A PC can't die from a single arrow, or a single stab wound, because it just can't take away enough of his "hit points." And he has a pretty good idea that he's got hit points, saving throws and things of that nature. They're concrete, measurable things in his world.

Personally, I hate that approach, but I suppose I have to admit it's a valid interpretation. But as I said earlier, it's just a little too _Order of the Stick_ silly for me to enjoy it.

I start with one basic premise:

1) Except where it's obvious (*ahem* magic), the game world operates under the same general physical laws as the real world does.

That means people in the game world (not necessarily PCs) can die from any of the same things that people can in the real world. PCs usually don't, but they're more like Batman or Captain America (protected by skill, luck, and plot) than Superman (actually physically incapable of dying of those things).

But that's just my preference. And I have to say I'm very glad Fourth Edition seems to be leaning towards my interpretation of things.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

I concur about the Order-of-the-Stickness. Unless I'm aiming for a humorous campaign, the game world is not aware of game mechanics.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 5, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> "What if I have a wizard character with an NPC mentor who has powers built using the NPC rules?  Suppose that mentor dies and my PC studies his notes to learn his powers.  If both characters are human, it makes no sense to me that my PC could never learn those abilities.  It would break my suspension of disbelief."
> 
> The answer, of course, is that within the context of the game world it is possible for the PC to learn those powers.  However, to do so requires stepping outside the standard rules simulating the game world.  You have to move to realm of the narrative and have a talk between the player and the DM to see if it is appropriate to break the simulation in this case and still have a fun game for everyone.



Excellently put. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to design rules that (i) produce a mechanically balanced play experience for a good range of typical play groups and (ii) don't impose metagame limits on the PCs, which have no ingame rationale.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Then it appears lazy and devoid of imagination to not provide us rules for how that happens.



I think this is far too harsh a judgement. Sometimes the gameworld is more satisfying if we all _know_ that the constraints on PCs are purely metagame. For example, I quite like the idea that, in the gameworld, falls from horses can be fatal even for powerful warriors, but we also know that no combat the PCs engage in will be ones where single blows kill powerful warriors (because, as a matter of combat mechanics, those warriors have the "plot protection" that hit points provide), and we know that this state of affairs has a purely metagame rationale (we want the fights to be interesting and even nail-biters, rather than non-events).



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> I'm not seeing the issues mentioned.  If you feel that it should be possible for a high-level fighter to die from falling off a horse, then falls from horses should be capable of dealing in excess of 50 damage.



No - the point of the OP (unless I'm very mistaken) is that we want hit points (and the protective role they play) to be important in a certain range of situations, but at the same time we expressly deny that they are part of the gameworld physics, and thus in situations in which hit points don't matter (eg background details about the deaths of NPC warriors) we don't feel obliged to fit the world to the hit point mechanics.



			
				Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> fluff trumps crunch.  Always.  The fluff is that Drizzt is a flesh-and-blood elf who escapes death through superior skill, quickness, and luck.  Therefore it is possible for him to die from falling 30 feet, no matter what the crunch says.
> 
> He won't in fact die, unless a specific decision is made to discard the crunch result, but the possibility is there within the reality of the game world.



I don't think that what you are saying is true of every game system - eg in RQ and RM, the rules are meant to be the physics of the gameworld. But you are identifying one alternative, and (to me) attractive, way to approach the rules.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I don't think it's too much to ask that all the players (including the DM) follow the rules of the game.



But the question is: should we regard it as part of the rules of the game that (for example) hit point mechanics are to govern not only all the PC's actions involving physical danger, but all such activity in the gameworld full stop. D&D has never in fact made it clear what the rules are in respect of the second alternative.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> such things happening in the game reek strongly of DM Fiat.



Assuming that only the GM has the relevant narrative control. But even then, the rules tell us (for example) that the GM cannot ignore the hit point rules whenever the PCs engage a physically dangerous situation. So it is GM Fiat only within certain parameters - and D&D already has this.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> it's the feeling I get when the DM breaks with the rules of the game so dramatically just to justify some sort of narratrive contrivance that, 9 times out of 10, a little imagination could have worked within the bounds of the rules to create something the players COULD interact with, and thus could have added to the game, rather than made me feel like I was just along for the DM's ride.



But D&D already has an arbitrary amount of stuff done by the GM that is outside the players' control (eg the initial shape of the dungeon, the shape of the cosomology, the latest plot hook, etc) that I don't see why more or slightly different _necessarily_ hurts things.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I don't know of once in all the tales of epic heroes where someone fell off their horse and died.



But it's true of historical figures. And I think it (or something comparable) is true of some of the heroic figures in Appendix A of LoTR. To me it's an unsatifsying feature of your way of playing D&D that I can't, as GM, set up a backstory in which a hero, after a great victory, does die from falling of his horse - such a story could be the precursor for all sorts of interesting gaming.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A one-in-a-million chance doesn't, effectively, from the POV of the table, ever, really, truly exist. And if the DM calls it in, it blows my suspension of disbelief right out of the water, because no longer does my character adhere to the heroic archetype I thought she was.



I don't think that the OP was suggesting stripping away PC plot protection via hit points and all the mechanics that interact with them. I think the idea was rather that, when this sort of plot protection is not at stake (like in setting up campaign backstory, or resolving NPC matters off-screen) there is no reason to adhere to systems whose metagame purpose is quite different (ie to regulate the PC's derring-do).



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Because we're not starting with the assumption that you can derive the rules of the world from the rules of the game.



I think this is the key point of the OP.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Nobody's suggesting changing the rules at the point where they interact with the players. We're just talking about what kind of control the DM has over what happens in the game world _when the PCs aren't involved in the action_.



Agreed - although I'm not sure if one should say "players" there, or "PCs". And your earlier post was good too.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I don't think that the OP was suggesting stripping away PC plot protection via hit points and all the mechanics that interact with them. I think the idea was rather that, when this sort of plot protection is not at stake (like in setting up campaign backstory, or resolving NPC matters off-screen) there is no reason to adhere to systems whose metagame purpose is quite different (ie to regulate the PC's derring-do).




Yes, exactly. This is well said. Your whole post is well said. You are an excellent person.

The purpose of hit points, the combat system, is for use in play to make for fun, tense, tactical combats. For that purpose, I'll use 'em.

For storytelling and world-simulation purposes, the mighty powers of my intellect are more than enough.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> If it makes everyone feel any better, I'll establish the following rule: NPCs lose all their levels when it is no longer important that their capabilities be represented by levels. They get them back if it becomes relevant again.




Nice rule, and I agree entirely.  IMC if I decide NPC Overking Tarkane the Usurper dies from falling off his horse, as did William the Conqueror, then that's my business as GM.  Rules are for players.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 5, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I don't think that what you are saying is true of every game system - eg in RQ and RM, the rules are meant to be the physics of the gameworld.




No, they're just highly simulationist game systems.  But plenty of stuff that happens in Glorantha was not possible in the Runequest 2e ruleset.  In the Dragon Pass game, Harek the Berserk can destroy whole legions of Lunar troops.  It's impossible to create a human in the Runequest rules who can do that, AFAIK, no matter how experienced/heroic.


----------



## Imban (Feb 5, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> No, they're just highly simulationist game systems.  But plenty of stuff that happens in Glorantha was not possible in the Runequest 2e ruleset.  In the Dragon Pass game, Harek the Berserk can destroy whole legions of Lunar troops.  It's impossible to create a human in the Runequest rules who can do that, AFAIK, no matter how experienced/heroic.




...yes, different game systems produce different worlds and feelings in play, even when they're supposedly based around the exact same thing. For instance, people can throw fireballs in MERP, but it's easy to conceive of a Lord of the Rings RPG based off of the exact same material where this is not the case. Likewise, the War for the Throne board game for Exalted obeys different rules than Exalted itself, despite being based on Exalted. Since they're *different games*, what's the problem?

More seriously, I know what I like and don't like in games. I run games where the game rules are the physics of the game world, and it seems to work pretty darn well for me. I stay away from Order of the Stick-esque silliness where metagame terms are explicitly called out in play, and the chief visible manifestations of this to my players are that I do not choose to use plots which are contradicted by the game rules - so level-20 fighters will never die from simple misadventure - and that organizations and governments are influenced by the game rules. In D&D practice, this means that actually holding the reins of power practically requires being high-level or otherwise having the backing to not get killed offhand by the first high-level jerk you tick off. As a player, I'm bothered by plots that are directly contradicted by the game rules, especially when there are countless ways to revise any such plot so that it's not rules-impossible - Overking Tarkane the Usurper could easily die of old age or meet with fatal misfortune on a dire tiger hunt or what have you, the foolish level-3 apprentice could have successfully used a Scroll of Planar Binding (on a roll of 9 or higher on a d20, no less) that belonged to his master rather than contravening the rules and casting it as a normal spell, et cetera.

I understand that there are reasons why other players might prefer a "fluff trumps crunch" stance, and that's fine. To say that it *always* does, however, is just plain wrong.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 5, 2008)

Imban - a question then.  In the classic hostage situation, as a DM, do you care if the PC's flat out ignore the situation because they know that the captor cannot kill the captive in a single blow?  In the Savage Tide AP, there is a situation exactly like this:

The PC's patron is held hostage by a orc fighter.  There is no possible way that he could do enough damage in a single round to kill her other than possibly on a crit.  Can the players act with that knowledge in the foreground?  In other words, can they simply attack knowing that she will survive?



> I would still be careful to not posit rules-impossible events in such a narrative.




But, Rule 0 allows for all events to be rules possible.  Is the DM now entirely captive to the mechanics?  I'm all for playing by the rules, but even I balk at this idea.

I'm really weirded out that I'm taking the same side of this discussion as some of the others.    Stop making me do that.  But, really, the idea that the DM is to be held hostage to the mechanics when designing his world is very strange to me.  Heck, every campaign setting in existence changes RAW.


----------



## Imban (Feb 5, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Imban - a question then.  In the classic hostage situation, as a DM, do you care if the PC's flat out ignore the situation because they know that the captor cannot kill the captive in a single blow?  In the Savage Tide AP, there is a situation exactly like this:
> 
> The PC's patron is held hostage by a orc fighter.  There is no possible way that he could do enough damage in a single round to kill her other than possibly on a crit.  Can the players act with that knowledge in the foreground?  In other words, can they simply attack knowing that she will survive?




This is actually an interesting question. I'd say yes, in my games I would allow the PCs to attack with the knowledge that their patron will survive, but that if I wanted this situation to come up in my games I'd have the orc holding the unconscious body of their patron after she was knocked unconscious with Oil of Taggit or something. If they don't drop the orc before it takes initiative, the hostage gets CdG'd and *that's* bad mojo.

And well, if the PCs seriously think they can shoot the orc in the face before it takes initiative, they can go ahead.



> But, Rule 0 allows for all events to be rules possible.  Is the DM now entirely captive to the mechanics?  I'm all for playing by the rules, but even I balk at this idea.




Well, hm. Rule 0 allows for all events to be rules-possible in *some* ruleset, but I personally enjoy consistency in rules. If we're playing by houserules that you've implemented as a DM - and believe me, I'd cry as much as anyone should anyone suggest taking the powers of houseruling and making judgment calls when rules are unclear or incomplete away from DMs - then those are the actual rules of the game, and sometimes the rules of the game are unclear or incomplete or otherwise bad and need to have judgment calls made on the fly. I do not believe "authorial decisions" are necessary to good DMing - "the hit point rules are being ignored, the overlord falls from his horse and dies" - and choose to avoid them when possible. (I also don't think they're a *flaw*, though stupid authorial decisions are well-known manifestations of a terrible DM.)

I do prefer DMs - and my personal DMing style lines up with this - who are "captive to the mechanics" such that they don't suspend the rules for specific situations simply to make a plot more convenient. I also tend to avoid games in which PCs and NPCs are treated differently - a simplified treatment of NPCs (for the most part, I don't count negative HP/bleeding for NPCs - -1 = no actions ever again = dead) is one thing but completely different rules don't jive with me.



> I'm really weirded out that I'm taking the same side of this discussion as some of the others.    Stop making me do that.  But, really, the idea that the DM is to be held hostage to the mechanics when designing his world is very strange to me.  Heck, every campaign setting in existence changes RAW.




Well, if you're changing the rules, you're changing the rules. If you're writing a campaign setting that has different rules, you're changing the rules. I prefer it when the mechanics that you want to run differently when designing your world are actually changed, not just suspended during the design phase only - a game and world based on A Game of Thrones should have *different rules*, not the default rules that posit heroes with the durability of demigods attached to a setting positing gritty normal-human-level fantasy.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Fun is the primary objective of any recreational activity. If it is fun, it is good. If it is not fun, it is bad.
> 
> However, if your definition of "fun" is so constrictive as to impede the fun of others, as I believe to be the case here, then there is a problem.




I don't think you get it.

As DM, if you break the rules, then it impedes the fun of KM.

Any extremist point of view (yours of often breaking the rules in the name of fun, or KM's never breaking the rules) has the potential of impeding the fun of others.

This is why the DM should rarely break the rules. He should do so only when he KNOWS that a lot of fun will result, not just because it might. By doing so, he could make it less fun for players like KM.


I used to have a DM who fudged dice rolls behind his screen. It was very annoying. Play the game, but play it by the rules. Break them once in a blue moon for important things, but do not do it often. That's the best course for a DM. IMO. Breaking them for the sake of fun often is just a copout for not doing the DM's homework of balancing encounters and knowing the rules.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 5, 2008)

In the hostage situation Hussar describes, it wouldn't be unreasonable for the DM to allow the orc to CdG the captive even if she isn't technically helpless. But, and this is very important, the DM has to tell the players beforehand he's going to allow this. Otherwise there's a strong risk of assumption clash - players, naturally, assume the game rules will apply in this situation.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 5, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> I run games where the game rules are the physics of the game world, and it seems to work pretty darn well for me.



Out of curiosity, what do you do with something like 'a grizzled veteran soldier who lost his arm in battle', or a poor sod like Captain Ahab?

While it possbible to describe the effects of limb loss under the D&D rules, there aren't any procedural rules to _get_ a character into that state. Would you rule that losing limb is, in fact, impossible? What about scarring? No procedural rules exist for that, either. In both cases, it's easy to see why the designers choose not to model this sort of thing within the game rules, but I think that makes a strong case for the belief that the rules where never intended to be used as the "physics" that the "simulation" was built on.

Put another way, where do you draw the line?


----------



## Jack7 (Feb 5, 2008)

The rules say people should have fun, dangit!
Like it or not.

_It's been playtested so that's pretty much settled._


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Feb 5, 2008)

With exception of magic, the game world operates under similar mechanics that our real world does. Meaning, someone can take a terrible spill off the back of a horse and become paralyzed (modified falling rules), a Bishop can be killed by a whore (coupe de grace), a man can die from falling off of a cliff (modified falling rules), a person can accidently trip and fall onto his sword (critical fumble), a soldier can lose a leg or arm (maimed at 0 HP or massive damage), a blacksmith can lose his hearing (old age rules for ability scores) and a wound can fester and kill a man if left untreated (modified healing rules). All men are accountable, including player characters; lack of oversight is no excuse for being run over by a wild horse in the streets if the player elects not to react to his surroundings. 

It took just a slight bit of tweaking for wounds and death to work in my D&D game. The Skill mechanics and DCs I use suppliment realism (as far as realism can be brough to the table). I plan to carry these things over to my 4th edition game as well. The players like the crunch, and I feel that it firmly supports the fluff. Minutia, such as inventory management, foodstuffs and water, all of which give specific mechanical boons in-game (such as nourishment to delay exhaustion and water used during combat to quickly "refresh" a moderate amount of HP), encourage my players to do it - if not to have their characters live, but because these small things define what the character's capabilities are. I've never found a moment where my players have felt "weighed down" by this sort of micromanagement of equipment or accountability of themselves as they live and breath in a low fantasy world.

For instance:

*Swig of Water (Swift/At-Will *combat only) * restores 2d4HP


----------



## apoptosis (Feb 5, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I think this is far too harsh a judgement. Sometimes the gameworld is more satisfying if we all _know_ that the constraints on PCs are purely metagame. For example, I quite like the idea that, in the gameworld, falls from horses can be fatal even for powerful warriors, but we also know that no combat the PCs engage in will be ones where single blows kill powerful warriors (because, as a matter of combat mechanics, those warriors have the "plot protection" that hit points provide), and we know that this state of affairs has a purely metagame rationale (we want the fights to be interesting and even nail-biters, rather than non-events).
> 
> 
> No - the point of the OP (unless I'm very mistaken) is that we want hit points (and the protective role they play) to be important in a certain range of situations, but at the same time we expressly deny that they are part of the gameworld physics, and thus in situations in which hit points don't matter (eg background details about the deaths of NPC warriors) we don't feel obliged to fit the world to the hit point mechanics.
> ...




That really hits the crux of the matter. The rules are there to resolve conflicts (challenges) with the PCs (actually the players and the DM) and allow the GM and players to share control of the scene/environment on different levels. If the PCs are not in conflict (this means all forms of social, mental and physical conflict) then the rules are not needed to resolve anything.

Possibly the rules could state something like this in D&D; in many systems they do.

Burning Wheel has a rule that states if there is nothing at stake in a conflict just say "Yes" to the players, which could also be reversed. If there is nothing at stake to the players the DM can say "yes" to himself.

I think many problems begin in games when the rules are treated like the physics of th world, this is true even in high sim games like RM.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 5, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, what do you do with something like 'a grizzled veteran soldier who lost his arm in battle', or a poor sod like Captain Ahab?
> 
> While it possbible to describe the effects of limb loss under the D&D rules, there aren't any procedural rules to _get_ a character into that state. Would you rule that losing limb is, in fact, impossible? What about scarring? No procedural rules exist for that, either. In both cases, it's easy to see why the designers choose not to model this sort of thing within the game rules, but I think that makes a strong case for the belief that the rules where never intended to be used as the "physics" that the "simulation" was built on.
> 
> Put another way, where do you draw the line?




You refine the rules, you don't ignore them.  You look for precedent.

For instance, you note that, under good conditions, the orc has a chance of critting with the dagger and causing 2d4+2xStr damage.  Call it 5+6, or 11 damage.  Under the 3.5 rules, that is plenty to kill the average person in the game world (or at least render them rapidly bleeding to death).

How many of you have actually tried to cut someone's throat in the middle of combat?  It's difficult; imagine cutting meat, but with a tough layer of skin over it, and the meat trying to get away and poke you in the eyes instead of being neatly sawn through.  You can do it, of course, especially if you have the muscle mass to tear through flesh easily, or you are trained, but the fact that you can't automatically kill someone with a knife to their throat is a feature, not a bug, if you are looking for realism.

Besides, remember again that heroes with class levels start out exceptional, move rapidly to world-class and quickly end up in legendary.  The rules say that character's ability to (when aware) avoid death through general injury are not up to GM fiat, but a strict measure of how deadly the injury was and how many hit points the character had.  A high-level knight that is thrown from his horse will suffer injury, but if he is at full hit points, he won't break his neck.   The hit point systems do not allow for the GM to declare arbitrary death from such things.

You don't like this, fine.  But annouce that you're gutting the HP rules and replacing them with the "Whatever I feel like, which resembles the HP rules in combat, except when I think otherwise."

And a lot of players will be fine with that, and will appreciate the fact that there is explicit narrative control.  A lot of other players will, at that point, pack up and leave while making snide comments about writing a novel, instead.  The important thing, however, is to remember that the default assumption present in D&D is that the world does actually look a hell of a lot more like OotS than reality, and that regardless of what you find believable, this is what people mean when they talk about D&D.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 5, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> You refine the rules, you don't ignore them.  You look for precedent...snip...



I'm not trying to be snarky, but did you mean to quote another poster? (because you ignored what I actually wrote)

I specifically asked about losing limbs and scarring, cases which there are no precedents under the RAW. Things that can't happen if you accept the rules as the physics for the setting. Unless, of course, you declare that those results can't happen to PC's (in combat), but can to characters under the DM's control. Would you care to address that point? 

For now, I'm not interested in the whole hostage-taking thing. I'd rather address of the issue the basic utility. Can the RAW serve as physics? What unintended consequences does that invite?


----------



## Imban (Feb 5, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, what do you do with something like 'a grizzled veteran soldier who lost his arm in battle', or a poor sod like Captain Ahab?
> 
> While it possbible to describe the effects of limb loss under the D&D rules, there aren't any procedural rules to _get_ a character into that state. Would you rule that losing limb is, in fact, impossible? What about scarring? No procedural rules exist for that, either. In both cases, it's easy to see why the designers choose not to model this sort of thing within the game rules, but I think that makes a strong case for the belief that the rules where never intended to be used as the "physics" that the "simulation" was built on.
> 
> Put another way, where do you draw the line?




This is an unusual question for me because I've never really had to address it, and to be honest I don't really want to address it. The rules imply losing limb is, in fact, possible - see Vorpal swords, hydra heads, and the spells _regenerate_, _raise dead_, and _resurrection_ for starters, even if no method for removing non-head limbs during the course of normal gameplay is provided. It's foolish to say that the rules as written in a traditional RPG are the complete set of rules of physics, because there are countless reasons why we wouldn't want a thousand-page book that covers every possibility. It's the rules that *are* written (or, more accurately, being played by) that I prefer run as "physics".

Yeah, it ties into the combat system, but... blah. I don't want to dwell on maiming, my games usually do not feature those crippled in battle, and I'd really rather move on to a different topic. If I was pressed I'd probably come up with something that tied into the HP system such that maiming was only possible with "fatal" wounds but I honestly don't even want it to happen then. I believe my position is sufficiently separate from the need for rules to cover every possible occasion and the need for gritty realism, however, the former of which I don't have (just every occasion that's *obviously* going to come up) and the latter of which I have the exact opposite of.

EDIT: In other words, I can't answer this well because I would honestly prefer that no one ever loses limbs save as a description of how they died.


----------



## apoptosis (Feb 5, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> This is an unusual question for me because I've never really had to address it, and to be honest I don't really want to address it. The rules imply losing limb is, in fact, possible - see Vorpal swords, hydra heads, and the spells _regenerate_, _raise dead_, and _resurrection_ for starters, even if no method for removing non-head limbs during the course of normal gameplay is provided. It's foolish to say that the rules as written in a traditional RPG are the complete set of rules of physics, because there are countless reasons why we wouldn't want a thousand-page book that covers every possibility. It's the rules that *are* written (or, more accurately, being played by) that I prefer run as "physics".
> 
> Yeah, it ties into the combat system, but... blah. I don't want to dwell on maiming, my games usually do not feature those crippled in battle, and I'd really rather move on to a different topic. If I was pressed I'd probably come up with something that tied into the HP system such that maiming was only possible with "fatal" wounds but I honestly don't even want it to happen then. I believe my position is sufficiently separate from the need for rules to cover every possible occasion and the need for gritty realism, however, the former of which I don't have (just every occasion that's *obviously* going to come up) and the latter of which I have the exact opposite of.




 But Mallus' point definitely ties into the Heroic Knight who broke his neck falling off the horse. 

The DM created this as background for the setting.  The argument was then made that the DM should have created this bit of setting story  as the rules dont allow for Heroic Knights do die from falling off of a horse (not enough HP damage for them to die)

According to the rules you should basically never encounter an NPC who has lost limbs, an eye, are scarred etc, as there are no rules for this to have happened to them.

While this might seem like an absurdist argument, I feel it has a lot of merit given the arguments that were made.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I don't think you get it.




Maybe, but I think the real problem is I'm not explaining what exactly I refer to by fiat and the like here.



> Any extremist point of view (yours of often breaking the rules in the name of fun, or KM's never breaking the rules) has the potential of impeding the fun of others.




Well, two things. First: I don't break the rules often, though I'm entirely willing to do so any time I deem it necessary. Second: I don't consider the 20th level neck-snap a break in the rules, because I am interpreting the rules to not apply to that situation _already_. Any arguments from me that levels are an abstract template for game play purposes and not factored into the world are not a house-rule or fiat advocacy argument, but a statement of my interpretation of the RAW.



> This is why the DM should rarely break the rules. He should do so only when he KNOWS that a lot of fun will result, not just because it might. By doing so, he could make it less fun for players like KM.




Nah. You rarely "know" exactly what will happen when you do anything as a GM. If it wasn't fun and your players tell you so, you just don't do it again. No one is entitled to a flawless GM.



> Breaking them for the sake of fun often is just a copout for not doing the DM's homework of balancing encounters and knowing the rules.




Well, the thing is- I have stuff to do. If a game requires too much work to "do it right", then to hell with that game, you know? If the players expect more work than I can put into a game just because they refuse to allow me shortcuts, then to hell with them. They only have one character to manage. All they have to do is show up and contribute to the pizza fund. 



> Burning Wheel has a rule that states if there is nothing at stake in a conflict just say "Yes" to the players, which could also be reversed. If there is nothing at stake to the players the DM can say "yes" to himself.




Yes! This is right. Say yes, or roll the dice. Our high-level knight has nothing to do with the PCs. There's nothing at stake for them. The rules _do not apply_.

Basically, the rules have a specific purpose- to resolve conflicts between the PCs and the game world with some fun tactical gameplay and resource management elements. The rules are not designed to simulate the wider world, just conflict involving the PCs.


----------



## Imban (Feb 5, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> According to the rules you should basically never encounter an NPC who has lost limbs, an eye, are scarred etc, as there are no rules for this to have happened to them.
> 
> While this might seem like an absurdist argument, I feel it has a lot of merit given the arguments that were made.




Even *aside* from this argument I'd honestly be 100% fine with never encountering NPCs who have lost limbs or eyes. If it's important to you, there are plenty of ways I can explain it - I already treat limb loss as allowable as part of narrating how someone is killed when their HP run out, you could have been the specific victim of a limb-destroying circumstance not present in the core rules (hit with a Sword of Sharpness, stuck your hand in a trap and set it off, intentionally hacked off one of your own limbs) that carried its own rules or on-the-spot adjudication that a limb was lost, or (if I was inclined to gritty realism) making a house rule that added the possibility of limb loss to the routine combat procedure. The rules surrounding death by damage already exist, however, and are much more explicit.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

Surely you can understand, however, that those of us who do not have anything against maimed veterans as characters would feel being restricted solely to what is possible under the rules a bit...constricting, no?


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 5, 2008)

To me, the rules do not dictate the physics of the world, but they do inform it.  They are essentially "good enough" approximations.  To draw an analogy with science, the rules in the books are Newtonian physics; not a wholly correct or all-inclusive model, but easy to work with and close enough to what's actually going on that in most cases you can just go with it.

I would not be inclined to have a 20th-level king die from falling off a horse and breaking his neck, but that's more because I feel 20th-level characters are bad-ass enough that it's demeaning to kill them in such mundane ways.  On the other hand, I would certainly have NPCs who've lost eyes or limbs in battle.  That sort of thing just... doesn't happen to player characters (unless they choose for it to).  They're lucky that way.

For the apprentice wizard who botches a casting of _planar ally_ from his master's spellbook, I'd think hard about the implications of allowing that--after all, it does set a precedent that a low-level caster can attempt a high-level spell and get _some_ result, and it would be hard to justify why a PC wizard couldn't attempt the same thing.  So I'd want to consider the possible outcomes and make sure that I was okay with PC wizards being allowed to try such stunts.  (Of course, nobody says they have to have a chance in hell of _succeeding_, but they do have to be allowed to try.)  It would be an implied houserule: "A wizard with access to spells he's not high enough level to cast properly can still perform a totally botched-up casting of those spells, with highly unfortunate results."


----------



## Imban (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Surely you can understand, however, that those of us who do not have anything against maimed veterans as characters would feel being restricted solely to what is possible under the rules a bit...constricting, no?




If you wanted to posit that maimed veterans exist and that absolutely nothing may ever cause maiming to become rules text - essentially a statement and its negation - yes, you have to suspend the rules' applicability as the "physics" of the game world at that point. I fully understand why you may choose to do so; I do not understand how it harms my game for me to not do so, nor do I understand arguments to the effect that one situation or even set of situations in which I choose to do so (or in which doing so is unavoidable - changes to the game rules can occasionally render past events dubiously possible, and retaining their truth may easily be an important goal) nullifies *all* effort to use the rules as the "physics" of the game world.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 5, 2008)

Lots to reply to. Let's see if I can tease out the most relevant things to say, here.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> "Make up a rule" is indistinguishable from fiat.




Not entirely. Fiat is declaring something happens. Nobody can contradict that, and fiat (on BOTH sides of the screen) is unsatisfying to me as a player. Because I can make up stories with my friends without D&D, I want D&D to provide a game experience for me, which means I want to roll some dice and use some rules. D&D doesn't satisfy a direct creative outlet for me. Archetypes are stereotypes that don't fit perfectly, I can write a story better than any D&D campaign, and ultimately the melieu is limiting. It's creative, no doubt, but creation isn't what I really have fun doing. D&D satisfies a _gearhead_ kind of fun for me. Some people tinker with car engines, some people mess with computers, I play D&D. 

The distinction, then, is that fiat doesn't use rules, it just declares something as occured. This, to me, is cheating, of a sort. It is going up to the guy who is tinkering with his car and saying "Why don't you just ride a bike?" Meanwhile, coming up with a new rule is coming up with a new part: you can use it, I can use it, and we can test its effectiveness and its consequences together.



> Where are you getting this? I didn't say anything about player actions not mattering. In my own campaign, they matter more than anything- barring certain edge cases where I negotiate for some kind of compromise, I let player whim trump my own. Admittedly this is because I am very lazy and if they want to drive the plot, I'm not going to stop them.




The sense that you're allowing it, that you choose not to stop them -- rather than actually not being able to stop them via the rules -- is what reminds me constantly that we're in the DM's universe, and that the DM gets to say what goes. That blows out my suspension of disbelief, because I'm very acutely aware that this isn't a world I choose to affect, this is a world the DM chooses to allow me to affect. It robs me of agency and autonomy to have to pass through the DM filter. 



> Basically, I don't believe anyone other than the PCs are "important."




This breaks my suspension of disbelief as well, because it creates two categories of people in the world (at least), and the category is entirely dependant on a metagame consideration. Knights are only immune to falling of a horse and dying if they're being controlled by a player, but, in the game world, there's no real knowledge of who is a PC and who is an NPC. 

In the real world, if my co-worker goes home for the night, they're the same person they were when they were with me during the day. In D&D, if my adventuring buddy retires, he's suddenly vulnerable to a host of mundane threats that he was immune to when he was with me on adventures? 

They need to be the same, even if you're not looking at them. This creates a living, breathing world with a context outside of the PC's, and allows me to become more immersed in the setting because the NPC's do things other than stand around and wait patiently for death. If the knight is level 20, he got there the same way every level 20 character gets there, and he can only die in the same way every other level 20 character can die, and he has the appropriate gold and magic and power of a 20th level character, even if he's not doing anything relevant to my adventure right now with it. It's over there as a game-world element, and thus is a tool I can use in the game.



> I like to use the combat rules when I want some tension and some tactical gameplay, or if the scene is important and dramatic. But I don't see the value in running a whole combat just for the sake of following the rules- if it isn't interesting, and the players don't care, I'd just skip it. Outclassed opponents? Slaughter 'em however you want.




Again, I'd feel robbed of agency and feeling impotent, because I am again reminded that the only reason I'm slaughtering them is because you're letting me.

It'd be nice if you created a rule for what happens when you outclass an opponent, though. That way, I could use the rule, instead of letting you just do whatever you please. 



> "Can I grab the Hobgoblin and use him as a shield?" is a game-mechanics question; the player is asking if the game makes it possible. I would say, "Yes, make a grapple check to grab him and, oh, a dex check to get him in the way in time." Something like that. He's trying something not explicitly covered in the rules.
> 
> "Can I talk the Princess into making peace?" I would normally say, "You can try."
> 
> ...




You see, it robs the game of believability if I have to ask the DM if I can do anything.

I would instead ask: "I want to grab the Hobgoblin and use him as a shield. What do you want me to roll for that?"

Or "I use my silver tongue to try and convince the princess to make peace. I rolled a 24 on my Diplomacy check, which is good enough to improve her mood unless she's being oddly reticent. If that's not good enough, I give the wizard the 'charm person' signal."

Or "I shove the folding boat into the creature's mouth and speak the command word. What happens?"

Or "I write a letter home asking how my mother is."

And as a DM, I'd rather have my players tell me what they do rather than asking me what they can do.

This is why "mother may I?" play is unsatisfying for me. If the DM wants to stop me from using the Hobgoblin as a shield, wants to stop me from making peace with the princess, wants to stop me from jamming the boat in the creature's mouth, and wants to tell me how my father writes back, it's her choice how to do it. It's my choice, my right as a player, to perform these actions, though, without having to ask for clearance from the DM. As a DM, I don't want to rubber-stamp these actions, I want the players to see what is on their character sheets and let their imaginations run wild. If it's too wild, I'll use my ability as a DM to reign it in, but I'm never going to make you ask permission to do something. 

The reason this jarrs me from believability is because, in the real world, I don't have to ask someone if I can go to the bathroom, or if I can try to jump a puddle, or if I can set my alarm to wake me up tomorrow morning. I just _do it_ or _not_. 



> People with unbreakable necks breaks the believability of the world. People who, by narrative logic, will just never break their necks is fine, because that's how almost any story works.




People who have survived dragon fire hotter than liquid rock and who have killed giants four times their size and who have slain entire armies of undead don't fall off horses and die.

People in the real world do, but people in the real world would also die horribly if a dragon breathed fire on them, would get crushed under a giant, and would likely be part of that army of undead, happily munching on their former townsfolk.

D&D is not about people in a realistic world. Superman doesn't get paralyzed falling off a horse. The actor who portrays him does. Superman exists in a realm of heroic fantasy. Christopher Reeve is an actor, he doesn't.

My D&D character exists in a realm of heroic fantasy. There, people not breaking their necks is not a matter of narrative contrivance, it's a matter of their necks being DAMN tough to break. It's not heroic fantasy anymore if heroes die from mundane causes, so it's certainly not the D&D I expect, or would have much fun playing in. 



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Sure there can be exceptions, but those should be carefully considered by the DM, not just knee jerk decisions for some potential DM perceived fun. The best intentions when making on the fly rules changes or just flat out breaking the rules can torpedo a game just as quickly as a TPK.




This is  very true as well. Any DM who ignores the rules on a regular and rather arbitrary basis is not really considering what is fun for me. That is, playing the game. I can compose a story with friends without D&D.



			
				robertligouri said:
			
		

> You do not have a clear idea how it is or why it should be that after a lifetime of adventuring, you should achieve superhuman levels of toughness and capacity. This is well and good. I, myself have no idea how it is or why it should be that Superman's Kryptonian metabolism can convert yellow sunlight into superhuman levels of toughness and capacity, but within the context of Superman comics, I don't claim that Superman's powers are an abstraction; he actually can fly, despite flight being conventionally impossible.




This is worth calling out, because it illustrates that the D&D characters I play are not expected to be living in a 'realistic' world where people break their necks falling from horses. They live in a world where maybe 90% of the people break their necks falling from horses, but the characters I play belong to that 10% that doesn't. People who are Level 20 belong to that 10% that doesn't. They can survive a bad fall, despite that being conventionally, for 90% of the world, impossible. Because my character is entirely capable of performing the impossible, and has on a regular basis. Anyone who is Level 20 is likewise capable, and has done the impossible. 

For those 90% who do, there are rules for them: they are 1st level commoners with 2 hp and falling from a horse deals 1d6 points of damage.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Do you use the game rules to adjudicate the outcome of every NPC vs. NPC fight in your game? In other words, when two nations in the game world go to war (or there's a tavern brawl that the PCs don't take part in), how do you resolve the battles?




I'm all for simplification, but those simplifications should still be rules. For isntance, I'm fine with the dying rules in 4e because "0 hp = dead, unless you're invested in it coming back" for NPC's is just a simplification of "5% chance to get back on your feet" for PC's. I'd still feel a bit robbed and rocked if the BBEG just _kept coming back_ without any other explanation, because it'd be transparent DM fiat, and no longer responsive to the rules (it'd be cheating), but it lets a DM do that once in a while and be convincing, without having to roll every time. 

When two nations go to fight, of when there's a tavern brawl the PC's don't take part in, I decide who wins based on "average 10" and stats (highest BAB/AC wins!), but I reserve the ability to make a few unlikely considerations because "average 10" is just a simplification of what would actually be happening out there. 

In effect, I just simplify what actually happens to make it faster for me as a DM. Which keeps my sense of belief intact, because it's still based on the rules of what actually happens, it's just simplified for the sake of expedience, rather than made up for the sake of expedience.

If this 20th level death fall from a horse were a simplification, I'd either expect falling damage to be a whole lot higher, horses to be a whole lot taller, or some other factor (warlock's curse, unusually fragile 20th level knight with a CON of 2 who rolled 1 on all hit points and not only fell off a horse, but fell off of a horse into a 30' spiked pit trap) to be at play. 



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> But D&D doesn't create a set of world assumptions. You aren't supposed to derive a world from the rules. The rules are just an abstraction. They're built to be a game, not a simulation.




They're built to be a game, not a storytelling device. Which means they aren't exactly an abstraction the way most narrative contrivances are. They are concrete rules on which the reality of the world is based. This isn't a simulation, but rather a neutral ground on which villain's actions and player's actions can take place opposite each other and enjoy fighting each other. It doesn't simulate the world, it describes the PC's, which exist as part of the world, just like every NPC and monster. It doesn't simulate a narrative, it evokes a feeling of a genre, a genre where falling off your horse doesn't kill you, but it might kill 'lesser mortals.'

You're not a lesser mortal, according to the rules, and any NPC who is high-level isn't, either, so it would be utterly bizzarre to have them killed by falling off a horse. That's not something that happens to heroes. That happens to actors. Actors are not 20th level heroes, by and large.



> Likewise, a PC's levels is a meta element.




A PC's hit points are a meta element, but that represents something in the world: the ability to survive otherwise deadly things. 

A PC's levels are a meta element, but that represents something in the world: the general level of heroic skill they have attained.

A PC's skill ranks are a meta element, but that represents something in the world: how good they are at a particular skill.

Even if you disregard the meta-elements when they're not on the screen, you still have high-level characters full of heroic skill, full of puissance, and able to survive otherwise deadly things.

Which is why it makes no sense for a high-level hero to die by falling off a horse. It's not about hit points. It's about thier ability to survive otherwise deadly things, which is an in-world element, NOT an abstraction.



> Basically, if you're going to get me to accept that a 20th level fighter can not break his neck, you're going to have to establish some justification for it. Have the Fates blessed him? Has his soul strengthened so much he can subconsciously guide his own destiny as a result of being tempered by struggle after struggle? Something like that.




D&D has done that, over and over again. Yes, the fates have blessed him. Yes, his soul is strong. He's 20th level. That's what being 20th level represents, that's what being 20th level means, that's why he's 20th level. He is 20th level specifically because he can survive things that would kill lesser mortals (giants, dragons, undead armies, and falling off of horses included). 



> A man with certain powers and a certain reputation, but just a man.




Those certain powers are reflected direclty on his character sheet, and ignoring them when it's convenient eradicates my sense that he has it in any real sense at all; instead, he has it just when you deem it appropriate. 



> to me "20th level" is just a provisionally applied abstraction representing how powerful he is as a significant character, not how powerful he is as window dressing.




Having a man survive the bite of a 40 foot dragon and then die by falling off a horse is, to me, fundamentally inconsistent.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> For example, I quite like the idea that, in the gameworld, falls from horses can be fatal even for powerful warriors, but we also know that no combat the PCs engage in will be ones where single blows kill powerful warriors (because, as a matter of combat mechanics, those warriors have the "plot protection" that hit points provide), and we know that this state of affairs has a purely metagame rationale (we want the fights to be interesting and even nail-biters, rather than non-events).




This much metagame thinking removes me from the imaginary world we have set up. 



> But it's true of historical figures.




And this is one of many, many reasons that D&D is not said to model the real world. Historical figures aren't heroic fantasy characters, they are mere mortals with mortal problems and mortal frailty. Abraham Lincoln was a pretty stellar fellow, though he never slayed a dragon and he died from a single gunshot wound. Hercules is a heroic fantasy character. He strangles snakes as a toddler. John Lennon was a marvelous philosopher/singer. Orpheus visited the land of the dead. D&D is not a game of historical figures or average people. These 'mere mortals' occupy the lowest rung on the ladder, like nameless Trojans in the Illiad, and die from things that everyone dies from. 20th level heroes do not.

This is not an abstraction, or it looses it's value as a model of heroic action, and it looses it's believability when you can be stomped by a giant and lived, but a fall off of a horse kills you. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The PC's patron is held hostage by a orc fighter. There is no possible way that he could do enough damage in a single round to kill her other than possibly on a crit. Can the players act with that knowledge in the foreground? In other words, can they simply attack knowing that she will survive?




Yes. Indeed, they *should*. It is known that the patron is an experienced warrior blessed by the fates, and that orcs are generally sloppy murderers whom heroes cut down in droves. The patron is a hero, albeit not the hero of this particular adventure, certainly the hero in her own. 



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> While it possbible to describe the effects of limb loss under the D&D rules, there aren't any procedural rules to get a character into that state. Would you rule that losing limb is, in fact, impossible? What about scarring? No procedural rules exist for that, either. In both cases, it's easy to see why the designers choose not to model this sort of thing within the game rules, but I think that makes a strong case for the belief that the rules where never intended to be used as the "physics" that the "simulation" was built on.




This is one of those places where 'new rules' would be useful. By the book, people don't really loose limbs, but if you want a character with a missing limb, you describe the mechanic by which it takes place (a called shot mechanic? a special grapple option? an ability only certain monsters have?), make it available to everyone (now the PC's can hack off limbs, too, in the right circumstances), and go have fun.

Instances like that are why DMs are given the ability to modify and change the rules. Instances like "I need a king to die" are covered by the rules already, and would require a DM violating them and my suspension of disbelief in order to kill them without using the tools presented to them.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

I think this is just an issue of difference of opinion at this point. We've essentially got two groups, or maybe 3. I'll call them A and B, with a nod to the possibility of a third.

Group A includes Wolfwood2 (the OP), Professor Phobos, Mallus, Hussar, myself, and several others. We hold that the game rules are just a useful abstraction for game purposes, and that they do NOT represent _what is possible and impossible in_ the game world. What they DO represent is _what is likely and unlikely when PCs are interacting with_ the game world.

Group B holds that the rules of the game define the physics of the game world. That group includes (near as I can tell) robertliguori, Kamikaze Midget, Imban, KarinsDad and (I'm sure) others. The way I understand it, Group B believes that the physics of the gameworld are determined by the rules, and that nothing should happen in the entire game world that contravenes those rules. All "exceptions" should be explained in the context of the existing game rules or (and this is the fuzzy case for me), the DM should write a new rule that applies universally to account for any changes he wants to make.

In other words, Group B says (I believe) that if you want a high-level NPC to be able to die from falling off a horse, you, as DM, need to institute some mechanic (even if it's avoidable with a DC 2 REF save) for breaking your neck when you fall off a horse.

However, the above suggestion would mean 1 in 20 falls from a horse was fatal. And given the number of times PCs will fall off horses in the game, that seems a bit harsh. So if we want to set up a 1/10,000 (or 1/100,000) possibility, we have to create elaborate layers of extra rules.

There may be a subset of Group B that doesn't think the DM should be allowed to introduce new rules to cover those possibilities. I'm not sure about that.

Basically, it comes down to a simple question:

Are the game rules:

A) an useful abstraction that enables PCs to interact with the game world, or;

B) the actual rules guiding the physics of that world?

B would, I believe, hold that a human being with 200 hp is as _physically resistant to injury_ as a anything else with 200 hp.

A would hold that a PC with 200 hp is as _likely to be seriously injured by a given attack_ as anything else with 200 hp, _while those things are part of the game._

Hopefully, people grasp the distinction. And quite honestly, I don't think this debate is solvable.

I would point out that I believe the Fourth Edition designers and developers at WotC are firmly in the "Group A" camp.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> D&D satisfies a _gearhead_ kind of fun for me. Some people tinker with car engines, some people mess with computers, I play D&D.




But you still get that. With your car analogy, the rules are for driving and repairing and customizing the car- but the DM decides on the highway, rest stops, motels and drive through fast food joints. 



> The sense that you're allowing it, that you choose not to stop them -- rather than actually not being able to stop them via the rules -- is what reminds me constantly that we're in the DM's universe, and that the DM gets to say what goes. That blows out my suspension of disbelief, because I'm very acutely aware that this isn't a world I choose to affect, this is a world the DM chooses to allow me to affect. It robs me of agency and autonomy to have to pass through the DM filter.




But...a DM's filter is why you have the DM in the first place? To have the ability for the game world to respond to PC action in complex and nonlinear ways. A GM is there so if you kill Lord British, the kingdom descends into anarchy, or his son tries to take power, or there's civil war. It's the DM's job to adjudicate how the PC's affect the world beyond the immediate effect of rules mechanics. It's one thing to say I _can't_ stop the PCs from, say, killing a monster they're able to kill. That's entirely correct- I can't stop them there. But I decide what killing that monster means for the game world, don't I? 

What I was referring to there is that I let the PCs decide on some of that "meaning and consequence" stuff themselves, since I am lazy.




> This breaks my suspension of disbelief as well, because it creates two categories of people in the world (at least), and the category is entirely dependant on a metagame consideration. Knights are only immune to falling of a horse and dying if they're being controlled by a player, but, in the game world, there's no real knowledge of who is a PC and who is an NPC.




Exactly. The PC's don't know they can't break their necks. 



> In the real world, if my co-worker goes home for the night, they're the same person they were when they were with me during the day. In D&D, if my adventuring buddy retires, he's suddenly vulnerable to a host of mundane threats that he was immune to when he was with me on adventures?




Yes, exactly. "Ten years later, I returned home and paid my loyal cohort Cedric a call. I found him passed out in the street, nearly drowned in mud...it seems the years had treated Cedric poorly. Infection had taken an eye, his wife had died the previous winter, and he had taken to drink...for a man who once took the heart of Gorak the Despoiler, it was a truly sad and pathetic end. I resolved to help him as a true friend should..."




> Again, I'd feel robbed of agency and feeling impotent, because I am again reminded that the only reason I'm slaughtering them is because you're letting me.




Okay, so in this example:

PCs: "We attack the guards!"
DM: "They're just the town guard, you guys won't have any trouble. No need for combat, let's get on with the game..."
PCs: "Okay, we beat 'em soundly and let them live, in that case."
DM: "Sure, whatever. Okay, you've made it to the temple. How do you want to play this?
PCs: "We go straight in."
DM: "Evil McEvilDude sees you enter and charges- roll initiative!"

You'd feel impotent? Seriously? Are you suggesting it is more fun to play out a full combat (which takes time) even though the outcome is a foregone conclusion, than to go directly a combat where the outcome is not a foregone conclusion? 

This comment, and others you've made...my god man, your game must be boring as hell.



> I would instead ask: "I want to grab the Hobgoblin and use him as a shield. What do you want me to roll for that?"




In my view this is the same question as "Can I use the hobgoblin as a shield?" He's not asking _me_ for permission, he's asking about what the rules allow. This is a simple case of vague wording, but you're reading waaaaay to much into it.

Honestly, all this stuff about "I don't want to ask the GM for anything" and "It makes me feel impotent!" is just...paranoia.

I believe I have made all the points I want to make. You seem persistent in your desire to treat them...uncharitably, and misread them in the worst possible light. I suspect this is unconscious on your part, since there seems to be an extreme degree of distrust on your part for the GM.

Again, I can only conclude you wouldn't be welcome, nor would you want to be, at my table.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I would point out that I believe the Fourth Edition designers and developers at WotC are firmly in the "Group A" camp.




That, at least, is clear. I would maintain that 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition D&D, as well as most RPGs, are firmly in the "A" camp as well.

GURPS is a good example of an attempt to satisfy a "B" type paradigm.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 5, 2008)

At heart, I'm really a 'narrator' type-player.  What I want to be doing is creating a story.  That's why I mostly DM, I think, even though I enjoy being a player.  (That, and most of the time after I play a while, the rest of the players decide I should be the DM and I'm 'volunteered' on the basis of the fact that otherwise there won't be a game.)

However, the reason that despite this I'll never let 'simulation' die - even if I have to dig up its body and reanimate it - is that it doesn't really matter if the game rules are intended to be the physics of the game world.  Like it or not, sooner or latter they get volunteered for the job on the basis of the fact that otherwise there won't be a game.  

Sooner or later, the games rules end up defining how the world works, and once that happens glaring violations of the rules end up detracting from the game and story of the game in the same way that glaring violations of logic and cause and effect detract from a movie.  

It doesn't matter how good your intentions are.  It doesn't matter if you understand that the spirit of the rules or the needs of the story are more important than the rules.  All that does is delay the inevitable.  Sooner or later, everything will either conform to the rules or the 'audience' will rebel because they'll feel cheated.  They'll feel that your violation of the rules is just lazy sloppy story telling by someone who doesn't care or isn't able to do it right.  And sooner or later, you going to feel the same about yourself - and you'll realize that your probably right.

And this is why a rules set has to be well thought out.  When it comes down to it, what we think of as a 'good rules set' is one that - one way or the other - doesn't much get in the way of the game and the story.  And that means that it has to be both superficially good when the detail would get in the way by jolting the players out of thier in-game reverie, and have depths for when its superficiality jars the players sense of belief in the story.

There are good reasons for having good rules that you'd probably almost never use because the situation would just almost never come up.  Because sooner or later you are going to find that your game 'matures' (or moves on to some different terroritory if you prefer a more neutral word) where suddenly these things are coming up, and suddenly you need detail because taking things happens 'just because' becomes as hard as accepting 'you missed' or 'I shot you' just because.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 5, 2008)

> But you still get that. With your car analogy, the rules are for driving and repairing and customizing the car- but the DM decides on the highway, rest stops, motels and drive through fast food joints.




The point of working on a car isn't to drive it, though. It's to work on it.

The point of playing D&D isn't to tell a story, for me. It's to _play D&D_. All of those rules suspensions in the pursuit of a good story ruin, for me, the experience of playing the D&D game, because it is, essentially, cheating. And I'm not looking for a good story out of D&D. D&D is, actually, pretty fundamentally unable to deliver to me a story even half as good as anything written by Shakespeare or Cormac McCarthy or Borges or Bukowski. If I wanted a good story, I'd read a book. Now, D&D can deliver to me an entertaining story derived from the game, but I'm not going to shackle the game to some creative chains it was never really intended to obey just to get a good story out of it. Sometimes the fun comes from the game, not the plot. For me, more fun comes from the game (the excitement of rolling dice and of having my make-believe persona manipulate the world for her advantage) than from the story (which is often poorly concieved, filled with stereotypes, unable to maintain a mood, and takes too long to tell, besides). 



> You'd feel impotent? Seriously? Are you suggesting it is more fun to play out a full combat (which takes time) even though the outcome is a foregone conclusion, than to go directly a combat where the outcome is not a foregone conclusion?




It's more fun to play a game in which I, as a player, can use the rules to affect the world than one in which you, as a DM, just tell me what I am capable of. It's also more fun to play a game where I use the rules to affect the world than to play one in which I just declare how I affect hte world. 

I do feel impotent if I don't get to affect the world through the rules. If those rules allow me to play through a combat like that faster, or to avoid it entirely (and they very nearly do), I'll gladly embrace them. If they don't, i'm going to have a lot of fun splattering these goblins on the wall. The game is the thing, after all.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> In other words, Group B says (I believe) that if you want a high-level NPC to be able to die from falling off a horse, you, as DM, need to institute some mechanic (even if it's avoidable with a DC 2 REF save) for breaking your neck when you fall off a horse.
> 
> However, the above suggestion would mean 1 in 20 falls from a horse was fatal. And given the number of times PCs will fall off horses in the game, that seems a bit harsh. So if we want to set up a 1/10,000 (or 1/100,000) possibility, we have to create elaborate layers of extra rules




Actually, this is slightly disengenuous. If you want a high-level NPC to be able to die from falling off a horse, you, as a DM, need to _justify_ that. There are pretty much unlimited justifications for it, including making a rule, but also including making them suffer a warlock's curse or have them fall off a horse, and then off a cliff, or just making them a 1st level Aristocrat since they don't really need to be a high-level fighter anyway, or having them die by being pulled off their horse on a hunting expedition by the terrasque, or just by having them disappear mysteriously into the forest for unknown reasons. 

In other words, you have to figure out exactly what you want to accomplish, and use the quickest, easiest path to get there, and not be too married to your idea of falling off a horse and dying.

Or, if you want horses to be threatening, make rules for that.

But don't tell me that my character can stand tall against a dragon's most powerful flame, but dies the moment it's convenient and he's not exciting anymore. That blows my believability away.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> This much metagame thinking removes me from the imaginary world we have set up.




I knew someone was gonna throw out the "metagaming" accusation eventually. Quite honestly, I think it's one that can be leveled equally at both sides.

If you make decisions on the basis that you're playing a game, it's metagaming. To me, thinking you know the relative "hit points" of a particular character is metagaming. Why? Because the PC has no way to truly know what level Sir Hacksalot is. He killed a dragon? Maybe he was _lucky_. There's nothing, by the rules, that prevents a 1st-level warrior from killing a dragon, especially if he has a bunch of magic gear. It's just really unlikely that A) he'd have that gear, and B) that he would survive the fight _if you played it out._ But, by the rules, it *could happen.* A 1st-level warrior could get very lucky (roll all 20s), the dragon could always miss, and so on. So when the PCs decide they know someone's level based on things like this, they're metagaming.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> D&D is not about people in a realistic world. Superman doesn't get paralyzed falling off a horse. The actor who portrays him does. Superman exists in a realm of heroic fantasy. Christopher Reeve is an actor, he doesn't.




But that's the PCs. What you're telling me is that nobody in Superman's world gets to die the way normal people die. Jimmy Olsen can't fall down the stairs and break his neck. Clark Kent's dad can't die of a heart attack.

Oh wait, maybe you'll say they're low-level NPCs, so that's possible. On the other hand, is Bruce Wayne (aka "the Batman" - a not low-level NPC) incapable of dying from a broken neck? What if he lives to be 60? 80? 90? When is he no longer protected by the plot protection of being "the Batman?"

That's how I see hit points. They're plot protection for the main character. They're a useful abstraction to deal with the fact that any normal person facing the situations the PCs do should, by all rights, be dead a hundred times over. The PCs aren't, because they have plot protection in the form of hit points. They don't have plot immunity like so many fictional characters do because if they can't "lose," then there's no "game."

I'm about to give up. If people don't understand this point by now, discussing it further seems like an utter waste of time.


----------



## Imban (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> That, at least, is clear. I would maintain that 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition D&D, as well as most RPGs, are firmly in the "A" camp as well.
> 
> GURPS is a good example of an attempt to satisfy a "B" type paradigm.




It's actually rather open for debate; you'll notice that we're posting on a D&D message board, and if it was as clear-cut and firm as that, you'd think that we wouldn't be having this debate at all. (I mean, I'll maintain to the death that any given Old World of Darkness game plus Exalted (I haven't read New World of Darkness, so maybe those too, maybe not) is at least highly friendly to the "B" paradigm.)

Certainly, there are statements in 1e D&D that say that hit points are an abstraction and that D&D makes no attempt to rigorously simulate reality. (And the latter of those statements should be taken in the context of the times - compare D&D to certain wargame rulesets from 30 years ago.) However, D&D has never truly been incompatible with either playstyle. This may change with the change to 4e, but will likely not. Historically, people had similar worries during the change to 3e, and here I am talking to you today.

Unless the mechanics of 4e, by the book, include heavy use of metagame abilities (see: _Adventure!_'s Dramatic Editing) with no possible in-character rationalization or take very drastic steps to separate NPCs from PCs (see: no mainstream traditional designs I can think of, but consider a hypothetical design where creating opponents using the PC rules would result in wildly unbalanced and unfun combats because the stats were completely different), or inexplicable metagame constraints were everywhere (see: "this power is only usable while in combat" on things like jumping really high), it is unlikely to be *incompatible* with my play style. As noted, the 4e designers seem to favor your preferences and you're likely to see some steps towards the rules as abstractions.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter how good your intentions are.  It doesn't matter if you understand that the spirit of the rules or the needs of the story are more important than the rules.  All that does is delay the inevitable.  Sooner or later, everything will either conform to the rules or the 'audience' will rebel because they'll feel cheated.  They'll feel that your violation of the rules is just lazy sloppy story telling by someone who doesn't care or isn't able to do it right.  And sooner or later, you going to feel the same about yourself - and you'll realize that they're probably right.




No. That is by no means inevitable.

As a player, I expect the exact opposite- that things will only conform to the rules interacting with me. This is what I want.

I don't want to play in a "D&D Rules are Laws of Physics" universe. That would be an incredibly dumb world of completely ridiculous events and facts of life. As a player, I want to play in a world that's more complicated than a simple, abstracted rules system allows- because I want good stories, a good world, as much as I want a good game. I don't want to play in a world with no maimed veterans or accidental deaths. That kind of world is extremely dull and unbelievable. It lacks complexity, depth, nuance, verisimilitude. 

As a player, I can't stand pixelbitching. If it doesn't matter, just say yes! Let's get on with it!

In the game I'm currently playing, there were some skeletons. These skeletons could never possibly defeat us or cost us any meaningful resources. But we still had to smash them, because the DM couldn't bring himself to just say, "Okay, you smash them." I advocated for it- I said, "This has no bearing on the story and we can't possibly lose. Let's just skip it. I have to leave early tonight and I want to kill something that gets me XP before I leave." But alas...

_He felt more obligated to the rules than to my time._

I sympathize, since this kind of...helplessness, seems culturally indoctrinated in gamers these days, but it was mildly frustrating. (Decent game, though)

My statements on this thread don't just conform to my experiences as a GM, but to my experiences as a player.


----------



## Roman (Feb 5, 2008)

Celebrim, just out of interest, are you the same Celebrim who used to post on Strategy Page fora?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I knew someone was gonna throw out the "metagaming" accusation eventually. Quite honestly, I think it's one that can be leveled equally at both sides.




Uhm...it was used in what I quoted from pemerton. He argues, quite cogently, that a fun game can be had if we all just agree that some things are going to be metagame, and pretty much push that off to the side and enjoy the core of the game itself. 

I agree, I just draw the line in a different place. 'That much' metagame thinking ruins the experience for me.



> What you're telling me is that nobody in Superman's world gets to die the way normal people die. Jimmy Olsen can't fall down the stairs and break his neck. Clark Kent's dad can't die of a heart attack.




The dissonance here is that Superman runs by different rules than Jimmy and Mr. Kent. Superman is a hero, he's a classed individual of high level in this analogy. Jimmy and Mr. Kent aren't heroic; they use mook rules, they're 1st-level commoners with 2 hp. Superman can't die from the way normal people die because *he isn't a normal person*. 20th level heroes can't die the way normal people die because *20th level heroes aren't normal people*. Jimmy and Mr. Kent can, they are normal people. 1st level commoners with 2 hp can fall off a horse and die, too. 20th level heroes, Superman, heroic people, cannot.

If you don't make every king a 20th level fighter (and instead make them, perhaps, a 2nd level Aristocrat), it's not so hard to kill them. 20th level heroes are, by definition, difficult to kill.



> On the other hand, is Bruce Wayne (aka "the Batman" - a not low-level NPC) incapable of dying from a broken neck? What if he lives to be 60? 80? 90? When is he no longer protected by the plot protection of being "the Batman?"




Though Batman isn't really heroic fantasy the way that Superman is (Batman is still a normal person in a realistic world, -ish, especially in his darker conceptions), I still don't know of any instance where Batman dies by slipping on a wet floor after getting out of the shower (the 20th century equivalent to falling off a horse?), or by getting intestinal cancer. 



> They're a useful attraction to deal with the fact that any normal person facing the situations the PCs do should, by all rights, be dead a hundred times over. The PCs aren't, because they have plot protection in the form of hit points. They don't have plot immunity like so many fictional characters do because if they can't "lose," then there's no "game."




They aren't plot protection, they are descriptive of the fact that experienced heroes are, very truly, head and shoulders above everyone else.

In D&D, as a game, even a 1st level Fighter is better, stronger, faster, more powerful, and more heroic than any farmer in Podunk. That's the heroic fantasy genre. That's the mold that D&D is cast in. That's what breaks when you tell me that in 20 years and 19 levels, he dies falling off a horse, after he's slain dragons and giants and necromancer-kings.


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Feb 5, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> I offer this up for debate:  Game rules are not intended to model the physics of the game world.  Rather, game rules are intended to offer up a *rough simulation* of the game world that will yield useful narrative results.  There are and should be occasions in the game universe where things happen that appear to break the rules, because the story has gone to a place the simulation fails to adequately cover. . . . .
> 
> . . . . And that is why I think it is a mistake to equate the rules to the physics of the game world.  In the game world, 1 out of 20 swings do not miss and 1 out of 20 swings do not always hit (for given value of "swing, which could be several attacks).  It's simply a convenient assumption for the simulation.




This was an excellent and well thought out post.  I agree 100%.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 5, 2008)

Roman said:
			
		

> Celebrim, just out of interest, are you the same Celebrim who used to post on Strategy Page fora?




Yes, this is the one-and-only-original-still-going-after-20-years Celebrim and not a cheap trollish knock off.

Time was that whenever you saw a Celebrim, it was certainly me.  Then some guy from Portugal got in on the act about eight years ago, and a few other people started using it, and now it seems like half the time I try to create an account somewhere the name is already taken.

But if it looks like me and it sounds like me, then chances are it is me.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Actually, this is slightly disengenuous. If you want a high-level NPC to be able to die from falling off a horse, you, as a DM, need to _justify_ that. There are pretty much unlimited justifications for it, including making a rule, but also including making them suffer a warlock's curse or have them fall off a horse, and then off a cliff, or just making them a 1st level Aristocrat since they don't really need to be a high-level fighter anyway, or having them die by being pulled off their horse on a hunting expedition by the terrasque, or just by having them disappear mysteriously into the forest for unknown reasons.
> 
> In other words, you have to figure out exactly what you want to accomplish, and use the quickest, easiest path to get there, and not be too married to your idea of falling off a horse and dying.
> 
> ...




Again. We're not talking about your character, or anyone's character. We're talking about a NPC that the DM created for a plot. This ruling doesn't affect players. It will NEVER affect players.

As a DM, I refuse to jump through the hoops of the game rules to kill off an NPC for a plot point. And if my players start making whacko assumptions about curses and monsters being involved just because my backstory says the NPC killed a great wyrm 30 (or 40) years ago, I'm going to smack them.




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Though Batman isn't really heroic fantasy the way that Superman is (Batman is still a normal person in a realistic world, -ish, especially in his darker conceptions), I still don't know of any instance where Batman dies by slipping on a wet floor after getting out of the shower (the 20th century equivalent to falling off a horse?), or by getting intestinal cancer.




Okay. But Batman hasn't died because, basically, killing Batman would mean you couldn't make any more Batman comics. Would you accept a few examples from the folks over at Marvel, who seem more willing to shake up the status quo?

Captain Marvel (the Kree Mar-Vell), a character closer to Superman's class than Batman's, died from cancer, while surrounded by his friends and family.

Captain America was killed while being escorted into a jailhouse. He took, I believe, two bullets.

Tony "Iron Man" Stark was paralyzed by a disgruntled ex-girlfriend wielding an automatic pistol. I admit he didn't "die."

And, moving back to Batman comics, Barbara "Batgirl" Gordon was permanently paralyzed by a ONE bullet from the Joker's gun. One bullet. Granted, it's not "dead," but it's a pretty ignominious injury for a hero who's been shot at 100 times.

For the record, I've learned something from this thread. Clearly, it's very important that Group A people and Group B people never game together. Fortunately, all the people I know and am likely to game with are Group A, like me.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I don't want to play in a "D&D Rules are Laws of Physics" universe. That would be an incredibly dumb world of completely ridiculous events and facts of life. As a player, I want to play in a world that's more complicated than a simple, abstracted rules system allows- because I want good stories, a good world, as much as I want a good game. I don't want to play in a world with no maimed veterans or accidental deaths. That kind of world is extremely dull and unbelievable. It lacks complexity, depth, nuance, verisimilitude...
> 
> ...In the game I'm currently playing, there were some skeletons. These skeletons could never possibly defeat us or cost us any meaningful resources. But we still had to smash them, because the DM couldn't bring himself to just say, "Okay, you smash them." I advocated for it- I said, *"This has no bearing on the story and we can't possibly lose. Let's just skip it. I have to leave early tonight and I want to kill something that gets me XP before I leave."* But alas...



 (emphasis mine)

I can't help but feeling that the contrast between the first and second paragrah create loads and loads of irony.  It seems to me that a strict reading of what you wrote suggests that you feel more obligated to your time than you do to complex, deep, nuanced and believable story.  Maybe that's not what you meant, but its how I read what you said.

_'Something that gets me XP before I leave'???_  Hows that for the rules of the game world not creating the story???


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 5, 2008)

> Again. We're not talking about your character, or anyone's character. We're talking about a NPC that the DM created for a plot. This ruling doesn't affect players. It will NEVER affect players.




That distinction doesn't exist in the game world, though. As far as my character is concerned, that could be/would be/should be my character. It might as well be my character. My character is thus just as vulnerable as that. Which means that this 20th level hero actually isn't better than your average person. Which takes a hammer to my suspension of disbelief, because average people cannot do what a 20th level hero can do.



> As a DM, I refuse to jump through the hoops of the game rules to kill off an NPC for a plot point. And if my players start making whacko assumptions about curses and monsters being involved just because my backstory says the NPC killed a great wyrm 30 (or 40) years ago, I'm going to smack them.




And as a DM, I refuse to cheat just to get a narrative contrivance out of something that is, _just a game_. And if a player expects me to make things easier on them because they think it'll make a better story, I'll laugh and say "Go write it then." 

And as a player, I won't trust a DM who cheats just to get a narrative contrivance out of a game. Because for me, that goes against exactly what is fun in D&D for me -- playing a game.

Really, this whole track started because apparently the fact that I won't do that shocks and horrifies *Professor Phobos*.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I think this is just an issue of difference of opinion at this point. We've essentially got two groups, or maybe 3. I'll call them A and B, with a nod to the possibility of a third.
> 
> Group A includes Wolfwood2 (the OP), Professor Phobos, Mallus, Hussar, myself, and several others. We hold that the game rules are just a useful abstraction for game purposes, and that they do NOT represent _what is possible and impossible in_ the game world. What they DO represent is _what is likely and unlikely when PCs are interacting with_ the game world.
> 
> Group B holds that the rules of the game define the physics of the game world. That group includes (near as I can tell) robertliguori, Kamikaze Midget, Imban, KarinsDad and (I'm sure) others. The way I understand it, Group B believes that the physics of the gameworld are determined by the rules, and that nothing should happen in the entire game world that contravenes those rules. All "exceptions" should be explained in the context of the existing game rules or (and this is the fuzzy case for me), the DM should write a new rule that applies universally to account for any changes he wants to make.




I consider myself in Group C. Leaning towards Group B, but not stifled to never allow fiat. It should be allowed in moderation. But for the most part, the rules are the rules and should be played that way.

Adding new rules once in a while to cover an uncovered situation or possibility is fine.

Changing the rules because the DM wants a different outcome (regardless of "fun" or "story" motivation) is lame. To me, that's "DM cheating" and it is not why I as a player play the game.

And "DM cheating" can go beyond just the rules. Changing the situation ad hoc is lame too.

DM: "I want my BBEG to get away, so I suddenly give him a Scroll of Teleport". Lame.

or

DM: "I want the PC to survive, so I suddenly have him take 12 points of damage instead of 23". Lame.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And as a DM, I refuse to cheat just to get a narrative contrivance out of something that is, _just a game_. And if a player expects me to make things easier on them because they think it'll make a better story, I'll laugh and say "Go write it then."
> 
> And as a player, I won't trust a DM who cheats just to get a narrative contrivance out of a game. Because for me, that goes against exactly what is fun in D&D for me -- playing a game.




Yup, more or less.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And as a DM, I refuse to *cheat* just to get a narrative contrivance out of something that is, _just a game_. And if a player expects me to make things easier on them because they think it'll make a better story, I'll laugh and say "Go write it then."
> 
> And as a player, I won't trust a DM who *cheats* just to get a narrative contrivance out of a game. Because for me, that goes against exactly what is fun in D&D for me -- playing a game.
> 
> Really, this whole track started because apparently the fact that I won't do that shocks and horrifies *Professor Phobos*.




Emphasis mine.

This whole track started because of the loaded language you use to describe a different playstyle from your own. Nobody's calling you names because you insist on adhering to the game rules in contravention of all common sense.

Yet you insist on calling DMs "cheaters" who assert that the game rules are an abstraction to enable play and conflict resolution. That may not be your interpretation of the purpose of the rules, but it's a perfectly valid interpretation.

You're certainly entitled to your own interpretation, but it's insulting and rather disingenuous to accuse people of cheating because they decide the game rules only apply when the game is being played, which means "when PCs are involved."

Your real objection is that it interferes with your "suspension of disbelief." And that's a wholly subjective criteria.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Feb 5, 2008)

I agree with the OP, but I think d20 has folks thinkings backwards.  It's just like choosing your class abilities first and then deciding on your character design/description second.  Sometimes description is so ignored, characters can hardly be called that.  What it does is focus on the rules rather than the imagination.  

D&D has never been anything more than a beer & pretzels fantasy adventure game IMO.  That means it has some light simulation like any wargame, but it doesn't get too deep.  It's not ASL for goodness sake.  We don't need dozens of books to play.  Everything else is just gravy.

But what's going on is: instead of having a ruleset expand as needed based upon character play, we get restricted imagination blindspotting itself to anything not covered by the rules.  In an open ended universe, I don't believe rulesets can ever be complete without resorting to unsatisfying coin flip like mechanics.   

So, I guess I'm trying to say, it's not about the rules being the physics of the world, those are being simulated too when necessary, but that the rules are dictated by the imagined world, not vice versa.  I'm glad they're getting rid of some of the pseudo-physics in the game.  Who comes to this game to endlessly compute?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 5, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> But what's going on is: instead of having a ruleset expand as needed based upon character play, we get restricted imagination blindspotting itself to anything not covered by the rules.




I tend to agree with your point, but think that it works the other way as well to an extent you aren't really considering.  It is certainly true that a ruleset tends to restrict the imagination, to the extent that the players become blind to anything not covered by the rules.  And it is certainly true that you should struggle to avoid that because adherence to the rules themselves isn't the most important thing.

But the fact is that it tends to happen that way because rules are also empowering and imagination inspiring.  If you have players that know the rules system, and know that the rules system doesn't cover grappling (or covers it in a way that discourages you from doing it), then you will tend not to have any grappling because the players won't offer that as a proposition.  It doesn't matter how open the DM is to the prospect of players doing something not covered by the rules, if the players never offer up the proposition then it never becomes a part of the story.  Effectively, the lack of detailed (or sufficient) rules has wrote the event write out of possibility.  I know this from experience.  In 1st edition there was a grappling system.  It's just that none of the (quite experienced) players really knew it.  It wasn't until NPC's started using it that players realized that I would accept 'I grapple X' as a valid proposition or even considered that 'I grapple X' was something that could happen.   In fact, it wasn't even the first time that the NPC's did that the idea 'clicked', because the first couple of times the players just assumed that whatever was happening only applied to NPC's.  

I'd go further.  If some sort of grappling system hadn't existed, it might have been a very long time before I thought of it as a valid proposition that NPC's could do.  And even when I did think of it, it might be quite a long time before I realized that it wasn't something special to a particular NPC or class of NPC's - something that they did with special rules that only applied to them - rather than something that applied, generally, universally, 'scientifically' if you will, to the whole game universe.

To this extent, even bad rules for something are better than no rules at all - especially if no one at the table is gifted as a rulesmith.  (And I tend to think that gifted 'pull rules out of the air' rulesmiths are pretty rare.)

I personally feel that everything that you want to happen in a game world needs some sort of rules set, otherwise the tendency is for it not happen.  For example, I think that in fantasy worlds, young apprentices ought to be able to attempt to cast spells well beyond thier ability - and often then have 'bad things' (tm) happen.  It's a staple of fantasy literature.  But if the rules say you can't, or are silent on the matter, then it just won't happen.  You'll be completely blind to the possibility in the game.  When is the last time your 3rd level wizard tried to cast a 5th level spell, and what's the likelihood that - outside of this current context where I'm bring it up - that anything interesting one way or the other would have happened even if some new player 'that didn't know any better' made the proposition?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> For the record, I've learned something from this thread. Clearly, it's very important that Group A people and Group B people never game together. Fortunately, all the people I know and am likely to game with are Group A, like me.




From my experience, 'Group A' and 'Group B' is not a useful distinction.  In practice, the two groups can be and often are behaving in exactly the same way.  The distinction tends to actually be most important in fact only in theoretical discussions.

That's because even if you hold 'A' as your nominal position, and I would say that I do, in practice you end up holding 'B' as your actual position as often as not.  Because in practice, you are reutinely turning to the rules to resolve the question of cause and effect.  You only continue to hold 'A' as a strict position if you have no rules at all, and that turns out not to work either because its easier for the referee to resolve propositions according to the same ad hoc standards he used last time - at which point they stop being ad hoc.  

Likewise, if you are nominally 'Group B', but you ever feel the need for some new rule on the spur of the moment because the rules are silent on the matter and you don't have the inclination to resolve the situation by fiat (almost by definition this is true) then in practice you are acting just like a 'Group A' person.

Beyond that, mainly the difference is pure 'tribalism', whether you call it 'group a' or 'group b' or 'gamist' vs. 'simulationist'.  In point of fact, the two theoretical positions can't and don't play out 'pure' when actually applied.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> (emphasis mine)
> 
> I can't help but feeling that the contrast between the first and second paragrah create loads and loads of irony.  It seems to me that a strict reading of what you wrote suggests that you feel more obligated to your time than you do to complex, deep, nuanced and believable story.  Maybe that's not what you meant, but its how I read what you said.
> 
> _'Something that gets me XP before I leave'???_  Hows that for the rules of the game world not creating the story???




What? I was just being irreverent, because being Somber and Serious in examples is boring. Besides, in actual play there are a whole host of issues beyond my theoretical gaming preferences- as much as I love a good story, I love to kill things and take their stuff as well. I have varied tastes. I am large, I contain multitudes. 

But, yes, I am much, much more obligated to my time than to the story. It's a leisure activity. _Everything else_ takes precedence over it. Period. But when I have the time to devote to this leisure activity, I want to devote a good portion of that time to story.



> This whole track started because of the loaded language you use to describe a different playstyle from your own. Nobody's calling you names because you insist on adhering to the game rules in contravention of all common sense.




To be fair, I was also rude.



> That distinction doesn't exist in the game world, though. As far as my character is concerned, that could be/would be/should be my character.




Yeah, but you are a player. You are not your character. Surely you can keep the two distinct?

Again, Batman acts as if his neck can be broken. But we all know his neck will never break falling off a horse. But Batman doesn't know that. And we expect Batman not to act as if he knows. With the exception of She-Hulk, Deadpool, the Discworld, Jack Slater and Ambush Bug, we don't expect fictional characters to recognize that they're fictional and act accordingly.

Basically, I cannot understand the idea behind building a car but never driving it. If the only interaction you want out of a given session is through the mechanics, why not just play a CRPG or a MMO or a miniatures game? Why have a roleplaying game without the roleplaying?

Ah, you say, that's an unfair question! It's no less fair than asking, "If you want story so bad, go read a novel!"

RPGs have the unique distinction of serving multiple purposes. It's a hybrid sort of leisure activity. There is storytelling, there is world-building and there is straight-up gaming. RPGs are a mixture of the three.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> From my experience, 'Group A' and 'Group B' is not a useful distinction.  In practice, the two groups can be and often are behaving in exactly the same way.  The distinction tends to actually be most important in fact only in theoretical discussions.
> 
> That's because even if you hold 'A' as your nominal position, and I would say that I do, in practice you end up holding 'B' as your actual position as often as not.  Because in practice, you are routinely turning to the rules to resolve the question of cause and effect.




Ah. I think you misunderstood what my distinctions mean in the context of actual play.

In play, when resolving situations, Group A types still follow the rules of the game. Because that's precisely what they're for. What they don't hold to be true is that each and every plot element in a particular adventure must be explainable by the rules of the game.

Let's say that Azoun IV was a mighty adventurer in his youth and slew a mighty dragon in single combat. Therefor, we can presume that, even though he's an NPC, he's got the stats of a 16th-level fighter, or a 17th-level warlord, or whatever is appropriate. 

However, for the purposes of our story, he's now an elderly 60 (but still a 16th-level "hero"), and the DM wants to write an adventure dealing with a succession crisis in Cormyr. The Group A position is that the DM shouldn't have to work around the game rules to engineer an unexpected death for this once-mighty NPC. Because, since he's an NPC, he doesn't get the "plot protection" that the game rules exist to provide.

Make sense?

So when the PCs are involved, Group A uses the rules to resolve those interactions, in order to offer a _consistent game experience_. Similarly, no NPC who's interacting with the PCs is going to have anything happen to him that won't happen to a PC as long as he's "plot-relevant." However, that restriction no longer applies when said NPC  is either "offstage" or when he becomes "plot irrelevant."

As another example, I'd never cut off a PC's arm, or put out his eye. But if a PC scores a critical hit on a goblin that puts him out of the fight, I, as DM, reserve the right to rule that the blow chopped off said goblin's arm or leg, put out his eye, or whatever other grisly injury I see fit.

That's because once the goblin is out of the fight, he's no longer "plot relevant." But the PCs are always "plot relevant," _because they're PCs._

That applies even moreso when I, as a DM, decide that a given NPC has a limp, one eye, a nasty scar, or a peg-leg. By the rules, there's no way he can have any injuries that severe, but it's cool atmosphere, so _I bend the rules._

When it comes to a decision like that for a PC, it's entirely in the player's hands. If Bob wants his PC to have a nasty scar from a streetfight as a child, or if he wants to decide that he gets one following a particularly nasty fight in-game, that's up to him.

Does that clear up my position?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> This is well said. Your whole post is well said. You are an excellent person.



Very kind of you to say so. I enjoy your posts as well!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 5, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> I personally enjoy consistency in rules.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Well, if you're changing the rules, you're changing the rules.





			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> You refine the rules, you don't ignore them.





			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> As DM, if you break the rules, then it impedes the fun of KM.



I think part of the OP's point is that it is _up for grabs_ what the rules are _when the PCs are not involved_.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I don't consider the 20th level neck-snap a break in the rules, because I am interpreting the rules to not apply to that situation _already_. Any arguments from me that levels are an abstract template for game play purposes and not factored into the world are not a house-rule or fiat advocacy argument, but a statement of my interpretation of the RAW.



Right.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> The rules are there to resolve conflicts (challenges) with the PCs (actually the players and the DM) and allow the GM and players to share control of the scene/environment on different levels. If the PCs are not in conflict (this means all forms of social, mental and physical conflict) then the rules are not needed to resolve anything.
> 
> Possibly the rules could state something like this in D&D; in many systems they do.



I think an issue that this thread has raised is this: if the rules are silent on the matter (as D&D seems to be, in contrast with purist-for-system simulationism) then is it "breaking the rules" to do what the OP suggested.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I used to have a DM who fudged dice rolls behind his screen. It was very annoying. Play the game, but play it by the rules.





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The sense that you're allowing it, that you choose not to stop them -- rather than actually not being able to stop them via the rules -- is what reminds me constantly that we're in the DM's universe, and that the DM gets to say what goes.





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The It's more fun to play a game in which I, as a player, can use the rules to affect the world than one in which you, as a DM, just tell me what I am capable of.



I think that these comments miss a crucial presupposition of the OP and most of those posting sympathetic responses: that there is a crucial _difference_ between situations in which PC/player protagonism is at stake, and situations (like off-scene NPC lives) in which it is not. The OP is not talking about situations in which protagonism is at stake.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> This breaks my suspension of disbelief as well, because it creates two categories of people in the world (at least), and the category is entirely dependant on a metagame consideration.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In the real world, if my co-worker goes home for the night, they're the same person they were when they were with me during the day. In D&D, if my adventuring buddy retires, he's suddenly vulnerable to a host of mundane threats that he was immune to when he was with me on adventures?



There is one category of person in the gameworld. It's just that some people in the gameworld (ie the PCs) happen never to suffer certain sorts of misfortune. By analogy, Frodo and the Proudfoots are the same sort of hobbit, but (as it happens) Frodo never suffers certain sorts of misfortune. Protagonism is not an ingame status, it is a purely metagame status. If it doesn't threaten your suspension of disbelief in other media, I don't see why, of necessity, it must do so in a fantasy RPG.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Again, I'd feel robbed of agency and feeling impotent, because I am again reminded that the only reason I'm slaughtering them is because you're letting me.



Prof Phobos is extending the OP's point to cases where player protagonism is simply asserted by consent at the table ("We slaughter the skeletons", "We overcome the town guard") rather than game mechanics. I don't understand why, of necessity, such a set of rules (consensual drama in place of randomised action resolution mechanics) should make the players feel impotent, given that it is their request and consent that gives rise to it.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It'd be nice if you created a rule for what happens when you outclass an opponent, though. That way, I could use the rule, instead of letting you just do whatever you please.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This is why "mother may I?" play is unsatisfying for me.



There is a rule: "If the players and GM agree, it happens." The suggestion that this sort of play (which is very common in many RPGs, and is not expressly excluded by the D&D rules) is "mother may I" play is - if I may be blunt - ridiculous.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter how good your intentions are.  It doesn't matter if you understand that the spirit of the rules or the needs of the story are more important than the rules.  All that does is delay the inevitable.  Sooner or later, everything will either conform to the rules or the 'audience' will rebel because they'll feel cheated.



Again, to suggest that any non-simulationist ruleset will produce feelings of having been cheated is, in my view, ridiculous.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If you want a high-level NPC to be able to die from falling off a horse, you, as a DM, need to _justify_ that.





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If you don't make every king a 20th level fighter (and instead make them, perhaps, a 2nd level Aristocrat), it's not so hard to kill them. 20th level heroes are, by definition, difficult to kill.



That's one way to go. The problem is, it means that there is no King who is both vulnerable to horse-falls AND well-trained (= focus, specialised, improve critical) in swordplay. And this in itself puts limits on the gameworld that can easily seem arbitrary.

It's not as if the anti-simulationists haven't thought of the things the pro-simulationists are suggesting. It's that they, for various reasons that are cogent for them, have decided to play the game a different way.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> This is one of those places where 'new rules' would be useful.





			
				Moniker said:
			
		

> With exception of magic, the game world operates under similar mechanics that our real world does.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It took just a slight bit of tweaking for wounds and death to work in my D&D game.



That's one way to do it. RM goes in a similar direction. But it is not the only way. And this sort of simulationism has the tendency to produce rules bloat (and again, from long experience, I'd put RM forward as an example).



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> No, they're just highly simulationist game systems.  But plenty of stuff that happens in Glorantha was not possible in the Runequest 2e ruleset.



Fair enough. But I hope my point still made sense (more or less).



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> I think many problems begin in games when the rules are treated like the physics of th world, this is true even in high sim games like RM.



Agreed. But problems can also arise from the sort of system that the OP and others are talking about. For example, there may be corner-cases about what constitutes "relevant to player/PC protagonism." For me, the important point from this thread is not that simulationism is fatally flawed, but that it is not the only way to play an RPG.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> The important thing, however, is to remember that the default assumption present in D&D is that the world does actually look a hell of a lot more like OotS than reality, and that regardless of what you find believable, this is what people mean when they talk about D&D.



And in my view the important thing to remember is that what you assert to be obviously true is in fact up for grabs. The rules (via their silence) leave it up for grabs, and this thread makes it obvious that different people play in different fashions.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm really weirded out that I'm taking the same side of this discussion as some of the others.



Come over to the Death of Simulation thread and join with the dark side!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 5, 2008)

> This whole track started because of the loaded language you use to describe a different playstyle from your own. Nobody's calling you names because you insist on adhering to the game rules in contravention of all common sense.




I said the OP's examples felt lazy and they, to me, lack creativity. They feel this way because they circumvent the rules, rather than working with them, and part of the reason I play D&D rather than write stories with my friends is because I enjoy working with the rules. A DM who doesn't work according to the rules (which is cheating, even if it's allowed cheating, even if it's cheating that makes the game better for some groups) isn't a DM I would enjoy playing with. To me, the abandonment of internal consistency and the resort to fiat scuttle believability and make me feel impotent as a player.

I stand by all those statements, but I fail to see how my opinion really criticises anyone, rather than pointing out that my demands for believability in my games might just be unreasonably demanding for some DM's and for some players. I accept this. It's okay. People can go have fun seeking their narrative game all they want. 

I won't. I don't want. There are many very good reasons why I don't want it. This doesn't mean my games are lousy or that I am a problem player. It just means that your game doesn't amuse me. My game probably wouldn't amuse you. I'm not particularly offended by that.



> D&D has never been anything more than a beer & pretzels fantasy adventure game IMO. That means it has some light simulation like any wargame, but it doesn't get too deep. It's not ASL for goodness sake. We don't need dozens of books to play. Everything else is just gravy.




I wouldn't want it to be. I don't really want a hardcore simulation game. What I want is a rules system that everyone obeys at all times. This includes rules for when fiat or making up new rules are okay, but mostly it includes rules for describing what happens in the game. When people get injured, they take damage. This is a rule for the game. If we abandon the rule, we're not playing the game anymore, in my mind. And if we're not playing a game here, how about we pick up the Wii and play a few rounds of Smash Brothers instead, because what I want to do is play a game.

Maybe what you want to do is tell a good story (and use a game system to do that). That's cool. Have fun. I wouldn't. I'm far too harsh a critic on storytelling for D&D to ever really satisfy me.



> Your real objection is that it interferes with your "suspension of disbelief." And that's a wholly subjective criteria.




Indeed, so you can see why I was surprised when suddenly I was accused of having badwrongfun. 



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Surely you can keep the two distinct?




Yeah, but that doesn't get at the fact that my heroic adventurer is deathly affraid of these horses and their slippery saddles of heroic doom, now, because obviously being able to face a terrifying dragon's jaws doesn't mean you also can't just have a fatal 'whoopsiedaisy.'

Behaving in-character, 20th level heroes dying from falling out of saddles creates a truly un-fun experience for me, because I need to now play my character as if he could die from falling out of a saddle. This would, in short order, lead to a lot of pretty absurd behavior on the part of my character. "Hmm...the necromancer king is giving us some trouble. Maybe we can give him a gift, perhaps some sort of horse, that can then endanger his life!"



> Again, Batman acts as if his neck can be broken. But we all know his neck will never break falling off a horse. But Batman doesn't know that. And we expect Batman not to act as if he knows. With the exception of She-Hulk, Deadpool, the Discworld, Jack Slater and Ambush Bug, we don't expect fictional characters to recognize that they're fictional and act accordingly.




But Batman, again, isn't really in the same heroic model that Superman is, which is why Superman is a better comparison. Superman doesn't just fly as a matter of narrative convenience, he actually flies. He has heat vision. He is invulnerable to bullets. These are literal truths about him.

In D&D, a 20th level fighter can avoid death from the jaws of a dragon. Actually, not just as a matter of narrative convenience. That same 20th level fighter can kill the necromancer-king. Not just because the DM thinks it would be cool, but because he can actually walk up to the Necromancer King and put something pointy in his gut. That fighter has a cleric friend who can raise people from the dead. Not just because it makes for a good game, but because he can actually raise people from the dead. These are literal truths about these characters that don't go away just because they aren't on the scene.

Batman knows he can step out of the shower without slipping and falling and cracking his head and dying. He knows he can probably take Gotham's junior martial arts champion in a fight. Despite the fact that, realistically, an awkward push from the kid could cause Batman to sprawl face-first into a chair. A 20th level D&D fighter knows that a short fall is something he can walk away from. Despite the fact that, realistically, a normal person doesn't. Superman knows he can fire lasers with his eyes. Even though, realistically, no one else can. None of these are narrative expedience; these are all true statements about these characters. These abilities don't go away just because they're not the center of attention. 



> Basically, I cannot understand the idea behind building a car but never driving it. If the only interaction you want out of a given session is through the mechanics, why not just play a CRPG or a MMO or a miniatures game? Why have a roleplaying game without the roleplaying?




"If all you want to do is build, why not build something useful?"

"If all you want to do is tell a story, why not write a novel?"

"If all you want to do is simulate a world, why not play Runequest?"

I mean, that's why I'm posting in this thread, isn't it? Because I can, currently, use D&D to indulge something I find very satisfying, and I'm concerned, in the next edition, that I will find it less satisfying, and I am an opinionated little jerk who has a platform to voice those concerns on.

I'm not telling you to go write a novel (though I might say that to someone who, in my games, wanted special treatment for the sake of the story). I'm telling you that what you seek from the game isn't the same thing that I seek, and that in getting to what you seek, you will make the game less fun for me. 

And you're telling me what I seek is wrong?



> RPGs have the unique distinction of serving multiple purposes. It's a hybrid sort of leisure activity. There is storytelling, there is world-building and there is straight-up gaming. RPGs are a mixture of the three.




It's a mixture of a lot more than that, and what individual groups decide to place first and foremost is largely a matter of what the individual players (including the DM) want to get out of it.

I'm concerned that 4e will make it harder to get what I want out of the game. It might not, but the purpose of this thread seems to be "You are wrong if you want the rules to be more than just an abstract description of a given moment."

I do want more than that. I'm not wrong. My opinion is valid, and shouting me down, telling me I'm trying to be simulationist, telling me I'm a bad player and a boring DM and that my goals are absurd, that D&D never did what I wanted it to, and that my fun is a slave to the rules isn't really going to change what I (or many others) enjoy about the game.

I have every confidence that the 4e designers are trying for a middle ground, that they are well aware of players like me, and that they are trying to keep it in mind as they design. I think they are taking steps away from 3e's heavy simulation, and I think this is a good thing in moderation. I don't have a major problem with 4e as it stands, though I do have some (what I see as) completely legitimate concerns.

So if you tell me, as the OP did, that I'm just thinking about things all wrong, I'll tell  you, as I did in my first post, that thinking about things in the way proposed would not satisfy me. If you tell me I'm wrong to be unsatisfied, I'll defend it. If 4e concieves of the rules like the OP did, I won't be satisfied with the game.

Fortunately, I don't believe that this will be the case, though I think it will allow for this thought more readily than 3e did.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Feb 5, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But the fact is that it tends to happen that way because rules are also empowering and imagination inspiring.
> -snip-



Interesting ideas.  I'd like to first point out that source material - books, movies, history, myth, whatever - is where I get inspiration from.  RPG rulesets may be an inspiration for playing make believe games, but I really don't think they are necessary with the whole world here. 

Your main point, that even a bad rule is better than no rule, doesn't really fit in how parse things. With a bad rule, one all my players have read about, they are repulsed from even trying the option. If there is no rule, and again they know, then again they skip it any attempt.  Blind spots.  In truth, both mean I have to make my own rule. But that's basically what I'm doing anyway no matter how good a rule is.  As a referee, my job is to use rules I've decided upon to present as consistent and intriguing a world as I can.  Predetermining rules beforehand is a good idea.  And published rulesets can go a long way in aiding that endeavor.  But there is just too much ground to cover.  No designer or DM has perfect prediction of players' predilections. (say that 3x fast  )  

At best I have a workable ruleset that enables me to run the game as best I can.  If it helps me facilitate most of the desires of the players playing, that's enough really.  Just as I don't need an exactingly detailed setting to memorize what lies where, neither do I need a ruleset attempting to cover my players boundlessly zany ideas with only specific and situational options rather than those and suggestions built for on the fly adjudication.  A good ref has to be able to come up with rules on their own and a good game assists with that.

Really, this is the same sort of thing that has gone on since the beginning: a breaking out of artificial barriers.  How many times even in the last few months have we heard folks begging for a rule to be changed?  Or stay the same?  Or be made an "official core rule"?  It's kind of ridiculous that designers have more pull at a gaming table than the participants themselves.  Not that I begrudge the designers anything.  Any help is great.  It's that seeing outside the box, which was so essential to early play, is still going on in groups figuring out they can play however the wish.  A bad rule or no rule doesn't stop that.



> When is the last time your 3rd level wizard tried to cast a 5th level spell, and what's the likelihood that - outside of this current context where I'm bring it up - that anything interesting one way or the other would have happened even if some new player 'that didn't know any better' made the proposition?



I started a thread awhile back in the Rules Forum on how 3e would handle baseball, just as a test to get in the habit of extrapolating d20 you understand.  Sadly I had no takers.  Constructing the initial post though was eye opening on just how many basic physical actions simply aren't covered under d20 and are never thought twice about.  I prefer the motto: "You can _try_ anything.  But I can't guarantee it'll work how you think it will."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 5, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> that there is a crucial difference between situations in which PC/player protagonism is at stake, and situations (like off-scene NPC lives) in which it is not. The OP is not talking about situations in which protagonism is at stake.




The issue is that for my character, this distinction does not exist, and thus in playing the role of my character, I cannot allow this distinction to exist in thier mind (or else I feel like I'm metagaming too much and it removes me from the game). This means that my character has to fear the mundane more than the epic, that a fall from a horse, to my character, is more deadly than the jaws of the great wyrm Galgathraxas, because an old country nag can succeed where Galgrathaxas has failed. 



> There is one category of person in the gameworld. It's just that some people in the gameworld (ie the PCs) happen never to suffer certain sorts of misfortune. By analogy, Frodo and the Proudfoots are the same sort of hobbit, but (as it happens) Frodo never suffers certain sorts of misfortune. Protagonism is not an ingame status, it is a purely metagame status. If it doesn't threaten your suspension of disbelief in other media, I don't see why, of necessity, it must do so in a fantasy RPG.




This doesn't match with the expectations for a heroic game (Frodo most definately is not the same sort of hobbit as the rest of the Shire). It shatters my suspension of disbelief in an RPG when it doesn't in other media because an RPG is a game, and is thus interactive, whereas a story or a movie is passive, and thus is beyond my reach of affecting. In an RPG, there aren't really protagonists as much as there are PC's, which must succceed or fail by the rules to have any meaningful success or failure to me. And if the DM doesn't play by the rules, then it means less when my PC does. 

It shattered my suspension of disbelief when Aeris died, too, and that's one of the huge and frequently accurate criticisms of a lot of single-player CRPG's: they're a 30-hour long movie you press buttons to advance through. 

I'm not interested in gaining that at the gaming table.



> I don't understand why, of necessity, such a set of rules (consensual drama in place of randomised action resolution mechanics) should make the players feel impotent, given that it is their request and consent that gives rise to it.




Because playing the game is not, for me, about narrative control. There is, essentially, no real narrative to control. The narrative is a framing device, not a goal, not a tool, it is an excuse to roll dice, not an end in and of itself, so I wouldn't request such a thing, and I'd only grudgingly consent to it in a limited degree, because it feels empty to me, devoid of meaning in a context where meaning is defined by the roll of a die, not the progress of a plot (which is what stories and movies gain meaning from, but not where D&D gains meaning from, for me). 



> "If the players and GM agree, it happens." The suggestion that this sort of play (which is very common in many RPGs, and is not expressly excluded by the D&D rules) is "mother may I" play is - if I may be blunt - ridiculous.




The hinge is how it happens.

Does it happen because I talk with the GM in a metagame context? This is unsatisfying to me: "Can I do X? Can I do Y? Can I do Z?"

Or does it happen because I roll some dice and make it happen, and the GM gives me rules by which I can do that? This is satisfying to me: "I roll X. I attack for Y. I get Z, is that enough?"



> That's one way to go. The problem is, it means that there is no King who is both vulnerable to horse-falls AND well-trained (= focus, specialised, improve critical) in swordplay. And this in itself puts limits on the gameworld that can easily seem arbitrary.
> 
> It's not as if the anti-simulationists haven't thought of the things the pro-simulationists are suggesting. It's that they, for various reasons that are cogent for them, have decided to play the game a different way.




The solution, for me, is to use or create a rule where this happens, not to violate the rules to force it to happen.

For instance, a mechanic to gain BAB without gaining HP that is available to all players as well as NPC's would be fine. In my own games, I just largely accepted that skill at swordplay was relative. A 1st level warrior or even fighter, in comparison to 90% of the world, would be quite skilled at swordplay, though I could still buy his death by horse-fall. He wouldn't be skilled in comparison to the PC's, but do I just want him to be known as skilled (vs. the general rest of the world), or do I expect him to be trading blows with my 15th level heroes?

Breaking the rules means that my confidence in the DM, and my ability to believe his world, and my trust that the game is in my hands in a way that is meanignful to me, is also fairly well broken.

I'd also like to assert that this isn't about simulation for me. Indeed, it is about as purely a gamist argument as you can get: all the players obey the rules of the game at all times. The narrativist, in this case, is the one who wants to ignore the game for a good story. I'm not happy with Amber Diceless, nor am I happy with Harnworld.


----------



## apoptosis (Feb 5, 2008)

KM,

Question for you (not a leading question, an actual truly looking for an answer question).

If D&D added a rule that said, if the players and DM agree on an event or result it happens, 

would that make you happier that now this type of occurrence can happen without breaking rules

Or annoyed because while it is now a rule it just is a way to bypass other game rules

Just curious (and will give me a better idea of your thought process)


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The solution, for me, is to use or create a rule where this happens, not to *violate the rules* to force it to happen.
> 
> For instance, a mechanic to gain BAB without gaining HP that is available to all players as well as NPC's would be fine. In my own games, I just largely accepted that skill at swordplay was relative. A 1st level warrior or even fighter, in comparison to 90% of the world, would be quite skilled at swordplay, though I could still buy his death by horse-fall. He wouldn't be skilled in comparison to the PC's, but do I just want him to be known as skilled (vs. the general rest of the world), or do I expect him to be trading blows with my 15th level heroes?
> 
> ...




Emphasis Mine.

There you go again. You're referencing a different playstyle than yours with phrases like "violate the rules," "breaking the rules," and "wants to ignore the game." You previously used "cheat" and "cheater" to describe said playstyle.

Do you even realize that you're just as guilty of the "badwrongfun" attack as the people you're saying attacked you? Or do you truly not realize this is loaded language you're using?

Once again, the counter-argument is this: the game isn't "in play" when the PCs aren't "on-stage." Therefore, anything that happens when the PCs aren't involved doesn't have to be governed by the game rules.

That's not "cheating," nor is it "breaking" or "violating" the rules, no matter how you view it, because the rules are _utterly and completely silent_ on whether the game rules _can_, or even _should,_ be used to govern all actions in the game world. Ergo, the game's "rules" aren't being violated if something that can't, by the rules, happen to a PC happens to an offstage NPC. 

The rules are clearly written, and intended, to apply whenever PCs are involved. Nobody's disputing that. Every single one of us is saying "the rules always apply when PCs are involved." Different rules for PCs and NPCs may bother your suspension of disbelief, and it's fine if you want to avoid it because of that, but it's a perfectly *legal* playstyle.

So, let's have no more "badwrongfun" accusations coming from either side, 'kay?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 5, 2008)

apoptosis,

The reply I did above hit on this:

The hinge is how it happens.

Does it happen because I talk with the GM in a metagame context? This is unsatisfying to me: "Can I do X? Can I do Y? Can I do Z?"

Or does it happen because I roll some dice and make it happen, and the GM gives me rules by which I can do that? This is satisfying to me: "I roll X. I attack for Y. I get Z, is that enough?"

It also, perhaps more relevantly, depends on the scope of the rule.

If that was the only rule for the game, it would be unsatisfying to me (effectively, I would never agree with the GM. ).

If it was a rule to cover corner cases or metagame considerations, I'd be more amenable to it (if we're thinking in metagame terms anyway, it doesn't take me out of it; if it's a corner case, it's an exception). 

A lot of this is my mantra: "Make Stuff Up" sucks as a rule. I want the game to tell me how to play it, ideally while allowing me the flexibility to play it in different ways if I want to (Monopoly does, D&D does, Poker does). I don't want it to tell me that how I play it is entirely up to me, because then it's not much of a game, and I can make stuff up without buying a $30 core book (GURPS is slightly too heavily moddable for my tastes, for instance). 

This is why Rule 0, and the DM's Authority are good rules (they allow flexibility and to cover corner cases; they let you make stuff up when you need to or want to), but not the ONLY rules (a dead king can come from a thousand-and-one different ways without once having to resort to fiat).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 5, 2008)

> Once again, the counter-argument is this: the game isn't "in play" when the PCs aren't "on-stage." Therefore, anything that happens when the PCs aren't involved doesn't have to be governed by the game rules.
> 
> That's not "cheating," nor is it "breaking" or "violating" the rules, no matter how you view it, because the rules are utterly and completely silent on whether the game rules can, or even should, be used to govern all actions in the game world.




The dissonance for me comes when you say that the rules are only 'in play' when PC's are 'on-stage.' For me, if there are no rules, then there is no game, so to say that there is part of the game where you don't use rules is exceptionally counter-intuitive to me. If there aren't rules, then it really *is* just collaborative storytelling in between 'on-stage' scenes. 

For me, there is never any off-stage.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Does that clear up my position?




Well, 'yes' and 'no'.

"Yes" in the sense that it is a clear and detailed description of your position, but "no" in the sense that the given description completely accords with what I already believed it to be and as such doesn't change my critique of it in the slightest.

That criticism being that in actual application, the two groups were doing functionally the same thing and hense the distinction was meaningless.  For example:



> So when the PCs are involved, Group A uses the rules to resolve those interactions, in order to offer a consistent game experience. Similarly, no NPC who's interacting with the PCs is going to have anything happen to him that won't happen to a PC as long as he's "plot-relevant." However, that restriction no longer applies when said NPC is either "offstage" or when he becomes "plot irrelevant."




But this is exactly what the 'Group B' players would describe as well.  In particularly, it is a stance much closer to 'Group B' than even my own stance is, in so much as I wouldn't always use the rules to resolve interactions between the players and thier environment if I had reason to suspect that the results of applying the rules would be (IMO) 'silly'.  Your stance as you describe it is not even that distinguishable from 'Group B'.

By way of distinguishing the two you are noting that actions involving offstage NPC's are not resolved under the rules, but rather by DM fiat.  In practice though, no matter how grand of a simulation they desire, do you actually think there are any group B DM's who resolve all offstage actions by playing them out under the rules?  Of course not.  Rather I think you are suggesting that the 'group b' DM's will insist that all offstage actions could have been resolved according to the rules.  And this is true, but whether you insist on it or not, you are too!

I'll give you some examples, not so much because they in and of themselves are pertinant, but rather that they illustrate the problem.  Earlier I mentioned that I thought low level wizards ought to be able to try to cast spells normally beyond thier ability.  The rules certainly imply that this impossible.  But supposedly if we are 'Group A' players that should not concern us if the events were to occur offstage.  We could simply explain that it happened.  But, if we did, then this would create a problem, in as much as you are thereby informing your players that under certain conditions a 3rd level wizard can attempt to cast a 5th level spell.  Maybe its foolhardy to attempt it, but your narration is implying that its possible.  In effect, your offstage narrative has created the need for a rule, and suddenly we find that one way or the other the rules are indeed the 'physics of the universe'.  We find that we aren't really that different from a 'Group B' referee at all.  And in particular, I'm claiming that unless the rules existed, neither the 'Group A' nor the 'Group B' referees would probably think to have a narrative involving an apprentice casting spells beyond his ability because we'd be stuck in the paradigm dictated by the rules.  And if either thought to do this, they'd both find that the creation of narrative and of rules was so intertwined that you couldn't really separate the two.

Similarly, its frequently been mentioned in this thread that we should not forgo the ability to insert a maimed vetern into the story despite the fact that the rules do not explicitly allow for PC's to be maimed.  The claim is that 'Group A' referees would do so, but that 'Group B' referees wouldn't.  But this isn't true, and in fact ultimately both referees would find themselves doing the same thing.  If a 'group A' referee placed a maimed NPC into the story, if the status of his being maimed was anything but a prop he'd need some ruling on what it meant.  At that point, his narrative is creating rules.  If a 'group b' referee placed a maimed NPC into the story, if the status of being maimed made any difference in the game at all, he need some rules to cover what it meant to be maimed.  You might claim that the 'group b' referees would never think to put maimed characters into the story.  But this is a fairly easily dismissed complaint, in that the rules do provide for characters to have different Dexterity scores and more to the point do allow for permenent ability damage.  The only thing that might be true is that the 'group b' referees are more likely to think that permenent ability damage, being the tool that is available, is more likely to be an adequate description of a character maiming.  And I'm not even sure that is the case either, since I think it likely that 'group a' referees are likely to turn to the same rules to describe what it means to maimed.

I feel quite free to describe limps, scars, and one-eyed NPC's by interpreting that there low dexterity, wisdom, strength, charisma or whatever describes these things, or alternately that thier limp, scar, or single eye describes low dexterity, wisdom, or strength.  I see no functional difference, and since its possible that I could start with either a description or stats and work in the other direction depending on which I happened to have first to work with, what exactly is the functional difference?



> As another example, I'd never cut off a PC's arm, or put out his eye. But if a PC scores a critical hit on a goblin that puts him out of the fight, I, as DM, reserve the right to rule that the blow chopped off said goblin's arm or leg, put out his eye, or whatever other grisly injury I see fit.




If the goblin (or PC) is dead or at least 'out of the fight', then whether or not the goblin has been maimed has no mechanical effect at all.  In this case, I think it quite likely that referees you are classifying as 'group b' would have no problem describing lethal wounds in any fashion that they chose without feeling they are violating the letter of the rules, and likewise that restoration from the dead cures completely any extra fluff as well.  You are only doing something different if the two groups treat there 'fluff' as having some mechanical effect, and for that, see the above discussion.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 5, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Again, to suggest that any non-simulationist ruleset will produce feelings of having been cheated is, in my view, ridiculous.




Any discussion of this that stays purely theoretical is, in my view, ridiculous posturing by the participants.

Are you claiming that there is no situation that a non-simulationist ruleset could produce in which you wouldn't feel cheated by the outcome?  For example, are you claiming that its impossible to produce a critical hit system which wouldn't seem to ridiculous?  Or, for example, are you claiming that there is no division between NPC resolution of action and PC resolution of action which you would not ultimately feel cheated by?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 6, 2008)

I am in the group which says that the rules do to a large extent describe the gameworld. If a DM introduces something in a story background that doesn't seem possilbe within the rules of the game, the two options for me are that this is a DM working under a philosophy I don't agree with and probably won't enjoy, or there is Something Mysterious happening here that investigating and resolving will be part of the game. In the story of the seemingly "high level" king who died casually from a fall - there are a lot of interesting possibilities that emerge from the game rule / game world inconsistency. Curses or other assassination? A stand in who was covering for the king while he was involved otherwise and now the king can't return without making some very delicate explainations? The real story of his past "heroics" coming to light? All potentially fun. A high level fighter who dies in a way high level fighters can't die just because? No thanks.  

One exception I make is in XP gain and level progression. The standard rules are used to lend pacing to the power curve of the game, imo, and level determines power, not necessarily experience. In the case of the planar summoning apprentice, perhaps he was a 1st level wizard, but a high level "latent" sorcerer. On the other hand, I'm ok with new characters brought in at higher levels describing their background power curve in whatever way they like, so thats more of an overall house rule than anything.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 6, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I started a thread awhile back in the Rules Forum on how 3e would handle baseball, just as a test to get in the habit of extrapolating d20 you understand.  Sadly I had no takers.  Constructing the initial post though was eye opening on just how many basic physical actions simply aren't covered under d20 and are never thought twice about.  I prefer the motto: "You can _try_ anything.  But I can't guarantee it'll work how you think it will."




You seem to be thinking about this in the right fashion.  I make a point of saying that because there have been multiple occassions on these boards where people have passionately argued that the D20 system is universal and that there isn't anything you can do that isn't covered by the rules.  These same people accused me of being mentally or morally defective for claiming that sometimes house rules needed to be made up on the spot.  You at least seem to realize that there are alot of things that average 5 year olds can do that either aren't in the rules, or else are forbidden to you unless you take special feats to gain that manuever.  

My main point is not that a bad rule is better than no rule.  I also stated in the post that a bad rule often had the same effect as no rule in stiffling the event from ever occuring.  A bad rule is better than no rule only in so much as its more likely to spark interest in the event and perhaps the referee to create house rules more likely to be agreeable to the participants.  

My main point is that whether you are what is being called a 'group a' player or a 'group b' player, you are no more likely to believe that baseball is or isn't occuring offstage and if it occurs to you to have it onstage, we can't really predict how you will choose to resolve the action.  My main point is that narration and rules are so closely intertwined in RPGs that its nonsense to state that the games rules aren't defacto the physics of the game world.  You may theoretically hold the position that they are not, and indeed in theory I hold the position that they are not, but in practice since I generally rely on them to resolve cause in effect my theoretical position doesn't IMO usefully distinguish me from someone that doesn't have it.  

As I endeavored to demonstrate, it has no real effect on how 'out of the box' you do or are able to play.  The only difference might be that the 'group b' players probably will more closely consider what rules they need before they put something 'on stage', but in that - since I just about never put something onstage without rules for it - I could be considered a 'group b' referee even though I agree with 'statement a'.


----------



## Primal (Feb 6, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> You have an incredibly unreasonable perspective. Frankly I would consider you a bad player and eject you from my game.
> 
> What you ask is tantamount to asking the DM to not have any fun. To be bound to some mindless set of rules instead of his own imagination. You're also asking for every other player in the game, unless they happen to share your rigid expectations, not to have any fun.
> 
> ...




While I appreciate your opinion of rules just being tools for narrative, I also believe that players should feel that they are always in control of their characters' fates -- whether that's merely an illusion or not (because the DM *is* the ultimate authority over what happens in the game). I've participated in games in which a DM's "temporary lapse of judgement" (for example: "You know, I'm think I'm gonna houserule these Climbing rules now, because it becomes more dangerous that way... oh, you wouldn't have tried it if you had known? Too bad -- your character's already descending!") in the form of sudden "judgement calls" have resulted in TPKs. Needless to say, it really didn't serve the story in an way. 

Like I already said, the rules should exist to prevent that, to give some mechanical way for the players to have an impact on what happens to their characters and to model the "physics" of the setting as accurately as needed. Yet I also agree with you and some of the posters that sometimes story (or "common sense") should govern over the mechanics -- if your character intentionally leaps off a cliff for no reason at all, he probably should die. However, if your character does that to escape a horde of orcs, he should know that he has at least a chance to survive. In the latter case I would walk out if my DM declared me automatically dead. Yet if I for some reason thought that my character's "automatical" death would serve a purpose or role in the story, the DM should respect my wish. 

This is why I like Indie RPGs, because in most of them the rules specifically strive (mechanically and thematically) to enhance and drive storytelling over simulation while still managing to retain the *relevant* (in light of the game's premise and thematic emphasis) mechanics for the players to have an impact over pretty much everything that happens in the story. Using that "high-level fighter falling from saddle" example: did someone think that it'd be a cool event in the story and frames a scene in which he is in danger of breaking his neck? Or is the result of a failed roll in a conflict and whoever has the storytelling rights narrates it that way? Here's the thing: in both cases the player has the mechanical ways (in many Indie RPGs, anyway) to prevent this from happening. if the player will not enter into a "conflict" over this, or does not "bet" on the 'storytelling rights' after a failed roll, it's his choice. He is effectively signaling that he does not care much what happens to the protagonist in the story, and leaves the fate of his unfortunate protagonist to the storyteller.  I see it being almost equivalent to leaping off the cliff.

In D&D, you *could* ask your player to roll a Riding Check during a simple riding session, but that's hardly fair. In combat, he actually might fail a Riding Check, but unless he'd be out of HPs, a fall from saddle would not hurt him at all. 
So how to add some "realism"? I tend use a houseruled system in which rolling a "1" is not an automatic fumble, but if your "Fumble Confirmation Roll" is also a "1", something bad happens (the odds are 1/400). Maybe the horse breaks his leg, or maybe you fall from the saddle, and hit your head, falling unconscious. In any case, unless the PCs are in the middle of an adventure, this is usually a "Story Event" (Ars Magica -style) which has potentially tragic (but not automatically deadly) consequences for the PCs (e.g. it might even spring an instant adventure, as your unconscious fighter went riding alone and is found by trolls and dragged to their lair, so it's up to the other PCs to rescue him). Or, during a furious fight in a town a wizard who fails his Spell Penetration Check with a Fireball (rolling two "1s" in succession) against, say, a Marilith, might see his spell deflected by the demon's defenses and hitting a nearby inn (obliterating some of the patrons and the friendly innkeeper). Shortly put: it is a fairly rare event (to roll two "1s" in succession), but occasionally it does come up in play, so I use it to implement all sorts of touches of "realism" and story elements which are not covered by the rules.


----------



## apoptosis (Feb 6, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> This is why I like Indie RPGs, because in most of them the rules specifically strive (mechanically and thematically) to enhance and drive storytelling over simulation while still managing to retain the *relevant* (in light of the game's premise and thematic emphasis) mechanics for the players to have an impact over pretty much everything that happens in the story. Using that "high-level fighter falling from saddle" example: did someone think that it'd be a cool event in the story and frames a scene in which he is in danger of breaking his neck? Or is the result of a failed roll in a conflict and whoever has the storytelling rights narrates it that way? Here's the thing: in both cases the player has the mechanical ways (in many Indie RPGs, anyway) to prevent this from happening. if the player will not enter into a "conflict" over this, or does not "bet" on the 'storytelling rights' after a failed roll, it's his choice. He is effectively signaling that he does not care much what happens to the protagonist in the story, and leaves the fate of his unfortunate protagonist to the storyteller.  I see it being almost equivalent to leaping off the cliff.




Though most of the people who argue against Phobos would probably not like the narrativist aspects of Indie games. They have generally said they dislike the meta-gaming element that pretty much is required to exist in those type of games.

So unfortunately this is not a solution to this potential disagreement (i say unfortunately not because of judgement of what type of game over another but of trying to resolve an issue)


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 6, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Shortly put: it is a fairly rare event (to roll two "1s" in succession), but occasionally it does come up in play, so I use it to implement all sorts of touches of "realism" and story elements which are not covered by the rules.



Not that I care one way or the other about this, but you should keep in mind that 40 d20 rolls per player per session is not unreasonable.  With 5 players making 40 rolls each, it means that a "very bad thing" happens once every second session to at least someone in the party.

This is WAY too often for my liking.


----------



## IanB (Feb 6, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And this is fundamentally unsatisfying for me as a player and as a DM. If the DM doesn't adhere to the rules, they feel meaningless. The DM can change the laws, but he cannot be above the laws. "NPC" isn't a distinction my character knows. It's an artificial construction of the game, and to have NPC's break their necks randomly at DM decree means, to my character, that people break their necks falling from horses, even when they're powerful knights of the world who should know how to ride horses, and thus I should never ride a horse, because they slay heroes.
> 
> Which is absurd to me, as a player, and breaks the believability of the world.




I probably am somewhere in the middle when it comes to this argument, but I find the logic here baffling. Saying that "because sometimes people die falling off of horses, my character would clearly avoid riding horses" to me is an awful lot like saying "because sometimes people die riding in automobiles, I will never ride in a car."

I mean, I'm sure there are occasionally people who do make that choice for that reason, but presenting that as a clear-cut logical choice for a character seems really off to me.

A lot of this argument to me seems to be rooted in what are bad parts of the 3E ruleset, I guess. Arguing "he can survive immersion in lava, he shouldn't die from falling off a horse!" to me is just another way of saying "the rules for immersion in lava are terrible."   

Anyway, to add a little fuel to the fire:

Should a D&D game be able to simulate or emulate the world of George Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire? It has dragons coexisting with all sorts of accidental death and maiming, after all? What about the Black Company novels?

And some ignominious deaths of mythic and/or fictional figures:

Hector, dies to one spear-thrust by Achilles (although he does have a long conversation while he's dying)

Achilles, shot with a single arrow in the heel, by someone who is clearly not a trained fighter

Sigurd, killed in bed

Theseus, died by being _pushed off a cliff_

Isildur, badass enough to have cut the One Ring from Sauron's finger, shot to death by a random encounter

Basically, for every Boromir or Roland, there's a Jason (killed by a falling piece of ship) or even an Aesclepius (struck by a bolt of lightning by Zeus - the ultimate in DM fiat).

I feel like D&D should probably be able to accomodate both of these things.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 6, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> Should a D&D game be able to simulate or emulate the world of George Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire? It has dragons coexisting with all sorts of accidental death and maiming, after all? What about the Black Company novels?



Well, the should in there seems odd, but D&D, by RAW imo cannot emulate those settings. You would have to heavily home brew and houserule it to make the rules actually create the outcomes that set the tone.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 6, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The issue is that for my character, this distinction does not exist, and thus in playing the role of my character, I cannot allow this distinction to exist in thier mind (or else I feel like I'm metagaming too much and it removes me from the game). This means that my character has to fear the mundane more than the epic, that a fall from a horse, to my character, is more deadly than the jaws of the great wyrm Galgathraxas, because an old country nag can succeed where Galgrathaxas has failed.




This makes no sense. The dragon is _much more likely_ to kill you than a random accident. People ride horses all the damn time in fantasy settings!



> And if the DM doesn't play by the rules, then it means less when my PC does.




Sigh. Nothing anyone is saying is sinking in, is it? You continue to define your terms the way you want and expect us to abide by them.



> I'm not interested in gaining that at the gaming table.




Neither am I, you straw-man lover, you.

I give up. This is anti-logic. More power to you, have fun, whatever floats your boat, but I think your position is irrational. And I think you've been disingenuous throughout this entire discussion.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 6, 2008)

The hardest thing for me to do is brevity.

Here is my position in brief.

If the game rules aren't the physics of the game world, then what is?

(And whatever you answer, isn't that the real game rules?)


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 6, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The hardest thing for me to do is brevity.




We noticed!



> Here is my position in brief.
> 
> If the game rules aren't the physics of the game world, then what is?




Do game worlds have physics at all?

(Also keeping it brief)


----------



## Xyl (Feb 6, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If the game rules aren't the physics of the game world, then what is?



I'll explain the true physics of the D&D setting of your choice, if and only if you first explain the true physics of the world we live in. (Hint: Relativity and quantum mechanics are only approximations.)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 6, 2008)

> This makes no sense. The dragon is much more likely to kill you than a random accident. People ride horses all the damn time in fantasy settings!




That's exactly why they're more dangerous! People die all the the time in the real world from household accidents that are roughly equivalent to 'falling off of a horse.' Less people die in shark attacks, but sharks scare people more than, say, ladders. A 20th level knight dying from a horsing accident is, for me, pretty much like Superman getting in a car accident and dying: violating the rules that character works under.



> Sigh. Nothing anyone is saying is sinking in, is it? You continue to define your terms the way you want and expect us to abide by them.




I've been repeatedly saying why a game is more satisfying for me when the rules are adhered to by all sides at all times, why it feels wrong to me when a DM doesn't use the rules because it's not narratively expedient.

You're not going to really convince me that what I like isn't what I really like, or that I haven't been doing it for years already. You're not going to convince me that I haven't been actually having fun my own way. That doesn't make me a bad gamer, just a different style of gamer. The most you could do is say that your way works best for your group and groups like yours, and I'm totally okay with that. It should, it does, great, have fun. 

But don't try to convince me that I should feel like I'm having fun when I'm really not. You're right, that won't sink in. Because, you know, people like different things and play D&D for different reasons, and my reasons are not the same as yours, so what makes you giddy with joy makes me bored and frustrated, and what makes me enjoy this little pastime would make you feel constrained and limited, and that's OKAY.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 6, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Do game worlds have physics at all?




If they have a consistant cause and effect, then, "Yes."

Conceivably, a game system ran by referee fiat in which the referee paid no attention to his past rulings and was not trying to simulate (consciously or unconsciously) something would have no 'physics', but such a game could hardly be called a 'system' at all and would take a very self-aware referee to do it if it were humanly possible.  It would also likely be unplayable, in so much as players could never anticipate the results of any proposition that they offered.

A simulation of such a 'system' could possibly be achieved by creating a sufficiently large 'Wand of Wonder' table and then regardless of what the players announced they would do ('walk across the room') consult the table for the results.  But that isn't really complete inconsistancy because the range of results is finite and hense the results of an action are somewhat constrained (if not usefully).


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 6, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If they have a consistent cause and effect, then, "Yes."




Some of it is covered by the rules, some of it is controlled by the GM.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 6, 2008)

Xyl said:
			
		

> I'll explain the true physics of the D&D setting of your choice, if and only if you first explain the true physics of the world we live in. (Hint: Relativity and quantum mechanics are only approximations.)




Errr....

1) By necessity, you are putting the easier burden on yourself in as much as the game, being a simulation, is necessarily much simplier than the universe in which the simulation takes place.  There is not enough matter in the universe to assemble a computer which ran simulation of the universe itself.  So you aren't making a fair bargain on those grounds.
2) You aren't making a fair bargain on other grounds either.  For example, the full details of the real universe are not only currently unknown to us, but potentially unknowable in as much as we are contained in the universe and hense cannot contain it within ourselves.  Whereas, the game being a product of our own creation could be fully known.
3) Relativity is not an approximation.  If you think it is an approximation, I'd like to know, "An approximation of what?"
4) Quantum mechanics is an approximation in the sense that we don't like to describe things in terms of probablities and smart minds (say Einstein) have challenged quantum mechanics for that reason on philosophical grounds.  Nonetheless, it is not a factual statement to claim that QM is an approximation in that it may turn out that the universe really isn't something that can be precisely described (and the evidence sure looks that way from here) in which case QM is as precise of a description as can be managed. 
5) This is all just a red herring any way, since my ability or inability to describe the rules of the real universe has no bearing on whether the rules of a game describe the rules of the game universe.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 6, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Some of it is covered by the rules, some of it is controlled by the GM.




Already covered that objection much earlier on.  If the GM tends to resolve similar situations in similar ways, then whether these rules are formal (in the since of written down systematically) or informal really doesn't matter.  The game universe still would have a predictable cause and effect.  

In my experience, DM's implicitly or explicitly tend to create precedents by thier rulings so that the players have an expectation that once a situation is resolved in some fashion, it will be resolved similarly in the future.  There are obvious reasons for doing that, but one of the less obvious and more important ones is that it reduces the mental burden of DMing to create rules for yourself.  Invention is hard, especially when you are trying to be fair and consistant.  So typically, you fall back on whatever has worked for you before in these sorts of situations.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 6, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If the game rules aren't the physics of the game world, then what is?




I can't wrap my head around this.  How can some imaginary thing have physics of its own?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 6, 2008)

> I probably am somewhere in the middle when it comes to this argument, but I find the logic here baffling. Saying that "because sometimes people die falling off of horses, my character would clearly avoid riding horses" to me is an awful lot like saying "because sometimes people die riding in automobiles, I will never ride in a car."




A 20th level fighter isn't just "people." A 20th level fighter getting killed by a horse is Superman getting killed in a car accident. Not just anyone, but someone who was invulnerable to bullets and who could turn back time and who could shoot lasers from his eyes. I mean, if cars can kill someone like that, someone who is strong enough to chuck buildings, then the car is uncannily deadly.

Now, "people" would be like first level commoners with 2 hp, would be like Jimmy and Mr. Kent, and those people do die from getting in car accidents, but they also can't shoot lasers out of their eyes, so they're obviously not quite operating under the same rules, here.



> A lot of this argument to me seems to be rooted in what are bad parts of the 3E ruleset, I guess. Arguing "he can survive immersion in lava, he shouldn't die from falling off a horse!" to me is just another way of saying "the rules for immersion in lava are terrible."




Or that the world allows for such a powerful badass that lava can't burn hot enough to kill him. Which fits the mold of heroic fantasy pretty snugly, albeit to an extreme that might not always be welcome.



> Should a D&D game be able to simulate or emulate the world of George Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire? It has dragons coexisting with all sorts of accidental death and maiming, after all? What about the Black Company novels?
> 
> And some ignominious deaths of mythic and/or fictional figures:
> 
> ...




The thing is that characters from myth and fiction only ever really die in one way: because the writer makes them die. Their deaths serve a narrative purpose.

In D&D, characters should pretty much never die just because the DM says so. They should die because the rules say so. 

At least, for my enjoyment of the game, it is crucial that they do.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 6, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Already covered that objection much earlier on.  If the GM tends to resolve similar situations in similar ways, then whether these rules are formal (in the since of written down systematically) or informal really doesn't matter.  The game universe still would have a predictable cause and effect.




Oh, I didn't realize you were talking about that. Yes, if the GM is consistent about his portrayal of the game world (like seasons being regular in the same place, I guess) then it does create a kind of stability.



> In my experience, DM's implicitly or explicitly tend to create precedents by thier rulings so that the players have an expectation that once a situation is resolved in some fashion, it will be resolved similarly in the future.  There are obvious reasons for doing that, but one of the less obvious and more important ones is that it reduces the mental burden of DMing to create rules for yourself.  Invention is hard, especially when you are trying to be fair and consistant.  So typically, you fall back on whatever has worked for you before in these sorts of situations.




Oh, definitely. I thought you were talking about something else, for some reason.

I wouldn't call consistent rulings on non-rule situations (rain, weather, economics, etc) "rules" though. But it really doesn't matter.




> I can't wrap my head around this. How can some imaginary thing have physics of its own?




He's referring to consistent cause-effect, which is something you get in a good fictional universe and a good game world.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 6, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I can't wrap my head around this.  How can some imaginary thing have physics of its own?




Do these imaginary things have in our imaginations consistant observable properties and move according to some consistant rules?  Viola, physics.

Look at it this way.  In any RPG, a player could pick up an object in the game universe and ask the DM to describe it.  How heavy is it?  How hard is it?  They could run imaginary tests on it ('I put it on a scale.  Does it weigh more than a duck?').  They could manipulate it and observe it.  For example, they could ask the DM to describe what happens when they throw it.  Does it move in an arc, or in a straight line?  Does it describe a perfect parabula?  Does it break on impact?  And so forth.  In fact, it is a standard convention of any RPG that players are able to perform this sort of interaction.

If the results are consistant, the game has physics.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 6, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Oh, I didn't realize you were talking about that. Yes, if the GM is consistent about his portrayal of the game world (like seasons being regular in the same place, I guess) then it does create a kind of stability...I wouldn't call consistent rulings on non-rule situations (rain, weather, economics, etc) "rules" though. But it really doesn't matter.




I'm not sure what you mean by 'non-rule situations'. 

In general though, I'm talking about a much broader view than that.

Let me give an example.  The core rules carry no suggestions for the likelihood of a pregnancy when a PC has 'intimate relations' with a healthy member of the opposite gender.  If this occurs once, the DM (and the players) might happily accept a DM fiat ruling because a one time event isn't necessarily central to gameplay.  On the other hand, if it is important to game play, either because the event is reoccuring or potentially life changing for a character, most DM's and most players will eventually become unhappy with the situation being resolved by DM fiat alone, in much the same way and for the same reasons that most DM's and most players would become unhappy with combat being resolved by DM fiat alone.

So, the DM will probably invent some ad hoc method of dealing with the situation.  He may throw a d6 and if it comes up '1', decide that a pregnancy occurs (I did this the first time it happened in one of my games), or he might (more modern systematic rules) have the female make a CON check versus DC 10 and if it succeeds then pregnancy occurs (my as yet untested but current house rule).  Or if the DM may be less prone to rulessmithing may flip a coin or decide (even unconsciously) that every second act leads to pregnancy.  Whatever the DM decides to do though, the tendancy will be for that DM to resolve the situation using the same rule in the future.  At that point, the rule is no longer ad hoc and is every bit as much a part of the rules of the game as the combat rules, even if the rule exists nowhere except in the DMs mind.  

And at that point, the ad hoc rule becomes part of that universe's physics, effectively describing how easily pregnanacy occurs even if the DM never actually applies it to offstage events involving NPCs.  The PC's have a reasonable expectation that the rule that applies to them is universal and will continue to apply whenever it is important to resolve something.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 6, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean by 'non-rule situations'.




You know, the weather. Knights falling down and breaking their necks. Weather or not a tough justice system can cut out a captive wizard's tongue. Stuff like that.




> Let me give an example.  The core rules carry no suggestions for the likelihood of a pregnancy when a PC has 'intimate relations' with a healthy member of the opposite gender.  If this occurs once, the DM (and the players) might happily accept a DM fiat ruling because a one time event isn't necessarily central to gameplay.  On the other hand, if it is important to game play, either because the event is reoccuring or potentially life changing for a character, most DM's and most players will eventually become unhappy with the situation being resolved by DM fiat alone, in much the same way and for the same reasons that most DM's and most players would become unhappy with combat being resolved by DM fiat alone.




I think in this example it's better handled by the player deciding whether or not they want to do a pregnancy storyline with their character. As a GM I might suggest it but never force the issue. 

I dunno. Let me give a different example- the weather. Now, if we follow the pattern established in your post, a sufficiently large number of DM-fiat weather events would lead towards the desire of a consistent, DM-neutral weather system, no?

This is not my experience. I declared it was raining, or snowing, or sunny, or cloudy every session for years and years without anyone ever saying, "Make a random weather table!"

I think even in situations applying to the PCs, there isn't always a demand or need for a system independent of fiat. Of course in my own game I tend to leave that up to the players themselves to fiat things for their characters however they want. A player of mine once declared his character had a cold, for example. I don't really see the need for rules in a lot of game situations.

I really only want rules for a pretty specific set of situations- tense, dramatic ones. Combat, negotiations, derring-do, because I want an element of chance. Everything else I don't see as requiring mechanics.


----------



## DandD (Feb 6, 2008)

I'm pretty sure that D&D 3rd edition does have a random weather table.


----------



## Xyl (Feb 6, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Errr....
> 
> 1) By necessity, you are putting the easier burden on yourself in as much as the game, being a simulation, is necessarily much simplier than the universe in which the simulation takes place.  There is not enough matter in the universe to assemble a computer which ran simulation of the universe itself.  So you aren't making a fair bargain on those grounds.



You can run a simulation of the real world! People do it all the time - weather prediction, wargames, and even games like SimCity are all simulations of the real world. They aren't perfectly accurate simulations, but they are simulations, and all of them are simpler than the thing they simulate.

In the same way, it is perfectly consistent to think of the rules of the D&D game as a simplified version of the "rules" of the game world. They are a simulation of a fantasy universe with elves, wizards, and dragons, not a complete description. The more detailed world still exists as a concept in the minds of the DM and the players, even if most of the time they use the simplified version to describe events.

So no, I'm not putting an easier burden on myself. Asking someone to explain the full rules of the game universe with no simplifications is just as hard as asking someone to explain the full rules of our universe with no simplifications. Possibly harder, since a game world might not _have_ consistent rules.



> 3) Relativity is not an approximation.  If you think it is an approximation, I'd like to know, "An approximation of what?"



It is an approximation of reality, much like Newtonian mechanics. It gives answers that are more accurate than Newtonian mechanics does, in more cases, but it doesn't give the _exact_ correct answer in _all_ cases.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 6, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that D&D 3rd edition does have a random weather table.




My example stands even if that's the case. Even if my preferred game had one, my players would never demand I use it.

I guess we're all just a lot more relaxed about this stuff. They don't see fiat as being some slap in their face, and if they think it's a poor decision on my part, they'll say so, and I'll change it. 

It's a lot easier to just communicate and get by in a spirit of amicable cooperation and mutual fun than it is to define what you want and then rigidly adhere to it.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 6, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Do these imaginary things have in our imaginations consistant observable properties and move according to some consistant rules?  Viola, physics.
> 
> Look at it this way.  In any RPG, a player could pick up an object in the game universe and ask the DM to describe it.  How heavy is it?  How hard is it?  They could run imaginary tests on it ('I put it on a scale.  Does it weigh more than a duck?').  They could manipulate it and observe it.  For example, they could ask the DM to describe what happens when they throw it.  Does it move in an arc, or in a straight line?  Does it describe a perfect parabula?  Does it break on impact?  And so forth.  In fact, it is a standard convention of any RPG that players are able to perform this sort of interaction.
> 
> If the results are consistant, the game has physics.




Huh.  

What if the rules don't address that stuff in any way?


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 6, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Huh.
> 
> What if the rules don't address that stuff in any way?




Celebrim is arguing that consistent DM fiats on stuff not covered in the rules, but still come up often enough, develops a body of precedence and established guidelines that eventually evolve into a new rule to cover the situation.

This is the exact opposite of my experience, in which over time in gameplay more and more rules are discarded as unnecessary as the group becomes more comfortable.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 6, 2008)

A few things to note that in my view *should* be obvious but, it seems, aren't:

1. NPCs do *not* walk around in the game world with little "NPC" stickers on their foreheads.  They interact with each other, and with the world, just the same as PCs do...even when the PCs are not around to see it or join in.  Having it any other way shatters believability (and consistency) beyond repair.

2. The game rules (any edition) do not give enough information for a DM to run everything the game will ever throw at her; to do so would require a DMG about the size of the full Oxford Dictionary - though this might not be a bad thing.  So, any DM has to make rulings...be it on weather, pregnancies, wierd spell interactions, or whatever...and every time she does, the physics of that game world become a) a bit tighter, and b) probably different from any other game world.  But the DM has to be consistent!  If spell A interacts with spell B in manner Z once, it then *has* to do so for the rest of that campaign if the campaign is to retain any believability at all.  It seems this is where some people are having problems - DMs being inconsistent within their own games - and that is something that cannot be solved here.

3. Limb loss, scarring, decaying skills of retired adventurers - all are things that are sometimes required by the story.  Putting in rules (or devices, or spells) that cause limb loss is relatively easy, with few if any knock-on effects; on-the-fly situational rulings can sometimes help too (example: once I DMed a game where a PC had almost total cover except for the hand she was using to hold the Wand of Lightning she was firing...some spectacularly bad rolling later she had hit herself with her own rebounding bolt and failed her save (nat. 1); I ruled that all the damage was to the exposed hand, rendering it a useless stump.  Amazingly, the Wand survived (nat. 20 on save).)  Putting in rules for scarring is even easier provided you're willing to take the time and build the tables that show how severe the scarring is, and where.  So *just do it*!  Decaying skills is a bigger headache that I've been trying to solve for ages...pretty much the only answer there *is* to make it up as you go along, and hope for the best.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 6, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Celebrim is arguing that consistent DM fiats on stuff not covered in the rules, but still come up often enough, develops a body of precedence and established guidelines that eventually evolve into a new rule to cover the situation.



In which case, I agree with Celebrim - it's called in-game consistency.







> This is the exact opposite of my experience, in which over time in gameplay more and more rules are discarded as unnecessary as the group becomes more comfortable.



Must be hard for someone to join in halfway through the campaign, then.

Lanefan


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 6, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Must be hard for someone to join in halfway through the campaign, then.




Well, after they pass all the initiation tests and the ritual scarification, plus the apprenticeship period, they tend to adapt well.

Of course that's because of the cult indoctrination techniques. I find those very helpful!


----------



## Thaniel (Feb 6, 2008)

_in response to a question about non-rule situations..._


			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Knights falling down and breaking their necks.




How is this a non-rule situation?  There are rules for this.  Falling is 1d6 per 10 feet.  This is the exact opposite of a "non-rule situation".  That's like saying jumping over an 8 foot chasm is a non-rule situation.  Or shooting a guard with an arrow.  These are not in any way "non-rule situations".


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 6, 2008)

Thaniel said:
			
		

> How is this a non-rule situation?  There are rules for this.  Falling is 1d6 per 10 feet.  This is the exact opposite of a "non-rule situation".  That's like saying jumping over an 8 foot chasm is a non-rule situation.  Or shooting a guard with an arrow.  These are not in any way "non-rule situations".




Oh, for the love of god. We've been over this a thousand times already in this thread. I am tired of repeating myself, but one more time:

I am of the school of thought that the rules are for a specific purpose and for a specific time. An off-screen, NPC knight is not what the rules are for. The rules are for the players to govern their PC's interaction with the world, not the world's interaction with itself. There are no rules for what he can and can not die from. A DM's common sense controls the interaction of off-screen entities.

I do not care if you disagree. Don't even bother. 

I DO NOT WANT TO RESTART THIS DEBATE. It is over, I will not change my mind, nor will the contrarian's change their mind. I am going to snap the necks of a knight in every session of D&D, 4th Edition I ever run if I ever run it. Once per session, at a random time designated by me, a knight will appear and- for completely arbitrary reasons- have his neck snapped. Every session. I am going to do this in front of the players. I'm going to keep track of neck's snapped. There might be a _chart_. I may compile _statistics_. If I happen to have a player who shares the belief that the rules are the Immutable Laws of God and he complains, then I will have _two_ necks snapped.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 6, 2008)

Ok, let's take this into the realm of the concrete.

What rules justification can you invoke against a player who declares that his non-caster PC never sleeps?  After all, there are no rules in core covering when you have to sleep or how often.  The closest thing is that elves don't.  But, that doesn't ever say that other races do, or how long they do.

So, when my fighter and his four cohorts decide to pull all night and all day shifts, day after day, what ruling can you make, by RAW to stop that? 

Or, does no one in your world ever sleep?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 6, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I DO NOT WANT TO RESTART THIS DEBATE. It is over, I will not change my mind, nor will the contrarian's change their mind. I am going to snap the necks of a knight in every session of D&D, 4th Edition I ever run if I ever run it. Once per session, at a random time designated by me, a knight will appear and- for completely arbitrary reasons- have his neck snapped. Every session. I am going to do this in front of the players. I'm going to keep track of neck's snapped. There might be a _chart_. I may compile _statistics_. If I happen to have a player who shares the belief that the rules are the Immutable Laws of God and he complains, then I will have _two_ necks snapped.



And all these nearly-headless knights are going to later reincarnate as Spinal Tap drummers, I suppose? 

Lane-"Oh my god! They killed Kenny a knight!"-fan


----------



## Someone (Feb 6, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> I do not consider it lazy or devoid of imagination to assume that things the rules directly imply *cannot* happen in the game world, however, cannot happen.




Consider for a moment the following, a bit extreme, example: one PC or NPC wants to cut his toenails with a greataxe. Now, physical damage is very well defined in the rules, being combat so important, and nowhere includes the accidental removing of limbs or toes, least of all by using non appropiate toenail cutting implements (after all there's 0 chance of losing anything other than blood -if we interpret correctly the 'bloodied' status in 4e- in combat, which is more chaotic and unpredictable than personal grooming)

That put us into an uncomfortable trilemma. Either we rule beforehand the chance of cutting your own toes when using large axes, which in itself is not so difficult but a) doesn't mesh with existing rules, mainly the impossibility of losing body parts in combat and b) is only a very small part of possible exceptions to the rules, or we ignore the possibility of such a wound, which for some of us would stretch suspension of disbelief to the breaking point, or rule on the fly the possibility of cutting off our own toes when using a greataxe as toenail cutter, which is anathema to the rules as physics crowd.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 6, 2008)

Where's that head-banging smilie when you want it?


----------



## RedShirtNo5 (Feb 6, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Once per session, at a random time designated by me, a knight will appear and- for completely arbitrary reasons- have his neck snapped.



Your DM fiat poses a high probability of incompatability with gamist players, with commensurate increase in inter-player conflict and danger of campaign collapse.  I suggest the use of the following chart.

Table I.A. (roll d100)
01-13 knight falls off horse, snaps neck
14-24 knight is in brawl with thug, thug snaps knight's neck
25-37 knight is hit in neck by flail
38-41 knight is hit in neck by flying cannonball
42-54 knight is wrongfully sentanced to death by hanging
55-58 knight trips on own feet, falls and snaps neck
59-63 knight eats quall's feather token:tree, says command word while token is stuck in throat
64-69 knight misses ball with croquet mallet, hits self on neck
70-73 knight forgetfully lifts off own head instead of helmet
74-77 knight wanders into anti-gravity zone, falls up into tree
78-83 knight slips on ice patch, slides head-first into wall
84-86 knight has accident with handglider 
87-90 summoned rhinoceros materializes over knight and falls on knight's head
91-92 knight is reincarnated as a badger, snaps own neck in shame
93-94 knight is hit on head with rubber chicken, knight lives!
95-99 knight encounters wandering prostitute, roll on table I.B.
00 roll three times on this table


----------



## Imban (Feb 6, 2008)

After having thought about it for a day, I think the actual difference between myself and some other players on this thread are that, instead of treating "game rules" as "physics", I treat high-level characters as superheroes because I see them as capable of superheroic feats, which the game rules tend to support. For me, 20th-level characters are all Superman and no Batman; guys who are just that darn tough.

I prefer to take input from the rules when offscreen events happen as well, because I was never a fan of those comics where Spiderman beat up the amazingly more powerful Firelord with his bare hands (compare: 10th-level Monk vs. Fire Elemental Monolith), and since I think stories where the listed abilities of superheroes go straight out the window when convenient are crappy, I try to avoid telling stories I think are crappy.



			
				Someone said:
			
		

> rule on the fly the possibility of cutting off our own toes when using a greataxe as toenail cutter, which is *anathema to the rules as physics crowd*.




Actually it's not. Well, some people hate rulings on the fly, but they're missing one of the biggest advantages of D&D. What I don't really like is previously established facts being negated because it's narratively convenient, or the standard "bad crap happens and you can't affect it in any way" video game cutscene.


----------



## sinecure (Feb 6, 2008)

I agree the rules are not the physics of a game world.  That's crazy thinking like NPCs talking about their level when speaking in character or characters referring to the level of their spells or their number of hit points left.  I want the world to be what it is supposed to be.  The rules need to back that up is all.  Like using a wand in Harry Potter is hard to do.  The rules should be made to make that make sense.  Not the other way around.  That's why I hope 4th will be more flexible in what worlds it can portray.  I don't want to have to change my world because of some wonky rule my players are all hyped up about. 

Maybe I am being to inflexible here?  But why am I the one having to change my game to fit the rules?


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 6, 2008)

There aren't detailed rules for either pregnancy or weather; making them up ("Brelia is to the west of the mountains, so +5% to the rain table.") or even just making spontaneous rulings ("Yes, another dramatic storm begins to fall as the black-cloaked figure approaches the party.  The God of Thunder is apparently a sucker for drama.") is, indeed, one of the expected tasks of the GM.

There aren't detailed rules for how to maim people, but there are solid rules for how it can't happen; people resist maim-equivalent injuries in combat with hit points.  The rules don't say that under certain circumstances, a sword blow can cripple or remove a limb, but they do say extremely clearly that if the target of the blow has enough hit points left, then the most that happens is a non-deadly flesh wound.  If you want to make it possible to hold someone down and cut their arm off regardless of how tough a bastard they are, there are rules for that, too; dying from a blow while helpless requires an insanely difficult Fort save (and surviving the damage).  It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that a blow that could sever a limb could also have opened a throat or rent an artery lengthwise, and therefore require any attack that could have been lethal (either in combat or CdG) to instead inflict a crippling injury.  This is consistent with the game world as presented.

There are detailed rules for researching new spells, falling from horses, determining the absolute cost of magic items, or acquiring feats.  Ignoring any of them in some circumstances while enforcing them in others also leads to a horribly inconsistent game world.

Some players (such as myself) flatly demand a consistent game world, or at least a game world that makes an attempt at consistency.  Absent cause and effect, there is (for me) no drama, and no reason to care about the narrative.

Now, you get some interesting results when you apply this level of thinking to a set of rules that do not set out to simulate reality, or even reality plus this one magical effect.  The rules of D&D do not simulate a universe in which apprentice wizards can miscast a 2nd-level spell and call an efreet, or a fall from a horse can kill a mighty warrior at full health.  This means that magic isn't seen as something dangerous and forbidden, and stories about the dangers of apprentice-level magic are far more likely to involve casting Acid Arrow into a grapple than shaking the world.  On the flip side, it also means that our real-world tropes about heroism, natural leaders, chosen ones, ubermenchen, and the like are going to be taken and cranked up to 11 in-world, because there are people who can (and do) walk through fire, and more.  Our world has a set of challenges that we mentally label as impossible.  No one can fall 500' onto his head and live.  No one can defeat a tank with his bare hands.  No one can sneak past the guards surrounding Fort Knox, help herself to a few bars of gold, and then sneak out carrying them.  No one can, under experimental conditions, light themselves on fire for about a minute and then extinguish themselves, all without serious injury.  In the world that D&D simulates, it should not be said "No one could have survived that."  Instead, it should be said "Only a hero could have survived that."

In D&D, heroism is a tangible, quantifiable, measurable attribute of a person.  It has nothing to do with their qualities as a protagonist; first-level anythings are not generally considered heroes.  They can be heroic; indeed, anyone has the potential to be heroic.  In fact, XP could well be seen as a measure of one's heroism; the farmer who faces down three orcs with nothing more than his pitchfork to give his family time to run and yet manages to triumph has just, in all likelihood, jumped into the realm of being an actual hero (that is, gained a class level).  This is a natural process in the world, and (for many) the single most enjoyable conceit of the heroic fantasy genre.  Ignoring that process by shuffling around what being a hero means cuts to the core of the genre for a lot of us.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 6, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> In D&D, a 20th level fighter can avoid death from the jaws of a dragon. Actually, not just as a matter of narrative convenience.



That claim entirely begs the question against the competing contention, that hit points can be interpreted as a type of plot protection (ie a metagame device introduced for narrative convenience).



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That same 20th level fighter can kill the necromancer-king. Not just because the DM thinks it would be cool, but because he can actually walk up to the Necromancer King and put something pointy in his gut.



There is nothing in this paragraph that any narrativist player disputes. Asked within the gameworld, the answer to the question "Why did the NK die?" is "Something point was stuck in its guts." Asked at the playing table "Why did the NK die?" the answer is "Because it was something that the players and/or GM cared about."

At the simulationist or gamist table, the same metagame answer is given to the second question: if the players and GM didn't care about the NK, the adventure would have involved some other antagonist.

You are framing the discussion in terms which either do not capture its content, or beg the question against your interlocutors. The issue is not one about following the rules versus breaking them. Nor is it about whether or not narrativist players have believable gameworlds, or rather absurd gameworlds in which the GM is the most important personage (of course they don't, at least in the mainstream cases).

The issue is this: ought the character build mechanics and/or action resolution mechanics be regarded as the total account of how people and their endeavours unfold in the gameworld? or ought they to be regarded as purely metagame conveniences for resolving a subset of the gameworld (namely, the PCs and their adventures) that is of particular interest to those at the gaming table?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The dissonance for me comes when you say that the rules are only 'in play' when PC's are 'on-stage.' For me, if there are no rules, then there is no game



I am not saying that there are no rules. I am saying that the rules may be different when the PCs are not implicated. In particular, the rules may take the form of strictly metagame allocations of narrative control, rather than the randomised action resolution mechanics and strictly determined character build mechanics that govern the PCs and their doings.

I readily believe you that this approach to play - that is, drawing a distinction at the gaming table between those ingame elements which matters and those which don't (or at least not in the same way), and having the rules treat them differently - hurts your sense of immersion, as you explain in this paragraph (although you refer to the distinction existing in your PC's mind, whereas I believe that you mean it exists in your mind - the mind of your PC is purely imaginary, and thus it needn't entertain the distinction if you specify that it does not):



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The issue is that for my character, this distinction does not exist, and thus in playing the role of my character, I cannot allow this distinction to exist in thier mind (or else I feel like I'm metagaming too much and it removes me from the game).



But in my view you do not help your explanation of your experience of RPG immersion by, in various ways, framing the discussion so as to fail to capture what is at stake, and also (inadvertently or not) so as to paint those with whom you are discussing in a pejorative light.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that doesn't get at the fact that my heroic adventurer is deathly affraid of these horses and their slippery saddles of heroic doom, now, because obviously being able to face a terrifying dragon's jaws doesn't mean you also can't just have a fatal 'whoopsiedaisy.'
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



But the dragon could also have killed you (both according to the rules, and within the ingame context). You didn't beat it because you were invulnerable (a 20th level Fighter in D&D, unlike Superman, is not invulnerable). You beat it because the Fates were on your side. 

Now, your preferred playstyle may reject the way my preceding paragraph interprets the relationship between rules and gameworld. But that interpretation does not generate the implications with which you mock it. In particular, the inference from "High level NPCs may die from riding accidents" to "The best way to kill a high level NPC is to gift him or her a horse" is so absurd that I can't really believe you intend it seriously.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Breaking the rules means that my confidence in the DM, and my ability to believe his world, and my trust that the game is in my hands in a way that is meanignful to me, is also fairly well broken.





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A DM who doesn't work according to the rules (which is cheating, even if it's allowed cheating, even if it's cheating that makes the game better for some groups) isn't a DM I would enjoy playing with.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I stand by all those statements, but I fail to see how my opinion really criticises anyone



Generally, being called a "cheater" or a "rulebreaker" would be taken as criticism, in the context of a discussion of how a game should, or might legitimately, be played.

I accept that you may not intend it as such, but those words have connotations which intention cannot really negate.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm far too harsh a critic on storytelling for D&D to ever really satisfy me.



See, comments like this imply that narrativist gaming is about producing stories, which will be shoddy and therefore not worth producing. That could also be interpreted as critical of narrativist play (or perhaps of the literary taste of narrativist players).

Again, I don't suggest that you meant to criticise. But, with respect, I do think that you are missing the point of narrativist play. Allow me to illustrate by way of an example from a different artisitic domain: I like to play the guitar and sing songs, to myself, to my partner, to my daughter. None of us (except perhaps my daughter, who is too young to have sound judgement) believes that my playing and singing is on a par with those whose songs I like to play and sing (Dylan, Cohen, Marley, etc). For me, the pleasure consists in the fact that is is my own creative act. For my partner, the pleasure consists in it being me - someone to whom she is very close - experiencing her partner's creative act.

Likewise in narrativist play. It is the fact that it is the creative act of me, and my friends, that produces pleasure. I wouldn't pay to watch us do it, just as I wouldn't pay to watch myself play and sing. But I don't play and sing just because it's cheaper than paying for a concert ticket. And I don't enjoy narrativist RPGing just because it's cheaper than paying for a theatre ticket.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'd also like to assert that this isn't about simulation for me. Indeed, it is about as purely a gamist argument as you can get: all the players obey the rules of the game at all times.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For me, there is never any off-stage.



I must confess I can't interpret your position as gamist, because the question of how NPCs resolve their interactions when PC protagonism is not implicated is not something that I can relate to gamist play priorities. How would this affect your capacity to use your PC as a vehicle for "stepping on up" and overcoming challenges?

Your motivation - namely, preservation of immersion in the gameworld - seems to be precisely the sort of motivation that epitomises simulationist play (in the Forge sense of that term).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 6, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Are you claiming that there is no situation that a non-simulationist ruleset could produce in which you wouldn't feel cheated by the outcome?



No. But you said that " It doesn't matter if you understand that the spirit of the rules or the needs of the story are more important than the rules. All that does is delay the inevitable. Sooner or later, everything will either conform to the rules or the 'audience' will rebel because they'll feel cheated." I rejected your generalisation. I don't quite get the relevance, to that, of my view that some cases might fit your description.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> If the game rules aren't the physics of the game world, then what is?
> 
> (And whatever you answer, isn't that the real game rules?)



But now, I see that by "rules" you don't mean what KM clearly does mean, namely the character build and action resolution mechanics.

But in that case I'm still puzzled. When you said  "everything will conform to the rules" I took you to mean "every event in the gameworld". But maybe you really meant "every event at the gaming table". If this is so, then so far from being ridiculous you were correct! But it makes no sense at all to talk of the rules that tell us how to play at the gaming table are the physics of the gameworld. For example, consider "Saying yes" rules - what does it mean to say that the gameworld does or doesn't conform to those rules, or that those rules are the physics of the gameworld?




			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The PC's have a reasonable expectation that the rule that applies to them is universal and will continue to apply whenever it is important to resolve something.



This makes no sense to me, as the PCs (presumably) have no beliefs about the rules, but only about the gameworld. And whether or not the players believe that the mechanics that govern the PCs also govern the NPCs depends entirely on what the rules of the game say.

To give my own answers that lie somewhere in the neighbourhood of the questions you have posed (both expressly and implicitly):

*There is a physics (sociology) of the gaming table that pertains to the play of the game (thus, I put to one side rules about who is to bring the chips, who the drink and so on). If the game doesn't conform to that, players will feel cheated and leave the group.

*There is a physics of the imaginary world (the gameworld) which may or may not bear some resemblance to the physics of our own world.

*Sometime these two things correlate quite closesly: that is, the game rules are also a model of the gameworld (the Forge calls that simulationist play).

*Sometimes they do not (as is the case, for example, with "Saying yes" rules).​
And to avoid posturing, and make it practical: suppose that every time the issue of pregnancy comes up, the players and GM all "Say yes" to ignoring it. Or, as is probably even more common, the players and GM all "Say yes" to ignoring the PCs urination and defecation while in the dungeon. It does not therefore follow that noone in the gameworld ever gets pregnant, nor that they never go to the toilet.

So this would be an example (drawn from my own gaming experience) which I believe shows that there can be consistent rules which are not the physics of the gameworld. And I think it also shows that there is a practical difference between John Snows type A and type B players.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 6, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> For the record, I've learned something from this thread. Clearly, it's very important that Group A people and Group B people never game together. Fortunately, all the people I know and am likely to game with are Group A, like me.




Yep, me too - and until recently I had no idea "Rules are Physics" people even existed.


----------



## Derren (Feb 6, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But the dragon could also have killed you (both according to the rules, and within the ingame context). You didn't beat it because you were invulnerable (a 20th level Fighter in D&D, unlike Superman, is not invulnerable). You beat it because the Fates were on your side.




The difference is that the dragon has to whittle away the fighters HP, while the fall from the horse is a save or die at best, a automatic death at worst.
So indeed the horse poses the much greater threat to the fighter than the dragon.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 6, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The difference is that the dragon has to whittle away the fighters HP, while the fall from the horse is a save or die at best, a automatic death at worst.
> So indeed the horse poses the much greater threat to the fighter than the dragon.




The question is what those hit points represent. Do you believe that a high level fighter can survive a brutal stabbing to his heart ? Is his skin as hard as stone ? Or is he still a creature of flesh and bones ?

The argument that I would make is that he is still very much a human being who is able to through a combination of heroic luck and combat skill avoid getting stabbed in the heart. I would also assert that the rules are a generalized set of abstractions that occasionally leak. When abstractions leak you use your personal judgement (by which I mean the collective judgement of the group) to apply the proper solution instead of becoming overly reliant on the abstraction.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 6, 2008)

A question for the narrativists in the crowd: How do you communicate and manage expectations of what could happen in-world?

Say, for instance, you have one player who is an elf-fanboy.  Say you have another player who is a tactics-fan.  Say that you have a battle situation that you want to resolve in a dramatically interesting mechanism.  The elf-fan has his legion of trained blademasters charge the pike-orcs, trusting in their superior elvish reflexes to get them into stabby-slashy range.  The tactics-fan replies by pointing out that superior elvish reflexes aren't enough to keep elves from getting impaled, especially when they are bunched together in formation, and orders his forces to prepare for the inevitable rout.

One player is emotionally invested in the world working one way; the other is emotionally invested in the world working a contrary way.  What happens then?  The optimal case is that play stops for a time while the players work out a compromise; Heaven help you if there have been any lingering questions about what elven reflexes really mean compared to how elves have been shown to fight previously in the world.  At worst, neither player is willing to budge, and you as GM are forced to choose arbitrarily; moreover, the player whose reality you chose against will know that the choice was fundamentally arbitrary.

If you have a rules framework detailing both the effects of reach weapons and elven reflexes compared to orcish reflexes, then you just roll the dice.  There exists a pre-generated, detailed agreement between the elf-player and the tactical-player establishing each of their feelings establishing exactly how much priority elven superiority is to be given versus pikes.

The rules can be viewed as a contract and declaration of preference between not just the players, but the players and the DM.  Having a set of rules for high-level fighters means more than declaring "My character can do this!"; it's declaring "Because my character is a high-level fighter, he can do this; if he ceases to be a high-level fighter, he cannot do this, and should another character come about that is a similarly-leveled fighter, he will be able to do the same, and I find all of this awesome."

And this leads us to the best way to, as a narrativist player, please the simulationists in the crowd; make things in' metal.  You want a high-level knight to die of a fall from horseback? Fine; only he killed a dozen ogres on top of a cliff, than was struck by lightning on account of being the tallest thing left on the hill, and being blood-soaked from horseshoe-to-sword first.  You want an apprentice wizard to flub a ritual?  His experimentation was with the creation of a cursed spell-completion magic item based on his Summon Monster II spell; the energy expended in creating it left him horribly drained, and there are signs that the efreet might have been influencing him even before the ritual was completed.  That apprentice?  He's the first apprentice in decades to pass the master's accelerated training regimen; he actually is a 4th-level fighter.  (And sometimes cries in his sleep about "The knuckles! The horrible knuckles!".  It's probably best not to ask why.)  If the rules say "This event should be big, dramatic, and momentous." and the players like the rules, then if you want the event to happen, give it flair.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 6, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> The question is what those hit points represent. Do you believe that a high level fighter can survive a brutal stabbing to his heart ? Is his skin as hard as stone ? Or is he still a creature of flesh and bones ?
> 
> The argument that I would make is that he is still very much a human being who is able to through a combination of heroic luck and combat skill avoid getting stabbed in the heart. I would also assert that the rules are a generalized set of abstractions that occasionally leak. When abstractions leak you use your personal judgement (by which I mean the collective judgement of the group) to apply the proper solution instead of becoming overly reliant on the abstraction.




That's the point under discussion, really.  What the game world represents is that while a high-level fighter will die if you brutally stab him in the heart, this event is not possible while she has hit points remaining.

If you start from the assumption that HP represent the inconstant nature of luck and skill combined with fatigue and possibly a helping of being slowed from minor injuries, than you have a problem.  This is easily fixed by using the damage save from Mutants and Masterminds, and if you have people who expect the world to make sense, should be so fixed.

Because what the rules actually represent is warriors who merely bend slightly under blows that should break them.  It's not simply a measure of skill and luck, unless luck can soften stone and cool magma, can be regenerated with positive energy (or by creatures that physically regenerate their luck), are partially represented by a creature's structural stability or physical health, and can be damaged by spells such as Inflict Light Wounds.

You don't like the rules? Change them.  As mentioned, if you want high-level warriors to merely be lucky and skilled, there are systems that represent this.  HP in D&D is not one of them.  For some of us, this is a feature.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 6, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> You don't like the rules? Change them.  As mentioned, if you want high-level warriors to merely be lucky and skilled, there are systems that represent this.  HP in D&D is not one of them.  For some of us, this is a feature.



You don't need to change the rules for describing "off-table" events. And you certainly don't have to switch to a different game system for that, either.

I certainly don't want my 10th level Fighter to die from falling from a horse.
But I don't mind if the DM tells me that what happens to Knight Jaros of the Lightbringers and explains why the local village is without a strong leader that can lead them against the Orc tribe harassing them. 

As a DM, I will always use the rules as a starting point for describing off-table events, but if that is not sufficient, I will ignore them.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 6, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> You don't like the rules? Change them.  As mentioned, if you want high-level warriors to merely be lucky and skilled, there are systems that represent this.  HP in D&D is not one of them.  For some of us, this is a feature.




The rules function fine for my games *most of the time*, and I *generally* like the impact that hit points have on gameplay. They provide an abstraction that almost always suits my purposes, and in those rare cases that the abstraction fails to fit the needs of the game I tend to use other abstractions while attempting to stay fairly consistant with previous events.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 6, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Say, for instance, you have one player who is an elf-fanboy.  Say you have another player who is a tactics-fan.  Say that you have a battle situation that you want to resolve in a dramatically interesting mechanism.  The elf-fan has his legion of trained blademasters charge the pike-orcs, trusting in their superior elvish reflexes to get them into stabby-slashy range.  The tactics-fan replies by pointing out that superior elvish reflexes aren't enough to keep elves from getting impaled, especially when they are bunched together in formation, and orders his forces to prepare for the inevitable rout.
> 
> One player is emotionally invested in the world working one way; the other is emotionally invested in the world working a contrary way.  What happens then?



Here's my elegant solution: some nights the elf-fanboy wins, other nights the tactics-fan wins. In other words, design the gaming sessions so that each one "showcases" different players preferred play-style (and/or set of assumptions). Easy-peasy!


----------



## shilsen (Feb 6, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Here's my elegant solution: some nights the elf-fanboy wins, other nights the tactics-fan wins. In other words, design the gaming sessions so that each one "showcases" different players preferred play-style (and/or set of assumptions). Easy-peasy!



 Nice, but I think it would be even more elegant if I attacked the PCs with a bunch of elves who use a combination of elven mojo and incredible tactics to beat the crap out of both the elven fanboy and the tactics-fan. So the enemies prove the coolness of elves and the usefulness of tactics and everyone's happy. Well, I'd be happy, and that's the important thing, isn't it?


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 6, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> A question for the narrativists in the crowd: How do you communicate and manage expectations of what could happen in-world?
> 
> Say, for instance, you have one player who is an elf-fanboy.  Say you have another player who is a tactics-fan.
> 
> One player is emotionally invested in the world working one way; the other is emotionally invested in the world working a contrary way.  What happens then?




We see that there is a conflict and we roll the dice to resolve it.  Either the elves will be stabbed to death, or the orcs will be overrun.

Here are some sample narrations:

Elf wins, Orcs lose.  The elves make their rush against the orcish line; some are killed instantly by the massed pikes, but with their superior elven reflexes they are able to react quickly enough to change tactics, reform, regroup, and destroy the orcs.

Elf lose, Orcs win.  The elves come rushing on the orcs, and even though they have superior reflexes, there are just too many orcs for the elves to defeat.


The dice roll deals with resolving the conflict, and the players can work out the "colour" to make everyone happy.

The rules framework we are dealing with is something like this: the elf player's PC has a skill of "Guts 5" and the orc's player's PC has a skill of "Glory 5".  They roll against each other, we see who wins.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 6, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> That claim entirely begs the question against the competing contention, that hit points can be interpreted as a type of plot protection (ie a metagame device introduced for narrative convenience).




And I believe I've made clear why that's unsatisfying to me. Sure, go for it, have fun, don't tell me I'm wrong for not liking that.



> Asked within the gameworld, the answer to the question "Why did the NK die?" is "Something point was stuck in its guts." Asked at the playing table "Why did the NK die?" the answer is "Because it was something that the players and/or GM cared about."




The latter answer feels hollow to me, because 'something pointy stuck in his guts' is performed, in the game world, by (for instance) rolling an attack roll, not by narrative contrivance. If you ignore the rule for the sake of expedience because it's offscreen, then it feels much less significant when my character obeys the rule to slay the next NK. 

Now, I'm fine with 'assuming background rolls,' meaning that the DM doesn't actually have to roll the attack roll for the 20th level fighter vs. the NK, but the record of what happened has to, for me, fall within the capacity for the rules to describe. 

This basically boils down to the aforementioned point of things that are impossible in the rules (20th level fighters dying from falling off of horses) are still impossible when the rules are being glossed over for the sake of convenience, because for my enjoyment of the game to remain intact, it's important that those rules still are being followed. 

At the table, "Why did the NK die?" is answered by "Well, obviously the 20th level fighter did damage to him. Perhaps if your characters are facing his successor you should try to get your hands on the sword that killed him, it might be magical. Or perhaps you should see the witch that blessed him, she might be able to help you. These are the mechanisms in the game world that NPC used to do this deed, and they still exist for you to do your deeds."



> The issue is this: ought the character build mechanics and/or action resolution mechanics be regarded as the total account of how people and their endeavours unfold in the gameworld? or ought they to be regarded as purely metagame conveniences for resolving a subset of the gameworld (namely, the PCs and their adventures) that is of particular interest to those at the gaming table?




The former is closer to my position; the latter is unsatisfying to me for reasons I think I've made abundantly clear.



> I am saying that the rules may be different when the PCs are not implicated. In particular, the rules may take the form of strictly metagame allocations of narrative control, rather than the randomised action resolution mechanics and strictly determined character build mechanics that govern the PCs and their doings.




It harms, for me, the believability of a game, to follow inconsistent rules for when the PC's are implicated and when they are not.

Inconsistent rules like "high-level characters die when I declare it to be relevant," rather than "high-level characters die when they've taken X amount of damage."

These often work together -- high level characters die when I declare them to have taken X amount of damage, and the rolls don't really matter, because the results are consistent with what the PC's face.

In the example of the knight and the horse, they don't. Superman dies in a car crash. This is inconsistent. It thus harms the believability of the world.



> But in my view you do not help your explanation of your experience of RPG immersion by, in various ways, framing the discussion so as to fail to capture what is at stake, and also (inadvertently or not) so as to paint those with whom you are discussing in a pejorative light.




Prof Phobos had often accused my dislike of this to be irrational, boring, badwrongfun, and me of being disingenuous. I felt like it was important to my case to establish that, no, I really and honestly *do* dislike this, and I described what it felt like *to me* when such actions occur. Indeed, the OP seemed, in part, to be saying that this is the way the game has and should work. I disagree, I dislike it when it works that way, and my dislike is an entirely valid position. You can disagree with my feelings on the matter, but accusing my feelings of being irrational and inconsistent means that I need to show you why I feel that way.

So my description of this as "cheating" and "breaking the rules" was intended to convey my subjective emotional judgment of it, to hopefully show that feeling that way is an entirely valid position, and that thus, the OP and Prof Phobos are incorrect if they think that their way is the best way for the game to work. For me, it's not.



> I must confess I can't interpret your position as gamist, because the question of how NPCs resolve their interactions when PC protagonism is not implicated is not something that I can relate to gamist play priorities. How would this affect your capacity to use your PC as a vehicle for "stepping on up" and overcoming challenges?
> 
> Your motivation - namely, preservation of immersion in the gameworld - seems to be precisely the sort of motivation that epitomises simulationist play (in the Forge sense of that term).




But what brings me out of that immersion is the sense that there is no game. 

By using the rules only when the PC is on the stage, you confine the "game" to only when the PC is on the stage, and when the rest of the world is existing, there, for me, is no 'game,' because it is handled by fiat with no nod to the way the rules work in the context of the PC's on stage. 

In monopoly, in poker, in scrabble, the idea of 'protagonism' is entirely alien. In D&D, it is, for me, as well. When it is not my turn as a player (when other people are doing things that I would need to react to -- when the DM is running the world behind the scenes), I still expect the other players to adhere to the rules.

When they don't, I don't see the point in playing.

If the DM doesn't use the rules 'behind the scenes,' I can't legitimately step up and challenge the things he throws at me, because these things arise from a place that, to me, is unwelcomingly arbitrary. It would be similar to being in a Scrabble game where one player got to make up words, or didn't have to use vowels. 

My goal isn't the exploration of a world, of a system, or of a theme. My goal is to play the game, not for any greater purpose than to simply play the game. To do that, the rules need to be in force when it's not my turn, or it seems brazenly unfair to me. 

If the game remains and is consistent for all players, I'll enjoy any story you tell with it, any world you want me to explore, but when the game is compromised because the rules are suspended for one player, I can't really enjoy anything about it.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 6, 2008)

I'm going to repeat my question because it apparently got lost in the scrum.

Does my character have to eat in your world KM and others who agree that the rules describe the physics of the world?

Also, KM, you've repeatedly stated that PC's and NPC's should be treated exactly the same.  How do you feel about Action Points?  NPC's are specifically forbidden from using Action Points, thus we have a mechanic that places PC's in a completely different category than NPC's.

Is that an acceptable rule in your game?


----------



## allenw (Feb 6, 2008)

Well, it's good to see that rumors of the impending death of the Law/Chaos dichotomy were greatly exaggerated.     Though I agree with Celebrim that most people, myself included, average out to "Neutral" on that axis.

  Philosophically, I agree with the premise that, when dramatically appropriate, NPCs can die from relatively trivial causes.  However, as a DM (and a player), part of my enjoyment comes from the exercise of trying to accomplish as many of my goals as possible within the framework of the rules (much as I find composing a poem or song lyrics more satisfying, *and* sometimes easier, within the framework of a given meter and rhyme scheme); if there are no rules for a desired outcome, it can also be fun and challenging to come up with some.

  For example, if the desired outcome is that "inactive former adventurers (such as many kings) aren't as tough or skilled as they used to be (see: Rocky III and sequels)," then I start thinking about "level-atrophy" rules.  What if every X months spent outside the "adventuring lifestyle" (or equivalent, such as regular intensive training and workouts) gave you a negative level (including the sometimes-referenced-in-the-RAW -5 hp), to a max of (character level -1) negative levels, which would never result in actual "level loss" or death, but could only be "worked off" through X weeks of intensive training (cue "Rocky" theme and 80's training montage)?  You'd probably want to put some floor on how low skills, BAB, saves, and HP could get.  Naturally, undead, outsiders, and other potentially-levelled immortal critters that tend to be stuck in small rooms for decades would be immune.

  Is any of the above necessary?  IMO, no, but it can add to the fun.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 6, 2008)

> Does my character have to eat in your world KM and others who agree that the rules describe the physics of the world?




Yeah. There are rules for starvation. It's one of those circumstances that can be simplified and glossed over in play, but it happens 'behind the scenes' all the time. If it doesn't happen, there are rules (admittedly, IMO not very good ones, ones that could definately be improved) for what happens when you don't eat. I don't usually need to employ that rule, given that your character can afford or find enough food and drink for himself pretty simply by the book, but you do buy and use rations, buy and consume meals, etc. 



> Also, KM, you've repeatedly stated that PC's and NPC's should be treated exactly the same. How do you feel about Action Points? NPC's are specifically forbidden from using Action Points, thus we have a mechanic that places PC's in a completely different category than NPC's.




"Action Points" are like "Levels" and "Experience Points" in that only heroic creatures get them. In my games, heroic NPC's will get them and use them, too. 

Though I'm not sure you can say that NPC's are specifically forbidden from using Action Points. Doesn't the preview Pit Fiend have an Action Point, and a specific way to use it? Sounds like 4e is in accord with me on this.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 6, 2008)

3e has lots of different rules for NPCs - NPC class, different wealth by level guidelines, nonelite and standard arrays.

So its rules don't present a consistent world.

Likewise it often lacks rules for off screen action. One example is the way skum are created from human stock. This is stated in the fluff but there are no rules for it. Aboleths have no relevant powers or SLAs to accomplish the transformation.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Feb 6, 2008)

allenw said:
			
		

> "level-atrophy" rules.




Awesome.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 6, 2008)

> 3e has lots of different rules for NPCs - NPC class, different wealth by level guidelines, nonelite and standard arrays.
> 
> So its rules don't present a consistent world.




In that instance, you have a distinction between the 'heroic' and the 'nonheroic,' which is entirely following the model of heroic fantasy. Where the rules were too complex to be efficient or created unsatisfactory results (NPC wealth, for instance) were perfect places for house rules and, ultimately, 4th edition to fix.



> Likewise it often lacks rules for off screen action. One example is the way skum are created from human stock. This is stated in the fluff but there are no rules for it. Aboleths have no relevant powers or SLAs to accomplish the transformation.




Again, this is why the DM's ability to make rules and judgements is an important one.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 6, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> A question for the narrativists in the crowd: How do you communicate and manage expectations of what could happen in-world?
> .




I _ask_.



> The issue is this: ought the character build mechanics and/or action resolution mechanics be regarded as the total account of how people and their endeavours unfold in the gameworld? or ought they to be regarded as purely metagame conveniences for resolving a subset of the gameworld (namely, the PCs and their adventures) that is of particular interest to those at the gaming table?




An _excellent_ summary of the issue.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 6, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The difference is that the dragon has to whittle away the fighters HP, while the fall from the horse is a save or die at best, a automatic death at worst.
> So indeed the horse poses the much greater threat to the fighter than the dragon.




I just had to respond to this one.

The same principle that allows a 20th level NPC off-screen to fall from a horse and break his neck logically also allows a dragon to kill him with a single bite, without whittling away at his hitpoints.  It also allows him to die from an arrow through the eye fired by a Commoner 1.  It also allows him to die by having a heart attack or choking on a fish bone.  (Though certainly his 20th level cleric friend could bring him back.)

Conversely, a dragon might die from a single arrow fired through a gap in its scales.

Basically, adventuring-  heck, being alive is always a dangerous business.  Falling from a horse is an example, not the only point where the rules and the world don't agree.

Now I agree that in many ways, it is hard to make the 3.5 hitpoint model work for this.  It strides an uncomfortable divide between hitpoints as physical ability to absorb damage and narrative protection.  Again, there's a reason this is posted in the 4E forum.  From everything we've heard, 4E will do a much better job of presenting hitpoints as narrative protection and determination/luck/skill rather than as physical damage.

Otherwise warlords wouldn't be able to heal people by giving them pep talks.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 6, 2008)

> The same principle that allows a 20th level NPC off-screen to fall from a horse and break his neck logically also allows a dragon to kill him with a single bite, without whittling away at his hitpoints. It also allows him to die from an arrow through the eye fired by a Commoner 1. It also allows him to die by having a heart attack or choking on a fish bone. (Though certainly his 20th level cleric friend could bring him back.)




And all of these strike me as the DM basically ignoring the rules, and thus don't create a rewarding game for me.



> Basically, adventuring- heck, being alive is always a dangerous business. Falling from a horse is an example, not the only point where the rules and the world don't agree.




In a game of heroic adventure, "being alive" isn't dangerous business for the heroes. It is for the commoners. It would violate D&D's assumed genre to kill Superman in a car accident.

If you want to make heroes a bit less invulnerable, there's a lot of cool ways to do that by the book, that would allow for 20th level fighters dying from falling off a horse, things that make the PC's more like Batman than like Superman, but it hurts my sense of verisimilitude when hit points get 'turned off' when the spotlight isn't on them.



> Now I agree that in many ways, it is hard to make the 3.5 hitpoint model work for this. It strides an uncomfortable divide between hitpoints as physical ability to absorb damage and narrative protection. Again, there's a reason this is posted in the 4E forum. From everything we've heard, 4E will do a much better job of presenting hitpoints as narrative protection and determination/luck/skill rather than as physical damage.
> 
> Otherwise warlords wouldn't be able to heal people by giving them pep talks.




I think 4e will expressly state that hit points are luck, skill, endurance, and sheer cussedness. I don't think they'll mention narrative protection at all, because they _still_ won't go away when a PC isn't the narrative focus, because the 4e designers realize that not everyone enjoys this style of play. 

I think in 4e, I will _still_ have trouble believing that a 20th level warlord can fall from a horse and die without resorting to DM fiat that, for me, goes too far. 

I do think in 4e, I will be able to rationalize how a pep talk or a second wind can restore your ability to fight on. That doesn't mean that this idea of "rules are only there when the PC's are there" is in full force, but it probably means that the concept is given more attention than it was in 3e, which is a good thing by all counts.


----------



## IanB (Feb 6, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think in 4e, I will _still_ have trouble believing that a 20th level warlord can fall from a horse and die without resorting to DM fiat that, for me, goes too far.




Are all accidental deaths outside the realm of possibility, or is it just the ones for which we have abstract rules systems already?

Could he die from a heart attack or stroke? Could he choke to death on a fig? Surely he could drown, we have rules for that. Old age? Autoerotic asphyxiation?

And if he can die in all these ways in an acceptably simulationist way, but can't die from a fall because the falling rules won't allow it, how can we _not_ just draw the conclusion that the falling rules suck?


----------



## Primal (Feb 6, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Not that I care one way or the other about this, but you should keep in mind that 40 d20 rolls per player per session is not unreasonable.  With 5 players making 40 rolls each, it means that a "very bad thing" happens once every second session to at least someone in the party.
> 
> This is WAY too often for my liking.




Um, I *did* note that this is not inherently "a bad that happens to the PCs" such as "instant-fumble-that-kills-your-PC" -- I noted that it's rather a 'Story Event' in most cases. Sometimes, yes, it might signify a terrible Fumble (such as hitting an ally) but most often it's not -- compare it to Ars Magica's Story Events that in my experience usually also happen at least once per session (or even more often if you spend multiple Seasons). Actually the correct  term might be 'Complication'. How many times your PCs roll a Crit per session? It happens as often (in theory) as an "Insta Kill" (the optional rule: Double 20s and confirmation to kill anything with a single blow -- this has been used in every group I have gamed with).


----------



## Mirtek (Feb 6, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> From everything we've heard, 4E will do a much better job of presenting hitpoints as narrative protection and determination/luck/skill rather than as physical damage.



Unless 4e will make clear distinctions between being hit by a sword (or rather avoiding being hit by a sword because of hp) and being immersed in lava that won't work any better than before.


----------



## Primal (Feb 6, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> Though most of the people who argue against Phobos would probably not like the narrativist aspects of Indie games. They have generally said they dislike the meta-gaming element that pretty much is required to exist in those type of games.
> 
> So unfortunately this is not a solution to this potential disagreement (i say unfortunately not because of judgement of what type of game over another but of trying to resolve an issue)




Hmmm... and D&D does not have any meta-gaming elements? In many Indie RPGs you, as a player, at least have a "legit" way (i.e. "sanctioned by the rules") to always "interfere" with what happens in the story -- whether by a conflict or negotiation. So if the GM declares something, you're entitled to challenge that if you deem it unfair, or not fitting your idea of how the story should proceed or if you think it is important from your character's perspective.


----------



## Toras (Feb 6, 2008)

Professor Phobos, I understand much of where you are coming from and I can appreciate it.  But I can certainly understand where KM is coming from with a great deal of his complaints.  I have fallen upon narrative convenience when I've run, but even then a level of reasonability or explantion is required.

Yes the rules can be considered a meta-game construct for interaction, rather than a model but it would require so little to simply make a note of that sort of contrivance. 

House 1: Phobos's Law
-Your personal power represented the extent to which Fate has invested itself within you.  Thus once you have completed what Fate requires of you, it will dwindle to whatever Fate decrees.    

In this case, you have an in-game force that explains this drastic imbalance and might lead to more interesting stories as former adventures seek to reclaim what the Fates have robbed them of, or Villians seeking to alter the Loom of Fate and rob our heroes of their powers.  

That took me two minutes, and in my opinion it makes a difference.  Some characters and players might take umbrage with the Fates or Fate (as a disembodied force) having that much control over their character. I suspect KM is one that might, but is this not better than simply saying Cause?


----------



## apoptosis (Feb 6, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Hmmm... and D&D does not have any meta-gaming elements? In many Indie RPGs you, as a player, at least have a "legit" way (i.e. "sanctioned by the rules") to always "interfere" with what happens in the story -- whether by a conflict or negotiation. So if the GM declares something, you're entitled to challenge that if you deem it unfair, or not fitting your idea of how the story should proceed or if you think it is important from your character's perspective.




No it does, I probably could've clarified but the people who are arguing for issues that break their immersion will not like the type of narrativist rules that they Indie games have done so well.

KM has stated that he does not like rules that will reduce his immersive experience ( a completely valid opinion to have) and these meta-gamist elements of indie games can do that for some people.

Adam


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 6, 2008)

I can see the distinctions more clearly now. It boils down to how you answer various questions.

1) Is the high-level hero like Superman, in being actually invulnerable to certain kinds of injury, or is he like Batman, who is just "narratively" protected from those forms of injury?

2) As a corellary to the above, what do hit points represent in the gameworld?

3) Does the DM need to create a mechanical resolution system for every possible eventuality he wants to have occur in the game world?

4) Is it more troubling to your "suspension of disbelief" for PCs to be "narratively special" or for the game world to "operate under physics substantially divergent from our own?"

Back to point 3, I *could*, as a DM, decide that if you fall off a  horse, a natural 1 (5% chance) on your REF save forces you to roll on a d% table. And that a result of 00 (1%) on this table means you have potentially suffered a serious injury from this inconsequential fall and must roll on a second table. And that a result of 00 (1%) on that second table means the character has suffered causing a broken neck resulting in either instant death (failed save), or long-term injury (successful save). After all this, the chance of this happening to a PC is a game-acceptable (to me) 1-in-a-million (or less). However, it is now, by the rules, _possible_ for any character to break his neck falling off a horse, and so my NPC king can bite it that way. But I have to wonder, is this houserule (which just about everyone says I have every right to make) worth the effort? Since I have no plan for this rule to apply to the PCs, my gut instinct says "no." Too much effort for too little reward. Especially when there's a simple solution: it happened to this NPC because that's my plot hook. 

Since it's narratively unsatisfactory, I, as a DM, will never do this to a PC. However, the player may make that decision if he wants, just as he could choose to have his character lose an eye, get scarred, or whatever. I'd do all of the above without penalty (unless the player wanted one). However, in the interests of "realism," if a player wants his swordsman to lose his dominant hand, I'd have to impose at least a temporary penalty until the character had some time to train. It might, for example, last until he went up a level or maybe even took a feat of some kind. But I imagine a player who decided to have his character lose his dominant hand would expect, and even want, a penalty like this.

Just to cover point 4 in slightly more detail, I'd add this. By the rules of Point 4, if I game in the _Forgotten Realms,_ my PCs are "special" in a way that, for example, Elminster and Drizzt are not. As the "main characters" in my game, the PCs just have narrative protection that NPCs lack. On the other hand, I usually have a "Lois Lane" exemption too. Which is to say this: an important supporting character won't be killed off in an arbitrary way. In other words, it's fine for the game if Lois Lane dies, as long as Superman at least has a chance to save her. But Lois slipping on a bar of soap and cracking her head open isn't "cool."

Basically, I hold the view that when characters are offstage, their campaign "significance" is more relevant than their in-game stats. KM, I know you don't share this opinion but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 6, 2008)

> Are all accidental deaths outside the realm of possibility, or is it just the ones for which we have abstract rules systems already?
> 
> Could he die from a heart attack or stroke? Could he choke to death on a fig? Surely he could drown, we have rules for that. Old age? Autoerotic asphyxiation?
> 
> And if he can die in all these ways in an acceptably simulationist way, but can't die from a fall because the falling rules won't allow it, how can we not just draw the conclusion that the falling rules suck?




It is difficult for me to accept a heroic being (a 20th level fighter) dying by random accident. It's not impossible, but the more possible it becomes, the less heroic that being is, and the less heroic the world is, and the less I feel like I'm playing a heroic fantasy game.

If he had a heart attack or a stroke or choked to death on a fig, it is too obviously transparent to me as a metagame descision, and too 'realistic,' to me, to fit in a heroic game, so it makes the experience unsatisfying for me.

If the DM introduced rules for these things, I think most of us would agree that they'd be pretty pointless rules, and would add very little to the game. If the king was a 1st level Aristocrat instead of a 20th level fighter, all these things could kill him without me raising much of an eyebrow, because all these things routinely kill normal people, and the king uses the rules for 'normal person' and not for 'heroic being.' If the DM intended it to be a mysterious "accidental" death that the PC's could investigate, I'd gladly send my character after that little trail, knowing, in-character, that Slayers of Dragons don't just choke on normal figs. 

We have rules for drowning and for running out of breath and for old age, and as long as what happened to him falls within the bounds of what the rules describe would happen to him, those don't really violate my sense of realism. If for some reason he was underwater too long to hold his breath (given that a high CON probably means he can hold his breath for quite a while), he can die. If he's roughly within the age range for an old character, he can die. It won't break me out of the game, and the DM can adhere to those rules without ever rolling a single die. 

And we can say that the falling rules, or the aging rules, or the drowning rules suck, and we can make new rules to replace them. The aging rules are a perfect candidate (and I'd bet that 4e doesn't have any height/weight/aging rules, though I bet the averages are described for each race). Heck, we can decide that the hit point rules suck, and change those. The point is to remain internally consistent, so that even when the camera isn't in focus on an event, it is still running 'invisibly' by the same rules, because for me, D&D isn't a story. It isn't a simulation, either, it's a game, and in any game, all the players should abide by the rules that are relevant to them.

Which means when someone falls, the results possible and likely are already described, either 'on-stage' or not.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Feb 6, 2008)

I tend to prefer the interpretation that hit points are how the world works. So, no, a high-level fighter can't die by falling off a horse, in my game.

As an interesting aside, if the aged Baron who slew dragons in his youth were to be found in the forest with a broken neck after his steed returned alone, it might be assumed that he had fallen from the horse and died like so many others...if you were one of the callow fops and courtesans that populated his court, and knew nothing of how deep his strength ran.  But the Elven Wizard and Dwarven Rogue (the PCs!) who were his boon companions in his youth are still hale and strong, in the fullness of their youth as their people count the years.  And they know their friend survived a hundred blows of ten times the strength, and could never have been slain by so slight a force.

There is foul play about, and they will find the heart of it no matter what self-important dandy presumes to call them Romantics.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 6, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Basically, I hold the view that when characters are offstage, their campaign "significance" is more relevant than their in-game stats. KM, I know you don't share this opinion but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.




And that's totally okay. Honest.  Though I'd like to point out something else in your post:



> But I have to wonder, is this houserule (which just about everyone says I have every right to make) worth the effort? Since I have no plan for this rule to apply to the PCs, my gut instinct says "no." Too much effort for too little reward. Especially when there's a simple solution: it happened to this NPC because that's my plot hook.




You're pretty right on the money, here, I wouldn't make such a house rule, either. I don't think it'd make the game any better.

Which means, to me, I can't use it as an excuse to kill off a given heroic NPC.

Which also means I have to think of another way to kill him, or use different stats to represent him, or somehow work, within the rules of the game, to get the end that I want. 

My simple solution? Depends on why I'm killing him. If it's to get the PCs to investigate, then something like a warlock's curse would be perfect. If it's to sew unrest in the kingdom, then he can be a 1st level Aristocrat. Or whatever.



> Since it's narratively unsatisfactory, I, as a DM, will never do this to a PC. However, the player may make that decision if he wants, just as he could choose to have his character lose an eye, get scarred, or whatever. I'd do all of the above without penalty (unless the player wanted one). However, in the interests of "realism," if a player wants his swordsman to lose his dominant hand, I'd have to impose at least a temporary penalty until the character had some time to train. It might, for example, last until he went up a level or maybe even took a feat of some kind. But I imagine a player who decided to have his character lose his dominant hand would expect, and even want, a penalty like this.




I'm in basic agreement, here.



> Just to cover point 4 in slightly more detail, I'd add this. By the rules of Point 4, if I game in the Forgotten Realms, my PCs are "special" in a way that, for example, Elminster and Drizzt are not. As the "main characters" in my game, the PCs just have narrative protection that NPCs lack. On the other hand, I usually have a "Lois Lane" exemption too. Which is to say this: an important supporting character won't be killed off in an arbitrary way. In other words, it's fine for the game if Lois Lane dies, as long as Superman at least has a chance to save her. But Lois slipping on a bar of soap and cracking her head open isn't "cool."




I've worked a lot of interesting lines out of the difference between 'heroic' characters and the 'mere mortals' they are expected to protect, and D&D currently does a wonderful job of allowing me to do that, with NPC classes and 'everyone is 1st level' rules. I might have Jimmy Olsen slip and fall on a bar of soap and die, if I think it'll somehow be cool (like, the PC's then go on a planar adventure to save his soul). But I wouldn't have a heroic character do the same, because it's pretty much never cool -- Superman CAN'T die like that. Jimmy Olsen could. That's a valuable distinction for me, and one of the many reasons I prefer D&D.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 6, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But now, I see that by "rules" you don't mean what KM clearly does mean, namely the character build and action resolution mechanics.




I'm not entirely sure what KM includes in the word 'rules' because I don't think he's made it perfectly clear.  (Though to be honest I'm not paying alot of attention to KM's thread of the discussion.)  I will say that 'action resolution mechanics' covers IMO alot broader of an area than the formalized rules of the game.  I don't think there is any table out there that has as its body of 'rules' only the RAW.  There might be tables that think that they do, but I believe that they haven't been terribly self-reflective.  It's not clear to me that KM thinks that the only rules are the rules as written and the a priori specified house rules.  I'm not sure that he would disagree with my claim that there is an equally important body of 'table common law' which resolves actions not clearly or fully specified by the RAW - such as the case of 'what happens when non-spellcasters do not sleep every 24 hours for prolonged periods'.  



> But in that case I'm still puzzled. When you said  "everything will conform to the rules" I took you to mean "every event in the gameworld". But maybe you really meant "every event at the gaming table" If this is so, then so far from being ridiculous you were correct!




Ok, so if we've established that it remains to resolve whether every event at the gaming table is functionally equivalent to every event in the game world.



> But it makes no sense at all to talk of the rules that tell us how to play at the gaming table are the physics of the gameworld. For example, consider "Saying yes" rules - what does it mean to say that the gameworld does or doesn't conform to those rules, or that those rules are the physics of the gameworld?




Ewwww.... we are about to jump into the deep end of the pool.  I like.

Let me make sure that I understand what you mean.  By 'saying yes' rules, do you mean a resolution system that involves one or more players voting on resolutions so that actions are resolved in a consensual fashion?  If so, let me first state that such a resolution system when generalized is for the most part so far removed from how D&D games normally resolve cause and effect as to be a totally new discussion.

I won't discuss this in detail until I know exactly what you mean by the term, but I will say in brief that as I understand it 'saying yes' is a special case of referee fiat, differing only in that 'the referee' in this case refers to more than one person.  As such, most of what I've said about DM fiat already applies.



> This makes no sense to me, as the PCs (presumably) have no beliefs about the rules, but only about the gameworld. And whether or not the players believe that the mechanics that govern the PCs also govern the NPCs depends entirely on what the rules of the game say.




Ok, you are quite correct here.  I meant to say 'player' and wrote 'PC' by mistake.  It seems to me that we must be very careful to define what me mean by the mechanics that govern the NPC's also govern the PC's if we are to avoid some red herrings.

a) I've frequently had posters counter this claim by saying something along the lines of, 'Well, of course the players don't expect the same rules to apply to monsters and PC's, because monsters have all sorts of advantages PC's don't.  For example, dragons breath fire.'  This is a red herring.  Clearly, PC's don't have a reasonable expectation that things which are of different in game types won't follow the exact same rules.  No one expects the rules for elves and dwarves to be exactly the same, or the rules for dragons and humans to be exactly the same, or for that matter no one is surprised if maces and swords have different special rules attached to them.  They are distinguishable in the game, and hense mechanical distinguishing features aren't surprising.  But this is a red herring because the designation NPC and PC is a pure metagame distinguishment with no in game basis (or very likely none).
b) A variation on the above is that you might claim that different rules applied to NPC's and PC's because NPC's had different feats or skills.  Same sort of thing.  So long as the PC could have qualified for the feat or ability provided they had the same background as the NPC, this doesn't apply.
c) You have to distinguish between a situation where the PCs are uniquely different and merely different from the vast majority of the population.  The expectation is that PCs are heroes.  But if the expectation is that heroes are merely rare, and that the PC mechanics apply to NPC heroes (and villains) then this is not really a case of the PCs and the NPCs obeying different rules.  The elite, 'Heroes' - whether PC or NPC, still follow the same rules.
d) Most recent systems that try to pull off game mechanics where the PCs and NPCs do have different rules try to alleviate player concerns by making it clear that the rules differences will always favor the PCs.  That is to say, being a PC is always strictly better mechanically than being a NPC.  I don't think I can reasonably claim that that will eventually gall everyone, as there is always going to be someone that doesn't think he's being cheated so long as the resolution system always tilts in his favor.  But I will claim that this is itself a slippery slope and that it will gall alot of players. 
e) I'd like to note just how important the perception of 'd' is to the trick of getting someone to accept the whole flim-flam.  If the designers of 4e quite correctly pointed out that the game is rigged in the players advantage anyway by the simple fact that most DMs create adventures where player and player character success is by design, and hense justified on that basis that the rules could (indeed should) 'cheat' in the favor of NPCs in order that the players would be suffiicently challenged to enjoy the game, I think that alot more people would be thinking harder about why having NPC's and PC's use the same rules is a good idea.  Having NPC classes and abilities far superior to PC abilities doesn't necessarily need to gall a player right away either.  Afterall, there is no particular reason why NPC's should be 'balanced' the way PC's are, and its all good as long as you win, right?  The trouble with this creeps up more subtly than you think.  It comes not from the obvious NPC with DM fiat plot protection, or the NPC that the DM gave 'die no save' attacks.  It comes from trying to interact with the world in the same way that an NPC just did and having the DM just flat out say, "No."  Not just, "No, you need to do X."   The guy that was asking, "What happens when the NPC the player is trying to protect gets reduced to -1 hit points?" is asking the right sort of question.   



> And to avoid posturing, and make it practical: suppose that every time the issue of pregnancy comes up, the players and GM all "Say yes" to ignoring it. Or, as is probably even more common, the players and GM all "Say yes" to ignoring the PCs urination and defecation while in the dungeon. It does not therefore follow that noone in the gameworld ever gets pregnant, nor that they never go to the toilet.




I would argue that this is a bit of sleight-of-hand, in that you are making a claim about the 'Saying yes' ruling that isn't in fact warranted.  Ok, so lets imagine that by some concensus (even just, 'I'm the DM and I make the rules.'), the table agrees to ignore PC urination and defecation.  Then it does not therefore follow that noone in the gameword never goes to the toliet, _not because the ruling says that the PC's don't go to the toliet, but because the ruling merely says that we will ignore it as having no pertinant role in the game._  The ruling almost certainly is not literally that PC's never urinate or defecate, but merely that we'll ignore the fact that they do.  If in fact the ruling was literally that PC's never urinate or defecate, then my assumption is that NPC's never urinate or defecate either, and if they do, I'm going to wonder why they do and my character doesn't.  For example, I'm going to wonder why my character can't dry his own feces to provide fuel for a fire after he's been left for dead on a desert island if NPC's are assumed to defecate if hitherto my understanding is that we merely ignored the fact that my character does.  



> So this would be an example (drawn from my own gaming experience) which I believe shows that there can be consistent rules which are not the physics of the gameworld. And I think it also shows that there is a practical difference between John Snows type A and type B players.




I don't think you got there yet or that you can, though I admit that I'm intrigued whether you can sustain your push for a strictly narrativist rule set.  But unless I fail to understand you completely, I think you are going to run afoul of my earlier statements about the role of referee fiat.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 6, 2008)

allenw said:
			
		

> For example, if the desired outcome is that "inactive former adventurers (such as many kings) aren't as tough or skilled as they used to be (see: Rocky III and sequels)," then I start thinking about "level-atrophy" rules. What if every X months spent outside the "adventuring lifestyle" (or equivalent, such as regular intensive training and workouts) gave you a negative level (including the sometimes-referenced-in-the-RAW -5 hp), to a max of (character level -1) negative levels, which would never result in actual "level loss" or death, but could only be "worked off" through X weeks of intensive training (cue "Rocky" theme and 80's training montage)? You'd probably want to put some floor on how low skills, BAB, saves, and HP could get. Naturally, undead, outsiders, and other potentially-levelled immortal critters that tend to be stuck in small rooms for decades would be immune.
> 
> Is any of the above necessary? IMO, no, but it can add to the fun.




Okay, I actually think this is pretty frickin' cool as a concept. And I think it _might_ (and I stress "might") even satisfy KM's requirement for proper treatment of heroic characters.

The theory is basically that when Sir Hacksalot "retires" from adventuring, he isn't necessarily keeping in shape, and therefore preserving his heroic status. To steal an example from the series where I got my alias, it's like the difference between Eddard Stark (or even Barristan "the Bold") and King Robert Baratheon.

Nearly twenty years have passed since they won the throne of a kingdom. Eddard has been warden of the North, riding hard and constantly training. He might not quite be the man he was 20 years ago, but he's still a dangerous, dangerous man. King Robert is different. He's been living the good life, whoring and drinking and feasting. He's fat, and jowly, and his armor no longer fits. He's still strong as an ox (his ability scores haven't dropped much), but he's no longer the warrior he was in his youth. Robert Baratheon is just NOT an adventurer any more. Barristan is more halfway between the two. Due to a combination of age and lack of practice, he's probably not quite the warrior he was in his youth, but he's hardly a pushover either.

D&D doesn't allow for this kind of "level loss." Similarly, it doesn't allow for the notion of a character who's past his youth and decides to take up adventuring without him being a multiclass nonheroic/heroic.

But aren't both of these situations something we might want rules for? The first is unlikely to ever affect PCs, ambitious and constantly active as they are, but they could be a great world-building tool for DMs.

I actually think something like an inactive year is probably better than so many months. So if the king, who was once a mighty warrior (Ftr 15), hasn't bothered to pick up a sword in 12 years, he might be barely more than a low-level fighter by now. And the example that Professor Phobos and I suggested could be covered by our once 20th-level knight having been inactive for decades. Now he _might_ be vulnerable to a relatively mundane injury, because with all his inactivity, he's effectively _become_ a low-level commoner.

I actually think this covers nicely characters like the Musketeers, or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, who were clearly more powerful heroes in their prime than when they "came out of retirement" for their later adventures. And not just by a couple points from their physical stats due to middle-age. They're pretty clearly "out of practice" and therefore "lower-level" than they used to be.

Cool concept. I may work this idea into my next game.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Feb 6, 2008)

I do this already. My assumption is that high-level NPCs have an adventuring "life cycle" similar to that of PCs; they go on an intense rollercoaster ride of adventures that causes them to acquire great skill and might at an equally great risk of death, and so they achieve their prime quite quickly. Once they're retired, or even just doing something that doesn't involve facing "CR-appropriate" encounters on a regular basis, they drop levels to somewhere in the high single digits; enough to reflect past combat experience and power, but not enough to be capable of taking on the truly deadly challenges of the world.

[EDIT: There is another way to make the knight-falling-off-horse-and-breaking-neck phenomenon work in the game by implementing the following house rule: Any time a character suffers hit point damage of any kind, he must roll a d20. On a 1, he must reroll, and if he rolls a 1 again, he dies or suffers a debilitating injury. Then you can just explain to nosy-parkers players that because this scenario is so unlikely to come up in play, you'll just assume they made their roll every time!  ]


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 6, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Okay, I actually think this is pretty frickin' cool as a concept. And I think it _might_ (and I stress "might") even satisfy KM's requirement for proper treatment of heroic characters.
> 
> The theory is basically that when Sir Hacksalot "retires" from adventuring, he isn't necessarily keeping in shape, and therefore preserving his heroic status. To steal an example from the series where I got my alias, it's like the difference between Eddard Stark (or even Barristan "the Bold") and King Robert Baratheon.
> 
> ...




This has another good side benefit; it encourages people in leadership positions to be good leaders, rather than qualifying by dint of being able to survive the most recent scry-and-die attempt of itinerant adventurers.  It also emphasizes that if you want to tear open the fabric of reality, shrug off mortal wounds, strike four deadly blows with a greatsword in six seconds, and so forth, you need to devote your life to doing so, and that you might not be able to afford to take the time to play politics in the court, see to your spouse, raise your heir as he should be raised, perform civic works and formal ceremonies and keep up with your career as a duskblade.  It gives you a reason for high-level wizards to be in towers performing research, instead of taking over kingdoms and turning them into rare spell component production facilities.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 6, 2008)

> And I think it might (and I stress "might") even satisfy KM's requirement for proper treatment of heroic characters.




Yeah, I'd embrace such a rule.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 6, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'd embrace such a rule.




Wow. That's rather surprising.   

I guess this particular rule straddles the line between my desire for a heroic narrative (because while it makes sense in the gameworld, it would almost NEVER apply to PCs) and your desire for consistency (since it is a logical and consistent rule).

It certainly opens up some very interesting narratives for the DM to have old adventurers "lose levels." On the other hand, I could see some players (and gaming groups) embracing this rule for an adventure that brings their old PCs out of retirement.

And, from a world-building standpoint, it helps explain why the world isn't crawling with high-level adventurers.

I think for verisimilitude purposes, you might have to work out which skills and abilities logically would atrophy and which ones would not. Obviously the list begins with powers, attacks, defenses and hit points, but it probably doesn't end there.

Done right, the rules might allow for a character with some pretty whacked out numbers. Like the former 16th-level fighter who's kept up his diplomacy running his kingdom, and has been riding as a hobby (so both have bonuses of like +20 or so), but he hasn't had to handle a weapon in 14 years, and so has like a +4 BAB.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 6, 2008)

> I guess this particular rule straddles the line between my desire for a heroic narrative (because while it makes sense in the gameworld, it would almost NEVER apply to PCs) and your desire for consistency (since it is a logical and consistent rule)




Which is probably a big part of why it's never made it into the core books of any edition so far.  

I'd make the atrophy rules a bit simpler than you would (a negative level here or there, with a cap on how low it can drop, sounds pretty easy to implement; perhaps skill checks and feats remain unaffected), and maybe tack on one of the many rules for having high-level skills without actually being high level (something that D&D, at least so far, as rather painfully lacked). 

If there is a rule, I can interact with it. That interaction with rules is what amounts to 'playing a game' from my perspective.


----------



## Terramotus (Feb 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Sure it does. I don't know of once in all the tales of epic heroes where someone fell off their horse and died. That's not heroic fantasy at all. That's the cold, hard, jagged stone of unnecessary realism cutting to ribbons my little fantasy world where heroes make flying leaps from falling dragons and land on the backs of their trusty steeds.
> 
> A one-in-a-million chance doesn't, effectively, from the POV of the table, ever, really, truly exist. And if the DM calls it in, it blows my suspension of disbelief right out of the water, because no longer does my character adhere to the heroic archetype I thought she was. Now, she's as vulnerable as a peasant just, out of the kindness of the DM's heart, lucky.
> 
> That's immensely unsatisfying for me.



I'm ill right now, and don't have the energy to wade through this entire thread, so I don't know if this has been addressed elsewhere, but I advise you to read up on Frederick Barbarossa.  He's a German Emperor of the middle ages, and while Wikipedia doesn't explicitly state the horse's role in it, he's considered to have fallen from his horse while fording a river and drowned in waist deep water while on the way to the holy land on Crusade.  There are definitely legends about him, probably in large part because of the way he died, the fact that he was on crusade, and the the chaos that followed after his death.  Only a small portion of his men made it to the Levant.

Incidentally, that sounds to me like a great dramatic starting point for a campaign, or a major charlie foxtrot for the heroes to have to deal with in an ongoing campaign, rather than something that would destroy my enjoyment.

I can't say that I understand your position very well.  You seem to the game rules to simulate reality, but say that this is "he cold, hard, jagged stone of unnecessary realism".  Sometimes people just fall off of their horses and die.  People deal with it.  It's called drama.  Must we really have a situation where either such things can never happen or else every horseback ride provokes a 1d1,000,000 chance of ignominious death by falling for the players?


----------



## DandD (Feb 7, 2008)

Barbarossa however wasn't nowhere near a level 20 D&D hero who fights dragons, demons and evil gods. Nope, not even that close. 
Organising a crusade is still not super-hero-stuff like the deads of Stabby McStab, now king of McStab-Land, who duelled the General of Gehenna, saved the Djinni-princess, defeated the evil god Set and his serpent minions, foiled the plans of the nefarious mind flayers and sealed the Tarrasque back to its home dimension (he did it with friends, of course).


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 7, 2008)

Well, if we need rules to cover dying from falling off your horse, then we need rules for choking to death on food you're allergic to (and for more realism, the player can't be informed, since there's no modern medical system to determine your allergies), or getting specks of dust in your eye while riding, or sleeping carefully while it's raining so you don't end up drowning, or accurate rules for going into a coma (since it can occur from a simple bump on the head).

And while we're at it, let's just call the game Dungeons and Dragging On... and on... and on.

Realism is way overrated.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 7, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> An _excellent_ summary of the issue.



Thanks again.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> because 'something pointy stuck in his guts' is performed, in the game world, by (for instance) rolling an attack roll, not by narrative contrivance.



In the gameworld, I thought "something pointy stuck in his guts" is performed by stabbing him in the guts. The attack roll happens at the gaming table, surely, and not in the world (assuming the world is not OoTS). So the attack roll is a device for (if you must use that language) "contriving the narrative".

Some of us think that it need not be the only such device that the rules make room for - that the attack roll has a special role to play when a PC is involved, but has no role to play otherwise. And that in those other situations, other rules can come into play.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It harms, for me, the believability of a game, to follow inconsistent rules for when the PC's are implicated and when they are not.
> 
> Inconsistent rules like "high-level characters die when I declare it to be relevant," rather than "high-level characters die when they've taken X amount of damage."



By describing _different_ rules as _inconsistent_ rules, you are begging the question against those who want to play differently from you. If the rules are that (i) action resolution and character build mechanics govern PCs, and (ii) other rules for distributing narrative control determine who is able to decide non-PC elements of the gameworld, then it is not inconsistent for the rules to (i) declare that no PC is dead who still has hit points left as has not failed a saving throw, and (ii) permit the GM to decide that a powerful NPC warrior died in a riding accident.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I usually have a "Lois Lane" exemption too. Which is to say this: an important supporting character won't be killed off in an arbitrary way.



What counts as "involving the PCs" is of course a flexible matter than could vary from game to game, from ruleset to ruleset, from gaming table to gaming table. 

Within the framework sketched above, there are at least two ways to approach Lois Lane: either she gets the benefit of (i) even when offscreen, and so can't die until all her hitpoints are lost; or she gets the benefit of (ii) so that when she is offscreen, the players (and not the GM) have narrative control in repsect of her.

In my own game, we do not have formal rules for how to handle this, but there is an implicit understanding that I, as GM, can control Lois Lane so as to engender PC adversity (eg she gets kidnapped) but not so as to crush the PC's plot line (so she can't be randomly killed, or suddenly fall in love with someone else).



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If you ignore the rule for the sake of expedience because it's offscreen
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the rules are being glossed over for the sake of convenience



What I said above. And I hope you can see why "ignoring for the sake of expedience" and "glossing over for the sake of convenience" could be read as pejorative descriptions of a particular approach to play.

A neutral description might be "quaranting the action resolution and character build mechanics to situations that involve the PC, for the sake of gaming pleasure".



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And I believe I've made clear why that's unsatisfying to me. Sure, go for it, have fun, don't tell me I'm wrong for not liking that.



KM, as I said in my post to which this is a reply, I don't doubt your feelings. My objection is that, in voicing your feelings, you are using language like "cheating" or "breaking the rules", plus the other phrases I have quoted above, to describe those with different preferences in RPGing. These are pejorative descriptions.

You will have noticed that in my post I used phrases like "the rules may be different when the PCs are not implicated" and "hit points can be interpreted as a type of plot protection". I did not assert that there is only one way to play: I merely pointed out that the narrativist approach to play that you do not enjoy is a possibility within the framework of D&D rules, and is certainly not correctly, let alone fairly, described as "cheating" or "breaking the rules".



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> Some players (such as myself) flatly demand a consistent game world, or at least a game world that makes an attempt at consistency.  Absent cause and effect, there is (for me) no drama, and no reason to care about the narrative.



Many narrativist players would agree - your claim may be true, but it is entirely orthogonal to the discussion. The discussion is not about consitency in the world, it is about whether or not the action resolution and character build mechanics govern the whole world, or just the PCs and their protagonism.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> In the world that D&D simulates, it should not be said "No one could have survived that."  Instead, it should be said "Only a hero could have survived that."



Notice you said "could", whereas (if the action resolution and character build mechanics really are the physics of the gameworld) then you should have said "would". Because on the "rules as physics" approach it is impossible for the uninjured high level fighter not to survive the 200' fall down a cliff.

If we stick to "could" and not "would", then of course the narrativist player need not dissent from your assertion.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> the record of what happened has to, for me, fall within the capacity for the rules to describe



Which is to say, that you want the character build and action resolution rules to be the "physics" of the gameworld. But not everyone does. Nothing in the D&D rules states that this is the case. There are other ways of interpreting the D&D rules. Some players so interpret them. And those players are not breaking or ignoring the rules, nor are they cheating. They are just playing in a different way from your preference.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> If you start from the assumption that HP represent the inconstant nature of luck and skill combined with fatigue and possibly a helping of being slowed from minor injuries, than you have a problem.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> As mentioned, if you want high-level warriors to merely be lucky and skilled, there are systems that represent this.  HP in D&D is not one of them.  For some of us, this is a feature.



What you say is expressly true of hit points in RM or RQ. On the other hand, ever since AD&D the D&D rules have expressly said that hit points are a measure of skill, luck and physical prowess. And Chris Sims on the Healing thread has pretty much reiterated this in respect of hit points in 4e.

I gather that 4e will also change some of the flavour of healing spells to reflect this (these being the main aspect of traditional D&D that is somewhat at odds with the hit-points-as-skill-and-luck approach).



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> A question for the narrativists in the crowd: How do you communicate and manage expectations of what could happen in-world?



Via the rules for distributing narrative control.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> If you have a rules framework detailing both the effects of reach weapons and elven reflexes compared to orcish reflexes, then you just roll the dice.  There exists a pre-generated, detailed agreement between the elf-player and the tactical-player establishing each of their feelings establishing exactly how much priority elven superiority is to be given versus pikes.



That's one way to do it (the example is a bit odd for D&D, however, because it's combat rules aren't really designed for handling massed battles - but nevermind).

Lost Soul posted another way (what the Forge calls "fortune in the middle").



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> The rules can be viewed as a contract and declaration of preference between not just the players, but the players and the DM.  Having a set of rules for high-level fighters means more than declaring "My character can do this!"; it's declaring "Because my character is a high-level fighter, he can do this; if he ceases to be a high-level fighter, he cannot do this, and should another character come about that is a similarly-leveled fighter, he will be able to do the same, and I find all of this awesome."



But precisely what is up for grabs in this discussion is whether the character build rules are rules for high-level PCs (which is broadly what the narrativists maintain) or rules that describe all heroic personalities in the gameworld. Your discussion of contracts between GMs and players is entirely tangential to that question.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> And this leads us to the best way to, as a narrativist player, please the simulationists in the crowd; make things in' metal.  You want a high-level knight to die of a fall from horseback? Fine; only he killed a dozen ogres on top of a cliff, than was struck by lightning on account of being the tallest thing left on the hill, and being blood-soaked from horseshoe-to-sword first.
> 
> <snip like examples>



That's one way to do it. But that means that the gameworld can never include a scenario in which (for example) a powerful warrior is pushed off a 50' cliff and dies before getting to draw his sword (because, under the RAW, even 30 hp of damage won't trigger massive damage). Or in which a high level wizard burns to death in her tower (because, by the action resolution rules, the jump from the window wouldn't kill her and so, were they strictly applied, she would have no reason not to jump).

Some of us do not want to play in worlds in which such scenarios are impossible. We therefore have (among others) the following options: play Rolemaster, and reconcile ourselves to the prospect that PCs will die frequently from unlucky crit results; play HARP, which introduces Fate Points into otherwise RM-ish mechanics; play D&D, but adopt the interpretation of its character build and action resolution mechanics that some of us are articulating in this thread.

I understand why some people might prefer to play Rolemaster. I've done a lot of it myself, and still do. But I don't see why the third option above cannot be acknowledged as a legitimate approach to the play of D&D.



			
				Toras said:
			
		

> Yes the rules can be considered a meta-game construct for interaction, rather than a model but it would require so little to simply make a note of that sort of contrivance.
> 
> House 1: Phobos's Law
> -Your personal power represented the extent to which Fate has invested itself within you.  Thus once you have completed what Fate requires of you, it will dwindle to whatever Fate decrees.
> ...



That's one way to do it. It won't work if I want to run a game set in a world with no Fates. If I may speak on his/her behalf, the logic of Prof Phobos's position is that we don't need to analyse all our rules as if they model features of the gameworld. We can be upfront that some of them - maybe all of them - are devices we have adopted at the gaming table so as to have a fun time playing the game.

Of course this would not be a fun game for everyone (eg KM). But it is a fun game for some people, perhaps a lot of people.



			
				allenw said:
			
		

> For example, if the desired outcome is that "inactive former adventurers (such as many kings) aren't as tough or skilled as they used to be (see: Rocky III and sequels)," then I start thinking about "level-atrophy" rules.





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And we can say that the falling rules, or the aging rules, or the drowning rules suck, and we can make new rules to replace them. The aging rules are a perfect candidate (and I'd bet that 4e doesn't have any height/weight/aging rules, though I bet the averages are described for each race).





			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I *could*, as a DM, decide that if you fall off a  horse, a natural 1 (5% chance) on your REF save forces you to roll on a d% table. And that a result of 00 (1%) on this table means you have potentially suffered a serious injury from this inconsequential fall and must roll on a second table. And that a result of 00 (1%) on that second table means the character has suffered causing a broken neck resulting in either instant death (failed save), or long-term injury (successful save). After all this, the chance of this happening to a PC is a game-acceptable (to me) 1-in-a-million (or less). However, it is now, by the rules, _possible_ for any character to break his neck falling off a horse, and so my NPC king can bite it that way. But I have to wonder, is this houserule (which just about everyone says I have every right to make) worth the effort?



And this sort of rules-bloat is, IMO, the greatest threat to pleasurable simulationist gaming. We could call it "the curse of Rolemaster".

I notice that some people on the thread like AllenW's idea - fair enough, though it's not really for me, because it would get in the way of stories like those of King Theoden (in LoTR) and Beowulf. By referring to rules-bloat I'm not so much intending to denigrate this rules option, but rather the more general notion that _it can't happen in the gameworld unless there is a part of the action resolution or character build rules that describes it_.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> The difference is that the dragon has to whittle away the fighters HP, while the fall from the horse is a save or die at best, a automatic death at worst.
> So indeed the horse poses the much greater threat to the fighter than the dragon.



With respect, this comment completely disregards what John Snow, Prof Phobos and I have been saying for several pages now - that we are not talking about the mechanics that govern player protagonism, but rather whether those mechanics (of which hp and save-or-die are sub-systems) should be understood as governing the entire gameworld (ie are they the "physics" of that world?).

But anyway, spelling it out:

A PC does not have to fear a horse more than a dragon, because the dragon is manifestly fiercer. A _player_ does not have to fear his or her high level PC riding a horse at all, because s/he know that there is no way, within the rules, for his or her PC to die simply from a failed Ride check.

A high level NPC does not have to fear a horse more than a dragon, because the dragon is manifestly fiercer. And an NPC has no player (by definition).

Thus, no one either in the gameworld, or at the table, has more to fear from a riding horse than a dragon. QED.


----------



## Thaniel (Feb 7, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> A PC does not have to fear a horse more than a dragon, because the dragon is manifestly fiercer. A _player_ does not have to fear his or her high level PC riding a horse at all, because s/he know that there is no way, within the rules, for his or her PC to die simply from a failed Ride check.
> 
> A high level NPC does not have to fear a horse more than a dragon, because the dragon is manifestly fiercer. And an NPC has no player (by definition).
> 
> Thus, no one either in the gameworld, or at the table, has more to fear from a riding horse than a dragon. QED.




In the game world, I (as my character) learn that a man who has actually taken on DRAGONs single-handedly, traveled to other planes of existence, brokered deals between other-worldly ambassadors, all without breaking a sweat, breaks his neck falling off his horse on a casual afternoon ride... I'm never riding a horse again.  They are far too dangerous.  There _is_ a reason to fear them.  To say "ho hum. sh%% happens" in character breaks all semblance of verisimilitude.  This is the point.  "sh%%" like this does NOT happen to people who kill dragons for a living.  At least not in any game that I would ever want to be a part of.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Well, if we need rules to cover dying from falling off your horse, then we need rules for choking to death on food you're allergic to (and for more realism, the player can't be informed, since there's no modern medical system to determine your allergies), or getting specks of dust in your eye while riding, or sleeping carefully while it's raining so you don't end up drowning, or accurate rules for going into a coma (since it can occur from a simple bump on the head).
> 
> And while we're at it, let's just call the game Dungeons and Dragging On... and on... and on.
> 
> Realism is way overrated.




This is _immensely_ off-base from every position presented in this thread so far.

#1: We have rules for falling off of horses. They are more than able to kill 90% of the world.

#2: You really don't understand what I actually want out of a ruleset, and your hyperbole does nothing to bring me any closer to understanding what you want.

#3: "Realism" is exactly what I'm AVOIDING with these rules. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Some of us think that it need not be the only such device that the rules make room for - that the attack roll has a special role to play when a PC is involved, but has no role to play otherwise. And that in those other situations, other rules can come into play.




And some of us think that if stabbing someone in the gut is resolved in one case by an attack roll, and in another case with another mechanic that can lead to completely different results, that this is inconsistent enough to destroy the enjoyment of the game.

Like if someone who I played Scrabble with could spell words without using vowels, but everyone else had to use vowels.



> If the rules are that (i) action resolution and character build mechanics govern PCs, and (ii) other rules for distributing narrative control determine who is able to decide non-PC elements of the gameworld, then it is not inconsistent for the rules to (i) declare that no PC is dead who still has hit points left as has not failed a saving throw, and (ii) permit the GM to decide that a powerful NPC warrior died in a riding accident.




The rules declare that 20th level fighters have X hit points. This is true for PC's and NPC's. The rules never mention a time when this isn't true, so it's reasonable and in accordance with existing rules to assume that it *is* true, that this is a consistent feature of the game world. The rules also tell you how much damage you take falling from a horse. The rules never mention a time when this isn't true, so this, too, is a consistent feature of the game world. Thus, if a 20th level fighter died falling off a horse, either the picture is incomplete (there is some other rule which suspends hp for this instance), or the DM is just making stuff up.

Heck, I'll even cite chapter and verse:

"Normally, NPC's should obey all the same rules as PC's" (DMG pg. 16)

"NPCs should live and die -- and fail and succeed -- by the dice, just as PC's do" (DMG pg 16)

"You might not think it's right or even fun unless you obey the same rules the players do...if there's a default method of DMing, that's it" (DMG pg. 18)

"NPCs gain experience points the same way PCs do" (DMG pg. 107)

"The NPC classes showcase the difference between PCs and the rest of the world" (DMG pg. 131)

Furthermore, bits on NPC traits, on building an immersive setting, and the entire section on generating towns, suggest, no, the rules don't go away when the PC's aren't on the scene.

Now I don't really object to anyone who doesn't share that particular playstyle, but you're not really going to be able to convince me that I'm not running the game in at least one of the ways it was meant to be run, or that it would be somehow better for me to run it in a different way.



> A neutral description might be "quaranting the action resolution and character build mechanics to situations that involve the PC, for the sake of gaming pleasure".




But that is a godawful mouthful. 



> You will have noticed that in my post I used phrases like "the rules may be different when the PCs are not implicated" and "hit points can be interpreted as a type of plot protection". I did not assert that there is only one way to play: I merely pointed out that the narrativist approach to play that you do not enjoy is a possibility within the framework of D&D rules, and is certainly not correctly, let alone fairly, described as "cheating" or "breaking the rules".




I was describing my subjective feelings on the matter. I have tried to make it clear that the perjorative terms are exactly what I feel, and not a condemnation of the gamestyle from any sort of objective point, but from my, personal, relative, POV. It's perfectly fair of me to say that, for me, "quaranting the action resolution and character build mechanics to situations that involve the PC, for the sake of gaming pleasure" feels exactly like "cheating."

I've also tried to use more neutral language, but I don't quite have the linguistic agility required to come up with  "quaranting the action resolution and character build mechanics to situations that involve the PC, for the sake of gaming pleasure". 



> But not everyone does. Nothing in the D&D rules states that this is the case. There are other ways of interpreting the D&D rules. Some players so interpret them. And those players are not breaking or ignoring the rules, nor are they cheating. They are just playing in a different way from your preference.




And I've said that's fine, but not for me. The aggressive language was meant to specifically respond to accusations, from more than one angle, that I was somehow wrong for saying that I wouldn't enjoy it because it feels lazy and creatively lacking and like cheating to me. I am allowed to feel that way. I defended why I feel that way. I still feel that way, all the while recognizing that the way I feel isn't going to be universal for everyone.

I never told anyone they have to accept that  "quaranting the action resolution and character build mechanics to situations that involve the PC, for the sake of gaming pleasure" IS lazy or creatively dull, just to accept that it feels like it to me.



> And this sort of rules-bloat is, IMO, the greatest threat to pleasurable simulationist gaming. We could call it "the curse of Rolemaster".




It's not 'rules bloat' if the rules serve a purpose.



> I notice that some people on the thread like AllenW's idea - fair enough, though it's not really for me, because it would get in the way of stories like those of King Theoden (in LoTR) and Beowulf. By referring to rules-bloat I'm not so much intending to denigrate this rules option, but rather the more general notion that it can't happen in the gameworld unless there is a part of the action resolution or character build rules that describes it.




I'd go for a game with it, I'd go for a game without it. Different styles of game, different types of games, different SETTINGS for different games, are going to need different rules. As long as everyone consistently abides by whatever those rules happen to be, I'm a pretty happy camper. If people tell me to make up most of the rules, or if one player can "quarantine the action resolution and character build mechanics to situations that involve the PC, for the sake of gaming pleasure," I'm not.


----------



## Terramotus (Feb 7, 2008)

Having caught up with the thread because it's interesting...



			
				DandD said:
			
		

> Barbarossa however wasn't nowhere near a level 20 D&D hero who fights dragons, demons and evil gods. Nope, not even that close.
> Organising a crusade is still not super-hero-stuff like the deads of Stabby McStab, now king of McStab-Land, who duelled the General of Gehenna, saved the Djinni-princess, defeated the evil god Set and his serpent minions, foiled the plans of the nefarious mind flayers and sealed the Tarrasque back to its home dimension (he did it with friends, of course).



It's not that simple.  In myth, the "bar" of what sets gods and men apart is much lower than it is in D&D.  Anyone remotely close to the power of a 20th level character's abilities (much less accomplishments) would already be a demigod, by virtue of birth or deed.  And if we're talking about divine beings, then I would agree that it would seem bizarre if Odin fell off Sleipnir and broke his neck without some sort of chicanery going on.

But to us, raised with our mortal superheroes and legacy of a monotheistic culture, it's ok for D&D characters to have far more power and still be mortal.  So, I don't think there are any epic heroes with comparable power to a 20th level D&D character, which is what Kamigaze Midget asked for.  I'd love to see a counter example.

Although, Barbarossa sitting in a cave somewhere waiting for the final crisis to come so he can save Germany sounds likea an epic destiny to me, so I think someone like him or King Arthur with a similar myth is as close as we're going to get.


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'd embrace such a rule.



But is such a thing truly necessary to devote space in the DMG to when common sense should tell me that people get old and out of shape if they don't practice?  Maybe I'm a lazy DM, but to use John Snow's example, if I'm running a game in Westeros with Robert Baratheon and I have to stat him out, I'm not going to build him in his prime and then use the rules to downgrade him according to the rules (unless there's later time travel wackiness to be had).  I'm just going to build him as he is now.

I mean, the RAW don't support dying early of a heart attack, cancer, or even bleeding to death, IIRC, either.  Would you cry foul if NPCs were described as dying in those methods as well?


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 7, 2008)

Hell, you guys have had it too good for too long. I remember when players were FORBIDDEN to read the DMG or the MM and the DM let you go to the bathroom only after you properly calculated how much the chalk and string in your belt pouch weighed.

There has always been DM fiat in DnD. With careful and clear guidelines in the DMG on how to adjudicate situations as they come up (most likely by using a core mechanic that can be used or manipulated to fit various circumstances as they come up) everything will be all right.

I won't go into the "suspension of disbelief" factor. If a person who willingly came to my table to play a hero with magic in a world with dragons can't wrap his head around something that comes up because it's not "believable" I will calmly wrap his head around my boot and make him take his Mountain Dew and Doritos and go home.


----------



## Thaniel (Feb 7, 2008)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> It's not that simple.  In myth, the "bar" of what sets gods and men apart is much lower than it is in D&D.  Anyone remotely close to the power of a 20th level character's abilities (much less accomplishments) would already be a demigod, by virtue of birth or deed.  And if we're talking about divine beings, then I would agree that it would seem bizarre if Odin fell off Sleipnir and broke his neck without some sort of chicanery going on.
> 
> But to us, raised with our mortal superheroes and legacy of a monotheistic culture, it's ok for D&D characters to have far more power and still be mortal.  So, I don't think there are any epic heroes with comparable power to a 20th level D&D character, which is what Kamigaze Midget asked for.  I'd love to see a counter example.
> 
> Although, Barbarossa sitting in a cave somewhere waiting for the final crisis to come so he can save Germany sounds likea an epic destiny to me, so I think someone like him or King Arthur with a similar myth is as close as we're going to get.




There was a website made a while back that explained how everyone that has ever actually lived could have been at most Level 5.  It was very well thought-out and calculated.  I recommend reading it.

Unfortunately, I've been trying to google it, but I can't find it.  Maybe someone else knows the link.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 7, 2008)

Oh, and if an NPC needs to fall off a horse and die from a broken neck, then that's what he's going to do. I would honestly be shocked if a player had a problem with something like that while I was reading off description. Unless the PCs are currently interacting with him, he's window dressing. I know I wouldn't pipe up if a DM I was playing with decided to kill an NPC during a session. Never would have bothered me in 1E, 2E, or 3E. Honestly, it would never, even have occurred to me. Oh well, different strokes and all that.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 7, 2008)

> But is such a thing truly necessary to devote space in the DMG to when common sense should tell me that people get old and out of shape if they don't practice? Maybe I'm a lazy DM, but to use John Snow's example, if I'm running a game in Westeros with Robert Baratheon and I have to stat him out, I'm not going to build him in his prime and then use the rules to downgrade him according to the rules (unless there's later time travel wackiness to be had). I'm just going to build him as he is now.
> 
> I mean, the RAW don't support dying early of a heart attack, cancer, or even bleeding to death, IIRC, either. Would you cry foul if NPCs were described as dying in those methods as well?




If they were realistic 'mere mortals,' probably not.

If they were dragon-slaying epic heroes who have tea parties with the gods, hell yes.


----------



## Thaniel (Feb 7, 2008)

I found the link. Very interesting read.

http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html


----------



## Terramotus (Feb 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If they were realistic 'mere mortals,' probably not.
> 
> If they were dragon-slaying epic heroes who have tea parties with the gods, hell yes.



Well, let's be a little bit more clear about things.  Obviously if someone is flat-out buddies with deities they could cure cancer, and presumably would have a 5th level cleric buddy anyway to cast remove disease.  Magic makes all of the arguments moot because at 20th level death is as simply fixed as a stubbed toe.  Let's leave out all of the arguments on how prevalent magic is in the specific setting.

Let's posit a theoretical 20th level fighter.  He's the greatest warrior who's ever lived, and has carved a kingdom for himself.  He's killed dragons and hydras and all sorts of monsters.  He's unique in having achieved that level, and is a legend whose name will live forever.  

However, there are no clerics who have remove disease, or at least none close enough that are willing to help him (they didn't like being conquered, dontchaknow).  Sure, he's met the gods, and maybe slept with the Goddess of Love a time or two, but he has no divine rank, and none of them are willing to heal him (or are maybe prohibited by cosmic rules).

The DM tells you that he's died of cancer.  Do you cry foul at that because cancer isn't in the DMG?


			
				Thaniel said:
			
		

> I found the link. Very interesting read.
> 
> http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html



Awesome link, thanks.  I think I had read that a long time ago but had forgotten about it.  I'm guessing that E6 was based off of this or similar work.  It will be interesting to see how 4E changes those numbers.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 7, 2008)

Thaniel said:
			
		

> In the game world, I (as my character) learn that a man who has actually taken on DRAGONs single-handedly, traveled to other planes of existence, brokered deals between other-worldly ambassadors, all without breaking a sweat, breaks his neck falling off his horse on a casual afternoon ride... I'm never riding a horse again.  They are far too dangerous.  There _is_ a reason to fear them.  To say "ho hum. sh%% happens" in character breaks all semblance of verisimilitude.  This is the point.  "sh%%" like this does NOT happen to people who kill dragons for a living.  At least not in any game that I would ever want to be a part of.



This makes no sense to me.

Suppose you learned, instead, that the person had been killed by a kobold. This is actually possible (if extremely unlikely) under the D&D action resolution rules (the NPC rolls all 1s, the Kobold all 20s including confirmed crits). Does that mean your character would be more afraid of kobolds than dragons? Or just infer that the person had an unlucky day?

Presumably the latter. Why should it be any different for the horse?

After all, people in the real world who fight fires for a living, or fight wars for a living, can still be killed in casual riding accidents. Great physical prowess does not entail invulnerability.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2008)

KM - on the Action Points issue, I was referring to 3e, not 4e.  But, even in 4e, it's highly unlikely that all creatures will have action points, thus the rules already divide between PC and NPC.

And, I know I said eating.  Never post when tired.  I meant sleeping.  There are no rules requiring a PC to sleep.  Does that mean that no one in your campaign setting sleeps?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> some of us think that if stabbing someone in the gut is resolved in one case by an attack roll, and in another case with another mechanic that can lead to completely different results, that this is inconsistent enough to destroy the enjoyment of the game.



I have acknowledged that expressly in every post in which I have replied to you. I'm very happy to acknowledge it again. As I've said several times, I do not think that this is really what is at stake in this discussion. That is, I hope we can get more profit out of this discussion than simply telling one another how we like to play. I think we could profitably analyse those playstyles, and some of their implications.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Now I don't really object to anyone who doesn't share that particular playstyle, but you're not really going to be able to convince me that I'm not running the game in at least one of the ways it was meant to be run, or that it would be somehow better for me to run it in a different way.



As just noted, I have never remotely suggested either of these things. I have simply suggested that by calling those who run the game differently "cheaters", "rule-breakers", "ignorers of rules", "lazy", "doers of things merely for convenience", etc, you are (i) describing their playstyle in a pejorative fashion; and (ii) not actually addressing the respect in which their playstyle differs from your preferred playstyle.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If people tell me to make up most of the rules, or if one player can "quarantine the action resolution and character build mechanics to situations that involve the PC, for the sake of gaming pleasure," I'm not.



See, here you (i) mischaracterise the playstyle I am talking about by saying it is about "making up most of the rules", and (ii) further mischaracterise it by suggesting that it distributes narrative power among the players in a way that is unfair or unequal.

IMO, that doesn't really help the discussion proceed.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I was describing my subjective feelings on the matter. I have tried to make it clear that the perjorative terms are exactly what I feel, and not a condemnation of the gamestyle from any sort of objective point, but from my, personal, relative, POV.



My own feeling is that greater clarity can be achieved by describing alternative approaches to play in neutral ways that capture their essence. Thus, I don't describe your playstyle as pedantic or pointless (which a narrativist might experience it as), but as one in which the character build and action resolution mechanics are true descriptions of the entire gameworld. This may be a mouthful, but it I think it does get to the essence.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's perfectly fair of me to say that, for me, "quaranting the action resolution and character build mechanics to situations that involve the PC, for the sake of gaming pleasure" feels exactly like "cheating."



Yes. That is quite different from saying that it is cheating. And it acknowledges that there is a cogent approach to play that you do not enjoy. Again, I don't doubt your non-enjoyment. But I think this discussion can make more progress once everyone recognises the cogency (for their practitioners) of multiple playstyles.

I hope you accept that I really am not questioning your sincerity. It's just that I think this thread has raised interesting issues, but (IMO) getting to them requires putting personal preferences to one side, at least when it comes to framing (as opposed to expressing preferences for) the different playstyled.

Turning, now, to those issues. First, the sense of "cheating" or "ignoring the rules":



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Like if someone who I played Scrabble with could spell words without using vowels, but everyone else had to use vowels.



With respect, that analogy is utterly inapt. In what way does the rules model I've put forward treat one player differently from another? Of course it treats the GM differently - in most standard implementations, the GM will have more narrative control over non-PC game elements than the players do - but that is pretty mainstream for an RPG. It is certainly true of D&D.

Under your approach (as I interpret it from your posts), for example, no player is permitted to choose the result of a dice roll, whereas when the GM resolves matters between NPCs s/he is allowed to choose those results (eg to declare without rolling that the apprentice succeeded on a spellcraft roll to decipher the scroll, then failed on the roll to avoid having it backfire).

But I assume you don't regard yourself as open to the Scrabble-vowel objection - and nor should you. It is equally inapplicable to the rules model I put forward in my post.

Thus, I can understand that play under my model would break your sense of immersion. But I can't understand - at least via the Scrabble example - how it would feel like cheating.

Here is one way I can make sense of the "cheating" idea: Suppose part of the point (challenge?) of the game - or, perhaps, the whole point - is to get everything in the gameworld to come out via the action resolution mechanics. So for a GM or player to simply specify some feature of the gameworld without engaging those mechanics would be to obtain, by simple stipulation, what is in fact meant to be achieved by applying those mechanics. A bit like trying to win at solitaire simply by setting out all the cards in a winning position, rather than playing it through.

Does this capture something like your thought?

If it does, I wonder about a couple of things: how does it fit with the GM's right to decide what the dice say in certain cases (as per above examples)? and how does it fit with the player's right to specify sex, hair colour, eye colour etc of his or her PC? If stipulation is permissible in respect of these matters, why not in other cases? This last question is not meant to be rhetorical, but to try to identify the criteria on which you are drawing what is, for your preferred playstyle, a crucial distinction.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's not 'rules bloat' if the rules serve a purpose.



Agreed. The problem with RM (and other games for which I'm using RM as a placeholder or metaphor), however, is that because the (non-rhetorical) question asked above is never properly answered, no proper (purpose-governed) restriction is put on the growth of the rules. And, of course, once we restrict the scope of the mechanics for some purpose, we seem to have opened the door to the idea of metagame constraints on rules and their scope. And then you and I are apperently just drawing the line in different places.

Maybe not - it may well run deeper. Regardless of that, I think that the threat of pointless rules bloat really is one of the "risks to fun" that confronts your playstyle. (Just as breaking immersion is one of the "risks to fun" that confonts the narrativist playstyle.)

Turning, now, to a different issue, namely, whether or not D&D contemplates the sort of playstyle I am trying to articulate, in which the action resolution and character build mechanics are not the physics of the gameworld:



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'll even cite chapter and verse:
> 
> "Normally, NPC's should obey all the same rules as PC's" (DMG pg. 16)



I'll note the presence of the word "normally". It does run your way, but not entirely your way.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> "NPCs should live and die -- and fail and succeed -- by the dice, just as PC's do" (DMG pg 16)



That can't be meant literally, but perhaps only in the context of combat with the PCs. Otherwise, I could never do what you and others have suggested, and set up plots which do fit within the parameters of the action-resolution mechanics, because actually rolling the dice may not give the right result (see apprentice scroll reading example above).



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> "You might not think it's right or even fun unless you obey the same rules the players do...if there's a default method of DMing, that's it" (DMG pg. 18)



For the same reason, that can't be meant literally. Note also that it refers to a _default_, not a requirement, and it notes the presuppositions on which the default holds, and which obviously some posters on this thread do not share.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> "NPCs gain experience points the same way PCs do" (DMG pg. 107)



I don't have my book in front of me, but from memory that is referring to NPCs fighting alongside PCs (eg Cohorts) and is not a more general statement about advancement (thus, I do not think there is a general presumption in the game that all high-level tower-dwelling wizards were once dungeon-delvers).



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> "The NPC classes showcase the difference between PCs and the rest of the world" (DMG pg. 131)



That strikes me as orthogonal to the issue, unless you are saying it implies that this is the only difference. I agree that 3rd Ed D&D has a default assumption that NPCs and monsters follow the same character build mechanics as PCs. Earlier editions did not, though, and 4e is expressly abandoning this particular feature of 3rd ed.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Furthermore, bits on NPC traits, on building an immersive setting, and the entire section on generating towns, suggest, no, the rules don't go away when the PC's aren't on the scene.



I don't see how the suggestion arises myself, at least if by "rules" you mean "action resolution mechanics" (with respect to 3rd Ed, I don't dispute the point in relation to character build mechanics).

I think that overall you're right that there is a suggested default position of mechanics = physics, but for the reasons I've given I think it can't be meant quite as literally as it is stated, and once we allow for that, plus for some of the qualifying language (like "normally" and "you might not think..."), then I don't feel that it dictates your approach to play. And from everything I've seen about 4e, I think that the designers have realised that D&D doesn't have to be played you way (though obviously it can be), and are setting out the rules with that thought more clearly in mind.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 7, 2008)

*Level-atrophy (decaying skills) rules:*



			
				Terramotus said:
			
		

> But is such a thing truly necessary to devote space in the DMG to when common sense should tell me that people get old and out of shape if they don't practice?  Maybe I'm a lazy DM, but to use John Snow's example, if I'm running a game in Westeros with Robert Baratheon and I have to stat him out, I'm not going to build him in his prime and then use the rules to downgrade him according to the rules (unless there's later time travel wackiness to be had).  I'm just going to build him as he is now.



Fine,  but how do you know "how he is now" unless you know "what he was then"?

As a side note: the ideas presented so far for level-atrophy have been very good, but are missing one thing I'd like to see: that some skills decay while others do not.  For example: how, rules-wise, can we arrive at someone who was once a 15th-level Fighter who had Whirlwind Attack as a feat, who has forgotten just about everything about fighting (i.e. functions now as about a 2nd-level) *except* Whirlwind Attack, which he still practises every morning?  Or, another example: a once-Wizard who achieved 14th level and learned how to cast Teleport Without Error (or whatever it's called now).  Ex-Wiz has forgotten just about everything about wizarding - couldn't scribe a scroll now to save his life - but still studies TWE every morning and can still cast it...uses it every time he needs to go into town,in fact.

In other words, can the rules handle a situation where skills don't decay at a convenient level at a time, but instead decay piecemeal?

Back to main topic: All I want is the rules to be consistent.  Inevitably, that leads to rules bloat within a given game; as every time the DM makes an ad-hoc ruling, the precedent thus set in effect becomes a rule for that game.  Inevitably, that also leads to there being no functional difference between PCs and NPCs other than PCs have players attached.

Lanefan


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2008)

I'm wondering if the next time I advertise for players I need to put "No rules-as-physics players" in the ad?


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 7, 2008)

Thaniel said:
			
		

> In the game world, I (as my character) learn that a man who has actually taken on DRAGONs single-handedly, traveled to other planes of existence, brokered deals between other-worldly ambassadors, all without breaking a sweat, breaks his neck falling off his horse on a casual afternoon ride... I'm never riding a horse again.  They are far too dangerous.  There _is_ a reason to fear them.  To say "ho hum. sh%% happens" in character breaks all semblance of verisimilitude.  This is the point.  "sh%%" like this does NOT happen to people who kill dragons for a living.  At least not in any game that I would ever want to be a part of.




That'd be a fun character concept, now that I think about it. Playing a mighty warrior, slayer of beasts, hunter of dragons...who happens to be deathly afraid of horses.

"But why, Torkol, destroyer of men, savior of the Elves, eater of hearts, are you afraid of that pony?"

"Horses killed mah grandfather!"


----------



## Thaniel (Feb 7, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> This makes no sense to me.
> 
> Suppose you learned, instead, that the person had been killed by a kobold. This is actually possible (if extremely unlikely) under the D&D action resolution rules (the NPC rolls all 1s, the Kobold all 20s including confirmed crits). Does that mean your character would be more afraid of kobolds than dragons? Or just infer that the person had an unlucky day?
> 
> ...



 Once again, firefighters are NOT level 20. They are most likely level 2. Maybe 3.  Putting out fires is NOT equivalent to wrestling dragons.  Level 2 or 3 people can and do die from accidents like this.  This is not, nor has it ever been, about those kinds of people.  At least not from my side of the argument.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The hardest thing for me to do is brevity.
> 
> Here is my position in brief.
> 
> ...



The Fluff.  The fluff, which is a rather denigrating term in my opinion, is the description of the world.  What the Referee describes of the world and the Players of their characters is the reality.  That is the physics of how the world works.  It works by their description; the characters for the players, the rest of the world for the Ref.  The rules are a half-hearted attempt to simulate that world to a degree of satisfaction for everyone involved.  If the rules aren't living up to snuff, shake 'em out and find something that works.  

Seeing as the referee is the one who is operating the world it's easiest for him or her to find a mechanic that fits the situation.  Strangely enough most of the time a coin flip will do it.  Then there are straight rolls like d6 or d20.  Sometimes you might want a curve and you might use multiple dice.  Or you weight things with bonuses and penalties.  It's all pretty basic stuff.  There are plenty of unique game mechanics out there to steal (or borrow).

I said in my previous post that the physics of the world are simulated.  That it is not the rules dictating the simulation.  Well, that's mostly true.  Here are a couple of side cases to illustrate things as best I understand them.

First, groups have generally agreed that not all cases are covered by the rules.  It's impossible anyways, right?  We don't roll to breath every round.  So the group just uses those rules they agree are necessary for them to enjoy the game.  Case in point is the Called Shot rule. It just doesn't work in D&D.  Damage Resistance is a poor choice too IMO, but it can be done.  What happens when play turns to these nuances in the world and the mechanics don't match up?  We fudge over it or we say we'd like to play a new way from now on.  Either way mechanics don't work as constructed, but based upon the simulation of the world desired.  Form follows function.  However, instead of the functioning of the rules being the higher priority, it's the functioning of the described environment.  The form of the rules change until the group is satisfied.

That's one side case where the rules fail as physics, but if left alone could be rightly called such.  A second example is about when description takes on the weight of rule in an unexpected way.  This kind of thing happens all the time.  In fact, you could say all description has the force of rule.  For example, if the referee says there's an elephant in the room and I as a player say there's not, guess who's right?  It's the damned Ref every time!  It's like a rule or something.

Anyways, an actual _good_ example of description having the weight of rule is in the adjudication of spells.  If my player creates a spell that kills all blue haired people within thirty feet, she's just included "blue hair" into the combat valuation system.  It's now measurably good or bad to have blue hair in our game.  It would require notation in a d20 statblock.  If this physics change occurred in the real world, it's dollar value just went up.  And I've not even mentioned what "foot" means though it's obviously important to the function of magic.

IMO, things get twisted when the rule of law shapes the world beyond what was ever intended and then those intentions are discarded under enforced law.  The law was built upon intention and not the other way around.  Sure, those laws can sometimes lead to illuminative or unforeseen consequences, but we aren't earnestly constructing exact simulations here.  It's beer & pretzel for what we enjoy.  Not supercomputers.

Shucks, I can't be brief either.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 7, 2008)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> Let's posit a theoretical 20th level fighter. He's the greatest warrior who's ever lived, and has carved a kingdom for himself. He's killed dragons and hydras and all sorts of monsters. He's unique in having achieved that level, and is a legend whose name will live forever.
> 
> However, there are no clerics who have remove disease, or at least none close enough that are willing to help him (they didn't like being conquered, dontchaknow). Sure, he's met the gods, and maybe slept with the Goddess of Love a time or two, but he has no divine rank, and none of them are willing to heal him (or are maybe prohibited by cosmic rules).
> 
> The DM tells you that he's died of cancer. Do you cry foul at that because cancer isn't in the DMG?




I cry foul at that, but more because of the aforementioned "one person isn't playing by the rules." If the DM created rules for heroes with cancer, I'd be cool with it on one level, but that would certainly change the tenor of the game to one that is, for me, skirting close to unwelcomingly realistic.

Because Superman wouldn't die of Cancer, either.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> But, even in 4e, it's highly unlikely that all creatures will have action points, thus the rules already divide between PC and NPC.




Not all creatures need action points. Not all creatures need heroic class levels or XP, either. These are heroic mechanics. Reserving them for elite or solo monsters and special NPC's, along with the PC's, seems entirely in keeping with the idea that there are heroes who have special powers, and then there is Joe Dirt Farmer, who is like you and me.

To drive it home:


			
				Taniel said:
			
		

> Once again, firefighters are NOT level 20. They are most likely level 2. Maybe 3. Putting out fires is NOT equivalent to wrestling dragons. Level 2 or 3 people can and do die from accidents like this. This is not, nor has it ever been, about those kinds of people. At least not from my side of the argument.




Bingo. The link posted above does a great job of describing this.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> In what way does the rules model I've put forward treat one player differently from another? Of course it treats the GM differently - in most standard implementations, the GM will have more narrative control over non-PC game elements than the players do - but that is pretty mainstream for an RPG. It is certainly true of D&D.




I'm skipping a lot of replying to the whole me-calling-things-names angle, because I basically agree. 

The comparison is that the GM doesn't just have more narrative control. As you say, that's always true of D&D, and is well within the bounds of the game. The issue is that in exerting that narrative control, the GM creates events that aren't covered by the rules, and doesn't use the possibilities that the rules allow for to resolve it (including making up new rules). 

If a GM is still limited by describing effects in line with the possibilities inherent in the ruleset, then they are still playing by the same set of rules, just with the more autonomy than the characters. If the GM can declare certain parts of the game beyond the reach of the rules, then the GM is able to act beyond the rules, and so can spell words without using vowels and can kill knights without using the HP system.

Now, maybe other players have this control, too (they can say that their uncle was a 20th level fighter who died on a horse), in which case EVERYONE can play scrabble without using vowels.

Which is, I'm sure, fun for them, it's jut not my thing, because it feels like cheating to me. Even if everyone is doing it, and it's well-acknowledged, the Scrabble rules are built assuming that people use vowels, the vowels add a particular challenge (resource management and random chance) that I don't want to get rid of. I don't see how it adds to my fun so much as just makes things 'easier,' and I play games, in part, to be challenged.

That's kind of stretching the analogy about as far as it will go, but I hope it gets at the trigger for this emotion in me. 



> Here is one way I can make sense of the "cheating" idea: Suppose part of the point (challenge?) of the game - or, perhaps, the whole point - is to get everything in the gameworld to come out via the action resolution mechanics. So for a GM or player to simply specify some feature of the gameworld without engaging those mechanics would be to obtain, by simple stipulation, what is in fact meant to be achieved by applying those mechanics. A bit like trying to win at solitaire simply by setting out all the cards in a winning position, rather than playing it through.
> 
> Does this capture something like your thought?




That's pretty close, yeah.



> If it does, I wonder about a couple of things: how does it fit with the GM's right to decide what the dice say in certain cases (as per above examples)? and how does it fit with the player's right to specify sex, hair colour, eye colour etc of his or her PC? If stipulation is permissible in respect of these matters, why not in other cases? This last question is not meant to be rhetorical, but to try to identify the criteria on which you are drawing what is, for your preferred playstyle, a crucial distinction.




The simple answer is that as long as the choices fall within the variance for the rules, and has no direct mechanical resolution or effect (there are no tables for eye colors, and gender is a moot point), it doesn't break anything. A character who was a human with bright purple hair and insect-like eyes who could change gender at will would probably break me. A changeling with the same probably wouldn't. 

There are rules for what happens when you fall off a horse, and "instant death regardless of level" isn't one of the possible consequences, so a character who faces instant death regardless of level from falling off a horse (but only when they're not on-stage) breaks me. A 1st level Aristocrat falling off a horse probably wouldn't. 



> I'll note the presence of the word "normally". It does run your way, but not entirely your way.




And I did say I have no real problem with groups who have fun playing Scrabble without vowels. My way certainly isn't the only way, but it's a valid way that the rules do support.



> That can't be meant literally, but perhaps only in the context of combat with the PCs. Otherwise, I could never do what you and others have suggested, and set up plots which do fit within the parameters of the action-resolution mechanics, because actually rolling the dice may not give the right result (see apprentice scroll reading example above).




We can't read the intent, only the writing. I'm happy to interpret that to mean that the dice describe what is possible, so they are the rules by which people succeed and fail and live and die. Regardless of where the 'camera' is.



> I agree that 3rd Ed D&D has a default assumption that NPCs and monsters follow the same character build mechanics as PCs. Earlier editions did not, though, and 4e is expressly abandoning this particular feature of 3rd ed.




And that's one of the symptoms of a problem that many are having with 4e. They saw this in 3e as an improvement, as a feature, not a bug, and abandoning it hurts their play style, one in which the OP's suggestions would be largely unwelcome and not fun at all. 

It is evidence that in D&D as it exists now, NPC's follow the same rules as PC's, even when the lights aren't on them.

For my own milage, I'd hope that 4e streamlines NPC mechanics without abandoning this entirely. SWSE's rule for nonheroic characters covers this pretty decently enough.



> For the same reason, that can't be meant literally. Note also that it refers to a default, not a requirement, and it notes the presuppositions on which the default holds, and which obviously some posters on this thread do not share.




Right. Again, intent is difficult to argue, and I have no problem with people playing other ways. I do have a slight problem with 4e (and certain supporters) telling me I do have to change the way I play in order to fully enjoy the next edition.

I don't REALLY think it will do that in a major way, but if the designers agreed with the OP, it would, and that would be a problem for me.



> I don't have my book in front of me, but from memory that is referring to NPCs fighting alongside PCs (eg Cohorts) and is not a more general statement about advancement (thus, I do not think there is a general presumption in the game that all high-level tower-dwelling wizards were once dungeon-delvers).




Actually, it's right before the NPC class descriptions. Which means that NPC's are supposed to advance through NPC classes by gaining XP the same way that PC's do. Presumably, since the statement isn't limited to NPC classes, they'd also progress through PC classes the same way that PC's do. There's also lines in that paragraph like "Not being adventurers, however, their opportunities are more limited" and "A commoner is likely to progress in levels very slowly" and "Most commoners never attain higher than 2nd or 3rd level in their whole lives" and "Dangerous areas are more likely to produce high-level NPCs than peaceful, settled lands."

Specifically, there is an example about a commoner who fights off gnolls regularly. It's also mentioned that town guards might be slightly higher level than the rest of the population.

All this strongly suggests that high-level tower-dwelling wizards faced challenges that brought them to that level, and earned XP in all the ways that PC's do. By default, this means that they killed orcs and gnolls and goblins and giants and dragons and vampires and fiends just like any PC. Even when the PC's weren't around. And they survived such adventures, presumably, because they have HP, even when they're not in the spotlight. Because the rules for PC's apply to NPC's, too, they did it within the bounds that the dice allow for. They lived by the rules, they can die by the rules.



> I think that overall you're right that there is a suggested default position of mechanics = physics, but for the reasons I've given I think it can't be meant quite as literally as it is stated, and once we allow for that, plus for some of the qualifying language (like "normally" and "you might not think..."), then I don't feel that it dictates your approach to play. And from everything I've seen about 4e, I think that the designers have realised that D&D doesn't have to be played you way (though obviously it can be), and are setting out the rules with that thought more clearly in mind.




I think they realized that people don't really need four different NPC classes that go up to level 20 if NPC's don't get above level 2-3 and most are commoners. And they don't need tables to generate entire towns. 

3e went too far, frequently, leaving you with a lot of useless detail, and 4e recognizes this and trims it up.

I don't imagine that 4e fully embraces the case of the OP, because the designers are clever enough to realize that some people really enjoyed this aspect of 3e. They can cut it down without removing it entirely and satisfy both ends of the spectrum by finding a middle ground.

There is plenty of concern about if 4e goes 'too far' in the other direction. I don't think it really will, but points like the Bugbear Strangler's ability suggest that in some places, maybe it does. That in further embracing ideas like the OP's, they have partially abandoned players like me, because I don't really have much fun in a game where everything works on different rules.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> The Fluff.  The fluff, which is a rather denigrating term in my opinion, is the description of the world.  What the Referee describes of the world and the Players of their characters is the reality.  That is the physics of how the world works.  It works by their description; the characters for the players, the rest of the world for the Ref.  The rules are a half-hearted attempt to simulate that world to a degree of satisfaction for everyone involved.  If the rules aren't living up to snuff, shake 'em out and find something that works.
> 
> Seeing as the referee is the one who is operating the world it's easiest for him or her to find a mechanic that fits the situation.  Strangely enough most of the time a coin flip will do it.




Maybe, perhaps, you should go and read what I've wrote one more time.



> That's one side case where the rules fail as physics, but if left alone could be rightly called such.  A second example is about when description takes on the weight of rule in an unexpected way.  This kind of thing happens all the time.  In fact, you could say all description has the force of rule.  For example, if the referee says there's an elephant in the room and I as a player say there's not, guess who's right?  It's the damned Ref every time!  It's like a rule or something.




You might say that with every description that the referee makes, he also has made one or more 'little rules'.  Well, shall we call them 'rulings'?  My advice is to keep going with that idea and see where it leads you.



> Shucks, I can't be brief either.




No, I don't mind.  It's just that I got the impression that you intended your essay with its many fine qualities to be, well, to be tuitive, and well, somewhat corrective of my position I've hithertoo described.  And I think that its just a tad too uncontridictory to fulfill that role.

But I will take issue with the notion that formal rules are 'half-hearted attempts to simulate that world to a degree of satisfaction'.  If the formal rules aren't 'whole-hearted attempts', then I don't know what would be.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 7, 2008)

> The simple answer is that as long as the choices fall within the variance for the rules, and has no direct mechanical resolution or effect (there are no tables for eye colors, and gender is a moot point), it doesn't break anything. A character who was a human with bright purple hair and insect-like eyes who could change gender at will would probably break me. A changeling with the same probably wouldn't.
> 
> There are rules for what happens when you fall off a horse, and "instant death regardless of level" isn't one of the possible consequences, so a character who faces instant death regardless of level from falling off a horse (but only when they're not on-stage) breaks me. A 1st level Aristocrat falling off a horse probably wouldn't.



Maybe it's a special NPC rules? Only possiblity-rated heroic characters get the 1d6 hit point damage, others must make a Fortitude Save DC 10 or die (success means 1d6 points of damage)


----------



## allenw (Feb 7, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I notice that some people on the thread like AllenW's idea - fair enough, though it's not really for me, because it would get in the way of stories like those of King Theoden (in LoTR) and Beowulf.




  I'm happy to have contributed something of interest.   
  With respect to Theoden, I see his story as supporting the need for level-atrophy rules, not opposing such a need (and vice-versa).  IMO, Theoden *was* suffering under a lot of negative levels brought on by prolonged (Wormtongue-encouraged) inactivity.  Fortunately, Gandalf cast Restoration on him   (I'd normally be inclined against letting Restoration completely dispell such negative levels, but hey, Gandalf's a Maiar and he was wearing a Ring of Power that specifically fanned the fires of hope; or maybe he only dispelled half of them, and Theoden trained off the rest).
  For Beowulf, I'm not as familiar with the story, particularly the ending, but my understanding was that, while King Beowulf was still a mighty warrior and killed the dragon (with help), he wasn't *as* kick-ass as he used to be, and thus he died as well.  If I'm mistaken, and King Beowulf only died because the dragon was that much more kick-ass than Grendel and Mom had been, then I guess Beowulf must have worked out regularly (and/or being a Geatish King involved frequent combat).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 7, 2008)

> Maybe it's a special NPC rules? Only possiblity-rated heroic characters get the 1d6 hit point damage, others must make a Fortitude Save DC 10 or die (success means 1d6 points of damage)




Sure, but a 20th level fighter is a heroic character, even if he's not a PC. And a nonheroic 1st level Aristocrat would probably die with the 1d6 damage and I wouldn't have a problem, either.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Maybe it's a special NPC rules? Only possiblity-rated heroic characters get the 1d6 hit point damage, others must make a Fortitude Save DC 10 or die (success means 1d6 points of damage)




If the NPC is known to be a heroic character in his own right, this only sidesteps the problem.  The point isn't specificly that the character that breaks his neck after falling off a horse is a 20th level Paladin.  The point is that the character is classified as heroic, and then does something that under the heroic rules is impossible.  This breaks suspension of disbelief, and causes a player to lose trust in the referee ('I like good old King Thumble, and the referee just killed him 'by fiat'.  He deserves better than that.'), or else to mistrust the description ('Clearly good old King Thumble couldn't have been killed merely by falling off his horse.  Foul play must have been involved!'), or else garner the wrong lesson about the physics of the game world, ('One little fall off a horse killed good old King Thumble!  Riding horses is dangerous!  I'm never riding a horse again!'), or else lose emmersion in the narrative ('Under the rules, the way King Thumble died is just silly.  It happened merely to serve the needs of the preestablished plot, because the DM couldn't be bothered to work within the rules.  Obviously no character really has any free will.').

I mean this really isn't a difficult thing to deal with.  Lets begin with the assumption that the game rules really do describe the world.  Clearly, we live in a world where healthy heroic individuals don't die merely because they fell off a horse.  The rules proscribe a sort of 'power of plot' protection to heroic characters that prevent that sort of mundane death from happening.  They don't die from falling off horses anymore than they die from slipping in the bathtub.  That's the world that the rules describe, and its natural that the players will expect you as the referee to describe that world.

But lets suppose that you decide that its absolutely essential that good King Thumble die offstage from falling off his horse.  Well, that's easily enough handled without breaking the rules.  King Thumble can't die merely from falling off his horse, but he can die from falling off his horse heroicly.  So for example, I would relate to the PC's the tragic death of King Thumble as something that had mythic force:

"While riding on hunt, King Thumble together with his huntsman spied a great black hart of a stature and majesty the like of which no one in the party had ever seen.  Immediately it seemed to the huntsman that a sort of madness fell upon King Thumble, for though he was never known to dally on the chase, he immediately fell to the chase of the hart with a wild and reckless abandon and soon outdistanced all of his huntsman and was err long out of sight and his path could only be discerned by the sounds of the chase and the King's horn.  Soon the chase lead into wild country outside the King's park, little known to any save the most experienced of hunters.  Then the party heard a great noise, as of the King's horse shying and a crash.  Then the growing dread which all had been experiencing at this uncanny chase, became full and complete and with a great terror the party came to the place where the King's horn had last been heard.  There they found what they had most dreaded, for the King had been thrown from his horse on trecherous ground, and fell down a step embankment into a hidden ravine so narrow and so preciptous that some of those that followed themselves were nearly cast in.  At the bottom the saw the horrid scene, the broken body of the king lying in a shallow brook, his head dashed against a stone, with his steed lying on top of him.  Even as his huntsman reached the bottom, the good King expired.  All the nation now mourns, as one who has lost a beloved father."

Problem solved, and I would think in a good deal better of a fashion.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If the NPC is known to be a heroic character in his own right, this only sidesteps the problem.  The point isn't specificly that the character that breaks his neck after falling off a horse is a 20th level Paladin.  The point is that the character is classified as heroic, and then does something that under the heroic rules is impossible.  This breaks suspension of disbelief, and causes a player to lose trust in the referee ('I like good old King Thumble, and the referee just killed him 'by fiat'.  He deserves better than that.'), or else to mistrust the description ('Clearly good old King Thumble couldn't have been killed merely by falling off his horse.  Foul play must have been involved!'), or else garner the wrong lesson about the physics of the game world, ('One little fall off a horse killed good old King Thumble!  Riding horses is dangerous!  I'm never riding a horse again!'), or else lose emmersion in the narrative ('Under the rules, the way King Thumble died is just silly.  It happened merely to serve the needs of the preestablished plot, because the DM couldn't be bothered to work within the rules.  Obviously no character really has any free will.').
> 
> I mean this really isn't a difficult thing to deal with.  Lets begin with the assumption that the game rules really do describe the world.  Clearly, we live in a world where healthy heroic individuals don't die merely because they fell off a horse.  The rules proscribe a sort of 'power of plot' protection to heroic characters that prevent that sort of mundane death from happening.  They don't die from falling off horses anymore than they die from slipping in the bathtub.  That's the world that the rules describe, and its natural that the players will expect you as the referee to describe that world.



We actually live in a world where superman doesn't die by falling from a horse, but he _is_ paralyzed afterwards.  :\ 



> But lets suppose that you decide that its absolutely essential that good King Thumble die offstage from falling off his horse.  Well, that's easily enough handled without breaking the rules.  King Thumble can't die merely from falling off his horse, but he can die from falling off his horse heroicly.  So for example, I would relate to the PC's the tragic death of King Thumble as something that had mythic force:
> 
> "While riding on hunt, King Thumble together with his huntsman spied a great black hart of a stature and majesty the like of which no one in the party had ever seen.  Immediately it seemed to the huntsman that a sort of madness fell upon King Thumble, for though he was never known to dally on the chase, he immediately fell to the chase of the hart with a wild and reckless abandon and soon outdistanced all of his huntsman and was err long out of sight and his path could only be discerned by the sounds of the chase and the King's horn.  Soon the chase lead into wild country outside the King's park, little known to any save the most experienced of hunters.  Then the party heard a great noise, as of the King's horse shying and a crash.  Then the growing dread which all had been experiencing at this uncanny chase, became full and complete and with a great terror the party came to the place where the King's horn had last been heard.  There they found what they had most dreaded, for the King had been thrown from his horse on trecherous ground, and fell down a step embankment into a hidden ravine so narrow and so preciptous that some of those that followed themselves were nearly cast in.  At the bottom the saw the horrid scene, the broken body of the king lying in a shallow brook, his head dashed against a stone, with his steed lying on top of him.  Even as his huntsman reached the bottom, the good King expired.  All the nation now mourns, as one who has lost a beloved father."
> 
> Problem solved, and I would think in a good deal better of a fashion.



I like that... 
I am not sure I would use this storytelling too often(, and I sure don't need it), but then - how often does a personality like king Thumble die?)


----------



## Thaniel (Feb 7, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> We actually live in a world where superman doesn't die by falling from a horse, but he _is_ paralyzed afterwards.  :\




No, the actor (read: Level 1 Expert, level 2 at best) is paralyzed afterwards.  Level 1 (or 2) characters are able to be killed by falling off a horse by current rules.

To others who make this argument: Sorry to say, but Christopher Reeve was NOT Superman.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> We actually live in a world where superman doesn't die by falling from a horse, but he _is_ paralyzed afterwards.




This is because we live in a world where people who play supermen in stories aren't conferred mystical powers as a result of that.  They remain regular mortals, and not Heroic Demigods as one might find in Greek myth for example.   

I think 'paganism' is naturally attractive to humans.  We want to live in a world of 20th level paladins.  We want evil to be overcome by sheer individual power and might.  We aren't happy with the sort of heroes that the real world provides, so we invent the ones we really want and wish we had. 

Fortunately, we seem to have gotten past the point of needing to believe that Batman, Superman, and Spiderman are really real.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I cry foul at that, but more because of the aforementioned "one person isn't playing by the rules." If the DM created rules for heroes with cancer, I'd be cool with it on one level, but that would certainly change the tenor of the game to one that is, for me, skirting close to unwelcomingly realistic.
> 
> *Because Superman wouldn't die of Cancer, either.*




I notice you keep falling back on your "Superman wouldn't X" argument.

I believe that's the distinction here. By the rules of his universe, Superman literally *cannot* die from cancer, or an injury sustained from a normal physical force. Because he's quite literally *invulnerable* to those things.

Even a fall from a great height wouldn't do any damage to Superman. But even a 30th-level fighter is NOT Superman. Even going by the rules of hit points, a fall *can* kill him. His hit points mean that he CAN survive a fall, not that he *will*. Superman is invulnerable to something as moderate as falling damage. In D&D terms, he's got like DR 200/-.

I submit that our high-level fighter is closer to Batman or Captain America than Superman. And before you say "no way," I should point out that with the right gear (*cough*magical equipment*cough*), Batman was able to defeat Superman (Frank Miller's _Batman - The Dark Knight Returns_).

In other words, I'd argue that saying "Superman can't/wouldn't X" isn't the best argument. The highest-level D&D fighter still ain't Superman.

And once you discount Superman, do recall that many of his superhero peers HAVE died from cancer and various other "mundane" causes.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 7, 2008)

> . But even a 30th-level fighter is NOT Superman. Even going by the rules of hit points, a fall can kill him. His hit points mean that he CAN survive a fall, not that he will.




And they also mean that if the fall is only from a horse, dealing 1d6 points of damage, that he WILL survive. Because he would have to be a very bizarre character indeed to be 30th level and have 6 or fewer hit points. 



> In other words, I'd argue that saying "Superman can't/wouldn't X" isn't the best argument. The highest-level D&D fighter still ain't Superman.




They're closer to demigods. Read the link above. It's a good way to see how the rules suggest the world works. 



> And once you discount Superman, do recall that many of his superhero peers HAVE died from cancer and various other "mundane" causes.




But that's why Superman is more apt. 300 hp means that a fall from a horse won't kill you. 6 hp means that it probably won't. 2 hp means that it probably will. 1 hp means you better not ride a horse.

Literally, someone with 300 hp CANNOT die from only falling off a horse. They are immune to it, just as Superman is immune to bullets.

Now if that person with 300 hp fell off of 700 horses that day, maybe he'd eventually wear out because, unlike superman, D&D characters are only so reslient. 

In the same way, maximum damage for falling from any height is 120. Someone with 300 hit points is immune from falling. Falling from any height into a vat of lava deals 240 damage at maximum. Someone with 300 hit points is immune from falling ito a vat of lava.

They probably couldn't do it AGAIN, but that is where D&D characters differ from Superman. Their immunity runs out, sooner or later.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> There they found what they had most dreaded, for the King had been thrown from his horse on trecherous ground, and fell down a step embankment into a hidden ravine so narrow and so preciptous that some of those that followed themselves were nearly cast in.  At the bottom the saw the horrid scene, the broken body of the king lying in a shallow brook, his head dashed against a stone, with his steed lying on top of him.



So your solution to problem of a high-level D&D character being unable to die from a fall of their horse is to declare that said character fell _really, really far_ and then the horse _landed on him?_! That would be the silliest thing I've heard in days if it weren't so wonderful.

Nice job making lemonade out of lemons, Cel. But make no mistake, the D&D engine is one big, rotted, possibly arsenic-laced lemon --if you intend to use it as a setting's physics.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 7, 2008)

This might be seen as sacrelige in this discussion, but it has to be said:

Every time I see a reference to Superman, or Batman, or some other comic book hero as being a comparison to what the PCs in a game world should be, I glaze over and skip to the next post.

If the PCs in your game are as far removed in abilities from the rest of the world as Superman is, you've got bigger problems; mostly starting with the PCs in such a scenario can do exactly what they want and nothing can stop them.  Why?  Because in the comic world Superman is unique.  He *is* the biggest fish, by a ridiculous amount, and the *only* thing holding him in check is his own...dare I say it...alignment.  In the D+D world PCs should not be unique.  There's other adventurers out there...lots of 'em...some of whom have been at it far longer than the PCs, and there should always be not just *a* bigger fish, but lots of them; of all alignments.

The answer, of course, is to dial back the PC-as-superhero ideal and go instead for the PCs being more like slightly-better-than-average ordinary guys who took some risks and made good; learned some things along the way, and managed to jump in the pond with the big fish and not get eaten.

Lanefan


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> So your solution to problem of a high-level D&D character being unable to die from a fall of their horse is to declare that said character fell _really, really far_ and then the horse _landed on him?_! That would be the silliest thing I've heard in days if it weren't so wonderful.




Errr... I have the feeling that you shouldn't be playing D&D then.  The solution to every challenge of a high-level D&D character involves upping the stakes to match the D&D characters increasingly super-heroic prowess.  That's the universe that D&D has always described.  The pits get deeper.  The monsters get stronger.  The magic gets more world shaking.  That's D&D.



> Nice job making lemonade out of lemons, Cel. But make no mistake, the D&D engine is one big, rotted, possibly arsenic-laced lemon --if you intend to use it as a setting's physics.




Really?  Again, you seem to have a problem with the world that the rules describe.  If you want to use a world with different physics, get a different system.  For my part, the rules _rather exactly describe the setting I'm going for_, to the point that if the rules did describe a universe where super-heroes died in mundane less than over-the-top ways, I'd have to change them because they served the purpose so badly.  The setting I want has 'faerie tale physics', and D&D serves that role quite well.  The above can occur in a faerie tale quite well, and as this thread points out, _has to occur if you want to abide by the rules._. 

If you don't want to abide by the rules, it suggests you want a different game universe and consequently a different set of rules to go with.  I can give some suggestions as to how you'd go about that, but that doesn't mean that the rules aren't for the most part doing thier job as written.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 7, 2008)

Thaniel said:
			
		

> Once again, firefighters are NOT level 20.



You don't have any view on the kobolds example, which was my principal point?


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 7, 2008)

Some of us don't equate "heroic fantasy" with "superheroes with swords."


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> This might be seen as sacrelige in this discussion, but it has to be said:
> 
> Every time I see a reference to Superman, or Batman, or some other comic book hero as being a comparison to what the PCs in a game world should be, I glaze over and skip to the next post.
> 
> If the PCs in your game are as far removed in abilities from the rest of the world as Superman is, you've got bigger problems; mostly starting with the PCs in such a scenario can do exactly what they want and nothing can stop them.  Why?  Because in the comic world Superman is unique.  He *is* the biggest fish, by a ridiculous amount, and the *only* thing holding him in check is his own...dare I say it...alignment.




Err, no.  This is exactly one of the things I've been trying to get people to consider.

Yes, Superman is a rather over the top comparison, but the point is D&D describes a world in which the protagonists have the capacity to become superheroic.  Hense, you must be very careful that the rules also don't describe a world in which the PC's are unique, because if you do in the long run in are in for a world of trouble.

Is Superman really kept in check by only his own alignment?  No!  Superman manages to stay pretty darn busy all the time because he has foes which are as ridiculously over the top as he is.  Yes, his alignment constrains how he acts against his mortal foes (like Luthor), but against his more formidable foes Superman is merely adequate to the task and frequently has to resort to trickery, cunning and intelligence to manage.  I don't think you read much Superman if think otherwise.  (Please, if you haven't already, read 'Red Son'.) The point is, there are superpowered villains out there that are (in game terms) as least as powerful as Superman.  Granted, often times he has to go adventuring 'off planet' to find them (or they have to come to him), but they are definately in existence in the multiverse described by the comics.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Some of us don't equate "heroic fantasy" with "superheroes with swords."




That's fine.  But in that case, you probably are making lemonaid out of lemons when it comes to the D&D rules, and you'll need to make significant adjustments to the rules to get what you want.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If a GM is still limited by describing effects in line with the possibilities inherent in the ruleset, then they are still playing by the same set of rules, just with the more autonomy than the characters.



KM, thanks for the reply.

I'm going to try to do a Celebrim and be brief - and just focus on the main point which I'm still having trouble getting clear on.

Why is it OK (in your playstyle) for the GM to stipulate the dice, rather than roll them (to exercise "autonomy", as you put it above)? But not OK (in your playstyle) for the GM (or the players, in some cases) to stipulate matters without regard to the action-resolution mechanics?

Again, not a rhetorical question. I'm trying to work out the internal logic of the permissible parameters of stipulation.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> That's fine.  But in that case, you probably are making lemonaid out of lemons when it comes to the D&D rules, and you'll need to make significant adjustments to the rules to get what you want.




I dunno. I think I spent a whole thread arguing I could get exactly what I wanted out of the D&D rules as is, just by not viewing them as all-encompassing representation of the sum totality of all possible events in the game world.

It was on ENWorld. I think the thread was called "Game rules are not the physics of the game world." I'll try to find you a link.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I dunno. I think I spent a whole thread arguing I could get exactly what I wanted out of the D&D rules as is, just by not viewing them as all-encompassing representation of the sum totality of all possible events in the game world.
> 
> It was on ENWorld. I think the thread was called "Game rules are not the physics of the game world." I'll try to find you a link.




Ahh... I was hoping someone would use this line of attack.

The thing is, you haven't in fact shown that you can get exactly what you want out of the D&D rules 'as is'.  All you've managed to show is that you can get everything you want out of the rules by ignoring them when events occur offstage.  But whenever events occur onstage, they won't in fact generate those same results.  There will be a marked and notable difference between how things work on stage, and how they work offstage.  And frankly, of the two, its the on stage events that are far more important.  So either you don't get 'all you want', or else you don't use the rules 'as is'.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 7, 2008)

Thaniel said:
			
		

> No, the actor (read: Level 1 Expert, level 2 at best) is paralyzed afterwards.  Level 1 (or 2) characters are able to be killed by falling off a horse by current rules.
> 
> To others who make this argument: Sorry to say, but Christopher Reeve was NOT Superman.



Damn, I didn't know that! 

I was making a joke... (A joke I admit was maybe bad on multiple levels, but I just couldn't let the oppertunity go... Don't hurt me, please  )


----------



## pemerton (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The rules proscribe a sort of 'power of plot' protection to heroic characters that prevent that sort of mundane death from happening.



Following KM's quotes from the DMG, I agree that D&D runs this way (although not all this way).

But whether this is the best way to play is up for grabs. On the narrativist reading of D&D rules, NPC hit points aren't plot protection for those NPCs, but adversity regulation for when they engage with the PCs.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The point is that the character is classified as heroic, and then does something that under the heroic rules is impossible.  This breaks suspension of disbelief, and causes a player to lose trust in the referee ('I like good old King Thumble, and the referee just killed him 'by fiat'.  He deserves better than that.'), or else to mistrust the description ('Clearly good old King Thumble couldn't have been killed merely by falling off his horse.  Foul play must have been involved!'), or else garner the wrong lesson about the physics of the game world, ('One little fall off a horse killed good old King Thumble!  Riding horses is dangerous!  I'm never riding a horse again!'), or else lose emmersion in the narrative ('Under the rules, the way King Thumble died is just silly.  It happened merely to serve the needs of the preestablished plot, because the DM couldn't be bothered to work within the rules.  Obviously no character really has any free will.').



Looking at each of your responses:

1) Looks like a case where the Lois Lane rules should have been invoked - the problem is that the GM has improperly exercised narrative control.

2) Perhaps (and others have made this point earlier, including KM). But it depends very much on what the play group understands to be the scope of the action resolution mechanics.

3) I still think this is absurd, as I said above. The GM _could_ have stipulated that King Thumble died in combat with a kobold after the kobold struck many lucky blows, while King Thumble's luck completely ran out (Kobold rolled all 20s, Thumble all 1s) and the players (and their PCs) would not therefore become completely scared of horses. They'd just figure that the King had got very unlucky.

4) This also looks like a case of conflict within the group about what the rules and playstyle are.

Of course there are always stories that can be told within the framework of the action resolution mechanics. Sometimes, however, one wants to have the gameworld evolve a different way. Is it _obligatory_, at that point, to go down the RM route and create action resolution mechanics that allow it to happen to the PCs too?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> That's fine.  But in that case, you probably are making lemonaid out of lemons when it comes to the D&D rules, and you'll need to make significant adjustments to the rules to get what you want.



I gather you do think it is obligatory to go down the RM route.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> you haven't in fact shown that you can get exactly what you want out of the D&D rules 'as is'.  All you've managed to show is that you can get everything you want out of the rules by ignoring them when events occur offstage.  But whenever events occur onstage, they won't in fact generate those same results.  There will be a marked and notable difference between how things work on stage, and how they work offstage.  And frankly, of the two, its the on stage events that are far more important.



Alternatively, one can use this set of rules: (i) when PCs are involved, use the character build and action resolution mechanics; (ii) otherwise, determine the state of the gameworld by narration (distributed between GM and players as determined by further sub-rules).

There will be no difference between on-stage and off-stage in terms of the physics of the gameworld. There will be a difference in terms of the rules used to determine what happens (which rules are not the physics of the gameworld).

On-stage, of course, no PC will die from falling off a horse (because the PC enjoys hit-point plot protection). But this does not contradict the physics of the gameworld (in which people can die from falling off horses). That something never happens to the PCs doesn't show it couldn't have happened.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 7, 2008)

allenw said:
			
		

> <snip discussion of examples>




I hadn't thought of doing Theoden via Restoration magic. That'd be one way of doing it, I guess.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 7, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> even a 30th-level fighter is NOT Superman. Even going by the rules of hit points, a fall *can* kill him. His hit points mean that he CAN survive a fall, not that he *will*.



Agreed. I've tried to make this point in a couple of posts, but to no avail. Good luck!


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 7, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> KM, thanks for the reply.
> 
> I'm going to try to do a Celebrim and be brief - and just focus on the main point which I'm still having trouble getting clear on.
> 
> ...



While I'm not KM, my answer to the same question would be that adherence to the action-resolution system in off screen matters enhances predictability and consistency, which are two things I enjoy as a player and a DM. In a post above, I listed some of the possible endings of the "mystery" presented in a heroic warrior dying from such a minor accident. The players (and their characters) could know to consider these possibilities and treat it as a mystery, *if* the world is consistent in on and off screen resolutions. If that consistency isn't there, it's harder to subtly introduce a mystery, because strange things could just be the background.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But whenever events occur onstage, they won't in fact generate those same results.  There will be a marked and notable difference between how things work on stage, and how they work offstage.




How did you get the impression we wanted the same results to occur on stage as occurred off stage?

Especially since we've said the opposite...?


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And they also mean that if the fall is only from a horse, dealing 1d6 points of damage, that he WILL survive. Because he would have to be a very bizarre character indeed to be 30th level and have 6 or fewer hit points.




Unless he's just been in a bad fight and hasn't been healed. By the rules, he's not impaired in the least (no penalties) but has been whittled down to 3 hp. A nasty spill from that horse could do 4 hp in damage and plunge him to -1 hp and dying. Less than a minute later (9 rounds is 54 seconds), if he's unlucky, he's bled out from his injury. So sorry, thanks for playing, but King McStab just received a fatal injury from falling off a horse.

See, I can twist what the letter of the D&D rules means too.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> They're closer to demigods. Read the link above. It's a good way to see how the rules suggest the world works.




It's a fascinating link. Of course, it's written from the perspective of someone who believes the D&D rules represent real physics, not abstractions to represent how likely HEROES are to pull things off.




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> In the same way, maximum damage for falling from any height is 120. Someone with 300 hit points is immune from falling. Falling from any height into a vat of lava deals 240 damage at maximum. Someone with 300 hit points is immune from falling ito a vat of lava.
> 
> They probably couldn't do it AGAIN, but that is where D&D characters differ from Superman. Their immunity runs out, sooner or later.




Well, there's also the Massive Damage Threshold to consider. More than 50 hp triggers a FORT save, which means if he sustains more than 50 hp of damage, and fails the save after falling off a cliff, he dies. So he CAN die from a single fall.

And that's the point. After the first fall, and until the character hits negative hp, he is, by the rules of the game, FINE. He's not appreciably injured or impaired in any way whatsoever. In other words, by what we know about injuries, he's not actually *hurt.*

After the fall plunges him to negative hp, he's dying or dead. So what, in fact, inflicted the life threatening injury? That's right, the fall. Your hypothetical 300 hp character _who was fine beforehand_ has died from injuries sustained in a single fall.

More to the point, if he's sustained a host of minor injuries, none of which are even close to life threatening, he might also be vulnerable to that same fall. Because by the rules of the game, all that hit point loss is nothing more than a bunch of nasty scratches, and the character is not seriously hurt.

That's why I have trouble treating hit points as anything BUT an abstraction.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> How did you get the impression we wanted the same results to occur on stage as occurred off stage?




I know what you want.  I think I spent a whole thread arguing that that was a kludge fix, which would enevitably cause you problems, because the distinction between offstage and onstage can never be complete.  

It was on ENWorld. I think the thread was called "Game rules are not the physics of the game world." I'll try to find you a link.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 7, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> adherence to the action-resolution system in off screen matters enhances predictability and consistency, which are two things I enjoy as a player and a DM.



My point is that setting up various plots requires the GM to stipulate dice roll results, rather than actually rolling the dice. And I wanted to know why that sort of stipulation is permitted, but other sorts are not.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 7, 2008)

To the rules-as-physics guys:

How would you consider the physics to look like when using the following rule:

If there is a conflict of interest between a PC and another character, roll the dice.
If there is no conflict of interest, don't roll the dice.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I know what you want.  I think I spent a whole thread arguing that that was a kludge fix, which would enevitably cause you problems, because the distinction between offstage and onstage can never be complete.
> 
> It was on ENWorld. I think the thread was called "Game rules are not the physics of the game world." I'll try to find you a link.




I am hoisted on my own sarcastic petard!

No, I disagree. Not only do I not care one whit about it being inconsistent, but I think this inconsistency is good for the game. Not only because attempting to equate rules with world leads to far worse results, but because I do not accept for one second that determining the distinction between the two is at all difficult or perilous.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Feb 7, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> The players (and their characters) could know to consider these possibilities and treat it as a mystery, *if* the world is consistent in on and off screen resolutions. If that consistency isn't there, it's harder to subtly introduce a mystery, because strange things could just be the background.



To a certain extent, I think this is true (and someone needs to give the high-level-fighter-falling-off-his-horse example the axe, since it's not the best one out there), but I think that one can carry this line of reasoning a bit too far. 

The example I always think of is that of an FR _mythal_. In 2e and 3e right up until _Lost Empires of Faerun_, a mythal was a magical effect created by long-lost elven arts that could accomplish all sorts of crazy things... things specifically good for generating non-standard adventuring environments. The _why_ of a mythal was left to what some would call DM handwaving. LEoF then came out with detailed rules for constructing a mythal using epic spell seeds, and you know what? Those rules were insanely complicated, easily abusable if the players could access the abilities detailed therein, and pretty much useless in 99% of campaigns anyway. 

*That* to my mind is where DM handwaving is superior to explaining everything "consistently" using the rules. IMO, there is no measurable gain in predictability or player enjoyment for the DM to parse out exactly how everything onstage and off happens using the rules. Should there be guidelines for player _interaction_ with offstage events? Yes. For example, I would certainly have Spellcraft, Survival, and/or Knowledge DCs in place to give PCs the ability to understand the implications of various phenomena and events. But I don't think that a DM is gaining much in the way of consistency by forcing himself to simulate everything using codified rules.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 7, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> My point is that setting up various plots requires the GM to stipulate dice roll results, rather than actually rolling the dice. And I wanted to know why that sort of stipulation is permitted, but other sorts are not.



That's what I was trying to answer. If you go so far as determining the success or failure of a rules possible event, but not posit rules impossible events, you have a reasonable level of predictability / consistency in the setting. If you posit a rules impossible event, those elements are damaged. So, off camera stipulating of a roll result is more acceptable to me than off camera stipulating of something that would be a mechanical impossibility on camera.


----------



## IanB (Feb 7, 2008)

Maybe Superman doesn't die of cancer, but I think Captain Marvel (not the DC Shazam guy, the Marvel Comics one) did. My recollection is that he definitely falls into the "heroic" category based on his powers and such.

Clearly there is literary precedent for Heroic-with-a-capital-H beings dying in ways that are not implemented (or not implemented well) in the D&D rules. Really this even happens in D&D novels themselves - how many clearly-not-first-level guys does Drizzt skewer in a single round?

I thought I was in the middle on this argument but I guess I'm clearly not; I can't approach designing a D&D campaign as if the rules dictate how the setting should look and behave, and having things like level atrophy rules and such is just a bunch of extra work for no real gain it seems to me.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But whether this is the best way to play is up for grabs. On the narrativist reading of D&D rules, NPC hit points aren't plot protection for those NPCs, but adversity regulation for when they engage with the PCs.




Which in turn creates certain reasonable expectations on the part of the PC's on how the mechanics regulate adversity when they aren't direct participants.  If they for example are defeated in a contest of arms by the Kings champion, and then learn that the King's champion was killed in battle by a kobold, they are going to have reasonable expectations about that kobold and it isn't going to be 'The DM just decided Sir Reginald died from a single stab wound of a kobold'.   

If there is any interaction between on stage and off stage, this is unavoidable.  It's just a question of when and where you are going to hit these sorts of stumbling blocks.  And if there is no interaction between on stage and off stage, then for all practical purposes the off stage stuff didn't happen except in the play ground of the DM's mind. 



> 1) Looks like a case where the Lois Lane rules should have been invoked - the problem is that the GM has improperly exercised narrative control.




Yes, but the narrative control would have been excercised much more properly if it fit the player's expectations about the world described by the rules - that is to say - if it fit the established setting.



> Perhaps (and others have made this point earlier, including KM). But it depends very much on what the play group understands to be the scope of the action resolution mechanics.




Again, unless you are willing to forgo the expectation of consitancy on stage, you have to be consistant off stage as well because there will be points of contact. 



> 3) I still think this is absurd, as I said above. The GM _could_ have stipulated that King Thumble died in combat with a kobold after the kobold struck many lucky blows, while King Thumble's luck completely ran out (Kobold rolled all 20s, Thumble all 1s) and the players (and their PCs) would not therefore become completely scared of horses. They'd just figure that the King had got very unlucky.




That is strictly true, but in brief, suspension of disbelief.  By invoking that much luck (or unluck), you are making it clear that you are making no consession to consistancy.   You are putting an unnecessary stumbling block in front of your players because they are unable to draw conclusions about the world you describe.  



> This also looks like a case of conflict within the group about what the rules and playstyle are.




Don't the players have a reasonable expectation that the rules will inform the playstyle?  And in particular, isn't it rather unavoidable that the action-resolution mechanics have a very large role in creating the playstyle?  How can you expect anything but conflict over what the playstyle is or is supposed to be when the players are forever recieving mixed signals from you because you are using two completely different sets of rules in what is unavoidably a somewhat arbritrary fashion?



> Of course there are always stories that can be told within the framework of the action resolution mechanics. Sometimes, however, one wants to have the gameworld evolve a different way. Is it _obligatory_, at that point, to go down the RM route and create action resolution mechanics that allow it to happen to the PCs too?




I don't think it is obligatory.  But if you do create two different game worlds, the one in which the PC's live which works according to one set of rules, and another one that the PC's can only hear about or perhaps catch glimpses of which clearly works by a different set of rules, then I think you are creating unnecessary problems for yourself.

It is certainly not obligatory to go down the RM route.  The RM root comes from thinking that the universe being simulated must in some fashion have everything in it that exists in the real universe, plus ironically, a bit more that doesn't.  Trying to simulate everything in the real world by having formal resolution systems can be an exercise in futility, especially if you also want the story universe to work by different rules as well on a case by case basis.  Abstraction is your friend.  Use it.



> On-stage, of course, no PC will die from falling off a horse (because the PC enjoys hit-point plot protection). But this does not contradict the physics of the gameworld (in which people can die from falling off horses). That something never happens to the PCs doesn't show it couldn't have happened.




The last sentence is so vague as to have no real meaning.  I made a point of listing some of the ways that a sentence like that could become a red herring earlier.  

Look, all I can say is that if you insist that you are happy with a game universe in which the PC's must be signalled that this event or the other is a 'cut scene' occuring outside of game context and that inferences about game state can't really be drawn from it, then fine.  I think however that you are making alot of trouble for yourself for no real reason given how easily you can make the story fit the universe.  Likewise, I can't imagine how you think you are making the universe fit the story if in fact you aren't shaping its physics, you are merely implying that you have.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 7, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Celebrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Emphasis mine.

Folks, we're never going to agree. The only thing that's actually "fraught with peril" in this discussion is each side attempting to convince the other that their preferred interpretation is "better," "more accurate," or "how D&D ought to be played."

Neither is. And I think you two have just successfully (and amusingly) proved that we're doing nothing but going in circles at this point.

Perhaps it's time we bring this discussion to a close?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Perhaps it's time we bring this discussion to a close?




Of all the perilous turns this thread has made, this to me is the most dangerous.

I'm going to refrain from replying to that in the way I think it deserves.

The posters in this thread so far have successfully managed to avoid taking anything personally.  Let's not meta-discuss the discussion and risk blowing that.  

Secondly, I've managed to branch off from my original thesis in the past few posts.

Yes, in as much as I think 'consistant standards' are a hallmark of a well refereed game, I think that 'my way' is objectively better than the alternatives.  The alternatives are more likely to confuse the players, whose expectations must unavoidably be in no small part created by the rules (specifically, the rules that they've experienced).  The only way to get around this IMO is to creatively signal that off stage events aren't really part of the game, and I think that blows emersion all to heck.  But this is, I admit, purely an argument over opinion and not something I think I can prove beyond any reasonable argument.

But my actual thesis doesn't depend on my way being better.  My actual thesis, that the game rules are the physics of the game world is not currently being challenged.  In particular, in arguing whether or not my way is objectively better, the people on the other side of the debate are increasingly arguing for a game system which has as its formal resolution system two action resolution systems - one for PC's and one for non-PC's - and in effect, PC's move around in a pocket universe in which one set of physics apply, and NPC's outside of thier radius operate under a different set of rules.  But this set up, whether it is incongrous or whether it is ideal, _is still a universe where the physics have been described by the rules_.  The rule exempting the area outside of the PC's pocket universe is still one of the rules of the game, and the action-resolution system outside of the PC's pocket unverse (bad as I think it is) is still one that can be described.  No one has as yet advocated playing in a game universe wear my assertion that the game rules are always the physics of the game world doesn't apply.  I described one such universe, and so far there have been no takers that think that is a good thing.


----------



## Thaniel (Feb 7, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> You don't have any view on the kobolds example, which was my principal point?




Kobolds can have class levels.  Kobolds can learn and become more powerful for it.  If a well-known dragon-killer was taken out by kobolds, I (as my character) would say "Man.. I've fought them before.  Some were tougher than others, but nothing all that bad.  Somewhere there's a legendary hero of the kobolds running around.  I think I should find out more.  He needs to be stopped."


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But this set up, whether it is incongrous or whether it is ideal, _is still a universe where the physics have been described by the rules_.  The rule exempting the area outside of the PC's pocket universe is still one of the rules of the game, and the action-resolution system outside of the PC's pocket unverse (bad as I think it is) is still one that can be described.




Wow. So you are, in effect, redefining "rules of the game" in such a way that your thesis is true *by definition*. Tautology is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

So you're saying that a DM who decides that, in his game, the fates of NPCs are not governed by the RAW has, in fact, changed the "rules of the game" and therefore the physics of his world are still governed by those rules.

You are correct. By your self-created definition, your thesis is correct. You win. Happy now?

Is this thread actually going _anywhere_?


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But my actual thesis doesn't depend on my way being better.  My actual thesis, that the game rules are the physics of the game world is not currently being challenged.




What is your definition of physics?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Wow. So you are, in effect, redefining "rules of the game" in such a way that your thesis is true *by definition*.




No, I'm point out that the definition of rules is such that my thesis is true by definition.  I don't think I've had anyone disagree vigorously with how I've defined 'rules of the game'.

The wonderful thing about systems of meaning is that various things in them can be 'true by definition'.  In fact, if they are provably true then they are true by definition at some level.  The axioms are provably not themselves provable.  However, just because this is true doesn't mean that everything that is true by definition is obviously true by definition.  Sometimes it turns out that things which are true are quite surprisingly true.  



> So you're saying that a DM who decides that, in his game, the fates of NPCs are not governed by the RAW has, in fact, changed the "rules of the game" and therefore the physics of his world are still governed by those rules.




Exactly.  And this is true once you think about it, even if it is not immediately obvious that it is true.



> You are correct. By your self-created definition, your thesis is correct. You win. Happy now?




Well, yes, since you ask.  Although, I deny that I created the definition of rules.



> Is this thread actually going _anywhere_?




Well, it just did.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Of all the perilous turns this thread has made, this to me is the most dangerous.
> 
> I'm going to refrain from replying to that in the way I think it deserves.
> 
> ...




Celebrim, I think that the narrativists claim that there aren't physics to the universe; if the DM declares "The world is such." then the world is such (hopefully in accordance with the wishes of the the players and the development of the story).  There are no physics, and consistency is not needed nor required.  Characters do not make plans or decisions based on their in-world expectations of the universe in this model; all characters (including the PCs) base their actions entirely upon their shared understanding of the narrative.  The universe is something like that of Kidd Rad's meta-game universe; each character is in essence programmed by the narrative moment by moment, and if we see a longsword tend do deal 1d8 damage to various characters in the world, it's only because it was dramatically appropriate to happen at that time to that character.

Heck, I even agree with this view; however, the only narrative I will expect from it is "What the dice and rules say.", and conflicting with this narrative will produce frustration and resentment.  Moreover, I have an extremely low tolerance for having characters simply ignore glaring inconsistency in the game world; if it is possible for falls to be dire in a way that being stabbed by monsters isn't, then the rules should reflect this, and if high-level characters should be vulnerable to single sudden injuries, the rules should reflect this as well.  I want a persistent world, in which causes and effects don't spontaneously warp solely because the GM thinks it was a good idea.  In fact, I cheerfully submit (especially given the examples already presented) that, if you have players who care about the rules, there is no reason to use the examples presented.  You've established a character as having certain properties?  You want to have something in-game interact with him to produce a particular effect?  Then you look at what exists in-game that can have that effect, and choose from that set, or, if there is nothing (or the rules of the game fail to simulate what you're trying to do completely).

D&D is not a world simulator.  It is a heroism simulator; there are clear, explicit, unambiguous rules as to what heroes are and what they can accomplish.  I, by and large, like these assumptions; mucking with them in pursuit of greater realism does not generally result in a superior play experience for me.  Altering the rules to produce a different-but-better consistent universe? Good.  Making rulings in violation of rules to the contrary to acheive a narrative effect of questionable desirability? Bad.

And, I'll add, nonrealistic.  When presented with a set of dice that keep rolling fives and sixes, the reasonable explanation is not that they are lucky dice, but they are weighted.  If my character engages in battles that a human has a slim chance of survival and keeps surviving, then at some point, it's more reasonable to assume that I'm not human than that the odds just keep lining up like that.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> What is your definition of physics?




Am I a respected lexicographist such that I'm such an authority on the meanings of words that you don't need a dictionary?

Are you suggesting that like Humpty Dumpty I'm reserving the right for each word to mean exactly what I intend it to mean?

When I finally figured what was bugging me about the OP's thesis, I used a dictionary to check the definition of physics before I set down my thesis.  I would expect if you did, that you'd read something along these lines:

"1. The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics. 
2. Physical properties, interactions, processes, or laws: the physics of supersonic flight. 
3. The study of the natural or material world and phenomena; natural philosophy."

I'm using the term in the sense of definition #2 and similar definitions like it - the laws and properties which govern the interaction and movement of matter.   In the case of 'game physics' I mean the laws and properties which govern the conceptually existing objects in the game universe.  

I spent the whole first section of my argument demonstrating that the 'rules of the game' weren't merely the 'rules as written'.  It didn't cause that much stir back then.  Pretty much everyone seemed to agree that the 'rules of the game' includes more things than just the rules which have been written down.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Yes, in as much as I think 'consistant standards' are a hallmark of a well refereed game, I think that 'my way' is objectively better than the alternatives.



You wouldn't be you if you didn't  

But I object --a little-- to your use of objectively; what are your criteria? I imagine we could go anecdote for anecdote like wordy sluggers and end up demonstrating that the various people we've DM'ed for enjoyed our different approaches.



> The alternatives are more likely to confuse the players, whose expectations must unavoidably be in no small part created by the rules (specifically, the rules that they've experienced).



Try this on for size; while player expectations are informed by the rules, it's better to see them as an on-going series of negotiations, one a many that make up the game.



> The only way to get around this IMO is to creatively signal that off stage events aren't really part of the game, and I think that blows emersion all to heck.



On the opposite side of the spectrum are players who think that settings in which the "rules = physics" are patently absurd and therefore not worthy of investment; places where dragons are real but scarification/limb loss, momentum and market forces are complete make believe. Attempting to derive the mechanics that drive an entire fictional world from the D&D rule set results in cartoon logic, like Python's Camelot, a very silly place. As it should, seeing as the rules were never supposed to *do* that.



> In particular, in arguing whether or not my way is objectively better, the people on the other side of the debate are increasingly arguing for a game system which has as its formal resolution system two action resolution systems - one for PC's and one for non-PC's - and in effect, PC's move around in a pocket universe in which one set of physics apply, and NPC's outside of thier radius operate under a different set of rules.



That's actually not my contention. I don't see two rules systems so much as one intentionally and neccessarily incomplete one.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

robertliguori: I think we are mostly in agreement.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> Celebrim, I think that the narrativists claim that there aren't physics to the universe; if the DM declares "The world is such." then the world is such (hopefully in accordance with the wishes of the the players and the development of the story).  There are no physics, and consistency is not needed nor required.




I understand what they are claiming, but I think that they need to do a bit more reflection on that claim and realize that even though they aren't achieving consistancy in the same way as simulationist leaning rules sets they still need and require consistancy.

I've been using the metaphor of the difference between constitutional and common law.  Both are supposed to achieve consistancy so that people know what the law is and can act on it.  However, they go about achieving that consistancy in a different way.  Constitutional law is analogous to a formal set of rules governing action and resolution, in as much as the framer intends to foresee the sorts of situations that will arise, defines them, and then defines the appropriate resolution in the system.  Common law by contrast doesn't handle what is foreseen, but what isn't foreseen.  That doesn't mean however that common law is intended to be completely inconsistant in its application.  Rather, judges are intended to rely on existing precendent when deciding how to deal with the situation.  If the situation is similar to a preexisting situation, then it is expected to be resolved in the same way.  In this way, actors in the system (the citizens) can examine the body of common law and predict whether thier actions are lawful.  

We could imagine a system where the judge used no standard but random whim to resolve disputes, but in this case actors in the system could never foresee the consequences of thier actions nor would we say that such a system really had 'laws' or 'rules' as such.



> Characters do not make plans or decisions based on their in-world expectations of the universe in this model; all characters (including the PCs) base their actions entirely upon their shared understanding of the narrative.




My point is, "Where is this shared understanding of the narrative coming from?"  It's all well and good to postulate that it exists, but it had to come from some place.  That someplace it comes from is I think provably, the rules of the game.  Even if you claim that the understanding of the shared narrative comes from a shared understanding of how actions tend to be resolved in the real world, then all you are really saying is that one of the underlying rules of the game is, "Whereever the rules are silent, you may assume that the narrative universe works very much like the real universe."


----------



## Mallus (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> My point is, "Where is this shared understanding of the narrative coming from?"  It's all well and good to postulate that it exists, but it had to come from some place.



Well, that understanding could come from the players/DM talking about the narrative. That would be the most direct approach...


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Am I a respected lexicographist such that I'm such an authority on the meanings of words that you don't need a dictionary?




I'm just trying to understand what you're saying, because I still can't seem to wrap my head around it.

I think I have it.  How we decide what happens is the rules framework we're working with.  What we decide happens defines the physics, so therefore the rules are the physics.

I'm cool with that.

edit:



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I understand what they are claiming, but I think that they need to do a bit more reflection on that claim and realize that even though they aren't achieving consistancy in the same way as simulationist leaning rules sets they still need and require consistancy.




Ok.  I think that, for a narrativist, we don't want consistency to begin with.  We want to add that consistency through play.  The rules need to leave open some "physics" questions - the ones that relate to theme.  

"Does might make right?"  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't; we won't know until we play through it.  Once we answer that question, then we have that consistency, and we are finished playing through that story.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 7, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> No, I'm point out that the definition of rules is such that my thesis is true by definition.  I don't think I've had anyone disagree vigorously with how I've defined 'rules of the game'.




Ah. But for the purpose of what everyone (save you) was actually discussing, is the rhetorical device you used to "win" the argument actually relevant? What does stating out loud that "hey, the rules cover all rules, even rules about ignoring rules," actually prove?

In other words, your statement and victory is irrelevant to the discussion and debate, which actually boils down to this:

Should events in the gameworld be constrained by what is "possible" following a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written (and potentially also including anything with a mechanistic resolution system that the DM decides to add to his game)? Or are all those mechanistic rules merely an abstraction intended to facilitate gameplay that have no bearing on what's actually possible in a narrative context?

And your semantic victory doesn't answer that debate. Moreover, from what I can tell, there is no answer to the debate, except what each person decides for themselves according to their preferences.

It's like (and strangely enough, tied up with  :\ ) the old discussion about whether hit points represent one's ability to absorb actual physical damage or just a playable abstraction representing one's ability to avoid being seriously injured. Neither answer is objectively "right" or "wrong."

And I still think we're doing nothing but going in circles at this point.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Well, that understanding could come from the players/DM talking about the narrative. That would be the most direct approach...




Leaving aside that I think that they have to have some common framework to even do that, I still don't think this approach qualifies as 'not a rules based approach' if it is either the formal rules of the game or if it becomes a precedent for how future conflicts over the narrative are resolved.

I somtimes play a game called 'Ultimate' which involves moving a flying disk across the field.  It's fairly unusual among sports in that even at the highest levels of play, the players are also the referees.  In its formally codified rules, it has a conflict resolution system that involves talking with the opposing player about the just occurred event so as to construct a shared narrative experience of the event.  And it has formal rules for conflict resolution in the event that a shared narrative can't be constructed.   These rules are unusual in atheletic competitions, but that doesn't make them any less the rules of the game.

Likewise, when I play Ultimate there is an unspoken agreement that play continues without a turnover if the disk is dropped on the huck.  It's not part of the rules of the game as written, but is effectively a rule of the game that the group I usually play with has adopted.   And since it's an informal group that just plays for fun, that rule carries at least as much weight as the official ones you'd find in a rulebook (and more than alot of them).

Most RPGs use very different sorts of conflict resolution systems than 'simply talking about the narrative and then making a decision', or 'if you can't reach a conclusion, flip a coin', but that doesn't mean that those resolution systems aren't rules.  Rules, I think everyone agrees, don't have to involve tables and dice, even if, generally speaking in RPG's they do.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 7, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Ah. But for the purpose of what everyone (save you) was actually discussing, is the rhetorical device you used to "win" the argument actually relevant? What does stating out loud that "hey, the rules cover all rules, even rules about ignoring rules," actually prove?




It proves that the statement that follows this claim is a false dichotomy.



> Should events in the gameworld be constrained by what is "possible" following a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written (and potentially also including anything with a mechanistic resolution system that the DM decides to add to his game)? Or are all those mechanistic rules merely an abstraction intended to facilitate gameplay that have no bearing on what's actually possible in a narrative context?




It proves that the above statements aren't sufficiently dissimilar to distinguish one type of play from the other, since the implicit contrast between 'playing by the rules' and 'not playing by the rules' isn't something you can draw as sharply as the original poster (or you) are trying to do.  By demonstrating that the assumption of the rules being incomplete was inherent in either statement, and by demonstrating that both groups were essentially extending the rules of the game through thier play, I'm demonstrating that the original posters constrast:



			
				Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> I offer this up for debate: Game rules are not intended to model the physics of the game world. Rather, game rules are intended to offer up a rough simulation of the game world that will yield useful narrative results.




did not in fact express a useful distinction.  Game rules ARE intended to model the physics of the game world (and they can't really do anything but do that), AND those same rules are also a rough simulation of the game world with the anticipation that the referee will extend the rules in narratively useful ways to cover uncovered situations as they arise.  And conversely, game rules ARE NOT intended to fully model the physics of the game world (because a complete description of most PnP universes is impossible), but those same rules at least implicitly expect the referee(s) to resolve uncovered situations in some manner. And I'm arguing, that regardless of how you look at the situation, by definition you can't play an RPG any differently than that.  No rules set is actually complete and doesn't develop a body of rules set by the precedent of play.  No rules about interactions in the game world can do anything but attempt to model the physics of the game world.

If you go back in the debate, you'll look and see that that was exactly what I was arguing back when we were focused on that area of the discussion.



> And your semantic victory doesn't answer that debate.




I think it does, once you realize what it means.



> Moreover, from what I can tell, there is no answer to the debate, except what each person decides for themselves according to their preferences.




Well, what kind of debate doesn't involve a person deciding for themselves according to thier preferences?  It wouldn't be much of a debate if it worked any other way, would it?



> And I still think we're doing nothing but going in circles at this point.




Anyone can lead a debate, but no one can't stop it from going in circles.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 8, 2008)

So in other words, we've just spent 10 pages on a discussion that serves no purpose. I can agree with that.


----------



## apoptosis (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> My point is, "Where is this shared understanding of the narrative coming from?"  It's all well and good to postulate that it exists, but it had to come from some place.  That someplace it comes from is I think provably, the rules of the game.  Even if you claim that the understanding of the shared narrative comes from a shared understanding of how actions tend to be resolved in the real world, then all you are really saying is that one of the underlying rules of the game is, "Whereever the rules are silent, you may assume that the narrative universe works very much like the real universe."




Celebrim,

Have you tried some of the Indie games like Dogs in the Vinyard, Sorcerer, Burning Wheel or Shadow of Yesterday?

I ask as these games deal with the issues up front.

Maybe you have tried these types of games and dint like them, but just curious.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim, I haven't had a chance yet to read all the rest of your exchange with John Snow. Nor have I had a chance to reply to your earlier post in which you replied to my post and "threw down the gauntlet" to the narrativists. Work has this pesky habit of sucking up my time.

So just a couple of comments:

I agree with you that the discussion is interesting and doesn't need to be shut down.

I disagree with your "pocket universe" analysis. In my view, you are taking for granted what the narrativists deny, namely, that there is a more-or-less strict correlation between metagame and gameworld. (In your earlier post you talked about functional equivalence, I think.)

Below I just pick up a couple of your points and try to make the narrativist reply. Obviously I don't expect you to be convinced - but I think you might at least see why it is I think you are begging the question.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Which in turn creates certain reasonable expectations on the part of the PC's on how the mechanics regulate adversity when they aren't direct participants.



There is no adversity when the PCs aren't participants (in the narrativist sense).

Now maybe you wanted all the weight to fall on "direct" - and yes, there can be ingame matters which don't directly involve the PCs and do implicate future adversity, like your King's champion example:



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> If they for example are defeated in a contest of arms by the Kings champion, and then learn that the King's champion was killed in battle by a kobold, they are going to have reasonable expectations about that kobold and it isn't going to be 'The DM just decided Sir Reginald died from a single stab wound of a kobold'.



Of course not. But depending on what the point of the game is, they may think that "The GM wanted to make a statement about the perils of hubris." The players would draw inferences about the challenge of that kobold, for their PCs, not by trying to reason via ingame phsyics, but by reasoning in light of known metagame priorities. That is the nature of narrativist play.

Thus, when you say this, you are already begging the question against narrativism:



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> narrative control would have been excercised much more properly if it fit the player's expectations about the world described by the rules - that is to say - if it fit the established setting.



I'll reiterate - in narrativist play, the players draw inferences not just from the gameworld's internal logic, but from the (metagame) narrative logic. That is part of what narrativist play is about. Thus Lois Lane rules: the players know the GM won't roll wandering monsters every day to see if Lois Lane is killed by one of the many Nycadaemons wandering the city (as per Appendix C of the DMG) because part of the narrative logic is her enduring relationship with the PC protagonist.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Don't the players have a reasonable expectation that the rules will inform the playstyle?



Of course. But as you have correctly said, the rules may be more than just the character build mechanics and action resolution mechanics. They may also include rules (or implicit understandings) for the distribution of narrative control, and the criteria according to which that control is to be exercised. And those criteria may have nothing to do with the logic or physics of the gameworld, and everything to do with metagame narrative logic.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> if you insist that you are happy with a game universe in which the PC's must be signalled that this event or the other is a 'cut scene' occuring outside of game context and that inferences about game state can't really be drawn from it, then fine.



As I've said, the players will be reasoning with metagame narrative logic. So they'll work it out. Or we can talk about it: as in Prof Phobos's earlier examples, we all just agree that the town guard is trounced and the skeletons crushed.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think however that you are making alot of trouble for yourself for no real reason given how easily you can make the story fit the universe.
> 
> <snip upwards>
> 
> It is certainly not obligatory to go down the RM route. The RM root comes from thinking that the universe being simulated must in some fashion have everything in it that exists in the real universe



As I've said, I may not want to play in that universe. And as you note, if I want to play in something more like the real universe I come under pressure to head down the RM route. I've been down that route, and it didn't work for me.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> And in particular, isn't it rather unavoidable that the action-resolution mechanics have a very large role in creating the playstyle?



Perhaps. But that role may be negative: for example, if it is part of the action-resolution mechanics that they only apply to PC protagonism, then the playstyle will recognise that when the PCs aren't implicated, other techniques will be used to establish the nature and evolution of gameworld elements (eg the rules, be they implicit or explicit, may permit the GM to declare a high level Fighter to die from a riding accident, if this is consistent with the mutually understood narrative logic of the game).



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> How can you expect anything but conflict over what the playstyle is or is supposed to be when the players are forever recieving mixed signals from you because you are using two completely different sets of rules in what is unavoidably a somewhat arbritrary fashion?



Why would the signals be mixed? As to arbitrariness - in practice, nearly all decisions are arbitrary to an extent. When can or can I not take 10? Does a halfling have to make a jump check to get into bed in a human-sized inn? Corner cases can arise in any RPG, and so I concede that corner cases can arise in the sort of play I am describing. Like all corner cases, they are resolved by negotiation. The starting point would typically be, if a player thinks that his or her PC is implicated in a certain way, and thus that s/he should have a say (whether via the action resolution mechanics, or some other system that gives that player narrative control) then s/he should have that say.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> if you do create two different game worlds, the one in which the PC's live which works according to one set of rules, and another one that the PC's can only hear about or perhaps catch glimpses of which clearly works by a different set of rules, then I think you are creating unnecessary problems for yourself.



Ah, the pocket universe objection! For the reasons implicit in what I've said above, there are not two worlds. There is one world with its inner logic. And there is another world - the actual world in which the GM and players live - with its metagame priorities. These determine what happens in the gameworld, but they are not part of its physics (just as Batman's status as protagonist is not a property that he has in the fictional world as Gotham city, but is merely a meta- status that he has as a character in a fiction).



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The last sentence is so vague as to have no real meaning.  I made a point of listing some of the ways that a sentence like that could become a red herring earlier.



If you can point me to the "red herring" post that would be helpful - I'm not sure which one you mean. But in fact the sentence is crucial. The difference between "does" and "can", "will" and "might", "would" and "could" - in short, actuality vs possibility - is crucial to the verisimilitude of the sort of play I am talking about. Batman could have been shot, but wasn't. The PCs could have been fallen off their horses, but didn't. In the sort of play I am talking about, the whole point of action resolution mechanics being used sometimes, but not at other times, is to open up and close down various outcomes in the world _for metagame reasons_, without therefore taking that to be any sort of statement about what is possible or impossible in the gameworld itself.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I can't imagine how you think you are making the universe fit the story if in fact you aren't shaping its physics, you are merely implying that you have.



I don't quite follow this. The physics of the gameworld are whatever the GM and players, as shared creators of the universe, say they are. This will emerge over time, probably taking the real world plus at least parts of the magic mechanics as a baseline, and consistency over the campaign certainly helps with verisimilitude (though sometimes has to be abandoned to fit other more important priorities - maybe a major balance issue with the magic system is discovered and a spell has to get nerfed or retconned or whatever).

So the story fits those physics. The story, in so far as the PCs are concerned, is also generated in part by application of the action resolution mechanics. But those mechanics are not the physics. They are a metagame device for resolving certain aspects of the story.

So, if a PC falls down a cliff and survives (because the action resolution mechanics tell us so), then we now know that the physics of the world permit heroic survival (perhaps she grabbed a tree - so it's the sort of heroic survival that can happen in the real world - or perhaps a zephyr softened her fall at the last minute - so it's the sort of heroic survival that can happen only in a magical world). We certainly have no basis for saying that those ingame physics mandate heroic survival, even if the action resolution mechancis (via hit points, fate points, whatever) made it impossible for the PC to die. That impossibility exists only in the metagame. It is not part of the story, and not part of the physics of the gameworld.

Btw: at The Forge, they call what I've described in the previous paragraph "fortune in the middle". They identify it primarily with games like HeroQuest or The Dying Earth, but there's no real reason that it can't be done in D&D as well (at least as far as I can see). It is quite a bit harder to do in RQ or RM.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> If you go so far as determining the success or failure of a rules possible event, but not posit rules impossible events, you have a reasonable level of predictability / consistency in the setting. If you posit a rules impossible event, those elements are damaged. So, off camera stipulating of a roll result is more acceptable to me than off camera stipulating of something that would be a mechanical impossibility on camera.



What if the stipulated dice rolls are an improbable sequence of 20s and 1s, so that the 20th level Fighter is killed in single battle by a Kobold?

Let's say that the Kobold does 6 damage on a crit, and the Fighter has 240 hit points. So the Kobold needs 80 20s in a row (to get 40 confirmed crits) and the Fighter 160 1s in a row (to miss with all 4 attacks for 40 rounds). The likelihood of that is 0.05 to the power of 240, which is pretty slim.

But it is possible within the action resolution rules.

Now, my question is this: is that really less offensive to verisimilitude, immersion, etc, than having the Fighter die from falling off a horse? Or to put it another way: does the game really need John Snow's 1-in-a-million critical horse-riding accident chart in order to make the riding fall as legitimate for immersive play as the kobold battle already is?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 8, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> What if the stipulated dice rolls are an improbable sequence of 20s and 1s, so that the 20th level Fighter is killed in single battle by a Kobold?
> 
> Let's say that the Kobold does 6 damage on a crit, and the Fighter has 240 hit points. So the Kobold needs 80 20s in a row (to get 40 confirmed crits) and the Fighter 160 1s in a row (to miss with all 4 attacks for 40 rounds). The likelihood of that is 0.05 to the power of 240, which is pretty slim.
> 
> But it is possible within the action resolution rules.



I think we're playing it fast and loose with the use of possibility here. Stipulating a single or opposed die roll and "stipulating" a nigh impossible series of rolls along with the fighter not noticing he was cursed and simply running away are not in the same range for me. It's a lot closer to the fighter breaking his neck in a 6 foot fall.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Now, my question is this: is that really less offensive to verisimilitude, immersion, etc, than having the Fighter die from falling off a horse? Or to put it another way: does the game really need John Snow's 1-in-a-million critical horse-riding accident chart in order to make the riding fall as legitimate for immersive play as the kobold battle already is?




The two questions are very different.  So different, that they need completely different answers.

a) Yes, it really is less offensive than having the fighter die from falling off a horse, because the rules describe a universe where one is at least possible on a bad day, and the other simply never is.  That isn't to say that having the fighter lose a contest in which his only way of losing the contest was to roll 80 consecutive 1's (for instance) is a perfectly reasonable off stage scene for the described universe, but its ever so slightly more reasonable of an off stage scene than the one where the fighter falls off his horse under normal conditions and breaks his neck and dies.

So, yes, in my opinion neither such a scene should ever be scripted by a good DM, or if the DM must have such scenes in his game, the DMs game would be improved by changing the rules to match the desired setting. 

This is not however nearly the same as saying that a 'critical horse-riding accident chart' is mandated.

b) IMO, a 'critical horse-riding accident chart' is just bad rulesmithing .  It's the obvious solution to the problem.  It's the first sort of thing you'd come up with if you wanted to formalize the hazard.  But that way lies madness, and the best you can hope for is intentional comedy.  A chart like that does several things wrong.  One, in introduces probably unwelcome specificity into a generally abstract rules set.  No other injuries are specific, why should this one be?  Second, it attempts to solve only a single narrow instance of the general problem with a single specialized table without more general application that bears no resemblence to any of the other resolution systems in the game.  That's pretty typical of 1st edition design where the game is growing organically as DMs imagine and encounter scenarios and problems for the very first time, but we've got more experience now.  We ought to be able to do better, and save the over the top tables for nolstalgic humor games.  Thirdly, the designer doesn't really seem to understand what they want to accomplish.  What I think in the context of this thread what we want to accomplish with our new mechanics is actually pretty simple - we want to alter the universe such that every attack has some possibly remote but still real chance of killing anyone.  The whole 'falling off his horse' thing is just a specific example.  It's not the real problem.  

The better solution in my opinion for a D&D game that once to increase the element of risk is to implement unbounded criticals in some fashion.  The simpliest system I can think of would be if you roll a '20' its a critical, and you can make an additional identical attack.  If that roll is also a '20', then you can make a third attack, and so forth.  Then you just tweak the rules such that every physical blow in treated as an attack.  In this fashion, there is a '1 in a million chance' falling off a horse will kill anyone, and we obtain the desired result without the need for a separate subsystem for everything, and without invalidating the rest of D&D's abstract system.

This has pretty important narrative effects, in that it is an in game constraint on metagame behavior.  In default D&D, a high level player knows that his character can fall a certain distance without risk of death.  Thus, high level characters ran by players who've learned the system tend to act as if they can't die from falling off a cliff (or off a horse).  They act this way because in point of fact, they live in a universe where they can't die as the result of such events and thier players know that this is so.  A good player might pretend for the purposes of the scene that his character is in some risk if he has some reason to believe that the DM wants a narrative where this is true (in defiance of the explicit rules!), but even this strikes an unintentionally comic note because it has to be feigned.  Any fear is purely affectation, quite possibly in an attempt to get the DM to accept the character's purely metagamed proposition of jumping off a 90' cliff merely because of its tactical value.  But if a player knows that there is some finite risk of death no matter the size of the attack, they'll tend to play thier character more in a way that reflects this fact.  If your desire is stories in which the characters act as if falling off a 90' cliff is quite possibly hazardous, then you are better off adapting the game universe to reflect your goals.

PS: Your longer post is extremely interesting, and I want to respond, I just need to actually get something done and I don't have time to do it justice.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Which in turn creates certain reasonable expectations on the part of the PC's on how the mechanics regulate adversity when they aren't direct participants.




I don't agree at all. I have, in all my years, never once, as a player or the GM, thought the mechanics were anything other than an abstraction. I have never blinked at a man in Call of Cthulhu dying to a gunshot that technically couldn't have killed him in a single hit. I have never once worried about how the Demon: The Fallen novels had a ton of lobotomies without the rules being able to mechanically represent them. I never once thought that the absence of rules for sleeping meant no one ever needed to sleep, or that the absence of rules for losing a hand meant no one ever lost a hand. 

And I have never, until the internet, even encountered the idea that the rules in D&D were the sum totality of a D&D world. 

I can certainly see an _initial_, "Hey, that's weird..." sort of response when the High King Lord Badass falls and cracks his head open. I can even see them going and saying, "It must be dopplegangers!" But I don't expect them to reject, once investigation has concluded, the very possibility that it was just a mundane accident.

No game I own, barring except GURPS, has this expectation for the rules system. Not Unisystem, not Storytelling, not D20, not Reign, not Warhammmer FRP, not Blue Planet, not Paranoia XP (well, maybe that one), not Ars Magica... 

It is totally unreasonable and I just don't follow your logic. I think I'm going to need a direct, example of the kind of progression you are talking about- from the "not allowed in the rules" situation occurring to the total collapse of my game, society, dogs and cats living together, etc.

All of your objections seem to rest on the idea that it is intuitively obvious that the rules are a total, comprehensive simulation of all possible events in a game world. And I think that is ridiculous. You also seem to assume that it is impossible for players to understand this separation and that it will inevitable lead to the total breakdown of their conception of reality, hitting 0 SAN, and going off to worship Cthulhu.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The two questions are very different.  So different, that they need completely different answers.
> 
> a) Yes, it really is less offensive than having the fighter die from falling off a horse, because *the rules* describe a universe where one is at least possible on a bad day, and the other simply never is.




Oh really? I thought that was still part of "the rules" regardless of whether they're written down in the books or not. I'm pretty sure someone told me that, and unless I'm totally incorrect, I think it was YOU.

So it seems to me you're backpedalling on your statement about rules...

Oh, I looked up some of those quotes on NPCs in the DMG. Like these two:

"NPC should obey all the same rules as PCs."

"NPCs should live and die - fail and succeed - by the dice, just as PCs do."

Sounds pretty clear, except that they left out a few words. They're part of the same paragraph in the DMG. But the actual quote is:



> *Normally,* NPCs should obey all the same rules as PCs. Occasionally, you might want to fudge the rules for them in one way or another (see DM Cheating and Player Perceptions, below), but in general, NPCs should live and die - fail and succeed - by the dice, just as PCs do.




Wow. That's a whole lot less definite. It's almost like someone was quoting selectively in an attempt to mislead people.

So Celebrim, I guess you've now come up with a new thesis: every event in the gameworld should unfold in accordance with the printed rules.

Which means there IS still a disagreement. And it's one which, a few posts ago, you weren't even willing to acknowledge *exists.*


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos:  I don't even know where to begin.  You seem to be taking this discussion very seriously.  Please don't.  It's a discussion about a game.  I've seen bad DMing lead to shouting matches and truncated campaigns.  But that's about the worst I've seen, so I don't really know what the basis of your exagerrated portrayals are.  Nor do I really know where you are getting some of your claims about my argument.  

I wrote quite a bit beyond that, but I think I'd rather respond to someone who disagrees with me and who understands what I'm saying, rather than someone disagreeing with the product of his own imagination.  It's rather more fun for me, and its more respectful to those people who even if they don't agree don't need to create fever dreams to disagree with.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Oh really? I thought that was still part of "the rules" regardless of whether they're written down in the books or not. I'm pretty sure someone told me that, and unless I'm totally incorrect, I think it was YOU.




Yes, it is part of the rules whether it is written down or not.  What does that have to do with the statement you are quoting?  What did I say in that quote that leads you to think that I'm contridicting that?



> So it seems to me you're backpedalling on your statement about rules...




What on Earth are you talking about?  From exactly what are you drawing that inference?

Do you mind to much if I point out the gaping hole in what I think is your logic?  Just because I've said that the formal official rules declare something is impossible, doesn't mean that I think that there must be some house rule or body of precedent in a particular game which means that it is possible.  Where the rules are already clear, why would house rules pop into existance?   Exactly why should any given table overturn any particular official rule in favor of a house rule?  Yes, there could be some house ruling that would rule that a guy falling off his horse should have a slight possibility of breaking his neck, but nothing compells such a rule to come into existance.  Quite a few referees would not believe that would make thier game universe better, and I'd be numbered among those.



> Oh, I looked up some of those quotes on NPCs in the DMG. Like these two:
> 
> "NPC should obey all the same rules as PCs."
> 
> "NPCs should live and die - fail and succeed - by the dice, just as PCs do."




For the record, you aren't responding to me here.  I haven't quoted the DMG in this discussion.



> Wow. That's a whole lot less definite. It's almost like someone was quoting selectively in an attempt to mislead people.




Oh?  Perhaps, but whoever these people are they aren't me.  Again, I never quoted the DMG and if I did I would endeavor not to quote it selectively precisely so I could avoid the sort of attack you are now mounting.  If I had quoted that passage from the DMG, I would have used the full quote so that I could get ahead of the objection you are now making AND saved myself the attack on my character.  Ok, maybe not that last one, but still.



> So Celebrim, I guess you've now come up with a new thesis: every event in the gameworld should unfold in accordance with the printed rules.




Clearly its getting late.  Some peoples power of reasoning seems to be slipping for want of rest.  Get some sleep and then take a fresh look at what I wrote in the morning.   



> Which means there IS still a disagreement. And it's one which, a few posts ago, you weren't even willing to acknowledge *exists.*




???


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim, let's try this again. I believe I said the following:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> Should events in the gameworld be constrained by what is "possible" following a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written (and potentially also including anything with a mechanistic resolution system that the DM decides to add to his game)? Or are all those mechanistic rules merely an abstraction intended to facilitate gameplay that have no bearing on what's actually possible in a narrative context?




You called that statement a "false dichotomy." Moreover, you argued "that the above statements aren't sufficiently dissimilar to distinguish one type of play from the other." And yet, here we are, less than a dozen posts later, arguing about whether "events in the gameworld should be constrained by a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written." So I'm calling BULL on your "false dichotomy" claim.

You, and those who agree with you, seem to believe that the only acceptable way to have an outcome occur which contravenes those rules is _for the DM to rewrite them._ I, and those who agree with me, regard that as _completely unnecessary._ As the DM, we have the authority to ignore those rules without rewriting them. As long as it doesn't touch the PCs, it doesn't even count as a houserule.

The aforementioned "High-level NPC fighter who dies from a circumstance that could never kill a PC" involves just such a rules exemption. It's well within the DM's authority to disregard the rules that make it impossible, as long as he's fair (to the players, that is), and he's got a good reason. And, to us, a good plot hook is a sufficiently good reason.

We don't think that has any bearing on how consistent the game is. We don't think it affects anything other than the suspension of disbelief of people who believe NPCs and PCs should live by the same rules. But that's mostly a matter of personal preference.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The better solution in my opinion for a D&D game that once to increase the element of risk is to implement unbounded criticals in some fashion.  The simpliest system I can think of would be if you roll a '20' its a critical, and you can make an additional identical attack.  If that roll is also a '20', then you can make a third attack, and so forth.  Then you just tweak the rules such that every physical blow in treated as an attack.  In this fashion, there is a '1 in a million chance' falling off a horse will kill anyone, and we obtain the desired result without the need for a separate subsystem for everything, and without invalidating the rest of D&D's abstract system.



Simple, elegant, and pretty much free of knock-on effects as regards other rules.  Sounds just fine to me.







> This has pretty important narrative effects, in that it is an in game constraint on metagame behavior.



Good.  Metagame behavior is, to me, a Bad thing.







> In default D&D, a high level player knows that his character can fall a certain distance without risk of death.



Which has always been a problem, as far as I'm concerned.  







> Thus, high level characters ran by players who've learned the system tend to act as if they can't die from falling off a cliff (or off a horse).  They act this way because in point of fact, they live in a universe where they can't die as the result of such events and thier players know that this is so.



Which is a design-based problem inherent in the system all the way back to 1e and earlier; though 3e's massive-damage rule was a good attempt to at least inject a shred of realism.







> A good player might pretend for the purposes of the scene that his character is in some risk if he has some reason to believe that the DM wants a narrative where this is true (in defiance of the explicit rules!), but even this strikes an unintentionally comic note because it has to be feigned.  Any fear is purely affectation, quite possibly in an attempt to get the DM to accept the character's purely metagamed proposition of jumping off a 90' cliff merely because of its tactical value.  But if a player knows that there is some finite risk of death no matter the size of the attack, they'll tend to play thier character more in a way that reflects this fact.  If your desire is stories in which the characters act as if falling off a 90' cliff is quite possibly hazardous, then you are better off adapting the game universe to reflect your goals.



Absolutely, and already done.  I'd just prefer that such adaptation be taken care of at the root-design level, to save me the effort.

Lanefan


----------



## apoptosis (Feb 8, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> So the story fits those physics. The story, in so far as the PCs are concerned, is also generated in part by application of the a*ction resolution mechanics. But those mechanics are not the physics. They are a metagame device for resolving certain aspects of the story.
> *





This is a great statement.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Celebrim, let's try this again.




Ok, one more time.



> You called that statement a "false dichotomy." Moreover, you argued "that the above statements aren't sufficiently dissimilar to distinguish one type of play from the other." And yet, here we are, less than a dozen posts later, arguing about whether "events in the gameworld should be constrained by a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written." So I'm calling BULL on your "false dichotomy" claim.




I believe that you are confused on several fronts.  First, the first two quotations in the above passage are actual direct quotations.  The third one is not.  So let's not paraphrase what we are arguing about and then imply intentionally or unintentionally that its also a direct quote.

Secondly, I said it was a false dichotomy because non-formal rules could carry the status of formal rules in dictating the physics of the game.  By way of reminder, 'The wall is solid', is a rule of game table once it becomes established that walls are solid even if it is never wrote down.  If one of your two choices is true, it doesn't imply that the other is automatically true, and vica versa.  In fact, I don't necessarily have to agree that either choice is true.  That's what false dichotomy means.

If formal rules or are or not literally interpreted, or are or are not strictly abided by, doesn't change the fact that the non-formal rules are in practice performing the same role.  When I suggest that the formal rules of the game should be adhered to, it doesn't imply that I don't think that there are or aren't other rules.  I'm merely stating in the example you quoted, on the assumption that the rules as written are being used, that the rules as written specify that a fall from a horse does d6 damage and that if you break that rule you've just misrepresent events to any player with an understanding that the rule applies because now you and the player have a slightly different mental picture of the world.  And that is I think generally something that is inevitable enough of a confusion that we don't want to contribute to it. 



> You, and those who agree with you, seem to believe that the only acceptable way to have an outcome occur which contravenes those rules is _for the DM to rewrite them._ I, and those who agree with me, regard that as _completely unnecessary._ As the DM, we have the authority to ignore those rules without rewriting them. As long as it doesn't touch the PCs, it doesn't even count as a houserule.




I think you are confusing the issue when you use words like 'authority' or 'acceptable'.  'Acceptable' comes close to implying a moral or ethical judgement and that goes beyond what I'm saying, and on the subject of authority I agree that the DM has the authority to ignore the rules.   The DM can contrevene himself, can issue inconsistant rulings, can signal the PC's that future rulings will be handled one way and then do them some different way, and any number of things.  Whether you have the authority to do something is very different than whether it is the best practice.  I'm just saying that I think in general it is a mistake for the DM to cheat, and it is always a mistake to consistantly do so.  I believe you'll find the writers of the DMG hold very much the same opinion.



> The aforementioned "High-level NPC fighter who dies from a circumstance that could never kill a PC" involves just such a rules exemption. It's well within the DM's authority to disregard the rules that make it impossible, as long as he's fair (to the players, that is), and he's got a good reason. And, to us, a good plot hook is a sufficiently good reason.




Again, you are really confusing the discussion by wanting to bring in to it topics like 'authority'.  It is well within the DM's authority to disregard the rules he's established for play, but a wise DM in my opinion doesn't do so lightly.  I would argue that when he breaks the rules, he's never really being 'fair' to the players.  They may well find the rules-breaking acceptable if he's cheating in thier favor, but that's not the same as being fair and I think it sets a really bad precendent in DM behavior and DM/player relations.  Simply put, a 'good plot hook' is not a sufficiently good reason for breaking the rules.  It might be if you could demonstrate that the same thing couldn't be achieved by some similar plot hook that was game consistant, and that the fact that you as a DM wanted to break the rules didn't actually represent a conflict between your vision of the game and the rules, but I don't think you can really demonstrate either one.  For any given plot hook, I can always fashion something similar, and I think better, using the tools at hand.  And even if I can't, I think that that demonstrates not that I need to break the rules, but that I'd run into less problems if I just went and changed the rules so that I won't have to break them in the future.



> We don't think that has any bearing on how consistent the game is. We don't think it affects anything other than the suspension of disbelief of people who believe NPCs and PCs should live by the same rules. But that's mostly a matter of personal preference.




Maybe liking consistancy in your game is a matter of personal preference, but it seems to me that the people who are losing suspension of disbelief are doing so because they are noticing that the game is inconsistant.  It it isn't the fact that the game is inconsistant that is destroying thier suspension of disbelief, what do you think it is?

PS: Looking at that post, I think I'm getting tired now.  So I think I'll have to take this up later.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I believe that you are confused on several fronts. First, the first two quotations in the above passage are actual direct quotations. The third one is not. So let's not paraphrase what we are arguing about and then imply intentionally or unintentionally that its also a direct quote.




My apologies, I felt you would understand the simple conceit of eliminating a prepositional phrase without the elipsis. What I should have typed was: ""events in the gameworld should be constrained by...a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written."

I didn't think it was in the least bit misleading, since it was a quote of a line immediately preceding it in my post. The phrase "false dichotomy" implies that there is no choice to be made, or that the two statements are equivalent. Seeing as how you're disagreeing so vehemently with my position, I think it's pretty clear that they are NOT.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm just saying that I think in general it is a mistake for the DM to cheat, and it is always a mistake to consistantly do so.  I believe you'll find the writers of the DMG hold very much the same opinion.




"The DM really _can't_ cheat." - _Dungeon Master's Guide, v3.5_, p. 18.

Moreover, you're laboring under a false impression. You believe the rules operate when the players aren't playing. How can there be rules to a game that isn't happening?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Maybe liking consistancy in your game is a matter of personal preference, but it seems to me that the people who are losing suspension of disbelief are doing so because they are noticing that the game is inconsistant.  It it isn't the fact that the game is inconsistant that is destroying thier suspension of disbelief, what do you think it is?




Game consistency is fine and desirable. But we are talking about "suspension of disbelief" related to events that happen in the gameworld as BACKSTORY.

You say that fractures your suspension of disbelief because you believe that, for example, hit points represent the character's actual physical ability to resist damage.

An offstage NPC doesn't have hit points, levels, ability scores, or anything. He's a person in a living world, not a gamepiece operating under some kind of cosmic chess rules.

The rules are just an abstraction intended to create a playable resolution system when the players are involved. They're not the campaign world's "physics." That's the distinction you refuse to admit exists.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Leaving aside that I think that they have to have some common framework to even do that, I still don't think this approach qualifies as 'not a rules based approach' if it is either the formal rules of the game or if it becomes a precedent for how future conflicts over the narrative are resolved.



Has the topic changed from "are the rules of the game the physics of the gameworld" to "can you play an RPG without rules"? Or did I misunderstand something.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> My point is, "Where is this shared understanding of the narrative coming from?"  It's all well and good to postulate that it exists, but it had to come from some place.  That someplace it comes from is I think provably, the rules of the game.



If by "rules" you mean "action resolution mechanics", then no.

If by "rules" you mean "gameworld, thematically interpreted", then maybe: yes for HeroQuest or The Dying Earth, no for TRoS or most vanilla narrativism. But I'll note that a thematic interpretation of a gameworld is _not_ the physics of that world. For example: an obvious thematic interpretation of the world of the Silmarillion would make reference to Eden, the Fall and so on. But Genesis is not the physics of the Silmarillion.

If by "rules" you mean some sort of express or implied understanding at the gaming table that "Yes, this is what we're dealing with in this game", then I think yes, that is the source of the shared understanding of the narrative in most vanilla narrativist play. But such an agreement, express or implied, certainly does not establish the physics of any gameworld.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Even if you claim that the understanding of the shared narrative comes from a shared understanding of how actions tend to be resolved in the real world, then all you are really saying is that one of the underlying rules of the game is, "Whereever the rules are silent, you may assume that the narrative universe works very much like the real universe."



No. You _may_ really be saying that, but you may just as easily be saying this: "Where the action resolution mechanics do not operate, the universe is such as the GM or relevant player having narrative control stipulates it to be, and such stipulations must broadly fall within the parameters of the real universe augmented by the magic mechanics, and must also be consistent with such prior stipulations."

If you were saying this second thing, then the rules - of which that statement would itself be a part - are manifestly not the physics of the gameworld.

Hence, the following claim is false (manifestly so, I say!):



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Game rules ARE intended to model the physics of the game world (and they can't really do anything but do that),



This may be true of some rules, but not all.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2008)

Apologies to all for the crazed sequence of postings, but this thread has kept moving while I was working!



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> <snip answer to kobold question>



Fair enough. I hope you can see why I find that answer pretty hard-core. I must say I found Kahuna Burger's response less surprising.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> <snip explanation of rules design>



RM does it the way you say: the fall is a Crush attack, and there are generic rules for open-ended attack rolls, critical hits etc.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> This has pretty important narrative effects, in that it is an in game constraint on metagame behavior.  In default D&D, a high level player knows that his character can fall a certain distance without risk of death.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But if a player knows that there is some finite risk of death no matter the size of the attack, they'll tend to play thier character more in a way that reflects this fact.



I have plenty of experience of what you say, both in D&D and RM.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> A good player might pretend for the purposes of the scene that his character is in some risk if he has some reason to believe that the DM wants a narrative where this is true (in defiance of the explicit rules!), but even this strikes an unintentionally comic note because it has to be feigned.



Now what I find interesting is that you desribe this as "good play". If the rules are the physics, then it's bad play (or tangential play, anyway). If the GM is just in the habit of overriding the action resolution mechanics for his or her own mysterious purposes, then it's supplicant's play, but I personally have no time for abusive GMs and supplicant players. I think it's an unhealthy playstyle, because so rife with potential social conflict at the gaming table.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Any fear is purely affectation, quite possibly in an attempt to get the DM to accept the character's purely metagamed proposition of jumping off a 90' cliff merely because of its tactical value.



Now, if I were playing in a rules-as-physics game, this is the sort of thing (the leaping, not the affected fear) I would like to see! Play those demigods like the demigods they are! D&D can be fun played this way occasionally, but my own taste runs against playing it like this for an extended campaign.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> If your desire is stories in which the characters act as if falling off a 90' cliff is quite possibly hazardous, then you are better off adapting the game universe to reflect your goals.



That's one way to play an RPG.

But the narrativist D&D player and GM don't want players to be afraid of their PCs falling over cliffs. Rather, they want gameworlds where people survive 90' falls only when something is at stake that matters to the shared narrative. (This requires divorcing the emotions of the PC from the emotions of the player - it's the opposite of playing well-GMed Call of Cthulhu, and I think that KM is right when he says it has the potential to break immersion.) But it doesn't mean that the PCs fear is irrelevant. Part of what enables heroic fantasy to be used for narrativist play is that we know that falling over a 90' cliff is a terrifying experience, and that surviving such a fall would be a remarkable emotional experience, and hence these very facts about human frailty and human emotions become part of the gameworld material available to us as a foundation for our thematic interpretation of the events taking place in the gameworld. (Wherease in a "mechanics as physics" world, in which heros have no reason to fear 90' cliffs, we do not have the same richness of material available for our thematic interpretations.)

So when a player decides that his PC takes the plunge, or when his PC in the course of adversity is knocked over the cliff, that PC's survival of the fall (as dictated by the D&D action resolution mechanics) will contribute in some way to the overall narrative purpose. It might illustrate something about the importance of fortune even to the greatest. Or, as in the LoTR movie, it might reiterate the importance of a personal bond, so great that the character's have no alternative but to continue until they are united (rather than star-crossed lovers, they would be fated lovers - Tolkien has a tendency towards sentimentality which Peter Jackson certainly didn't eliminate!).

Exactly what the narrative meaning of the PC's survival is up to those at the table to work out (in whatever way the rules, be they explicit or implicity, allocate that role). But it is certainly not dictated by the action resolution mechanics, and it cannot be worked out just by knowing that a PC survived a fall over a cliff.

Does that give some idea of what I'm trying to get at in distinguishing the action resolution mechanics from the physics of the gameworld, and also in distinguishing the the other rules of the game from those physics?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> I think that the narrativists claim that there aren't physics to the universe; if the DM declares "The world is such." then the world is such (hopefully in accordance with the wishes of the the players and the development of the story).  There are no physics, and consistency is not needed nor required.



None of the narrativists here has claimed this, that I can recall. I think consistency in the physics of the gameworld is actually highly desirable for most mainstream narrativist play. (Absent an ingame explanation, like travelling to Limbo or The Void).



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> Characters do not make plans or decisions based on their in-world expectations of the universe in this model; all characters (including the PCs) base their actions entirely upon their shared understanding of the narrative.



This seems to be confused. All characters (NPCs and PCs) make decisions based on their in-world expectations. But the players and GMs make decisions based on their shared understanding of the narrative.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> there are clear, explicit, unambiguous rules as to what heroes are and what they can accomplish.



It's really a tangential point, but I'll note that "can accomplish" is a verb phrase of possibility, not actuality. It is not contradicted by someone dying in a horse-riding accident.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> If my character engages in battles that a human has a slim chance of survival and keeps surviving, then at some point, it's more reasonable to assume that I'm not human than that the odds just keep lining up like that.



Perhaps. But does Han Solo draw that inference in the Star Wars trilogy? Or Batman or the X-Men in their comic series? At a certain point, successful narrativist play may require turning a blind eye to fortune's favour. Or, perhaps (in a more sophisticated version) structuring the successes in such a way that they emphasise those features of the gameworld that support the thematic point of the game, rather than distract from them (so fewer but more thematically significant combats might be the order of the day).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> This is a great statement.



Thanks. Btw, am I making any progress in persuading you that maybe D&D can be used for a sort of vanilla narrativism?


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Professor Phobos:  I don't even know where to begin.  You seem to be taking this discussion very seriously.  Please don't.  It's a discussion about a game.  I've seen bad DMing lead to shouting matches and truncated campaigns.  But that's about the worst I've seen, so I don't really know what the basis of your exagerrated portrayals are.  Nor do I really know where you are getting some of your claims about my argument.




I am grumpy by nature. Pay me no mind.

But I am interested in seeing your reasoning because I cannot follow it. You have said that this interpretation of the rules (that they do not model the entire game world) _leads to an unfavorable outcome_ over a sufficiently long game, yes? 

I would like a step-by-step walkthrough of this process, because I can't follow you in the abstract.

EDIT: I'll latch on to something you said in reply to JohnSnow. You said diverging from the rules for the sake of a plot hook does more harm than good. I would like to know why- start with the plot hook-that-ignores-rules, and walk me through the chain of game events that then ensues.

You actually said breaking the rules for a plot hook is bad, but once again I reiterate that I don't consider it "breaking the rules" at all, just not applying the rules for X when I'm doing Y.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> I am grumpy by nature. Pay me no mind.
> 
> But I am interested in seeing your reasoning because I cannot follow it. You have said that this interpretation of the rules (that they do not model the entire game world) _leads to an unfavorable outcome_ over a sufficiently long game, yes?
> 
> I would like a step-by-step walkthrough of this process, because I can't follow you in the abstract.




Let's assume that there is dissonance in the players' interpretation of the world.  (See my previous elf dex mod example for one such).  If assumptions are not shared, you'll run into conflict when players attempt to act in ways that make sense according to their understanding of the world, but don't according to others.  You, for instance, find it irritating when 12th-level fighters in full plate cheerfully swandive off cliffs, secure in the knowledge that rock from a great height is insufficient to kill them.  This violates your own expected reality; namely, that the world works in a way such that high falls can kill anyone and shouldn't be taken lightly.  However, many people interpret the world differently; heroes past a certain level stop having the expectations of reality applied to them.  A focused 20th-level barbarian, for instance, can engage in feats of strength that not only exceed what any human has done, but violate our understanding of what human flesh and bone can withstand.

The default understanding of the D&D world is that the heroes aren't just well-trained ordinary people who keep getting really lucky; they actually can do things and withstand hazards in a way flatly contrary to what ordinary people can do.  If you understand that people are people, they get lucky, but sometimes they don't, then it makes sense for hit points not to be applied in certain cases; luck (in the aspect of the narrator of the story) decided they didn't. If you understand that regardless of specifics, certain hazards just don't have enough oomph to singlehandedly slay heroes of a certain caliber, and that a fall from a horse is defined as not having enough oomph to do so, then treating a high-level like a lucky ordinary by killing him with a fall from a horse violates narrative expectations.  This isn't a problem that can be resolved with flipping a coin or taking turns; it's a question of what kind of story we want told.

The rules, if nothing else, make this perfectly and explicitly clear.  The rules define a game in which magic (or at least arcane spellcasting) is a known and understood force.  They define a world in which a dozen armed and armored men are no more than a brisk morning sparring match with a legendary hero; not because tales of the hero's prowess are inflated, but because he actually can withstand a dozen men slashing at him and come out without major injury.  It's a world in which every creature has a quantifiable amount of life energy; you can increase your amount through experience and great deeds, or decrease it through ripping it out of yourself.  It is a world where luck itself is a measurable, quantifiable force; bonuses and penalties based on it can be directly applied and directly sensed; beyond that, there is no narrative expectation, only naked chance.  

You can, of course, modify any of these expectations and still be playing D&D.  However, doing so without modifying the rules in advance means that, if any of your players hold any of the above expectations and are counting on them to present enjoyable game elements, you will create conflict.  At best, you'll send mixed signals, creating confusion ("Spellcasters with total mastery of the ten levels of magic can't summon an efreeti with a second-order spell.  If I can replicate how my apprentice performed this feat, I will revolutionize arcane magic in the lands!  I must drop everything to research this new and exciting development!").  At worst, you'll send the players into learned helplessness, in which they feel the need to confirm with the GM every nuance they try to read into the world, lest they mistake a dramatic flourish for a meaningful in-world event.

There are a certain percentage of players who will up and hit you with the PHB before they get to the worst-case scenario.  If you get a player who requires a consistent world to have fun playing, who demands that the story take place within the boundaries established by the world and not the other way around, who will balk at having his character surrender with a knife to his throat, because he's been in three dozen fights by this point where someone tried to stab him in the neck in combat and failed and fully expects to be able to dodge out of the way or suffer at worst superficial damage.  (Side note: if said hero is being threatened by a rogue or martial adept, he will be for a painful surprise.)

Having the rules laid out clearly in advance prevents this kind of misunderstanding.  It gives you a common language to describe narrative expectations, so a characters who expects falls to be insta-death or crippling injury 95% of the time but is fine with the idea of walking through a dozen grazes and near-misses in a high-caliber firefight doesn't bog down an exciting scene renegotiating expectations.

Finally, there is my own personal experiences; GMs who tend to "Random stuff happens because it's realistic." tend, in my experience, to not be modelling anything particularly realistic.  (As mentioned up-thread, it's actually a bit difficult to slit someone's throat.)  If the GM really wanted to model realism, he'd come up with a rule that could be generally applied, and apply the rule.  If the GM wanted a specific, non-repeatable event to occur, he should use a specific event (say, the knight happened to ride over an irate elder earth elemental passing through the Prime on his way to Sigil.)  Doing otherwise strikes me as unwillingness to tell a story within the world presented.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 8, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Let's assume that there is dissonance in the players' interpretation of the world.  (See my previous elf dex mod example for one such). * If assumptions are not shared*, you'll run into conflict when players attempt to act in ways that make sense according to their understanding of the world, but don't according to others.




(emphasis mine) Surely the issue is then one of communication?




> The default understanding of the D&D world is that the heroes aren't just well-trained ordinary people who keep getting really lucky; they actually can do things and withstand hazards in a way flatly contrary to what ordinary people can do.




I don't think that is the case. Look at the coup de grace rules- if a character is helpless, they can be killed outright. If high-level characters truly were more resilient physically to damage, as opposed to just protected by narrative convention, then how does that work? Why can I cut a sleeping high-level throat? Shouldn't I have to saw through their thickened flesh first? 



> The rules, if nothing else, make this perfectly and explicitly clear.




No they don't. In fact, I would say they clearly establish themselves as abstractions and not the exclusive measure of game world reality. 



> You can, of course, modify any of these expectations and still be playing D&D.




I'm not modifying any expectations. This expectation should not exist in the first place. It is unreasonable. I'm still not even sure how it came to be for the contrarian side- it should be obvious that the rules are not comprehensive. 



> However, doing so without modifying the rules in advance means that, if any of your players hold any of the above expectations and are counting on them to present enjoyable game elements, you will create conflict.




I could run into the same problem if players went in expecting a particular house rule to be in effect. Which is the case here- if you go in expecting the rules to be the physics of the game world, you're demanding an unreasonable interpretation of gameplay to supersede the default assumption. This isn't just true of D&D, this is true of every game I've ever played or owned. I would never, ever give a moment's worry to the thought that if my Investigators stumble upon a man shot dead by a gun that technically couldn't have killed him in Call of Cthulhu, they'd reject it. Because that would be _crazy_. 



> At worst, you'll send the players into learned helplessness, in which they feel the need to confirm with the GM every nuance they try to read into the world, lest they mistake a dramatic flourish for a meaningful in-world event.




You have got to be kidding. 



> There are a certain percentage of players who will up and hit you with the PHB before they get to the worst-case scenario.




If they have a problem, they can discuss it with me, work something out, compromise. If they cannot enjoy the game without their narrow and irrational tastes catered to, they can walk. 



> If you get a player who requires a consistent world to have fun playing, who demands that the story take place within the boundaries established by the world




Again, the boundaries of the world _are not established by the rules_. The rules serve another master- gameplay! 

Let me say this again. The boundaries of the world are not established by the rules. The boundaries of the world are not established by the rules. 



> Having the rules laid out clearly in advance prevents this kind of misunderstanding.  It gives you a common language to describe narrative expectations,




I prefer another common language. That of _language_.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

JohnSnow: Ok, I see the problem.  You believe that the game world is more real than the game, and I deny that this is true.  



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> "The DM really _can't_ cheat." - _Dungeon Master's Guide, v3.5_, p. 18.




Yes, as should be apparant from my discussion of authority, I agree with the general sentiment.  But all that means is that we need some really precise definition of what it means to 'cheat'.  The DM certainly can break the rules, and while he has the authority to do so its often a very bad idea.  

Additionally, I think there is a pretty important difference between fudging results for some purpose (though on the whole my experience with this is bad and I don't recommend it), and outright doing things that are impossible.  For one thing, you can fudge results a little while maintaining a certain illusion, but you really can't break the rules in an obvious manner and do that.



> Moreover, you're laboring under a false impression. You believe the rules operate when the players aren't playing. How can there be rules to a game that isn't happening?




That's a very interesting question, especially in the way you put it.  Are the players really not playing at the time that the backstory is being related?  Does backstory exist in the game world until it enters that shared space between the players and the referee?  Before that, isn't it just a potential backstory which existing solely in the referees mind?  If the rules of game don't exist while the game isn't being played, surely the game world doesn't exist while the game isn't being played either?  Certainly the rules can exist in at least as tangible of a form as the game world when the game isn't actively being played.



> Game consistency is fine and desirable. But we are talking about "suspension of disbelief" related to events that happen in the gameworld as BACKSTORY.




I'm not sure why you consider the distinction important.  The players "suspension of disbelief" doesn't just apply to thier ability to believe in the rules.  They must also be able to believe in the game world.  The rules really don't need to believed in except to the extent that they are percieved as a fair means of moderating conflict in the narrative.  What really has to be believed in is the game world.  And I think there is a good reason for that.  The game world is less real than the rules.



> An offstage NPC doesn't have hit points, levels, ability scores, or anything. He's a person in a living world, not a gamepiece operating under some kind of cosmic chess rules.




No, he isn't either one.  An offstage NPC is a figment of someone's imagination.  The game world lives only because people have a shared experience of it created by the illusion that it is consistant and reasonable given its declared assumptions.  The game world isn't real. 



> The rules are just an abstraction intended to create a playable resolution system when the players are involved.




It's this statement that has been really confusing me in this discussion.  I finally realize what you mean by it.  I kept thinking that when you said an 'abstraction' that you were referring to an abstraction of something more real than the rules - like for example, reality.  But you are claiming that the rules are an abstraction of the game world.  For that to be true, the game world has to have a more concrete substance than the rules do.  I can't see how an imaginary world can be said to be more solid and tangible than the rules, especially since the rules are the primary means by which the imaginary world is made solid and tangible.  Rules you can read and touch.  The game world exists only to the extent that you can communicate to the players which is precisely why you need to practice consistancy.  One of the most common sources of table conflict is a failure to communicate the abstract game world to the player to the extent that the picture the player sees in his head is quite different than the one you see in your head.  We rely on rules to make the abstract world more tangible, so that actions have some sort of concrete consequence that everyone can relate to.  

For the rules to be an abstraction of the game world, you and everyone else at the table would have to have absolute knowledge of the physics of an imaginary world and would have to have come to possess this knowledge through some other mechanism than the rules.  That's impossible.



> They're not the campaign world's "physics." That's the distinction you refuse to admit exists.




I refuse to admit the distinction exists because it requires me to believe that an imaginary world is real and has real tangible properties apart from those described in the game by even most broad definition of the rules.  That is to say that the game world has some quality that isn't described by the formal written rules (including descriptive text), house rules including informal ones that presently exist only in the referees head, precedents set within the game, or by a shared understanding of how things happen in the real world.  The faith you have in the reality of your artistic vision is charming, but I think in practice if you don't make your rules match your artistic vision you are asking for a world of hurt because that imaginary world you are thinking about isn't actually real, and certainly isn't actually real for anyone but you.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 8, 2008)

I'm sorry, Celebrim, but I didn't understand anything in that post. Could you re-state your argument as if you were speaking to a child?

As simply as possible, define your terms and state your assumptions.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> (emphasis mine) Surely the issue is then one of communication?




Well, yeah, I'm sure it is.



> I don't think that is the case. Look at the coup de grace rules- if a character is helpless, they can be killed outright.




Well, yes, but they are flat out more likely to survive a coup de grace attack as well.



> No they don't. In fact, I would say they clearly establish themselves as abstractions and not the exclusive measure of game world reality.




I think we need to keep firmly in mind that we pretending that the game world is real, and isn't actually real.  What are we going to measure game world reality by if not the rules?  Aren't the rules pretty much all in existance so that we can measure the reality of an unreal place?  Isn't that really what RPG's have rules for?  Isn't that why role playing gamers tend to be fiends for measuring and quantifying everything?  If we didn't have any rules, what actual measurements of a fictional universe would we have?



> I would never, ever give a moment's worry to the thought that if my Investigators stumble upon a man shot dead by a gun that technically couldn't have killed him in Call of Cthulhu, they'd reject it. Because that would be _crazy_.




In Call of Cthulhu???  You have got to be kidding.  Let's say that the players really do know the hit points of the individual in question, and its greater than the maximum possible damage from the gun.  If I'm playing an investigator, you can better believe that I'm going to say something like, "Mr. Manly weighed about 20 stone, and we've all seen him heft his own weight in the gym.  I have a hard time believing that he was killed instantly by a single shot from a small caliber handgun."  Because well, playing an investigator in Call of Cthullu, I'm going to have a hard time believing any one died merely because they were shot and I'm automatically going to be looking for things that seem odd and not quite right.  Really big healthy guy killed by itty bitty gun is going to be one of the things that bother me.



> Let me say this again. The boundaries of the world are not established by the rules. The boundaries of the world are not established by the rules.




I don't know about 'the boundaries'.  That is a pretty abstract term and I don't know what you mean by it.  But I do know that the measurements are established by the rules.



> I prefer another common language. That of _language_.




Which is unfortunately very impercise and not very useful for conveying the sort of information you need to gain an understanding of something which isn't real - which is why games have alot of technical jargon.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think we need to keep firmly in mind that we pretending that the game world is real, and isn't actually real.  What are we going to measure game world reality by if not the rules?  Aren't the rules pretty much all in existance so that we can measure the reality of an unreal place?  Isn't that really what RPG's have rules for?  Isn't that why role playing gamers tend to be fiends for measuring and quantifying everything?  If we didn't have any rules, what actual measurements of a fictional universe would we have?




What do you mean by "measurements"?  Some examples from actual game play would be helpful.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Well, yes, but they are flat out more likely to survive a coup de grace attack as well.




But you see my point, yes? If Superman is our analogy...you still can't kill Superman if he's asleep. Why should a 20th level Fighter be able to survive terrible injury...unless he's asleep? If you can not die from a single dagger thrust when awake and aware due to your hitpoints representing actual physical resiliency, why can you die from one if you're helpless? Shouldn't a would-be coup de gracer have to stab you again and again and again?




> What are we going to measure game world reality by if not the rules?




Description. Fluff text. Genre assumptions. 



> Aren't the rules pretty much all in existance so that we can measure the reality of an unreal place?  Isn't that really what RPG's have rules for?  Isn't that why role playing gamers tend to be fiends for measuring and quantifying everything?  If we didn't have any rules, what actual measurements of a fictional universe would we have?




Ah, measurement. Well, I don't really bother with them for the most part as I have no head for distances and tend to just be fast and loose about 'em, but where are they necessary outside of combat and a handful of edge cases? And what's wrong with inches, miles, kilometers?




> In Call of Cthulhu???  You have got to be kidding.  Let's say that the players really do know the hit points of the individual in question, and its greater than the maximum possible damage from the gun.  If I'm playing an investigator, you can better believe that I'm going to say something like, "Mr. Manly weighed about 20 stone, and we've all seen him heft his own weight in the gym.  I have a hard time believing that he was killed instantly by a single shot from a small caliber handgun."  Because well, playing an investigator in Call of Cthullu, I'm going to have a hard time believing any one died merely because they were shot and I'm automatically going to be looking for things that seem odd and not quite right.  Really big healthy guy killed by itty bitty gun is going to be one of the things that bother me.




Call of Cthulhu is expressly set in the real world, plus the Mythos. If I give them a corpse of a large, strong, healthy man with a .22 caliber bullet in his eye (I believe the .22 maxes at 16 hit points of damage; if our friend has 17 or 18 HP, he cannot die from it)....that's entirely possible in the real world. It's not possible mechanically.



> I don't know about 'the boundaries'.  That is a pretty abstract term and I don't know what you mean by it.  But I do know that the measurements are established by the rules.




Don't think of abstract as firm versus vague. Think of it more like simple versus complex. Presumably most game worlds are vastly more complicated than their rules allow- D&D has no rules for insomnia, but presumably some people can't sleep. D&D has no rules for breaking your neck due to a bad fall- but presumably people break their necks sometimes. Even powerful, experienced, heroic people. Just not PCs- because unless the game is about sleeplessness in some way, there's no real reason to have rules for it.



> Which is unfortunately very impercise and not very useful for conveying the sort of information you need to gain an understanding of something which isn't real - which is why games have alot of technical jargon.




I have a lot of faith in my ability to describe the game world vividly, with enough information for players to make decisions. If I'm vague or I leave out an important detail, it's easy enough to say, "Whoops! Sorry!"

Also, it's not like game mechanics are used descriptively all that often. Players need access to their own to have an idea of their capabilities, but it isn't as if I go around saying, "Orc 1 looks like he has a 19 strength!"


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 8, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> What do you mean by "measurements"?  Some examples from actual game play would be helpful.




Yeah, I'm having a hard time following Celebrim's logic. I'd also like to see some concrete examples of his point(s).

Particularly the "inevitably cause you problem" line from a while ago.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> What do you mean by "measurements"?  Some examples from actual game play would be helpful.




Err... take your pick:

"1. a unit or standard of measurement: weights and measures.  
2. a system of measurement: liquid measure.  
3. an instrument, as a graduated rod or a container of standard capacity, for measuring.  
4. the extent, dimensions, quantity, etc., of something, ascertained esp. by comparison with a standard: to take the measure of a thing.  
5. the act or process of ascertaining the extent, dimensions, or quantity of something; measurement.  
6. a definite or known quantity measured out: to drink a measure of wine.  
7. any standard of comparison, estimation, or judgment.  
8. a quantity, degree, or proportion: in large measure."

RPG rules are all about measurements.  RPG quantify things.  They measure encumbrance, hit points, damage, strength, intelligence, wisdom, charisma, diplomatic ability, the ability to tumble, the sharpness of a sword, the ability to resist damage from fire, the difficulty of a spell, a person's experience, thier willpower, thier resistance to disease, and so on and so forth.  They assign numbers to all sorts of categorizations that then have tangible effects in the game, size classes, wind speed, levels of economic activity, and on and on ad infinitum.  Even alot of things that don't look like measurements, actually are measurements.  For example, RPGs quantify how hot or cold things are by how much damage you are subject to when exposed to them.  If you didn't have a rule for how much damage a hot or cold thing did when it something was exposed it, for all practical purposes the thing wouldn't be hot or cold.  It's temperature has to be concretely measured because it has no reality until it is.

I actually have a funny story about that.  In early 1st edition, a DM I was acquainted with related a story about how he'd tried to have a cold, hard, rain in his game world.  But his players weren't impressed with his vivid description.  Because at the time the rules didn't cover exposure to environmental effects and the DM didn't know how to smith some out on the spur of the moment, there was no in game consequence to the cold.  You could just march on while abstractly 'cold and wet' because, in as far as the game was concerned the characters weren't actually cold and wet.  The DM was outraged.  The players in his opinion weren't playing right, because he imagined a really cold wet rain that no one would really want to be out in.  But the thing is, that cold wet rain existed only in his head, and the rules had no tangible means of conveying cold.  In fact, the fault wasn't with the players.  The fault was the world the DM wanted to describe didn't exist under the rules, and he lacked the experience (or inclination) to cause the universe he wanted to come into being.  He did however, have an alternative means of communicating the experience of cold.  He said, "Fine.  Lets take game outside."  When it started raining a few minutes, the players agreed that thier characters would find shelter.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Why is it OK (in your playstyle) for the GM to stipulate the dice, rather than roll them (to exercise "autonomy", as you put it above)? But not OK (in your playstyle) for the GM (or the players, in some cases) to stipulate matters without regard to the action-resolution mechanics?
> 
> Again, not a rhetorical question. I'm trying to work out the internal logic of the permissible parameters of stipulation.




My answer is in a league with *Kahuna Burger*'s. The believability of a world hinges on consistency, and if things outside the direct actions of the PC's are inconsistent with the direct actions of the PC's, it does all those things, for me, that Celebrim summarized above.

I have much less of a problem with the world not working like the Real World. I can accept that some few elite and blessed people (e.g.: those with high levels) just aren't going to die from simply falling out of their saddle, even though, in the real-world, such a thing is impossible. It is more believable for me to embrace a world that is heroic at all times in the game, rather than to embrace a world that is run first by the rules of narrative convenience, because narrative convenience in the context of the game is highly unsatisfying for me for reasons I've definately gone over. D&D, for me, is not a storytelling game, any more than Scrabble is. It's not a simulation game any more than Monopoly is. I don't need it to simulate a realistic world, or to simulate narrative. I need it to evoke a genre, that is, heroic adventure, in the context of a game, that is, with rules. Part of the way it does that is by making high-level characters near-godlike in their actual power, not just, IMO, by giving them more storytelling or world-emulating powers. Hit points don't go away when the camera is off any more than the ability to cast _fireball_ goes away when the camera is off. I don't see hit points as literal physics, either (no D&D scientist could discover a thing called a Hit Point, though they certainly could note that more experienced warriors are capable of enduring pain that would end the lives of others). 

For me, that's part of embracing a fantasy world. Goblins and dragons and people who can bend physics to their will and clerics who can raise the dead and warriors who can survive things that would kill a lesser mortal. None of these things are narrative devices, they are all permenant features of the world. The D&D rules certainly support this interpretation what with 20th level commoners and NPCs gaining XP and all. 

If the stipulation falls outside of what the mechanics describe, it breaks consistency, which breaks believability, and leads me to loose trust in the DM, which results in a poor game for me.


----------



## Talislan (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think we need to keep firmly in mind that we pretending that the game world is real, and isn't actually real.  What are we going to measure game world reality by if not the rules?  Aren't the rules pretty much all in existance so that we can measure the reality of an unreal place?  Isn't that really what RPG's have rules for?  Isn't that why role playing gamers tend to be fiends for measuring and quantifying everything?  If we didn't have any rules, what actual measurements of a fictional universe would we have?
> QUOTE]
> 
> This whole thread seems like a very interesting argument within the realms of 'people have different opinions about things'.
> ...


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 8, 2008)

Cool, actual game play experiences.  That's something I can understand.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I actually have a funny story about that.  In early 1st edition, a DM I was acquainted with related a story about how he'd tried to have a cold, hard, rain in his game world.  But his players weren't impressed with his vivid description.  Because at the time the rules didn't cover exposure to environmental effects and the DM didn't know how to smith some out on the spur of the moment, there was no in game consequence to the cold.  You could just march on while abstractly 'cold and wet' because, in as far as the game was concerned the characters weren't actually cold and wet.  The DM was outraged.  The players in his opinion weren't playing right, because he imagined a really cold wet rain that no one would really want to be out in.  But the thing is, that cold wet rain existed only in his head, and the rules had no tangible means of conveying cold.  In fact, the fault wasn't with the players.  The fault was the world the DM wanted to describe didn't exist under the rules, and he lacked the experience (or inclination) to cause the universe he wanted to come into being.  He did however, have an alternative means of communicating the experience of cold.  He said, "Fine.  Lets take game outside."  When it started raining a few minutes, the players agreed that thier characters would find shelter.




That sounds like the cold & rain was "colour".  To me that means something you describe that does not impact the resolution mechanics.  Red hair on your fighter, for example, is colour.  A slick, wet moss on a cliff face is _not_ - it changes the Climb DC.

The players decided to ignore the colour.  Did they say "It's not raining?" or "We are not wet?"  Or did they say, "It's cold, but I'm tough; the cold doesn't bother me" and "Sure it's raining, but I'm a seasoned adventurer and I could keep dry in a monsoon."  If the former, then the DM did _not_ have the authority to bring colour into the game; if the latter, then he did, and the players can't just ignore it.

You don't need something to mechanically impact the resolution mechanics in order for it to exist in the game.  The rain and cold still existed, just as colour.

Now: who decides who can introduce new colour into the game, what is colour and what isn't, when colour becomes something more - all these are handled by the system/rules.  I'm not sure how that ties into "The rules define the physics of the game world."


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> You don't need something to mechanically impact the resolution mechanics in order for it to exist in the game.  The rain and cold still existed, just as colour.




We need to carefully say what we mean by 'exist'.  In the real world, when we say that something exists, we mean that it has the power to actually have a tangible impact on the universe.  Normally, when we say that something really exists, exactly what we mean is that it has a mechanical impact on the universe.  If it doesn't, then we say that the thing either doesn't exist or is sufficiently abstract that it may exist, but that we can't quantify it.  We might say that 'love' exists, but it doesn't exist in the same way 'a brick' does.



> I'm not sure how that ties into "The rules define the physics of the game world."




You just defined a term 'color' to refer to things that exist in the game but have no actual mechanical effect.  These things actually exist outside of the rules, and hense the physics of the game.  If they existed in the rules, then they would have a mechanical effect.  If they were part of the physics of the game, then they would have a mechanical effect.  This is because the rules of the game and its physics are inseparable (as I've described).  

Lets say that 'color' exists.  Well, we can certainly say that 'color' is not part of the physics of the game.  But we can't say that because 'color' exists, the game rules are not the physics of the game world.  And I further assert that since this thing called 'color' isn't part of the physics of the game world, its existance is of a different sort than those things which are defined by the physics of the game world.

I would define the role of color by analogy.  In a program, you have several different types of statements.  You will have actual statements in the programming language, things like 'if (<this>) then <do this>'.   These are like rules.  Then you will have comments, like 'This is a search reutine'.  Both sorts of statements 'exist', but the existance of the two things is of different sorts.  In particular, when it comes time for the compiler to figure out what you intend the computer to do, all the comments are removed from the code and have no effect on the actual resolution.  In point in of fact, in the actual real and tangible program, the comments don't exist.  They exist merely to help someone understand what the rules are for.  'Color' is like the comments.  It helps clarify what the rules are accomplishing, but when it actually comes down to it 'color' doesn't exist in the same tangible way that rules do.  It's a non-physical existance.

This is what I keep talking about when I say that if something isn't a rule, for practical purposes it doesn't really exist.  Once the 'color' becomes tangible, 'this thing is solid _therefore you can't just walk through it without magical assistance_' then that ruling about the color takes on the same attributes of any other rule because it has a mechanical effect.  It becomes established precedent 'this object has the attribute solid, objects like it can expected to be solid, and objects with the attribute solid can't be passed through without some defined exception'.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 8, 2008)

If I say it is cold and raining, I expect my players to do things like: "My character puts on his poncho, or stands in an alcove, or stands there shivering and complaining about the cold."

It's a hook they can hang roleplaying on. It doesn't need to penalize ranged attacks or have any other mechanical impact to have a _tangible impact_ on the game via roleplaying. 

The fault in your example is clearly with the players. I don't expect much from players, but I expect them to be more than just accountants managing a set of numbers on their sheet. I expect them to be playing characters that are engaged with and contributing to the story and world that I (and they) describe and share in our heads.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> But you see my point, yes? If Superman is our analogy...you still can't kill Superman if he's asleep.




The problem with analogies is that they are never perfect one to and onto relationships with the thing that they represent.  If you push the analogy past the point it was intended to make, don't be surprised if it doesn't work.   



> Why should a 20th level Fighter be able to survive terrible injury...unless he's asleep? If you can not die from a single dagger thrust when awake and aware due to your hitpoints representing actual physical resiliency, why can you die from one if you're helpless? Shouldn't a would-be coup de gracer have to stab you again and again and again?




In the case of a commoner stabing a 20th level fighter, that's the expected result.  He'll almost certainly make his Fort save, and it will takes maybe a dozen stabs to actually kill him.  Exactly how the game justifies this isn't really the question.  The point is that however the justification, this is how the game universe works.



> Description. Fluff text. Genre assumptions.




If those are enforcable, if they have any mechanical effect, then those sound like synonyms for 'rules'.  And if they aren't, they don't sound like a means of precise communication.



> Call of Cthulhu is expressly set in the real world, plus the Mythos.




Doesn't really have anything to do with anything.  By 'expressly set in the real world' what you mean is that it more formally than most has as a rule that where silent, you may assume that things work like the real world, and that this rule includes things like geography, history, and so forth.  I would argue that D&D is expressly set in the real world, plus the fact the D&D magic and the differences in geography and history, but that would probably just confuse you.  The main point is that the world that Call of Cthulhu actually takes place in is really just an imaginary space shared between the players which has certain rules.  



> If I give them a corpse of a large, strong, healthy man with a .22 caliber bullet in his eye (I believe the .22 maxes at 16 hit points of damage; if our friend has 17 or 18 HP, he cannot die from it)....that's entirely possible in the real world. It's not possible mechanically.




You aren't setting the precedent you think you are setting.  The actual you just set is, "In this universe, if you manage to put a bullet from a .22 in someones eye, then it does more than 16 points of damage."  And that precedent would I think come back to haunt you, because you are inviting players 'in the know' to figure out how the NPC did more than 16 points of damage with a .22 handgun.  You are going to get questions like, "What if I hold a the hand gun to the monsters eye, can I do extra damage if it doesn't move?  Why not, when I know that it did extra damage to Mr. Manly?"  And the problem is, you will probably blame that behavior on the player and say, 'he's not roleplaying right', and maybe some of the other players at the table will feel the same because they 'know' you have to overlook some inconsistancies and mistakes for the sake of getting on with the game.  But let's not be too hard on Mr. Gamist here.  From his perspective, he's just responding to the information you've given him.  The problem would have been completely avoided if you'd actually created the universe that you wanted to tell the story in, or actually paid attention to the setting while you were creating the story.  For example, would the story have worked fine if you'd just shot Mr. Manly with a bigger gun, given him fewer hit points, or shot him twice?

The other issue is that I doubt a referee with your perspective would have paid much attention to making sure that the bullet wound was obviously lethal because he isn't thinking about the game world physics.  So its highly likely that in your presentation, you would have presented the scene in a way that as Mr. Gamist explored it, he would have found further inconsistancies between what you described and the game worlds physics as he understood them. 



> Don't think of abstract as firm versus vague. Think of it more like simple versus complex.  Presumably most game worlds are vastly more complicated than their rules allow




Why presume this?  Functionally, the game worlds are not more complicated than thier rules.  True, its true that presumably, the rules are incomplete.  The rule for insomnia doesn't need to be created until insomnia needs to be measured, but insomnia doesn't actually exist until we give it some substance.  No one actually sleep until you give them insomnia, and not sleeping has no effect until you define one.  NPC's with insomnia aren't fatigued until you say, 'Because he has insomnia, he is fatigued and can't recover his spells'.  People in D&D probably have broken necks all the time.  It's called 'Getting dropped to -10 hit points with one blow', or rather its one possible color you can give that mechanical event.  But broken necks aren't anything different than crushed skulls until you define how they are different, and hense don't have existance in that sense.  D&D doesn't have 'Fortune at the end' wound mechanics.  You can't say, 'Because he has a broken neck, he has -10 hit points.'   Or rather you can, but as soon as you do you are implying to the players the existence of 'Fortune at the end' mechanics that they can use to subvert D&D's normal combat rules.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> The fault in your example is clearly with the players. I don't expect much from players, but I expect them to be more than just accountants managing a set of numbers on their sheet. I expect them to be playing characters that are engaged with and contributing to the story and world that I (and they) describe and share in our heads.




Whereas, I would prefer not to blame the inadequacies of my DMing on the players.

And that is precisely the sort of answer I expected from a DM that holds your position.  'It's the players fault.'

Bah.

UPDATE: The really annoying thing about this is you've been questioning my integrity this whole thread.  You been accusing me of being ridiculous for suggesting that your approach will lead to problems.  You've been saying the whole thread, "I would never have this problem."  But what you've really meant the whole time is, "I have this problem, but when I do I blame my players for it so it isn't my problem."


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Whereas, I would prefer not to blame the inadequacies of my DMing on the players.
> 
> And that is precisely the sort of answer I expected from a DM that holds your position.  'It's the players fault.'
> 
> Bah.




As a player, I don't want everything reduced to mechanics. I want roleplaying hooks like that. I make use of them. I enjoy them. I _demand_ them.

A DM who is providing them is doing exactly his job. Not everything needs to be represented mechanically. RPGs are more than just a mathematical exercise. 

If I have described cold, freezing rain, and a player says, "My character does nothing, for this rain has no mechanical effect" then that player is in the wrong. 

Yes, _there are bad players_. I know ENWorld hates the GM and everything is the GM's fault and he's The Man keeping a player down, but bad players? They exist and for more reasons than just personal hygiene.

I don't care if you're bad at roleplaying and all you say is, "Well, I guess...I'm cold and unhappy?" I don't care if you don't make use of every hook I toss at you. I don't care if you never introduce one of your own.

But to explicitly reject anything not represented mechanically as irrelevant to even a simple roleplaying exercise? It's to reduce the game to a set of mathematical interactions that might have some tactical depth but no flavor whatsoever. Dry, dull, and reductionist is what the game play you are describing to me sounds like.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 8, 2008)

I'm starting to understand what's going on here a little more.  I had a feeling it had something to do with "colour" - I didn't come up with the term or definition, by the way, but I think it works.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> We need to carefully say what we mean by 'exist'.  In the real world, when we say that something exists, we mean that it has the power to actually have a tangible impact on the universe.  Normally, when we say that something really exists, exactly what we mean is that it has a mechanical impact on the universe.  If it doesn't, then we say that the thing either doesn't exist or is sufficiently abstract that it may exist, but that we can't quantify it.  We might say that 'love' exists, but it doesn't exist in the same way 'a brick' does.




Colour _does_ have impact on the game, and it makes up most of the game world; it just doesn't have any mechanical impact on resolution.

Everything that exists in the game world doesn't have to have an impact on resolution.  Especially true if you use conflict resolution mechanics, as seen in Burning Empires.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> You just defined a term 'color' to refer to things that exist in the game but have no actual mechanical effect.  These things actually exist outside of the rules, and hense the physics of the game.  If they existed in the rules, then they would have a mechanical effect.  If they were part of the physics of the game, then they would have a mechanical effect.  This is because the rules of the game and its physics are inseparable (as I've described).




I brought up Burning Empires above.  It _does_ have rules on Colour: Colour scenes (and what you can do in them), Colour tech, etc.  The rule breaks down to the fact that colour does not have an impact on resolution.

The speed of a shuttle can be colour if there's no conflict around it (like being in a chase).



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> It's a non-physical existance.




Not in the game world it's not.  Just because my fighter's red hair doesn't impact resolution, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have red hair.  Or any hair.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> This is what I keep talking about when I say that if something isn't a rule, for practical purposes it doesn't really exist.  Once the 'color' becomes tangible, 'this thing is solid _therefore you can't just walk through it without magical assistance_' then that ruling about the color takes on the same attributes of any other rule because it has a mechanical effect.  It becomes established precedent 'this object has the attribute solid, objects like it can expected to be solid, and objects with the attribute solid can't be passed through without some defined exception'.




In this example, why do I want to get through the wall?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> As a player, I don't want everything reduced to mechanics. I want roleplaying hooks like that. I make use of them. I enjoy them. I _demand_ them.
> ...
> Yes, _there are bad players_. I know ENWorld hates the GM and everything is the GM's fault and he's The Man keeping a player down, but bad players? They exist and for more reasons than just personal hygiene.




Oh don't even go there with me.  I don't know how many hundreds of times I've been accused on this board of advocating a referee stance which is unfair to the players.  I just earlier in the thread agreed that the DM has the authority to change the rules on the fly without even informing the players.  I don't think its a very good idea, but he certainly has the authority.  So let's not try to make an argument by generalizing my stance and creating a sterotype.



> Not everything needs to be represented mechanically. RPGs are more than just a mathematical exercise.




Absolutely.  So what?  Everything doesn't need to be represented mechanically, but you'd do well to represent things that are mechanical mechanically.



> If I have described cold, freezing rain, and a player says, "My character does nothing, for this rain has no mechanical effect" then that player is in the wrong.
> 
> I don't care if you're bad at roleplaying and all you say is, "Well, I guess...I'm cold and unhappy?" I don't care if you don't make use of every hook I toss at you. I don't care if you never introduce one of your own.




It has nothing to do with bad roleplaying, so don't try to create a strawman.  Narrativists aren't the only good roleplayers.  I've known alot of gamists who are fabulous roleplayers if the DM just feeds them the right information.  You don't always get to pick and choose the roleplaying style of your friends, nor do you necessarily get players that are comfortable moving between styles.  Sometimes you have to accomodate several different styles of gamers at the same table.



> But to explicitly reject anything not represented mechanically as irrelevant to even a simple roleplaying exercise? It's to reduce the game to a set of mathematical interactions that might have some tactical depth but no flavor whatsoever. Dry, dull, and reductionist is what the game play you are describing to me sounds like.




I don't care what it sounds like to you.  You are just sterotyping.  Just because I have mechanical consistancy doesn't mean that I can't be evocative and flavorful.  I've already presented one example of being evocative and flavorful while being mechanically consistant.  I'm plenty capable of doing more.

You simply don't get it, so let me try to explain things in narrativist terms.  Consider a game like DiTV and how it would handle marching in the cold.  What's at stake?  "Do we manage to walk all the way to Pleasantville?"  Roleplaying well, the player describes his attempt to walk to Pleasantville.  Describing the situation evocatively, the referee says, "It is a cold and wet journey."  But if the referee doesn't put out a stake, if he doesn't raise, if doesn't mechanically challenge the players decision to walk to Pleasantville, for all practical purposes its not really cold and wet.  When you say, "Its cold and wet", and the player says in effect, "Alright... We continue to march on doggedly", and you say, "You aren't roleplaying right.", you are wrong.  The RPer is playing correctly because you haven't put any stake out.  The cold and wet isn't actually real.  Not until you put your stake out of something like, 'If you march in the cold and wet you will be fatigued and take 1d6 non-lethal damage per hour', are you really asking the player to make a dramatic choice.  At that point the cold is actually real.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> If I have described cold, freezing rain, and a player says, "My character does nothing, for this rain has no mechanical effect" then that player is in the wrong.
> 
> Yes, there are bad players. I know ENWorld hates the GM and everything is the GM's fault and he's The Man keeping a player down, but bad players? They exist and for more reasons than just personal hygiene.
> 
> ...




This, to me, sounds _tremendously arrogant_.

The alternate play style is no more dry, dull, and reductionist, filled with bad players and poor roleplaying, than yours is empty make-believe for the purposes of constructing an ultimately unsatisfying story. People enjoy the game for different reasons, and that doesn't make them objectively bad, it just means that you should not play with them.

It's okay to be different. Good, even. I learned that in, what, 1st grade?


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 8, 2008)

No, the right response in the DITV case would be, "We march on, drawing our coats in, shivering in the cold..."

It's not at stake, no, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Dogs is sort of a bad example, as well, as you're rarely, if-ever supposed to be "in conflict" with the environment. It's a game about judgment, morality, and so on. But if I say that the journey is long and unpleasant, I expect the Dogs upon their arrival in town to go to the local inn and get a nice, warm bath. Or a hot meal. No stakes, no conflict...just plain ol' being in character. 

I don't care if you're gamist or simulationist or narrativist or any of that nonsense. This is roleplaying. If you really believe that if it doesn't give you a penalty, or affect a dice roll, or change a statistic, that it "effectively doesn't exist", then I can't imagine how your game must be. Looking over the transcripts from my game, at least half of game play (at least) is just simple roleplaying with no dice rolling. Conversations between characters and other things of that nature. That's a very real, extant part of game play. It matters. 

This isn't a style of gaming. I'm entirely willing to toss different styles different bones, even if it  isn't my own taste. That's just part of GMing.

This is basic. This is practically as basic as rolling dice. 



> but you'd do well to represent things that are mechanical mechanically.




And we come full circle again. The interaction of off-screen NPCs? Not mechanical. 

The mechanics are how the PCs interact with the world and the world interacts with them. _Full stop._ The world interacting with the world? All in the DM's head, described as best he can, decided however he damn well pleases.

EDIT: Hell, they're not even exclusively how the PC's interact with the world. They tend to only crop up when there's something at stake- a resource, survival, a beloved supporting character. I wouldn't use the rules to establish how the PC goes and gets lunch from the local restaurant, but I certainly might have a scene with the PCs going to get lunch.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Whereas, I would prefer not to blame the inadequacies of my DMing on the players.




I do think it's important to note that there are MANY different solutions to the problem of "my players aren't acting like it's cold and rainy!", all of them valid.

One of them is to do like the original DM and make them feel what their characters feel. This works, but it's usually tough to control the environment like that. 

One of them is to do like I would do and give them a mechanical consequence for that. "You must make a Fortitude save or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Your fingers are going numb, your shoes are soaked through, you can't feel your feet, your breath is ragged, a rivulet of near-ice-water is flowing down you back, under your armor, and saturating your shirt. If you keep going like this, you might pass out eventually."

One of them is to do like Prof. Phobos would (I guess) do and say "Act in character, or don't bother playing."

For me, I get enough "Act like it's cold and rainy!!" in my daily life as an actor. When I hit D&D, I'm looking for a different experience. So I wouldn't take very kindly to the last recomendation, but I wouldn't quite need the encouragement of the first; instead, something like the second is my ideal.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2008)

> This is roleplaying. If you really believe that if it doesn't give you a penalty, or affect a dice roll, or change a statistic, that it "effectively doesn't exist", then I can't imagine how your game must be.




The world is probably full of games I can't imagine, too. I bet they're still loads of fun for those who play 'em.



> Looking over the transcripts from my game, at least half of game play (at least) is just simple roleplaying with no dice rolling. Conversations between characters and other things of that nature. That's a very real, extant part of game play. It matters.
> 
> This isn't a style of gaming. I'm entirely willing to toss different styles different bones, even if it isn't my own taste. That's just part of GMing.
> 
> This is basic. This is practically as basic as rolling dice.




Your goals are probably different than mine or Celebrim's when playing D&D. It matters for your goals. It really doesn't for mine. My games often have other players saying "Okay, enough talk, what next?" or "Are you done doing pointless things now? I wanna kill the orcs!" or "Do we really have to RP this? I can make a Diplomacy check, right? You can just describe what happens."



> The mechanics are how the PCs interact with the world and the world interacts with them. Full stop.




I can see how you could come to that playstyle.

I don't see it said anywhere that this is the One True Way and that anyone not doing it this way is doing it wrong.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> No, the right response in the DITV case would be, "We march on, drawing our coats in, shivering in the cold..."




*pulls hair out*

But that's exactly what the players of the aforementioned DM who had a problem communicating cold did!  But of course, this is mere affectation.  The player actually knows that his character isn't really cold.  Nothing is at stake.  The player that says, "I bravely trundle on uneffected by the cold.", roleplaying just as well.  The player that says, "Ahh... whatever, I like marching in the rain.  Keeps you stimulated.", is roleplaying just as well.  You still haven't changed the fact that in making decisions, the character can ignore the cold and you are informing the player that in making decisions he can ingore the cold.



> It's not at stake, no, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.




*sigh* 

But can you at least credit that its existance is of a very different character than if it had a mechanical effect.  That is to say, its still not a part of the physics of the game world?



> Dogs is sort of a bad example, as well, as you're rarely, if-ever supposed to be "in conflict" with the environment.




Just as an aside, that is one of the many reasons I don't play games like Dogs.  I don't want a game that tells me what stories I'm supposed to tell.  I want a game that gives me the mechanics to tell the stories I want to tell, no matter what conflicts those stories involve ('man vs. nature' is pretty classic and definately appropriate to the setting).  (The DitV mechanics could be adapted to anything, but I have other problems with the game.)



> If you really believe that if it doesn't give you a penalty, or affect a dice roll, or change a statistic, that it "effectively doesn't exist", then I can't imagine how your game must be. Looking over the transcripts from my game, at least half of game play (at least) is just simple roleplaying with no dice rolling. Conversations between characters and other things of that nature. That's a very real, extant part of game play. It matters.




I suspect that you really can't imagine it.  I think the longest we went without touching dice once was like 6 hours - a six hour political negotiation involving all the PC's and I think 12 NPC's.  No dice.  Just roleplaying.  But, no 'physics' either.  Don't tell the players this, but the reason for no dice throwing was that there was nothing actually being resolved.  I actually had predecided the stances of all 11 NPCs based on who that NPC was supposed to be.  (This was 1st edition, so no 'sense motive' checks.)  The whole session was really about the PC's ability to figure out what those stances really were so that they could plan for them.  Granted, some minor shifting of stances might have occured had the players really blown the RP, but they were masterful (just not masterful enough to convince people to do things not in thier own interests).  But it was alot of fun nonetheless, and still remains one of the most memorable gaming sessions I've ever experienced, and gave the PC's plenty of surprises.  And I got to play like 11 different roles and make each one have memorable traits and habits of speach (the 12th NPC was played by a co-DM), the players got to make stirring speaches.  Awesome.



> This isn't a style of gaming.




Don't knock my style until you know what it is.



> The mechanics are how the PCs interact with the world and the world interacts with them. _Full stop._ The world interacting with the world? All in the DM's head, described as best he can, decided however he damn well pleases.




Within the framework of the universe he has described so as to maintain consistancy and believability, yes.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I do think it's important to note that there are MANY different solutions to the problem of "my players aren't acting like it's cold and rainy!", all of them valid.




For certain values of 'valid'.  

You certainly have the authority as DM to say, "Do what I think is a well considered characterization or else take a walk."  If you are the director of a movie, and you really do have good taste in acting, that's a valid stance.  I have a bit less tolerance for that stance as a DM, because money isn't at stake.  This is for fun.  I have even less tolerance for that stance if the director isn't actually self-critical, and is giving the actors bad direction.  For me, giving inconsitant details to a player in an RPG constitutes something like bad direction.  If you got the right actors, maybe it doesn't matter, but that doesn't mean that just because you make decent movies that you are a perfect director.  It means you got good actors.

At least for certain values of 'good'.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But that's exactly what the players of the aforementioned DM who had a problem communicating cold did!




Well, you should have mentioned that in the example! What was the DM's problem, then?



> But can you at least credit that its existance is of a very different character than if it had a mechanical effect.  That is to say, its still not a part of the physics of the game world?




Oh, sure. If I'm playing a game detailed enough that a cold rain has some kind of effect I want to avoid, my reaction will be based on that. But that doesn't mean I won't react to a cold rain without mechanical backup, so to speak, which is what I thought you were talking about.




> Just as an aside, that is one of the many reasons I don't play games like Dogs.  I don't want a game that tells me what stories I'm supposed to tell.  I want a game that gives me the mechanics to tell the stories I want to tell, no matter what conflicts those stories involve ('man vs. nature' is pretty classic and definately appropriate to the setting).  (The DitV mechanics could be adapted to anything, but I have other problems with the game.)




Well, naturally, but if you want to play a game like Dogs, Dogs is an excellent choice. It exchanges versatility for focus.







> Don't knock my style until you know what it is.




That sounds like a great session, especially since I was going to bring in a very similar example to prove my point. Which strikes me as indicating we may be talking past each other...




> Within the framework of the universe he has described so as to maintain consistancy and believability, yes.




But, back to the initial example, the knight breaking his neck is entirely within the framework of and consistent with the universe. It's completely believable by those guidelines- if I describe a world of mortal men, accidents, misery, disease, mud, rats and sinking boats, then why would anyone not believe in High King Badass getting spilled by his horse and landing bad?

But by your standard, since it contradicts the mechanics, it isn't believable. What we are trying to say is that the mechanics are not the only determining factor for believability and consistency; indeed sticking to them as literally the laws of physics conjures enormous problems with regard to a believable world. The purpose of mechanics is not to create a world, or a basis for which a world can be derived. Mechanics are designed for game play purposes. They're designed for fairness. Tactical interest. Ease of use. Speed. Things of that nature. They're not designed, nor are they capable of, simulating a fictional world.

For that you need an intelligent arbiter (or a group of them, in a shared-narrative style) to describe the world beyond the mechanics, how the mechanics relate to the world and what they represent, if anything.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> you are informing the player that in making decisions he can ingore the cold.




No, you're not.  You're just saying that you're not interested in this conflict, not that the character is immune to cold.

I could use the cold in an upcoming Dodge/Block, saying that "The chill in your hands makes you pull the trigger a second too late, giving him enough time to duck behind the barrel."

The cold is still colour, but it exists and has an impact on the game, even though it's not impacting the mechanics.  (I'm not getting extra dice for invoking the cold.)

I mean, later on, Fallout could include frostbite from the cold.  It's important, it exists, but it's not impacting the resolution.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I have a bit less tolerance for that stance as a DM, because money isn't at stake. This is for fun. I have even less tolerance for that stance if the director isn't actually self-critical, and is giving the actors bad direction.




It's not my cup of tea, either, but not everyone who plays D&D needs to deal with egomaniacal directors on a near-constant basis, so they might have more tolerance for it. 

It doesn't work for you, and it wouldn't work for me, but the world's a rich and wonderful place, ne?



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> But, back to the initial example, the knight breaking his neck is entirely within the framework of and consistent with the universe. It's completely believable by those guidelines- if I describe a world of mortal men, accidents, misery, disease, mud, rats and sinking boats, then why would anyone not believe in High King Badass getting spilled by his horse and landing bad?
> 
> But by your standard, since it contradicts the mechanics, it isn't believable.




Well, for me, it seems that that unless you've changed the mechanics, the world isn't believable. The D&D rules do contradict such a world in a few places, so if I were to play in a world like that, I'd expect there to be mechanics to represent that the world is different.

Otherwise, like the cold rain, it doesn't matter. It's all color. It is, for me and my players, boring, superfluous, indulgent, and trivial. Not objectively, but simply because the styles don't mesh. I'd want rules like Nyambe's rule of giving diseases SR, or a rule like E6's rules for level limits and alternate progression, in order to keep the rules consistent with what the PC's face.



> They're not designed, nor are they capable of, simulating a fictional world.
> 
> For that you need an intelligent arbiter (or a group of them, in a shared-narrative style) to describe the world beyond the mechanics, how the mechanics relate to the world and what they represent, if anything.




The mechanics are usually pretty clear in what they represent, which is why, if the world isn't represented by them, it seems inconsistent to me.


----------



## allenw (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> D&D doesn't have 'Fortune at the end' wound mechanics.  You can't say, 'Because he has a broken neck, he has -10 hit points.'   Or rather you can, but as soon as you do you are implying to the players the existence of 'Fortune at the end' mechanics that they can use to subvert D&D's normal combat rules.




They're not quite "wound mechanics," but the D&D drowning rules are rather like that:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Drowning
> Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1. See also: Swim skill description.
> 
> When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.
> ...


----------



## allenw (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You just defined a term 'color' to refer to things that exist in the game but have no actual mechanical effect.  These things actually exist outside of the rules, and hense the physics of the game.  If they existed in the rules, then they would have a mechanical effect.  If they were part of the physics of the game, then they would have a mechanical effect.  This is because the rules of the game and its physics are inseparable (as I've described).
> 
> Lets say that 'color' exists.  Well, we can certainly say that 'color' is not part of the physics of the game.  But we can't say that because 'color' exists, the game rules are not the physics of the game world.  And I further assert that since this thing called 'color' isn't part of the physics of the game world, its existance is of a different sort than those things which are defined by the physics of the game world.




  Would it be useful to consider your "opponent's" position to be that "everything that occurs off-screen is 'color,' and thus its existence is of a different sort than those things which occur to and around the PC's"?


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 8, 2008)

I suspect this whole phase of the argument is really over what people mean by "physics of the game world."

Yes. Everything off-screen is color if you want to call it that.


----------



## Talislan (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  So what?  Everything doesn't need to be represented mechanically, but you'd do well to represent things that are mechanical mechanically.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I may have misunderstood this statement Celebrim, but before I thought you were saying that the rules represent the physics of the universe.
> ...


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Well, you should have mentioned that in the example! What was the DM's problem, then?




The DM was trying to apply 'force' on the PC's by describing something that he felt reasonably people would try to avoid.  When the players didn't try to avoid it, and in fact treated it as if it wasn't there, it bothered him because they were not he believed (and I have every reason to believe he was right) getting into the role and empathizing with the hardship that the characters faced.  He saw this as 'bad play', and was trying to encourage more sophisticated play.

Both the DM and the players may have been creating good color, but the interesting thing about the cold, ('Do we really want to keep marching in this, its cold!') was resolved entirely by pure tactical calculation.  That is, despite whatever color was being offered, the players were taking a gamist stance ('I'll do this because it helps me win.') and he wanted them to take a more narrativist stance ('What would my character do?').

But the thing is, he had only offered 'color' and got a responce that was pure 'color'.  From a different way of looking at it, he actually got the right response.  From the character's perspective, no matter how cold and wet the color, the character isn't feeling cold or wet enough to bother him so why should he consider stopping?  Up until the point the cold and wet have an impact on the game, they aren't real in any tangible way.  'Cold' and 'wet' aren't part of the games physics.  They can't force the player to make descisions, the way IRL hitting a brick wall can force you to stop.



> Oh, sure. If I'm playing a game detailed enough that a cold rain has some kind of effect I want to avoid, my reaction will be based on that. But that doesn't mean I won't react to a cold rain without mechanical backup, so to speak, which is what I thought you were talking about.




The two sorts of 'reaction' are different in character.  One is mere affectation.  It's more like, "Since the DM says its cold, I'll pretend to be cold so that he'll be happy.  But really, I know that it is not really cold, and so it won't actually impact any decision which has some consequences."   The other is, "Since the DM says its cold, I'll pretend to be in the cold so that he'll happy.  But also, I know that my character is going to experience some consequence for being cold, so perhaps I should consider the fact that it is cold in my roleplay and make actions accordingly."  It doesn't have to be that cynical, but it often is.  T



> Which strikes me as indicating we may be talking past each other...




We aren't as far apart as some of the discussion might suggest.  I need to go back to some earlier things that were said.



> But, back to the initial example, the knight breaking his neck is entirely within the framework of and consistent with the universe.




No it isn't.  That's my point.  It's entirely consistant within the framework and guidelines of this universe.  The rules of this universe mean that knights that fall off thier horses can break thier necks.  But, the game isn't occuring in this universe, even if one of the conceits of the game is that it is.  It's actually occuring in an imaginary universe that has rules which are usually abstractions of the rules in this universe (plus usually a little something extra).  And the knight falling off and breaking his next is not at all consistant with the framework and guidelines of the imaginary universe.

Except, you think that it is.  And this creates a problem.  Because on the one hand you are communicating to the players that the guidelines and rules of the imaginary universe are this, but in your head you are keeping a picture of the imaginary universe at odds with what you are elsewhere describing.  I don't know how many of the stories related on these forums come down to a DM who had one picture of the universe (often what he thought was 'realistic'), and players that had a different picture, and a DM that was too inexperienced, arrogant, or being too cute to actually communicate to the players what was really in his head.



> It's completely believable by those guidelines- if I describe a world of mortal men, accidents, misery, disease, mud, rats and sinking boats, then why would anyone not believe in High King Badass getting spilled by his horse and landing bad?




Because the rules don't in fact necessarily describe a world of mortal men, accidents, misery, disease, mud, rats, and sinking boats.  So you giving two conflicting descriptions of the world.  The mere fact that you've provided some color which is appropriate to one universe (the real one maybe?) doesn't make it real and believable in a different universe.  High King Badness getting spilled by his horse and landing badly isn't believable in the context of the normal D&D rules.  You are trying to make the universe outside the rules that govern the PC's behave in a very different way than how the universe works when the PC's are around.  But you can't keep those two universes as distinct as all that.



> But by your standard, since it contradicts the mechanics, it isn't believable. What we are trying to say is that the mechanics are not the only determining factor for believability and consistency




They don't have to be the only factor.  If they are a factor at all, then they play a role in a games believability and consistancy.  That's what being a factor means.  The term comes from math.  There might be and probably are other factors, but you can't ignore this one.



> indeed sticking to them as literally the laws of physics conjures enormous problems with regard to a believable world.




Only if you think that the world is believable, if and only if it conforms to the expected standards of this world.  

That's a little bit of an oversimplification, because I do believe that there can be 'bad rules', but a rule isn't necessarily bad if it doesn't create a result that is within the framework of what is believable in this world.  For example, a rule that says experienced characters never fall off thier horse and break thier neck (indeed a rule system that forgoes the explicit possibility of broken necks entirely), doesn't necessarily create an unbelievable world.  It only creates an unbelievable world if you can't imagine a world where if you are sufficiently 'destined', 'lucky', 'tough', or whatever, that you can't possibly break your neck by falling off a horse.  

I really believe that you are confusing 'believability' with 'desirability'.  I really can't help but thinking that when you say it creates problems with a 'believable' world, you mean, 'it creates a world with characteristics that I don't find desirable'.  It's pretty close to the same thing, except that it ought to be evident that plenty of people can find the world you don't find desirable believable.



> The purpose of mechanics is not to create a world, or a basis for which a world can be derived. Mechanics are designed for game play purposes. They're designed for fairness. Tactical interest. Ease of use. Speed. Things of that nature.




One doesn't preclude the other.  The purpose of mechanics is to create or simulate a world, or a basis from which a world can be derived.  They are most certainly and most evidently often designed for simulating a fictional world.  And while they and nothing else could ever fully simulate a fictional world, that is there purpose and that's what they do.  They are designed with various other attributes in mind, but simulating a world is there reason for being.

The rules have to simulate the thing you want simulated.  That's why we say that certain rules do a better job of simulating some things than others.  If you want a universe "of mortal men, accidents, misery, disease, mud, rats, and sinking boats" and the rules set doesn't simulate such a universe, you are headed for trouble.  The game is going to continually be disappointing you, and your players are going to continually make decisions based on what really is happening in the game world rather than what you want to be happening in the game world.  The created game universe will fail to look anything like the picture you had in your head, especially once the players figure it out and start taking advantage of what is really possible (or not possible) according to the rules.

So make sure you've smithed out some 'physics' that describe the universe you actually wanted to create.  Then once you decide what you can work with, work with it.  A decent system is going to leave you lots of flexibility.  If you are continually feeling constrained by it such that you need to break the system, you probably need a different system.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The DM was trying to apply 'force' on the PC's by describing something that he felt reasonably people would try to avoid.




Force them to do what?

And I disagree with your spin on "player thinking." I don't have any players who think in purely gamist terms- in addition to the calculations of "Will this help me win?", there are, "What would my character do?" (and sometimes, "What would be interesting?") I've seen players accept mechanical disadvantage for roleplaying purposes and I expect to see it again. They're not doing it just to make me happy. 




> Except, you think that it is.  And this creates a problem.  Because on the one hand you are communicating to the players that the guidelines and rules of the imaginary universe are this, but in your head you are keeping a picture of the imaginary universe at odds with what you are elsewhere describing.




Eh. If it comes up, and a player says, "But that's not in the rules!" I'll probably just copy & paste some of pemerton and John Snow's posts and send them to him.




> Because the rules don't in fact necessarily describe a world of mortal men, accidents, misery, disease, mud, rats, and sinking boats.  So you giving two conflicting descriptions of the world.




No, I'm not. I'm giving one description. The rules do not describe the world.



> But you can't keep those two universes as distinct as all that.




I totally can.



> So make sure you've smithed out some 'physics' that describe the universe you actually wanted to create.  Then once you decide what you can work with, work with it.  A decent system is going to leave you lots of flexibility.  If you are continually feeling constrained by it such that you need to break the system, you probably need a different system.




Again, we've hit this point before- "Just don't play D&D!" and the answer is, "But we like D&D!"

Maybe I _want_ all that feats, AoO malarkey, prestige class stuff? (I don't, but hypothetically) Let's say I want to have all that stuff _and_ a grim world of perilous adventure.

Now, you're saying these goals are contradictory- that my system doesn't support my setting. I say, "Sure", but I shrug and ignore it because I don't care. It is a trivial effort to just recognize the game mechanics as serving other purposes than simulation. I can have this cake and eat it too. 

Take Storytelling (the system). Mortals in the current World of Darkness system are surprisingly robust; gunshots do not tend towards all that much lethality. Is this because mortals in the World of Darkness can take a lot of punishment? No. It's designed that way because getting one-shotted sucks for a player. Intelligence is rated between one (below average) and five (extremely intelligent). Does this mean every individual in the World of Darkness can be evenly broken down into five categories of intelligence, or that there are no mentally retarded people whose intelligence could be said to be lower than one on the scale? No. Not at all. The fluff and rules contradict. Where fluff and rules contradict, the fluff wins, except in the case of PCs, of course.

Take Call of Cthulhu. There are all kinds of edge cases where "the simulation" breaks down, and if the rules were the very laws of the game universe, it would not then resemble a real historical or modern day setting. People would probably notice if babies could throw footballs.

But I like BRP. It is simple, it is fast, I know it well, I can run it from memory, I like the SAN system, etc. No system is perfect. Why should I discard it entirely if I'm not willing to accept its little contradictions and occasional bit of silliness when I can just take it to be solely for the purpose of PC interaction with the world?


> The purpose of mechanics is to create or simulate a world, or a basis from which a world can be derived.




Nope. The purpose of the mechanics is to create a certain gameplay result. Tactical elements, genre emulation, speed and ease of play. Those sorts of things.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> The rules do not describe the world.




But they can, and they do a pretty decent job of it right now (as per the link above). 

I might as well say "Color does not describe the world." It'd be roughly as accurate.



> It is a trivial effort to just recognize the game mechanics as serving other purposes than simulation. I can have this cake and eat it too.




But it's not an effort everyone is comfortable in making, and an effort that doesn't HAVE to be made. Indeed, a lot of fun can be had for some people to, instead, make the effort to ensure that the narrative adheres to the mechanics, and to use the mechanics to lend consistency to the narrative setting (or to change the mechanics if they get in the way).



> Nope. The purpose of the mechanics is to create a certain gameplay result. Tactical elements, genre emulation, speed and ease of play. Those sorts of things.




For you, yes, for everyone, no.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> And I disagree with your spin on "player thinking." I don't have any players who think in purely gamist terms




No, of course not.  If you ever had any that did, you would have drove them away long before now. 



> I've seen players accept mechanical disadvantage for roleplaying purposes and I expect to see it again. They're not doing it just to make me happy.




Sure, I've done that.  I've seen it.  I've even seen players that lean gamist do it, for a combination of reasons, some narrativist and some involving challenging themselves.  

But I've rarely met pure narrativist players either.  I was being somewhat cynical in describing a player's internal thought processes, but I wasn't being completely cynical.  And I have met players, some of them good roleplayers, who did think _exactly_ like that.



> Eh. If it comes up, and a player says, "But that's not in the rules!"




Alot of the recent confusion about my point stems from this misunderstanding you are demonstrating here.  I think 'not in the rules' is a very different situation than 'contravenes an established rule'.  The rules aren't complete and never can be, but once you've established precedents you should tend to stick to them.



> No, I'm not. I'm giving one description. The rules do not describe the world.




Errr... no.  Even your earlier claims don't go so far.  Perhaps you meant to add a qualifier, like 'fully'?  If not, you can say that, but if you literally meant it, then it would be the same as not having rules... and I'm not even sure that's humanly possible.  Like it or not, the rules do describe the world.  The PC does something, and the world reacts accord to the rules.  That's a description.  

I don't think you have to discard a system entirely if it has wierd edge cases you don't like.  No one is required to create a 'perfect system' before they sit down to play.  But I do think you should be conscious of the potential products of the system that you know or at odds with the setting you want to create and which you won't be able to live with and adjust the game rules accordingly, particularly before they are used to create precedents you don't want to honor.  If you want certain concrete things, knights that break thier necks, 'zero' intelligence morons, babies that can't throw footballs, whatever, and you need these things, then you should adjust the rules accordingly.



> Now, you're saying these goals are contradictory- that my system doesn't support my setting. I say, "Sure", but I shrug and ignore it because I don't care.




Not caring about the contridictions is very different than them not being there.  If you don't care that the system doesn't support the setting, that doesn't mean that its going to support the setting.  Sure, you can play through problems.  That doesn't mean that they aren't problems.

Anyway, we seem to have reached a point where we are going, "Is too!", "No, it isn't!" and not saying anything new.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> No it isn't. That's my point. It's entirely consistant within the framework and guidelines of this universe. The rules of this universe mean that knights that fall off thier horses can break thier necks. But, the game isn't occuring in this universe, even if one of the conceits of the game is that it is. It's actually occuring in an imaginary universe that has rules which are usually abstractions of the rules in this universe (plus usually a little something extra). And the knight falling off and breaking his next is not at all consistant with the framework and guidelines of the imaginary universe.




To be clear, you seem to be saying "If the game rules do not allow for an action or a particular possibility, like a 20th-level fighter falling from his horse and instantly breaking his neck, then that action is impossible within the setting, because the rules model all possibilities within the setting." Would you say that is correct?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> To be clear, you seem to be saying "If the game rules do not allow for an action or a particular possibility, like a 20th-level fighter falling from his horse and instantly breaking his neck, then that action is impossible within the setting, because the rules model all possibilities within the setting." Would you say that is correct?




No, not quite.  You are doing well until the last clause, which doesn't logically follow from what comes before it.

What I'm saying, among other things is, "If the game rules do not allow for an action or a particular possibility, like a 20th-level fighter falling from his horse and instantly 'breaking his neck', then that action is impossible with in the setting, because the rules of the setting clearly preclude it from occurring."  

Or more simply, "If something can't happen in the game, then it doesn't."

It doesn't follow that, "If something can't happen in the game, that the rules model all possibilities within the setting.", and I have never said that.  In fact, I've expressly said, "The rules (as they exist at any point in thier development) do not model all possibilities within the setting."  But, where the rules are not silent, they should be either followed - or if you don't want to follow them, changed.

Alot of the counter-examples offered to me don't really apply to what I'm saying.  If the rules don't expressly provide for insomnia, that doesn't mean insomnia doesn't exist.  It merely means that once insomnia is introduced the game, some rules for it must be invented and then once those rules are set as a precedent you should strongly resist violating them.  

Just to complicate things, It also may mean that a character possesses insomnia as what GURPS calls a 'quirk', in that we may say that they have insomnia for the purposes of thinking about characterization but that they don't have insomnia sufficient to actually meaningful impact play.  'Quirks' aren't part of the physics of the game world, and don't impose a rule on anyone, so there isn't any 'rule' being violated.  On the other hand, a quirk may eventually force a rule on you, like the penalty for not getting enough sleep for several nights in a row if a characters insomnia becomes a major part of game play.  For exmaple, if your NPC gets no sleep for several nights in a row, you must either decide to impose a penalty on the NPC, or decide not to impose a penalty on the PC when thier character doesn't get enough rest.  Either way, at that point, you've created a rule.  The interesting thing about a 'quirk' is that even though it is a description of the game world, it has more reality at the metagame level than the in game level.  Boiled down, its just a non-binding commitment by the player to play the character in a certain way.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I can accept that some few elite and blessed people (e.g.: those with high levels) just aren't going to die from simply falling out of their saddle, even though, in the real-world, such a thing is impossible



How do you deal with the coup-de-grace rules? A peasant with a small knife is actually more threatening (they can trigger a Fortitude save in a sleeping 20th level Fighter) than is a fall from horseback at full gallop. That suggests that these elites are not that blessed. It suggests to me that the immunity from horseback fall is more a mechanical glitch (as per the sleeping example) than a nod to the physics of the assumed gameworld.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> If assumptions are not shared, you'll run into conflict when players attempt to act in ways that make sense according to their understanding of the world, but don't according to others.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The default understanding of the D&D world is that the heroes aren't just well-trained ordinary people who keep getting really lucky; they actually can do things and withstand hazards in a way flatly contrary to what ordinary people can do.



Hence the need for shared expectations among players and GM. Establishing those can displace that default (which is itself not something I fully concede).



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> A focused 20th-level barbarian, for instance, can engage in feats of strength that not only exceed what any human has done, but violate our understanding of what human flesh and bone can withstand.



I do think that Prof Phobos had made a good point about coup-de-grace rules. They don't really run your way, do they? They suggest a somewhat unstable default.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> If you get a player who requires a consistent world to have fun playing, who demands that the story take place within the boundaries established by the world and not the other way around, who will balk at having his character surrender with a knife to his throat



This example bumps into at least three problems:

1) You are assuming that a consistent world is equivalent to one in which the mechanics are the physics. This has been denied by myself, John Snow and Prof Phobos at least.

2) The coup-de-grace rules push against your example.

3) The narrativist contention is that the action-resolution mechanics are a device for resolving PC adversity. So your example doesn't step outside the posited boundaries of those mechanics in any event.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think we need to keep firmly in mind that we pretending that the game world is real, and isn't actually real.  What are we going to measure game world reality by if not the rules?  Aren't the rules pretty much all in existance so that we can measure the reality of an unreal place?



Well, if I was playing a game set in Middle-Earth I'd rely on LoTR as my measure. In the Oriental Adventures game that I GM, we rely on shared experiences of Jet Li films plus a few Samurai history texts as our measure - ambiguities are pretty easily resolved by discussion.

In short, as Prof Phobos put it:



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Description. Fluff text. Genre assumptions.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2008)

Talislan said:
			
		

> Rules are brought in not to interpret laws of physics in the imagination, but to put controls in place in the imagination so that different peoples concept of a given fantasy can be played out with other people.
> 
> This puts no restriction or governance on the laws of physics within a gameworld. It merely places parameters that are acceptible to multiple imaginations in place so that intereactions between said imaginations can take place.
> 
> ...



I think you've broadly agreed with me, at least: the rules distribute narrative control in various ways, and place certain parameters on what can be said to be part of the narrative, and the physics of the world can be inferred from the results of these exercise of narrative control.



			
				Talislan said:
			
		

> Personally I prefer 'The DM's word is LAW, if that is beyond your suspension of disbelief then you are playing with the wrong DM'.



Here we differ. I prefer player GM-negotiation on these matters.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Or more simply, "If something can't happen in the game, then it doesn't."




Okay. Do you have any rules for the agricultural revolution (the domestication of cereal grains in order to produce heartier strains that don't release their spore as easily, to allow humans to gather them), or any other rules-based explanation for why farming exists in your world that you'd like to share? After all, I'd hate for my players to point out that I need rules for that to have a consistent world, and be lacking them.



> It doesn't follow that, "If something can't happen in the game, that the rules model all possibilities within the setting.", and I have never said that.  In fact, I've expressly said, "The rules (as they exist at any point in thier development) do not model all possibilities within the setting."  But, where the rules are not silent, they should be either followed - or if you don't want to follow them, changed.




I get it. You're saying "If you want it to happen in your setting, you have to make a rule for it." Other people are saying "No, I don't. I interpret the rules as being there to adjudicate the adventures of my players, not to describe the 'physics' of the universe." And you seem to be arguing that they're wrong, and that anything that happens in their setting has to have a rules explanation if they want it to have occurred. That kinda strikes me as you telling people that your way is right and their way is wrong.



> Alot of the counter-examples offered to me don't really apply to what I'm saying.  If the rules don't expressly provide for insomnia, that doesn't mean insomnia doesn't exist.  It merely means that once insomnia is introduced the game, some rules for it must be invented and then once those rules are set as a precedent you should strongly resist violating them.




So, basically, you're advocating rule bloat, since you imply the need for all this minutiae for systems that have never had rules in any previous edition?


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Alot of the counter-examples offered to me don't really apply to what I'm saying.  If the rules don't expressly provide for insomnia, that doesn't mean insomnia doesn't exist.  It merely means that once insomnia is introduced the game, some rules for it must be invented and then once those rules are set as a precedent you should strongly resist violating them.




That makes sense to me.  Let me try to put this in my own words to see if I get it.

If the fact that someone in the gameworld has insomnia is going to affect the resolution mechanics, we should deal with insomnia in a consistent manner.

I am going to challenge you.  Post some actual play experiences that deal with this issue.  Times when something existed, like insomnia, that wasn't covered by the rules, and how you dealt with it.  And how the people at the game responded.  A good case and a bad case would be even better.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 8, 2008)

The rules provide guidelines for how to adjudicate the actions of the characters (players) in a setting. In that respect they actually are the "world"--for the players.

The setting itself, however, is there to provide the DM with a framework to tell a story/challenge the characters/entertain. You should probably use the guidelines given when interacting with your PCs, since that's why they were provided, buy there's no need to do that when dealing with your setting outside the influence of your players. You don't need a guideline to tell  you how you can interact with the world because you *are* the world. (the term RPG-Masturbation came to mind, which I think is funny--no offense is intended to anyone)

I think it is possible for a person to fall off a horse and die from a broken neck. If I want an NPC outside the influence of my players to fall and die in such a way, that's my right, duty, and obligation--the world is in my keeping. Due to the nature of the game, though, the PCs could never fall off a horse and die from a broken neck. That's an important distinction.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 8, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Force them to do what?
> 
> And I disagree with your spin on "player thinking." I don't have any players who think in purely gamist terms- in addition to the calculations of "Will this help me win?", there are, "What would my character do?" (and sometimes, "What would be interesting?") I've seen players accept mechanical disadvantage for roleplaying purposes and I expect to see it again. They're not doing it just to make me happy.



I think one issue (or rather, one cause of issue in discussion that is itself a happy lack-of-issue) is that you have and accept as not undesirable an unusually high level of communication among your player base.  If your players accept that things just happen in the world and approach each case finding out how they are supposed to respond before doing so, then your method will not have any problems.

I will point to the number of people in this thread who have commented along the lines of "I'm a player, and I love it when things that directly contradict the rules happen!" as argument that your strategy of DMing, while most useful when constructing a narrative and certainly applicable for your player base, does not generally result in hugs and kisses for the GM when attempted.




			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Eh. If it comes up, and a player says, "But that's not in the rules!" I'll probably just copy & paste some of pemerton and John Snow's posts and send them to him.



Well, I don't think you will with your group, because your group does not expect the rules to be constant.  If your group has no problems accepting that mechanics in the world resolve X way when they are present and Y way when they aren't, and artfully never notice this in character ("Wow, we were really lucky to survive that battle...and the one before it...and the eighteen before that...and the being set on fire a dozen times before that..."), you're good to go.  Again, however, the vast majority of the playerbase will walk away before they engage in these leaps of illogic.  People like to understand the rules of the game they're playing; deciding that your world has properties X but is mechanically described as extremely-not-X to the players will result in any player that values consistency having their character engage in speculation as to why people assume X when not-X keeps happening, or why X keeps happening.



> No, I'm not. I'm giving one description. The rules do not describe the world.



You keep making this statement.  If you tell the players "You can die from a single lucky stab wound." and then run them through combats with standard D&D rules, the players will notice that no matter how many times they're stabbed (sometimes by magically lucky people with actual control over local fate and such) they don't die.  They may also notice that the first wounds of any battle tend to be the least severe, and so on, and so forth.  If what happens to the players is what's in the rules, and what happens not to the players is whatever you decide which goes outside the boundaries of the rules, then lots of players will seriously wonder why things that happen to other people never happen to them. 



> I totally can [keep them separate].



Well, not really.  What you can do is have one universe of "Whatever I think best at the moment with no regard to precedent." and simply have what happens to the PCs be the rules.



> Again, we've hit this point before- "Just don't play D&D!" and the answer is, "But we like D&D!"
> 
> Maybe I _want_ all that feats, AoO malarkey, prestige class stuff? (I don't, but hypothetically) Let's say I want to have all that stuff _and_ a grim world of perilous adventure.
> 
> ...



Pointe the firste; because unless you actually go through the rules and mark out what you consider 'unrealistic' (See Celebrim's comment, only with a wave at the explicit magic and more of a sneer on the end), or are playing with a player base that expects your particular idiosyncrasies, players assume that the fluff of the world flows from the crunch.  They assume this because they interact with the crunch, and if they are roleplaying characters capable of pattern-matching, will notice if what happens when they are around and what happens when they aren't around are wildly different.  Even if the player therefore knows that this is a world that is gritty and people can die from falling off of a horse, he's seen his barbarian buddy head-butt stone golems to death; the character will assume D&D rules are standard.

Pointe the seconde: You're not using the rules as rules, you're using them as inspiration for your own story.  This is fine and good, but it's not D&D.  I can mechanically represent a 10th-level cleric in a Call of Ctuthlu campaign, but I will not be playing D&D (as the term is commonly meant to be understood) if I change the world to this degree.  Likewise, when you declare that nothing in the world has fixed mechanics but the PCs, what you are saying is that there are no fixed mechanics for anything but PvP.



> Nope. The purpose of the mechanics is to create a certain gameplay result. Tactical elements, genre emulation, speed and ease of play. Those sorts of things.



After considering the many and weighty citations and stunning turns of rhetoric, I am forced to resort to falling back on a rebuttal offered previously in the thread: Nu-unh.

Seriously, dude/ette/honored individual of indeterminate sex. Asserting the point under discussion buys you extremely little on the persuad-o-meter.

Also, a basic rebuttal; although the rules should not determine reality exactly (as there will always be corner cases, such as trying to make a Climb check in pouring rain or whether or not a dead character that somehow manages to gain 11 temporary hit points springs back to life), they should conform to the general shape of reality.  If the general shape of reality is that death can come on swift wings to anyone, then the rules should support this; bring in massive damage rules.  If the rules are that death can come on swift wings from seemingly-insignificant injuries, the rules should support that, as well (or you should abandon the pretense that the rules mean anything.)  

The shape of the rules is that by the time you're into the heroic tiers, you can survive hours of exposure in sub-zero or desert-high weather.  Injuries fail to affect you direly; it's not that you can shrug off a sword to the heart, it's while you have hit points, it is impossible for anyone to do so directly while you're not helpless (and, at certain levels, you can even shrug off a blow taken while helpless through sheer toughness).  It is entirely possible for you to be struck directly by lightning and survive.  From where, then, should come the assumption that the world is different for other heroes of equivalent power and accomplishment?

You know those RPGS (mostly console, and mostly J-) that have battle mechanics that bear totally nothing to do with the actual world?  Those game where you can literally kill and ressurect someone dozens of times, but if they happen to be fatally injured in a cut scene, they die for real?

You know how the reason that a lot of us tabletop gamers really, really hate those games for their inconsistent and run-on-rails natures?

Huh.  Quick and dirty heuristic question: Who here thinks that Final Fantasy and similar games make good models for tabletop RPG play?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> We need to carefully say what we mean by 'exist'.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> We might say that 'love' exists, but it doesn't exist in the same way 'a brick' does.



There is a long tradition in European philosophy (beginning with Plato at least) that does  not identify "existence" with "the property to affect the material world".

But I really don't think that this thread needs to touch on these difficult technical questions of metaphysics.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> You just defined a term 'color' to refer to things that exist in the game but have no actual mechanical effect.



Actually, I think he used a term which is already well established as a term for describing RPG play (and is borrowed from the technical terminology of other literary/narrative pursuits).

In the same way that others in the thread have used the term "physics".



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> These things actually exist outside of the rules, and hense the physics of the game.



Does "game" here mean "gameworld"? Then your claim is false - the gameworld includes the rain. Does "game" here mean "action resolution mechanics"? Then your claim is true, but seems to not establish anything non-tautologous.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Lets say that 'color' exists.  Well, we can certainly say that 'color' is not part of the physics of the game. But we can't say that because 'color' exists, the game rules are not the physics of the game world.  And I further assert that since this thing called 'color' isn't part of the physics of the game world, its existance is of a different sort than those things which are defined by the physics of the game world.



The reasoning here is completely obscure to me, especially because you seem to use "game" and "gameworld" as equivalent, when clearly they are not.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I would define the role of color by analogy.
> 
> <snip programming analogy>



Your analogy is completely inapt for anyone who doesn't play an RPG so as to experience outputs that are calculated, logically/mathematically, from certain inputs. In short - if you play non-narrativistly, then you may well think that the mechanics are the physics of the gameworld. But narrativists don't play non-narrativistly. If they did, they wouldn't be narrativists.



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> If I say it is cold and raining, I expect my players to do things like: "My character puts on his poncho, or stands in an alcove, or stands there shivering and complaining about the cold."
> 
> It's a hook they can hang roleplaying on. It doesn't need to penalize ranged attacks or have any other mechanical impact to have a _tangible impact_ on the game via roleplaying.



Exactly right. 



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> If those are enforcable, if they have any mechanical effect, then those sound like synonyms for 'rules'.  And if they aren't, they don't sound like a means of precise communication.



"Enforceable" is an odd word to use here. But I take you roughly to be saying that "If you have players who only respond to the action resolution mechanics, and are not interested in the gameworld for any other reason, then narrativist play will fail." That claim is true, but it doesn't remotely show that narrativist play cannot take place. Every day, narrativist RPGers are refuting that suggestion by doing it.

The key to their success is that such players are interested in the gameworld for another reason - namely, for the way in which its elements constitute statements of thematic importance.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> How do you deal with the coup-de-grace rules? A peasant with a small knife is actually more threatening (they can trigger a Fortitude save in a sleeping 20th level Fighter) than is a fall from horseback at full gallop. That suggests that these elites are not that blessed. It suggests to me that the immunity from horseback fall is more a mechanical glitch (as per the sleeping example) than a nod to the physics of the assumed gameworld.




Well, there's two acceptable ways to see this, for me (note that doesn't mean period, that justmeans that these are things that I would, generally speaking, accept from a DM). 

(a): If there is a glitch, fix it using the rules. That's well within the DM's purview, after all. Make a rule that allows for instant-falling death. I'd use it. I'd stay away from horses and cliffs and I'd use magic over Jump or Climb every time, but it's a rule that a lot of people have wanted in D&D for a long time. Go for it. You're the DM.

(b): The glitch is in your head. The elite are blessed, but Fate/Chance/Luck/Skill/Toughness can only really intervene if there's "room for the holy spirit!" A fall from a horse involves a lot of variables, places that luck or skill could intervene to save the heroic being, and, because they are heroic, it does. If a creature is held helpless (the only situation when a CDG is allowed), there's none of this variability, chance, skill, or possibility, there's no room for Fate/Chance/Luck/Skill/Toughness to intervene, so it can't.* This makes the heroic character nearly as weak as any other mere mortal. It doesn't follow that "elites are not that blessed," necessarily. It could follow that there are circumstances where all the blessings in the multiverse won't save your hide. By the rules, being completely helpless is one of those circumstances, but falling is not (because you're not helpless in any way). 

I've never had a problem killing any character by the book before. 

*It's also true that a peasant with a knife deals little enough damage that a 20th-level Fighter still has a pretty good chance to get away unscathed, through sheer toughness. And also that a peasant with a knife would have a hell of a time, by the rules, getting that 20th level fighter in a position where he'd be helpless, let alone keeping him in that state long enough. But that's not really here or there.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> To be clear, you seem to be saying "If the game rules do not allow for an action or a particular possibility, like a 20th-level fighter falling from his horse and instantly breaking his neck, then that action is impossible within the setting, because the rules model all possibilities within the setting." Would you say that is correct?




How about this:
The rules clearly and distinctly model the consequences of falling off of a horse.

The rules clearly and distinctly model the effects of these consequences on a 20th-level hero with full HP not being CdGed by the ground.

Of the clearly and distinctly modeled scenarios for falling off of a horse, there are none that result in the death of a full-HP 20th-level hero.

As said earlier, there's different than 'there are no applicable rules for this' and 'there are applicable rules that contradict this, and in fact pages and pages of precedent for things like this not happening under these conditions, but it's happening anyway.  Because.'

Finally, I'd like to point out that rules do not exist in a vacuum; if you reserve the right to alter all inflicted damage situationally and at will, then allowing the players to roll their own hit points is meaningless.  If you allow for the zone of ensured-rulishness to creep out into the level of the PC's direct interactions, then the PCs will (assuming the players don't deliberately ignore it) see that they create a moving zone of unreality, for good or ill.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Well, if I was playing a game set in Middle-Earth I'd rely on LoTR as my measure. In the Oriental Adventures game that I GM, we rely on shared experiences of Jet Li films plus a few Samurai history texts as our measure - ambiguities are pretty easily resolved by discussion.
> 
> In short, as Prof Phobos put it:
> 
> Description. Fluff text. Genre assumptions.



When I'm playing D&D, I rely on the rules of D&D as my measure, because the vast, vast, vast majority of my experiences within the world of D&D are based on the rules of D&D.  As such, just as you assume that a wuxia martial arts master should be able to perform feats of acrobatics normally impossible without a wire harnass, I assume that a high level fighter shouldn't die of something trivial unless he was unable to defend himself.

The source material of D&D is D&D.  You want to alter the source material for your campaign world? Fine.  But acknowledge that the fluff of what people expect D&D to be is derived from the crunch, and that when you import new fluff and ignore the crunch supporting the old fluff, you stand to provoke shouting matches with everyone that took you at your word when you said "a D&D campaign."


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 8, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> As said earlier, there's different than 'there are no applicable rules for this' and 'there are applicable rules that contradict this, and in fact pages and pages of precedent for things like this not happening under these conditions, but it's happening anyway.  Because.'




And this is solely based on the interpretation that rules are the physics of the setting, rather than an abstract system for adjudicating the *adventures of the player characters*, which is how I (and everyone else I've ever played with) always viewed them. There are no rules in the game for falling off your horse and dying instantly, because that kind of thing doesn't happen to player characters (except with a crappy DM, honestly). That doesn't preclude it from happening to a king or general in the game, because, again, the rules are adjudication of the player character's adventures, not the laws of reality for story characters.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2008)

robertligouli said:
			
		

> Quick and dirty heuristic question: Who here thinks that Final Fantasy and similar games make good models for tabletop RPG play?




*cough* You have sigs turned on, right?   

Of course, even in FFZ, I make it clear that running out of hp doesn't mean you die, but dying does, so people can wrap their heads around combat resurrection, but not out-of-combat resurrection (and can even use it in their favor). 

More seriously, I don't think Prof. Phobos's players like being told what happens to them any more than any other players do. I do think his players are very interested in having a good time and telling a rip-roarin' tale, and can ignore brazen inconsistencies in order to achieve that.

That's cool, but I don't think everyone who can't achieve that level of suspension of disbelief is therefore a bad player whose campaigns must be boring slaves to mathematics and pointless simulation.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2008)

> this is solely based on the interpretation that rules are the physics of the setting, rather than an abstract system for adjudicating the adventures of the player characters, which is how I (and everyone else I've ever played with) always viewed them.




That's nifty.

Not everyone likes to do that.

Carry on, have fun, don't tread on me.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That's nifty.
> 
> Not everyone likes to do that.
> 
> Carry on, have fun, don't tread on me.




My confusion comes from the fact that no edition of D&D has ever been able to reasonably be identified as the "physics of the game world," since it lacks the vast majority of systems that would be required to fit that bill (rules governing coherent weather patterns, tectonic plates, ecosystem adaptation, conception and bearing of children, development of political and social bodies, etc.), and has always lacked them. The idea that you'd have to develop rules to cover every conceivable situation is kinda silly... I mean, how many people feature farms in their games? A lot. How many of those people have complex rules for the development of domesticated cereal grains and agricultural practices (basically, the rules necessary to explain how the agricultural revolution was supposed to have happened), which would be necessary rules for you to have farms and farmers under this line of reasoning?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> this is mere affectation.  The player actually knows that his character isn't really cold.  Nothing is at stake.



Well, something might be thematically at stake. The cold and rain might frame an event, or foreshadow something.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think the longest we went without touching dice once was like 6 hours
> 
> <snip play description>



I didn't get the sense that nothing mattered about that play. And if it didn't, why do it for 6 hours? (Things can matter, be at stake, even when there are no "stakes" in the indie RPG sense. In your example of play, it seems to matter that the players work some things out.)



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> But can you at least credit that its existance is of a very different character than if it had a mechanical effect.  That is to say, its still not a part of the physics of the game world?



The first sentence is true. The second is false. Were the opinions, the appearances, the mannerisms of the NPCs in your example of play - which I assume were constant and enduring, unless changing for reasons that themselves were part of the inner logic of the gameworld - not part of the "physics" of the gameworld? That seems a pretty odd claim.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2008)

> My confusion comes from the fact that no edition of D&D has ever been able to reasonably be identified as the "physics of the game world," since it lacks the vast majority of systems that would be required to fit that bill (rules governing coherent weather patterns, tectonic plates, ecosystem adaptation, conception and bearing of children, development of political and social bodies, etc.), and has always lacked them. The idea that you'd have to develop rules to cover every conceivable situation is kinda silly




Everyone posting in this thread agrees with you, I imagine. You're missing everything Celebrim posted about "physics." I'm more comfortable steering away from that whole definition and just saying, yes, no game needs rules to cover every conceivable situation, and no one has said that D&D needs that.



> ... I mean, how many people feature farms in their games? A lot. How many of those people have complex rules for the development of domesticated cereal grains and agricultural practices (basically, the rules necessary to explain how the agricultural revolution was supposed to have happened), which would be necessary rules for you to have farms and farmers under this line of reasoning?




Just because I don't like viewing the rules as a purely abstract PC-only metaconcept doesn't mean that I want rules for everything.

Again, no one is saying that.

Yet it keeps cropping up, and I keep having to wonder why, oh why, since it's clearly absurd.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Okay. Do you have any rules for the agricultural revolution (the domestication of cereal grains in order to produce heartier strains that don't release their spore as easily, to allow humans to gather them), or any other rules-based explanation for why farming exists in your world that you'd like to share?




Actually, I did have detailed models in 1st edition, but I haven't had an in game reason to need argicultural rules in 3rd edition, so I've never ported them over.



> After all, I'd hate for my players to point out that I need rules for that to have a consistent world, and be lacking them.




Me too.  Although, generally speaking, most players don't express an interest in agricultural details unless they have a really good reason (like, "I need to feed my army, and there doesn't seem to be alot of friendly clerics around here.").



> I get it. You're saying "If you want it to happen in your setting, you have to make a rule for it."




Not quite, but close enough for the purposes of the discussion.  I'm actually saying what I said, which had some nuances being 'surprisingly' left out of your restatement.



> Other people are saying "No, I don't. I interpret the rules as being there to adjudicate the adventures of my players, not to describe the 'physics' of the universe." And you seem to be arguing that they're wrong, and that anything that happens in their setting has to have a rules explanation if they want it to have occurred. That kinda strikes me as you telling people that your way is right and their way is wrong.




Yes.  Or rather, there way is right, but my way is more right.  Cthulhu won't rise if you don't follow my advice.



> So, basically, you're advocating rule bloat, since you imply the need for all this minutiae for systems that have never had rules in any previous edition?




No.  I'm not advocating rule bloat.  Earlier, when the subject of special critical hit tables came up, I advocated against it on the grounds of rules bloat.  There are lots of ways a system can be comprehensive and still avoid rules bloat.  The trick is to be abstract and have an adaptable core resolution mechanic.  

But yeah, the less abstract your system, the more certainly you'll experience what you call 'rules bloat' the longer your game goes.  And the more you depart from the core assumptions of basic play in the system (D&D's 'kill the monsters and take thier stuff') the more gaps you'll need to fill the in rules.  Since I've taken D&D waaaaaay away from 'kill the monsters and take thier stuff' on occassion, I've ended up needing some really esoteric rules to measure and resolve quantities that D&D doesn't normally deal with.   

I take it you aren't familiar with Dragon magazine, if you think that we've never had rules in a previous edition for "all this minutiea".


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You're missing everything Celebrim posted about "physics."




When Celebrim and pemerton get into it, I tend to tune out, since I spend plenty of time overworking my brain on the job that I don't enjoy getting into highly technical debates like how this one shaped up to be.



> Just because I don't like viewing the rules as a purely abstract PC-only metaconcept doesn't mean that I want rules for everything.




I'm just curious as to what point the rules serve if there are no people (aka PCs) playing the game.



> Yet it keeps cropping up, and I keep having to wonder why, oh why, since it's clearly absurd.






			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> What I'm saying, among other things is, "If the game rules do not allow for an action or a particular possibility, like a 20th-level fighter falling from his horse and instantly 'breaking his neck', then that action is impossible with in the setting, because the rules of the setting clearly preclude it from occurring."




Celebrim is stating that if the rules do not allow a heroic person to fall off a horse and break his neck, therefore such is impossible in the game. That means that I, as the DM, can't say that the 20th-level warlord king fell from his horse and broke his neck, off-camera, because the rules don't support it.

That's why the "rules for all situations" argument keeps cropping up, because that statement implies that if you wanted to do that, then you'd have to create rules for it (thus, creating rules for "every" situation). That's saying that I can't have my story present certain things unless there are rules explicitly supporting such a thing.

And yes, you're right, it's completely absurd.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> he wanted them to take a more narrativist stance ('What would my character do?').



What you describe is not narrativist play, in the canonical (ie Forge) meaning of that word. It is a type of simulationist play, that contrasts with the gamism of the players the GM was battling with.



			
				allenw said:
			
		

> Would it be useful to consider your "opponent's" position to be that "everything that occurs off-screen is 'color,' and thus its existence is of a different sort than those things which occur to and around the PC's"?



Not in my case. Things that happen offscreen may be much more than colour. Dead NPCs can't be interacted with, for example.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 8, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> If your players accept that things just happen in the world and approach each case finding out how they are supposed to respond before doing so, then your method will not have any problems.




"Supposed to respond?" They respond however they damn well please. What you're talking about is their assumptions; assuming that in, say, Call of Cthulhu, a given scenario puzzle has a Mythos origin is all fine and dandy...but getting angry when it turns out to be a red herring, or a mundane horror? Likewise, assuming that the death of the High King has something to do with the Demon Lords is fine, but when one discovers it was just an accident...then it's just an accident. They can respond to that however they wish.



> while most useful when constructing a narrative and certainly applicable for your player base, does not generally result in hugs and kisses for the GM when attempted.




Well, I only GM because it provides an outlet for my hatred of all that lives and walks the Earth, yes.




> Well, I don't think you will with your group, because your group does not expect the rules to be constant.




Oh no they totally expect the rules to be constant. For them. Unless they say otherwise. Unless I say otherwise and promise to pay for the pizza that night. And so forth.



> People like to understand the rules of the game they're playing; deciding that your world has properties X but is mechanically described as extremely-not-X to the players will result in any player that values consistency having their character engage in speculation as to why people assume X when not-X keeps happening, or why X keeps happening.




Sigh. Because in D&D at least, there are explanations- luck, strength of will, destiny, etc- that _only apply to the player characters and some others_. I don't think any adventuring group has ever sat down and scientifically studied the metagame properties of their universe. 



> You keep making this statement.  If you tell the players "You can die from a single lucky stab wound." and then run them through combats with standard D&D rules, the players will notice that no matter how many times they're stabbed (sometimes by magically lucky people with actual control over local fate and such) they don't die.




Well, actually they could if they wanted to. I'd be fine saying a PC died from a single lucky stab wound if that's how the player wanted it. We'd put the rules aside for that purpose. I'd do it only with consent, but even with that proviso, conceivably, "in the world", any PC could die from anything. Rat bite. Spontaneous human combustion. But they just never seem to!

Which is not the "omg this makes no sense!" sort of inconsistency you think so problematic, because the same is true of the real world. I could get hit by a meteor _right now_, I could just up and die. And I might, in the real world, because unfortunately there are no narrative conventions or metagame necessities operating on my behalf. But I don't go around on the assumption that I will, or that I'm special because it doesn't happen to me.

But in an RPG there are narrative conventions and metagame considerations. In character, these things do not exist. For magic spells, sure. Hit points and levels- I think outside of rough estimates of will-to-live, luck, and experience, these have no representation in the world. A character has no idea how many hit points he has. He only knows there's a sword stuck in his belly and his intestines are everywhere. 

Or, he only knows that he managed to turn just as the sword sliced at him- leaving a long, thin cut along his stomach but not going any deeper.

It's all a matter of translating game results into description. 



> They may also notice that the first wounds of any battle tend to be the least severe, and so on, and so forth.  If what happens to the players is what's in the rules, and what happens not to the players is whatever you decide which goes outside the boundaries of the rules, then lots of players will seriously wonder why things that happen to other people never happen to them.




They don't have to wonder. They can ask. Most of them already know the answer, and it is the same one I have given! Do you ever wonder why Batman never gets indigestion?

It's not impossible to dress up the mechanics in applicable fluff- the first wound of a fight is a light wound, describe injuries based on percentage of total hit points, etc. 



> players assume that the fluff of the world flows from the crunch.




Not as a rule, no. Not in my experience. And if they do, they shouldn't. 



> They assume this because they interact with the crunch,




No, they interact with the world using the rules as a tool to adjudicate that interaction. 



> Likewise, when you declare that nothing in the world has fixed mechanics but the PCs, what you are saying is that there are no fixed mechanics for anything but PvP.




Well, I have been fairly careful in saying "PC interactions", so NPCs on their side, enemy NPCs, etc, would also use the mechanics, for the most part. Unless of course I feel like the rules aren't producing the result I desire, at which point anything goes. Unisystem Lite doesn't have rules for bleeding to death, but I once had a beloved NPC shot in the stomach, bleeding to death. The desperate struggle to get her to a hospital in time proved a fun scenario. (For me, at least, but I never got any complaints) Much later a PC got stabbed in the stomach and RPed like he was bleeding to death for his own sake, but I'd have never killed him, while I would have let the NPC die. 



> they should conform to the general shape of reality.




I don't see why this should be the case at all. Let me explain why. 

Rule systems have to balance several needs. There is the need for simplicity- people have tolerances as to how much they will learn, how much complexity they can handle, how much space are in the books, how many books they are willing to buy, etc. 

There is a need for what I'll call "fun crunch." Tactical options, flavorful abilities, stuff like that.

There is a need to emulate a particular genre or otherwise achieve specific narrative goals. If you want a cinematic game, you need cinematic rules. 

There is a need to simulate _certain elements_ of the game world, often magic.

Then there is the need for classical "stuff people like" sorts of things- kicking down doors, taking treasure, gaining XP. The "defeat challenges" sort of paradigm. 

If one builds a rules set specifically to simulate a world to the exclusion of other considerations, you'll either end up with _extremely_ narrowly defined "worlds" or a total mess. One couldn't succeed at this task for any world resembling our own- human beings, sleeping, eating, fighting, etc. D&D worlds resemble our own in this manner to a large degree. You could probably succeed with something like Nobilis. More importantly, you can make no concessions to ease of use or gameplay unless the world is built from the ground up to sustain those concepts- which restricts the kind of world you can develop to one that is clearly artificial. 

So how best to solve this problem? It is simple; you design a rules set to take into account and compromise with varying goals, expecting that the human users of the game are capable of handling the decisions necessary to do so. But this leads to the rule set being designed to sustain particular gameplay, narrative and simulation goals..._particular ones_, not all the ones that could possibly come up. D&D magic simulates actual, in-world magic. D&D hit points and levels are narrative conventions to ensure the PCs get the "heroic fantasy" stuff they want. D&D character design gives them crunch. 

See? In the _same rules_, differing goals are served. All at the same time! Amazing! But this is actually normal. Forge arguments may look like it is "one way only", but in reality every gaming group and gaming system is a mixture of the three. 



> You know those RPGS (mostly console, and mostly J-) that have battle mechanics that bear totally nothing to do with the actual world?  Those game where you can literally kill and ressurect someone dozens of times, but if they happen to be fatally injured in a cut scene, they die for real?




Aeris dying made the story better. It is one of the reasons people remember FF7 (not me, I hate Final Fantasy games, personally) but it is one of the most famous story events in CRPG history. If the guy with the big sword had tossed her a Phoenix Up right after the infamous cutscene, _the story would have sucked_. 

I'm not advocating rail-roading and I resent that you brought it up in the first place, but let's face it: Aside from a few jokes about "hah why not just rez her Lol?" FF7 fans _didn't care_. This example doesn't serve your point. They were able to make the distinction between the "we-designed-this-for-gameplay" rules and the "we-did-this-for-the-story" cutscenes. 

This example serves my point. If millions of gamers could grok this basic separation of jurisdictions in FF7, why can't people do it with D&D?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I'm just curious as to what point the rules serve if there are no people (aka PCs) playing the game.




I'm curious as to where you got the idea that no people are playing the game?



> Celebrim is stating that if the rules do not allow a heroic person to fall off a horse and break his neck, therefore such is impossible in the game. That means that I, as the DM, can't say that the 20th-level warlord king fell from his horse and broke his neck, off-camera, because the rules don't support it.




I'd basically agree, though my personal rephrasing would be that the rules don't allow it, so it SHOULD be impossible, and if the DM DOES say it happened, without a good reason/mystery/etc., I will loose confidence and trust in him as a DM, because I enjoy D&D, in part, because of the rules. 



> That's why the "rules for all situations" argument keeps cropping up, because that statement implies that if you wanted to do that, then you'd have to create rules for it (thus, creating rules for "every" situation). That's saying that I can't have my story present certain things unless there are rules explicitly supporting such a thing.
> 
> And yes, you're right, it's completely absurd.




It's a very, very far cry from "rules governing this situation" to "rules for all situations." Saying "Don't do it if the rules say it can't happen" is leagues away from saying "You can't have it if it's not in the rules."

Do you see where you're not really understanding the case you're debating against?


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 9, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Actually, I did have detailed models in 1st edition, but I haven't had an in game reason to need argicultural rules in 3rd edition, so I've never ported them over.




But if they're eating bread, then you need a coherent in-setting (and rules) explanation for how the humanoid races began the cultivation of cereal grains. If the rules don't support it, then it doesn't happen, as you claimed earlier, which means bread shouldn't exist unless you have those rules.



> Or rather, there way is right, but my way is more right.




Or, rather, your way is completely and utterly wrong for me, and my way is the one true path. 



> I'm not advocating rule bloat.




  Earlier, when the subject of special critical hit tables came up, I advocated against it on the grounds of rules bloat.



> There are lots of ways a system can be comprehensive and still avoid rules bloat.




But when you advocate needing rules for "20th-level kings falling from horses and breaking their necks at full hp," that just strikes me as rules bloat, because it's a pointless expansion of extreme corner cases to cover incredibly non-standard conditions during game play.



> Since I've taken D&D waaaaaay away from 'kill the monsters and take thier stuff' on occassion, I've ended up needing some really esoteric rules to measure and resolve quantities that D&D doesn't normally deal with.




But you're still facing inconsistencies, despite your claim of coherence. If you "need" rules to explain how a dude falling from his horse could die instantly (instead of just treating it like the story event it is), then you



> I take it you aren't familiar with Dragon magazine, if you think that we've never had rules in a previous edition for "all this minutiea".




Dragon Magazine isn't official D&D supplements. As the kids today would phrase it, it was a "money grab" filled with material people were "convinced they needed." I just wasn't ever "suckered" into it.

So, no, the previous editions weren't filled with that minutiae.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 9, 2008)

Prof Phobos said:
			
		

> If millions of gamers could grok this basic separation of jurisdictions in FF7, why can't people do it with D&D?




Because D&D (and most any PnP RPG) allows for more autonomy than a videogame.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to where you got the idea that no people are playing the game?




I was saying (badly, I might add) that if you don't view the rules of the game as the adjudication of the PC's adventures, then what purpose the rules serve when the game isn't being played (aka, the players aren't there)? Why do there have to be rules to govern what NPCs do when players aren't looking (like falling off horses and dying)? Why do the rules have to be anything but the system of adjudication for PC adventures? Why do the rules suddenly remove the DM's role as arbiter of what is or is not possible?



> I'd basically agree, though my personal rephrasing would be that the rules don't allow it, so it SHOULD be impossible, and if the DM DOES say it happened, without a good reason/mystery/etc., I will loose confidence and trust in him as a DM, because I enjoy D&D, in part, because of the rules.




Ah, okay, I think I get it. You're a nitpicking rules lawyer that demands all story events, both on- and off-camera, adhere strictly to the letter of the rules, drama and story be damned.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 9, 2008)

> I was saying (badly, I might add) that if you don't view the rules of the game as the adjudication of the PC's adventures, then what purpose the rules serve when the game isn't being played (aka, the players aren't there)?




Uhm...I'm not sure if I understand. When the game's not being played, it's not being played. When figuring out stuff that isn't necessarily the PC's current adventure, the game's still being played, and so should still be being played according to the rules, IMO.



> Why do there have to be rules to govern what NPCs do when players aren't looking (like falling off horses and dying)?




Conistency. Believability. DM-player trust. Etc.



> Why do the rules have to be anything but the system of adjudication for PC adventures?




Because the game involves more than PCs on adventures. At least, for me, it does.



> Why do the rules suddenly remove the DM's role as arbiter of what is or is not possible?




They don't, since the DM gets to make up, change, or otherwise mess with the rules whenever they want to. My fun is lessened when a DM just decides to not use the rules at all.



> Ah, okay, I think I get it. You're a nitpicking rules lawyer that demands all story events, both on- and off-camera, adhere strictly to the letter of the rules, drama and story be damned.




Sure. Drama and stories are my day job. D&D I do for fun. And remember that this, too, is a continuum, so that doesn't mean I'd be happy with a purely rulesy system like Rolemaster or somesuch, either. 

Thankfully, D&D does support my fun in the current edition's rules, and I'd hope it would continue to into the next one.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> If millions of gamers could grok this basic separation of jurisdictions in FF7, why can't people do it with D&D?




No offense to anyone, but I haven't found too many D&D players that have a real appreciation for drama, whereas I've met far more video gamers (Final Fantasy fans in particular) that played some games specifically for the drama inherent in the story and scenes. But then again, D&D hasn't supported drama too well, since dramatic genre conventions (heroic sacrifice, for example) are usually undermined by D&D's rules (death is just a speed bump).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 9, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I haven't found too many D&D players that have a real appreciation for drama, whereas I've met far more video gamers (Final Fantasy fans in particular) that played some games specifically for the drama inherent in the story and scenes




Is it a paradox for you that I'm an actor and a playwright who adores Final Fantasy, and who has a nice little side project bringing Final Fantasy into a tabletop RPG?

And who is still a big ol' smelly Rules Lawyer.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Is it a paradox for you that I'm an actor and a playwright who adores Final Fantasy, and who has a nice little side project bringing Final Fantasy into a tabletop RPG?
> 
> And who is still a big ol' smelly Rules Lawyer.




At times, yes.

But, to be clear, I wasn't aiming that "lack of appreciation for drama" comment at you. I'm directing it at most of the people I've played with. I tend to rely on dramatic genre tropes pretty often in my game, and this need for rules to adjudicate everything outside of what my heroes (PCs) are doing strikes me as pointless. I don't need rules to support my claim that the Old King died from dysentery, because that's story. The rules aren't necessary because I don't need to give someone a play-by-play of exactly what happened, because it's relatively unimportant to what is likely to affect the players.

I've had a couple players pull the "The rules don't support that backstory" argument on me, and it usually gets them kicked from our group, because our first and foremost rule (above all) is that the DM is the ultimate authority on what is possible and what the rules mean (it also helps that as main DM for my group, I'm also the rules guru).


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> I will point to the number of people in this thread who have commented along the lines of "I'm a player, and I love it when things that directly contradict the rules happen!" as argument that your strategy of DMing, while most useful when constructing a narrative and certainly applicable for your player base, does not generally result in hugs and kisses for the GM when attempted.



I found this point interesting so I started a poll on the general forum (not sure why this thread is here instead of there to begin with, to be honest) phrasing the question specifically in terms of player enjoyment.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 9, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> But if they're eating bread, then you need a coherent in-setting (and rules) explanation for how the humanoid races began the cultivation of cereal grains. If the rules don't support it, then it doesn't happen, as you claimed earlier, which means bread shouldn't exist unless you have those rules.



They put ranks in Profession(Farmer).  Then they put more ranks in Profession(Farmer).  They made their profession checks and were paid in wheat.

Besides, there's worlds of difference between "There isn't a rule for that." and "There are rules for this, and they say that couldn't happen."




> But when you advocate needing rules for "20th-level kings falling from horses and breaking their necks at full hp," that just strikes me as rules bloat, because it's a pointless expansion of extreme corner cases to cover incredibly non-standard conditions during game play.



Many heroes ride horses.  There are rules for heroes riding horses.  There is nothing in the rules to imply that   If falling from a horse is supposed to present a risk to heroes, it should present a risk to heroes (that is to say, show up as a risk to PCs if the conditions enabling it are met).  If it isn't supposed to present a risk to heroes, it shouldn't present a risk to heroes (and you need another way to kill off a random heroic character.)




> But you're still facing inconsistencies, despite your claim of coherence. If you "need" rules to explain how a dude falling from his horse could die instantly (instead of just treating it like the story event it is), then you



Do our characters know about the segregation between story events and non-story events?  Do they note the vivid imagery and detail that surrounds them, and treat it as akin to a FMV rendered cut scene in a JRPG?  Do the words "Roll initative!" on a faraway plane trigger a blur-and-zoom effect, signaling that the Special Combat Abstraction rules now apply?  How about waist-high shrubs that prevent us from going where the story isn't meant to lead us?  Are we offered a number of broken bridges that we inexplicably cannot cross, or possibly 5' passageways guarded by immobile, invulnerable soldiers?

I reject utterly the idea of nonruled story events in my tabletop rpg.  If it's happening in the world my character experiences, my character will either expect the rest of the world to conform to the same rules he does, or start pulling out tomes detailing the Far Realms and go insane.  (Of course, since I'm a cooperative sort, he'd go insane in a very Deadpoolish fashion, and chide other characters when they failed to recognize story events, walk into ambushes, expect the world to make sense from moment to moment, and so forth.)




> Dragon Magazine isn't official D&D supplements. As the kids today would phrase it, it was a "money grab" filled with material people were "convinced they needed." I just wasn't ever "suckered" into it.




Allow me to expand your vocabulary:  suggested, optional rules are a subset of rules.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Besides, there's worlds of difference between "There isn't a rule for that." and "There are rules for this, and they say that couldn't happen."



If everyone could abide by this simple distinction, the thread would be somewhat shorter.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Many heroes ride horses.  There are rules for heroes riding horses.  There is nothing in the rules to imply that   If falling from a horse is supposed to present a risk to heroes, it should present a risk to heroes (that is to say, show up as a risk to PCs if the conditions enabling it are met).  If it isn't supposed to present a risk to heroes, it shouldn't present a risk to heroes (and you need another way to kill off a random heroic character.)




Ah, but our NPC isn't the hero. The PCs are the heroes/heroines. Maybe he's an important character, maybe he's done great things, but he isn't the hero.

In the "3.	the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc" sense.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 9, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> No offense to anyone...




Mourn, let me in on a secret.  Whenever you begin a statement with, "No offense to anyone...", it means that whatever follows it is offensive and you know it.

Fortunately, I'm hard to offend, even by someone as charming as you are.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Ah, but our NPC isn't the hero. The PCs are the heroes/heroines. Maybe he's an important character, maybe he's done great things, but he isn't the hero.
> 
> In the "3.	the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc" sense.




Hero, in this case, was a term of art referring to "A character in the game world who has taken  enough levels in a heroic class to clearly distinguish him from the majority of the game world."

Feel free to word-substitute that for hero in my post, if terms of art that replace standard English in certain contexts offends you.

The default assumption of D&D says nothing about protagonist, antagonist, interest, or extra; all characters play by the same rules.  This is a default, shared assumption about the universe, encoded into the rules.  You wanna change it, change it.  But please understand that in doing so, you're changing a lot of other things, both mechanical and narrative.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> The default assumption of D&D says nothing about protagonist, antagonist, interest, or extra; all characters play by the same rules.




My reading is different:



			
				PHB said:
			
		

> Your characters star in the adventures you play, just like the heroes of a book or movie.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 9, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Mourn, let me in on a secret.  Whenever you begin a statement with, "No offense to anyone...", it means that whatever follows it is offensive and you know it.




I prefaced it with that qualifier because there are elements on this forum that jump on any statement as a direct insult to them (like Le Rouse's post about them not using cool anymore), no matter what the reality of the situation is. If I hadn't, I'd probably have someone in your place claiming that I insulted them... but instead, I get you pointing out a technicality, which simply reinforces my point.



> Fortunately, I'm hard to offend, even by someone as charming as you are.




Glad to see you're as enamored as me as I am myself.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> The default assumption of D&D says nothing about protagonist, antagonist, interest, or extra; all characters play by the same rules.




Definitely. Sure. Right there with you. I mean, no, not at all, but yes, if that's how you want to play it, sure.

But that 20th level High King? Once he's off screen, he's not so much a character as a prop. An element of the backstory. A plot device. No rules apply to him. He's out of the game.

He left as a 20th level whatever, entered my (the DM's) head, and then returned to the game as a corpse. The corpse follows rules. The 20th level king followed rules. But in that shiny interim, nothing applied.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 9, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I've had a couple players pull the "The rules don't support that backstory" argument on me, and it usually gets them kicked from our group, because our first and foremost rule (above all) is that the DM is the ultimate authority on what is possible and what the rules mean (it also helps that as main DM for my group, I'm also the rules guru).




Which works for you, no one should bother playing with someone who's gonna drag down the game. For the same reasons, you'd probably not be welcome to DM at my table. Still, I've got no problem with your reading of the rules and you having fun your way. 



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> My reading is different:




It's a fair reading. Myself, I take this in conjunction with the "NPCs and PCs obey the same rules"/"gain XP the same way PC's do" statement and assume that just as the PC's at my table star in our adventure, the heroic-classed NPC's in the background are the stars of their own books or movies, just ones the PC's aren't a part of.

For me, this gives the world a very deep, breathing feeling, to know that while you are handling the Necromancer King here, someone else is fighting against demon summoners in the Nation of Fynn, and that freedom fighters are going against the Slave Lords of Bhalbanes, and that the Great Blue Wyrm is being slain by Al-Cid, the God-King of the Easterlands. To know that "adventurers" exist as a profession, albeit a rare one, and that people other than the PC's make fame and fortune slaying monsters and exploring old ruins, is pretty evocative of the D&D milieu for me.

I lose that feeling if the rules are more narrative abstractions than concrete, well, rules.



			
				Prof. Phobos said:
			
		

> Definitely. Sure. Right there with you. I mean, no, not at all, but yes, if that's how you want to play it, sure.
> 
> But that 20th level High King? Once he's off screen, he's not so much a character as a prop. An element of the backstory. A plot device. No rules apply to him. He's out of the game.
> 
> He left as a 20th level whatever, entered my (the DM's) head, and then returned to the game as a corpse. The corpse follows rules. The 20th level king followed rules. But in that shiny interim, nothing applied.




And that's fair, but makes me feel cheated, so I don't want to see this in my games, though you're welcome to enjoy it in yours.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 9, 2008)

I've been following this thread, and I'd like to offer something up.

A key point has been made about events that "the rules say can't happen".

I dispute the idea that an outcome not being one of the possibilities provided by the rules is the same thing as saying something "can't happen".  "Can't" is a pretty strong word.

In even the simplest situation, a million-and-one things could happen.  Let's go back to the iconic example in this thread, that of a high level fighter falling from his horse and breaking his neck.  The rules don't account for the possibility of that happening.

You know what else the rules don't account for happening?  They don't account for the possibility that the fighter's leg could get entangled in the stirrup and he could get dragged along the ground and have to make some sort of check to either calm his animal or untangle himself.  That is not one of the possibilities provided by the 'falling from horse' rule, whether the character is 1st level or 20th level.

If we've now said no no high level fighter can die from falling from his horse, are we now also saying that no fighter of any level can get his foot tangled in his stirrups?  Is there a difference?

The rules can't possibility model every possible outcome of a given event.  Instead they model the subset of possibilities that the rules creators thought would be interesting and/or balanced to happen.  I cannot get my head around the idea that just because a possibility isn't provided by the rules, that means the rules are saying it can't happen.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 9, 2008)

> You know what else the rules don't account for happening? They don't account for the possibility that the fighter's leg could get entangled in the stirrup and he could get dragged along the ground and have to make some sort of check to either calm his animal or untangle himself. That is not one of the possibilities provided by the 'falling from horse' rule, whether the character is 1st level or 20th level.
> 
> If we've now said no no high level fighter can die from falling from his horse, are we now also saying that no fighter of any level can get his foot tangled in his stirrups? Is there a difference?




I am more than comfortable in the believability of a universe where mighty heroes of immense personal power, blessed by the fates (20th level Fighters), literally cannot have tragic daily accidents that imperil your average common horse-rider.

The man's basically a demigod. I don't find "basic invulnerability to horse accidents" really beyond the realm of believability for him.

Given that the logic can accommodate it, I, personally, see no reason to change the rule unless I want to achieve some specifical alteration for the purposes of flavor.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 9, 2008)

Are we still talking about what could happen to a 20th level Fighter NPC? Or a 20th level Fighter PC? Because there's a huge difference. The PC is owned by the player and a DM follows the guidelines as published, modified by any House Rules in play. An NPC, though, doesn't need to follow those guidelines and is a tool of the DM and fair game to die from an accidental fall should the DM think it appropriate.

Does anyone disagree with this?


----------



## Thaniel (Feb 9, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Are we still talking about what could happen to a 20th level Fighter NPC? Or a 20th level Fighter PC? Because there's a huge difference. The PC is owned by the player and a DM follows the guidelines as published, modified by any House Rules in play. An NPC, though, doesn't need to follow those guidelines and is a tool of the DM and fair game to die from an accidental fall should the DM think it appropriate.
> 
> Does anyone disagree with this?




Pretty much half of the posters in this thread disagree with that statement.  You might want to read what people have written.

I am firmly of the camp that PCs and NPCs are governed by the same rules.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 9, 2008)

Well, it's 13 pages so I'll have to do it tomorrow, heh. 


So, you think players and NPCs should follow the same rules? Fair enough, but it seems to me overly complicated and not necessary. If the NPC happens to be with the PCs (read that as: in their realm of influence) then I completely agree, but away from their influence, he's window dressing. He's a piece of the campaign world and the rules aren't really meant to adjudicate what you do with him in that context. 

The rules should be consistent, and should be applied consistently, but only in regards to the players and their "area of effect" around them. Away from the PCs, the rules aren't needed, only your intention and how you describe the results. There's no danger of hurting YOUR suspension of disbelief since you are the man behind the curtain anyway. And a players suspension of disbelief will only be heightened by seeing the DM handle the world in a way that conforms to their expectations of how a world works, and in the world some weird stuff can happen. At the same time, their confidence in you and your world is increased by your maintaining a consistent ruleset in regards to THEIR interactions with the world.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 9, 2008)

This has been one of themost confusing threads I've ever seen; in that each of you has posted things I agree with, and things I don't agree with, all on the same topic!  But K.M. has hit a few nails right on the head here...







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's a fair reading. Myself, I take this in conjunction with the "NPCs and PCs obey the same rules"/"gain XP the same way PC's do" statement and assume that just as the PC's at my table star in our adventure, the heroic-classed NPC's in the background are the stars of their own books or movies, just ones the PC's aren't a part of.
> 
> For me, this gives the world a very deep, breathing feeling, to know that while you are handling the Necromancer King here, someone else is fighting against demon summoners in the Nation of Fynn, and that freedom fighters are going against the Slave Lords of Bhalbanes, and that the Great Blue Wyrm is being slain by Al-Cid, the God-King of the Easterlands. To know that "adventurers" exist as a profession, albeit a rare one, and that people other than the PC's make fame and fortune slaying monsters and exploring old ruins, is pretty evocative of the D&D milieu for me.



In short, there's more to the organic game world than what you see around the table every Saturday night.

Either that, or your PCs are living and functioning in what amounts to a vacuum.

Now, it's true enough that all the off-stage stuff doesn't have to be roleplayed out...the DM doesn't sit down one night and roll all the dice for the battle between Al-Cid and the Great Blue Wyrm, for example...but the assumption *has to be safely made* that the battle was fought under the same rules that the PCs used when taking down Krakatoa the Red Dragon last session, and thus if the PCs ever bump into Al-Cid in the future his explanation of how the battle went will at least vaguely jive with the established game mechanics.  In fact, that might be the last conversation Al-Cid has before getting on his horse and......   

On another scale, and perhaps more apropos to this discussion: the above examples speak of heroes fighting big-name opponents; and the PCs are also heroes fighting big-name opponents, so there might not be much distinction there.  But what about a couple of commoners with a bit too much strong drink in their systems, fighting with clubs in a village street over some real or imagined insult?  These are the true "NPC"s, that most adventurers wouldn't look twice at unless they had "PLOT HOOK" stamped on their foreheads.  Should their fight use the same game-mechanical rules for resolution?

Lane-"hint: the answer is 'yes'"-fan


----------



## S'mon (Feb 9, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> .  But what about a couple of commoners with a bit too much strong drink in their systems, fighting with clubs in a village street over some real or imagined insult?  These are the true "NPC"s, that most adventurers wouldn't look twice at unless they had "PLOT HOOK" stamped on their foreheads.  Should their fight use the same game-mechanical rules for resolution?
> 
> Lane-"hint: the answer is 'yes'"-fan




I'd say no, in D&D, since the D&D rules are appalling at modelling such a drunken brawl.  1st level Commoners with d4 hp wielding clubs, AC 10 ATT+0 and d6 damage?   Per the RAW the first blow would finish it.  Better for the GM to describe how they batter each other until one goes down.


----------



## Derren (Feb 9, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I'd say no, in D&D, since the D&D rules are appalling at modelling such a drunken brawl.  1st level Commoners with d4 hp wielding clubs, AC 10 ATT+0 and d6 damage?   Per the RAW the first blow would finish it.  Better for the GM to describe how they batter each other until one goes down.




Lets see, only 50 % chance of actually dealing damage (25% if you use improvised weapons/non-profiency) to each other and then only a 50% chance to knock the others out (25% if you actually use improvised weapons). 
That combat could take a while. But yes, if the commoners carry around clubs which are specifically made for combat and are trained to use them in combat the brawl can be over rather quickly. But that isn't really surprising.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Feb 9, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Well, it's 13 pages so I'll have to do it tomorrow, heh.
> 
> 
> So, you think players and NPCs should follow the same rules? Fair enough, but it seems to me overly complicated and not necessary. If the NPC happens to be with the PCs (read that as: in their realm of influence) then I completely agree, but away from their influence, he's window dressing. He's a piece of the campaign world and the rules aren't really meant to adjudicate what you do with him in that context.
> ...



This is Natural 18 Wisdom.



We (the DMs) are the ones who tell the story. We are not computers that help everything resolve, we're not calculators. We tell a story. When that story involves our players, we have to be fair and play by the rules. If not, we decide what happens. We decide that "x" NPC fails his saving throw, or that "Y" monster rolled two consecutive 20s and killed an important NPC if we need that to happen (Obviously this doesn't happen if we are in an encounter in which the players are involved)


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 9, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I'd say no, in D&D, since the D&D rules are appalling at modelling such a drunken brawl.  1st level Commoners with d4 hp wielding clubs, AC 10 ATT+0 and d6 damage?   Per the RAW the first blow would finish it.  Better for the GM to describe how they batter each other until one goes down.



Don't forget to add that if someone's being swung at, their first reaction will be to get out of the way (move action) or otherwise defend themselves (fight defensively, total defense action). The end result will be a lot of whiffs and near misses, with a few solid 1d3 punches capable of bringing someone down.

Unsurprisingly, if you use the rules for a bunch of armed-but-unarmored commoners armed with effective weaponry trying to kill each other, they'll do a good job of trying to kill each other.

As for the basic contention that the world outside the PCs experience doesn't need to follow rules; what happens when the PCs's bubble-of-reality sweeps over something it didn't previously cover?  Can a quick teleport to the bottom of a cliff save a falling high-level character that otherwise would have suffered narra-death?  Do NPCs comment on the unreality field PCs throw out?  Do PCs?

Look, if my choices for the development of my fictional universe are Adventurers or Order of the Stick, I'm going to go with the stick figures.  I'll take one universe with one set of consistent rules over one universe with one set of consistent rules and one set of inconsistent rules.  If you are unable to stick to the established boundaries of the universe you're storytelling in, your story has failed to engage me.  In literature, these boundaries are set by precedent; if no one in the story up until now has been killed by a single handgun bullet in a shootout, we'll want to know what was different from now about them.  In games, we have both precedent and rules, with the one flowing from the other; if it's been established that certain types of injuries cause a quantifiable amount of damage, and that this damage is flatly unable to kill people of a certain caliber, then if it does, we'll want to know what's different.  



Here's another heuristic piece of data: how many people here like the story The Cold Equations?


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> As for the basic contention that the world outside the PCs experience doesn't need to follow rules; what happens when the PCs's bubble-of-reality sweeps over something it didn't previously cover?  Can a quick teleport to the bottom of a cliff save a falling high-level character that otherwise would have suffered narra-death?  Do NPCs comment on the unreality field PCs throw out?  Do PCs?




You know what? This isn't hard to understand. If you really don't get it, I guess you never will at this point, because it has been explained time and time again during this thread.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 9, 2008)

AZ Rouge said:
			
		

> The rules should be consistent, and should be applied consistently, but only in regards to the players and their "area of effect" around them. Away from the PCs, the rules aren't needed, only your intention and how you describe the results. There's no danger of hurting YOUR suspension of disbelief since you are the man behind the curtain anyway. And a players suspension of disbelief will only be heightened by seeing the DM handle the world in a way that conforms to their expectations of how a world works, and in the world some weird stuff can happen. At the same time, their confidence in you and your world is increased by your maintaining a consistent ruleset in regards to THEIR interactions with the world.






			
				Sir Sebastian Hardin said:
			
		

> We (the DMs) are the ones who tell the story. We are not computers that help everything resolve, we're not calculators. We tell a story. When that story involves our players, we have to be fair and play by the rules. If not, we decide what happens. We decide that "x" NPC fails his saving throw, or that "Y" monster rolled two consecutive 20s and killed an important NPC if we need that to happen (Obviously this doesn't happen if we are in an encounter in which the players are involved)




So you guys don't have to read 13 pages, let's see if I can't get at the cusp of it:

If a 20th level fighter NPC died falling off a horse, would that seem _inconsistent_ to you?

For me, it would, because in-character, as a player, I know that great heroes of the land who are blessed by the fates don't just die from mundane accidents like mere peasants and petty nobles (as the rules imply).

For others, it wouldn't, because in-character, as a player, they know that people die from falling off horses and this king is a person, so he can die from falling off a horse, too (which makes NPC's an exception to the rules when they're off-screen).


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So you guys don't have to read 13 pages, let's see if I can't get at the cusp of it:
> 
> If a 20th level fighter NPC died falling off a horse, would that seem _inconsistent_ to you?
> 
> ...




Well, I think I get it.  You know how the villians always empty their guns at Superman? And they're always surprised when it doesn't do anything?  Well, if you assume that A the default assumption is that people can be shot (or die falling off of horses), and B you are incapable of noticing that in specific cases (such as Kryptonians or legendary heroes) this never actually happens, then you're surprised every time your bullets bounce off, or the hero  combines a Wily E. Coyote maneuver with a Dread Pirate Roberts Rapid Ascension right back up the 1000 foot cliff he just tumbled off.  No matter how many times legendary heroes actually survive impossible-to-survive things, everyone should cluster around and say "No one could have survived that!" and forget that every single one of them has, repeatedly, probably while drunk.

If you assume that the universe has a set of meta-rules (people die from bullets/falls) and never allow what actually happens in the world to establish precedent, then you can get the results described.  You also get a universe in which villians, heroes, extras, and designated victims all know their place, and act according to the Narrative, rather than the Narrative being formed from what each of those characters (who believes themself to be the hero of their own story) chooses to do (or is simulated choosing to do, based on the DM's approximations).

Stories in which the actions of the NPCs and the tangible results of the universe bend to how the Narrative considers you do not entertain me.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 9, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I'd say no, in D&D, since the D&D rules are appalling at modelling such a drunken brawl.  1st level Commoners with d4 hp wielding clubs, AC 10 ATT+0 and d6 damage?   Per the RAW the first blow would finish it.  Better for the GM to describe how they batter each other until one goes down.




I'm guessing you haven't been involved in many actual fights.  I find the above description to be 'casual realism', in as much as it doesn't worry so much about realism but what it manages to achieve is believable anyway. 

I'd be really surprised if a drunken brawl involving clubs lasted more than 12-18 seconds.  The first solid blow _would_ finish it.  Most fights I've been involved in or witnessed didn't last that long.  As long as you use a 'fortune in the middle' technique for describing the fight, I think it would work pretty well.  

The real 'problem' D&D has with realism is the lack of non-lethal injuries.  It fatality/casualty ratio isn't realistic.  But again, if we assume that many of the participants stabilize before hitting -10, then we can use 'fortune in the middle' to describe thier abstract injury as cracked ribs, bruised organs, broken noses and what have you and achieve what I think is sufficient 'casual realism'.  This is an especially good veneer of realism for 1st level commoners because they take a while to naturally heal up to above 0.  

But, really, realism isn't necessarily what we are going for here.  Particularly if I'm playing D&D, I'm not striving for a world that is actually realistic, because the PC's would spend much more time recovering from fights than fighting them.  We only need realism if one of the participants can't believe in the world as described.  And even that isn't necessarily the end of it, because its really only the real world experts that need more than casual realism in a particular area because they do know what is realistic and they care.  

If someone had thier eyes blackened, and thier nose busted enough times to claim to be an expert on drunken brawling, and they told me we need a long description of beat down with baseball bats because otherwise they couldn't believe in the game universe, then I probably could alter the rules of the game universe to handle that without screwing up the game.  But I'd do it by actually altering the rules so that the problem wouldn't keep cropping up.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 9, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I'd say no, in D&D, since the D&D rules are appalling at modelling such a drunken brawl. 1st level Commoners with d4 hp wielding clubs, AC 10 ATT+0 and d6 damage? Per the RAW the first blow would finish it. Better for the GM to describe how they batter each other until one goes down.




Seems about right for a group of rowdies swinging around baseball bats, truth be told.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Seems about right for a group of rowdies swinging around baseball bats, truth be told.




Yeah, yeah, I stand corrected.    I was thinking of two burly pub goers, who likely know each other, non-lethal brawling with improvised clubs.  Most people when they brawl are still pulling their punches, which is why fatalities in eg soccer hooligan fights are so rare.  Two guys actually trying to kill each other and using real clubs (the Imperial War Museum here in London has a nice display of WW1 clubs btw) is a different matter, and is what the rules model.

Edit: May be a cultural difference - I get the impression Americans & various other nationalities (eg Turks, Italians) are much more likely to resort to lethal force in a brawl than are eg Brits, Australians or (maybe) Germans.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So you guys don't have to read 13 pages, let's see if I can't get at the cusp of it:
> 
> If a 20th level fighter NPC died falling off a horse, would that seem _inconsistent_ to you?
> 
> ...





Thanks for that. 

Yeah, I'm firmly in the second category. As a matter of fact, I would say that the first category can't even exist, really, because how would a character, in-game, know that great heroes CAN'T die from falling off a horse? As a matter of fact, once I said that it happened, reality would have shown that character, in-game, that he was wrong. He should then say something like "wow, I thought great heroes couldn't die from falling off a horse. But that guy just did. Live and learn."


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 9, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Edit: May be a cultural difference - I get the impression Americans & various other nationalities (eg Turks, Italians) are much more likely to resort to lethal force in a brawl than are eg Brits, Australians or (maybe) Germans.




It's true. Three things flash through our minds in a bar fight: "Do I have a weapon? Am I going to get my @ss kicked? And, is my girlfriend watching?"


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 9, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Edit: May be a cultural difference - I get the impression Americans & various other nationalities (eg Turks, Italians) are much more likely to resort to lethal force in a brawl than are eg Brits, Australians or (maybe) Germans.




Way off topic, but yes, you are pretty much correct. 

There isn't really anything in the American culture to signal, 'This is one of those fights where I want to fight, but I don't really want to kill you.'  Americans don't as a people, 'bluff' or 'bluster', and they don't really understand or recognize when anyone else is doing it to them.  Basically, any threat is treated as if you were completely serious, because they would be completely serious in the same situation.  American 'saber rattling' means, 'this sword is about to come out and knock your head off... like so'.  Culturally speaking, all fights are 'to the death, or at least until one side gets knocked down to where they can't get back up'.

It's pretty pervasive though our literature, and especially our 'heroic mythology' (watch a few Westerns).  

A good introduction to the problem would be to read Mark Twain's  'The French Duel'.  This is far from a recent difference between Americans and Europe.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 9, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Thanks for that.
> 
> Yeah, I'm firmly in the second category. As a matter of fact, I would say that the first category can't even exist, really, because how would a character, in-game, know that great heroes CAN'T die from falling off a horse? As a matter of fact, once I said that it happened, reality would have shown that character, in-game, that he was wrong. He should then say something like "wow, I thought great heroes couldn't die from falling off a horse. But that guy just did. Live and learn."




Well, one way to figure it out would be to put on a Ring of Regeneration and fall off a horse until the cows came home, and not suffer a broken neck, nor any worse wound than being stabbed by a shortsword (which is to say, lethal to most, insignificant to you and other heroes).  This would then lead you to believe that if there's nothing special about falling off a horse that violates what you thought you knew of the world, something must be off with the hero; the most obvious solution is that he wasn't actually a hero*.

* Hero again being used as a term of art to describe a sufficently-leveled character.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 9, 2008)

Thanks Celebrim, very enlightening - and as I am married to an American and likely to be moving to the USA in a few years, also potentially useful.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> nor any worse wound than being stabbed by a shortsword (which is to say, lethal to most, insignificant to you and other heroes).




If the hero deliberately stabs himself with shortsword in attempted lethal manner (hara-kiri style, say), I'd make that a Coup de Gras at minimum.  If he nicks himself lightly on the arm in the manner of a pathetic goblin attacking him, then sure, d6 damage.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Well, one way to figure it out would be to put on a Ring of Regeneration and fall off a horse until the cows came home, and not suffer a broken neck, nor any worse wound than being stabbed by a shortsword (which is to say, lethal to most, insignificant to you and other heroes).  This would then lead you to believe that if there's nothing special about falling off a horse that violates what you thought you knew of the world, something must be off with the hero; the most obvious solution is that he wasn't actually a hero*.
> 
> * Hero again being used as a term of art to describe a sufficently-leveled character.




Haha, I can't see that happening at my table, but I'd love if it did. 

*Player*: "The old Hero of Northmarch, Thud, died from falling off a horse? INCONCEIVABLE! He is a HERO! It's impossible for us to die from falling off a horse or, indeed, even from jumping from a tall mountain. I must discover the truth for myself. I put on my Ring of Regeneration and mount my horse. I will fall off my horse over and over again, every waking moment for one week, until my neck breaks. We will discover the truth of this soon enough! The world no longer makes sense to me!!!!"

*Me*: "No need for the experiment. People can, indeed, die from falling off a horse. Would you like to investigate to see if that's what actually happened to Thud? Do you suspect foul play?"

*Player*: "I'm not sure. First, I have to discover if the universe works in this way. Can an actual neck, if it's attached to one of the mighty, be broken by a fall from a mere eight feet off the ground? I begin my test. What do I roll?"

*Me*: "Nothing. This isn't DnD Mythbusters, I already told you how the world works."

*Player*: "I don't believe you! I must find out for myself!!!"

*Me*: <sigh> "Okay, then. Get out your d20 and roll initiative."

*Player*: "Why?"

*Me*: "Because, you've annoyed the Gods as much as you have annoyed me and Moradin, Pelor, and Bahamut have all appeared to kill you."

*All the other Players*: "Kill him. We need to get this thing moving. We work tomorrow."


----------



## S'mon (Feb 9, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> *Me*: "Because, you've annoyed the Gods as much as you have annoyed me and Moradin, Pelor, and Bahamut have all appeared to kill you."
> 
> *All the other Players*: "Kill him. We need to get this thing moving. We work tomorrow."




Hm, I'd just have gone with:

"OK, on the 84th fall your neck breaks."


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 9, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Hm, I'd just have gone with:
> 
> "OK, on the 84th fall your neck breaks."




Yeah, that's much better. I like to kill things with a bang.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> The default assumption of D&D says nothing about protagonist, antagonist, interest, or extra; all characters play by the same rules.  This is a default, shared assumption about the universe, encoded into the rules.  You wanna change it, change it.  But please understand that in doing so, you're changing a lot of other things, both mechanical and narrative.




The rules definitely don't say or imply that NPCs interacting with other NPCs off-camera are supposed to use the rules.  That would be impossible to run.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 9, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Thanks for that.
> 
> Yeah, I'm firmly in the second category. As a matter of fact, I would say that the first category can't even exist, really, because how would a character, in-game, know that great heroes CAN'T die from falling off a horse? As a matter of fact, once I said that it happened, reality would have shown that character, in-game, that he was wrong. He should then say something like "wow, I thought great heroes couldn't die from falling off a horse. But that guy just did. Live and learn."



um, yeah. As soon, you mean, as you say that an npc says that's what happened, you mean? As opposed to "hrm, that seems impossible to happen. Perhaps this isn't really the king who died, or the king really wasn't the hero he claimed to be, or there was another cause of death, or something else consistent with both the reality my character experiences and what I am learning here..." ? I would find a game where I was expected to just take everything at face value until a narratively enhanced npc spoon fed me the part I needed to think critically about pretty boring. 

Your question about how the characters would know what was plausible could be easily answered by reading this thread I would think. The entire second category (which does exist, thanks) is just the idea that the PCs actually experience the things we roleplay, and remember them happening, and even integrate their experiences into their view of 'how things work' aka physics. It's that simple. If my character has actually experienced everything that has happened so far in the campaign, and has some idea of both what it takes to slay a dragon, and what it takes to kill someone who has what it takes to slay a dragon, why would you ask how they would know to apply that knowledge?


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 9, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The rules definitely don't say or imply that NPCs interacting with other NPCs off-camera are supposed to use the rules.  That would be impossible to run.




I agree. I don't think that the game was ever designed to be ran that way, in any edition.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Well, I think I get it.  You know how the villians always empty their guns at Superman? And they're always surprised when it doesn't do anything?  Well, if you assume that A the default assumption is that people can be shot (or die falling off of horses), and B you are incapable of noticing that in specific cases (such as Kryptonians or legendary heroes) this never actually happens, then you're surprised every time your bullets bounce off,




This reminds me of a 50th anniversary of superman special, which included "interviews" with supervillains as well as common thugs. And there was this one guy going "The money we wasted in bullets! It was like we were convinced that if we could hit that S at just the right angle, *that bullet* would work!"   



> You also get a universe in which villians, heroes, extras, and designated victims all know their place, and act according to the Narrative, rather than the Narrative being formed from what each of those characters (who believes themself to be the hero of their own story) chooses to do (or is simulated choosing to do, based on the DM's approximations).
> 
> Stories in which the actions of the NPCs and the tangible results of the universe bend to how the Narrative considers you do not entertain me.




They would entertain me only when running a Discworld campaign. Within that setting "narrative causality" exists as an actual universal force, and thus is allowed. I'd also note that while folks have accused the rules as physics" side of being "order of the stick silly" a world in which there really are two classes of people - PCs and npcs - is very "order of the stick" as well.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 9, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> The entire second category (which does exist, thanks) is just the idea that the PCs actually experience the things we roleplay, and remember them happening, and even integrate their experiences into their view of 'how things work' aka physics. It's that simple. If my character has actually experienced everything that has happened so far in the campaign, and has some idea of both what it takes to slay a dragon, and what it takes to kill someone who has what it takes to slay a dragon, why would you ask how they would know to apply that knowledge?




I've never seen a man fall of a horse and break his neck. Yet I know that such CAN happen because it has happened to people before (the horse thing is probably not neccessary--we can just as easily say a person who falls about 10' and breaks their neck). 

Using the analogy that the NPC killed a dragon, and the PC has killed a dragon, and the PC knows that he can't die from falling off a horse so therefore the NPC must not be able to die from falling off a horse isn't a good one. Just because "A"-the player, and "B"-the NPC, have both killed a dragon does not mean that they are both going to be subject to "C"-breaking a neck from falling.

The rules can never accurately simulate the physics of a world. They are in place to provide a structure for the players to interact with the world and to help the DM adjudicate the results. The rest of the world doesn't need this strict structure because there's no need to adjudicate their actions. I know what I intend and so can provide the description of events to the players directly.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 9, 2008)

Besides, look at it from the character's perspective.

They have no reason to think killing a dragon strengthens your neck somehow. Thousands of people ride their horses every day- from the dragon killing noble to J. Random Peasant. A character who hears about Dragonkiller is going to think, "Oh wow! Talk about bad luck!"

Remember, characters aren't aware of game mechanics. They knew Dragonkiller was a pretty badass dude, but they have no reason to think his skin is impenetrable or his bones are unbreakable, just that he's been very lucky, clever or skilled in the past. 

Only the player is aware that this is incongruous with game mechanics. And if we're talking about player immersion, I can't see how this is any worse than the fact that you are right there sitting at a table imagining everything anyway. Your character doesn't know what level Dragonkilller was or that falls only do 1d10 damage or anything like that. He has no idea.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Besides, look at it from the character's perspective.
> 
> They have no reason to think killing a dragon strengthens your neck somehow. Thousands of people ride their horses every day- from the dragon killing noble to J. Random Peasant. A character who hears about Dragonkiller is going to think, "Oh wow! Talk about bad luck!"
> 
> ...




This.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> I will point to the number of people in this thread who have commented along the lines of "I'm a player, and I love it when things that directly contradict the rules happen!" as argument that your strategy of DMing, while most useful when constructing a narrative and certainly applicable for your player base, does not generally result in hugs and kisses for the GM when attempted.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the vast majority of the playerbase will walk away before they engage in these leaps of illogic.



Are you really asserting that no-one plays HeroQuest, The Dying Earth, TRoS, Burning Wheel, etc? Or that of those who do, few enjoy it?



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> players assume that the fluff of the world flows from the crunch



Did you ask them all? If not, how do you know? Are you familiar with the mechanics of The Dying Earth? Or TRoS? If so, please explain how any player of those games would believe that the fluff flows from the crunch? The crunch of The Dying Earth tells us _nothing_ about the fluff of the world. TRoS does to a greater extent, but Spiritual Attributes are obviously a purely metagame device.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> Well, I don't think you will with your group, because your group does not expect the rules to be constant.



You keep saying this. It's not true. There is nothing inconstant about the following rules: (i) use action resolutoin mechanics when player protagonism is at stake via the PCs; (ii) use player-GM negotiated drama when player protagonism is at stake in some other fashion; (iii) use GM drama when no protagonism is at stake.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> If your group has no problems accepting that mechanics in the world resolve X way when they are present and Y way when they aren't



If you have no capacity to distinguish between the players (who really exist in this world) and the PCs (whom we all pretend exist in the gameworld) then you will be unable to articulate the premises, benefits of and disadvantages of narrativist play.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> Likewise, when you declare that nothing in the world has fixed mechanics but the PCs, what you are saying is that there are no fixed mechanics for anything but PvP.



That has not been declared. What has been declared is that the action resolution mechanics are used to resolve the PCs' actions. This would include their fights with NPCs. It wouldn't include NPCs' fights with one another (the vast bulk of fights in a typical gameworld, assuming that the PCs are only a tiny fraction of its population).



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> If the general shape of reality is that death can come on swift wings to anyone, then the rules should support this; bring in massive damage rules.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> From where, then, should come the assumption that the world is different for other heroes of equivalent power and accomplishment?



Well, playing RM is one way to play RPGs. It's not the ony way. Because one need not assume that the mechanics are the physics of the gameworld. Once that assumption is abandoned, we can find other ways to do it, such as the following: when PCs are involved, they enjoy plot protection, which means that they _could_ die, but they don't. And when only NPC heroes are involved, they don't enjoy such plot protection, and we know thaty they could die, and sometimes they do. And when PCs battle NPC heroes, we let the dice and action resolution mechanics decide, because that is our agreed way of resolving conflicts involving the PCs.



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> If you tell the players "You can die from a single lucky stab wound." and then run them through combats with standard D&D rules, the players will notice that no matter how many times they're stabbed (sometimes by magically lucky people with actual control over local fate and such) they don't die.



Of course the players will notice! That's the point of the rules. Will the PCs notice? Batman hasn't yet, because he's plausibly scripted. If the players want to play a narrativist game of fantasy adventure, why would they script their PCs any less plausibly?



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> lots of players will seriously wonder why things that happen to other people never happen to them



I don't even need to go to funky narrativist interpretations of D&D's rules to rebut your rhetorical point - I can do it within the confines of d20. When you run Conan OGL do you not give the playes Fate Points (as per the rules)? Or if you do, do your players ask "Why do we recover on the battlefield, but NPCs don't?" as if it were a great mystery? Everyone knows the answer: the PCs have plot protection, NPCs don't. It's a feature, not a bug!

If your point is only that players who don't want to play an RPG a certain way will not, fine. No one is denying this. But if you are claiming that no one can consistently play a narrativist RPG (in which the mechanics are not the physics of the gameworld), you are obviously wrong, because it's being done every day.

If you are saying the D&D rules can't be used for narrativist play, that's a bit more interesting. But you are going to have to actually provide some arguments for that conclusion which are specific to D&D and its rules, and don't just consist in asserting either tautologies or obvious falsehoods, or asserting, without argument (other than generalities that are easily refuted), that to do so is not to play D&D.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 9, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> This.



That.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 9, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Thanks Celebrim, very enlightening - and as I am married to an American and likely to be moving to the USA in a few years, also potentially useful.




Np.  I'll pretty much leap at any chance to present the American culture in a more respectful manner than it gets presented on, oh say, the BBC.  Personal peev.  Oh well, wrong board to go into any detail on that.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Remember, characters aren't aware of game mechanics.




Most people couldn't calculate the kinetic energy of a free falling object at time 't' either.  Nonetheless, whether they've studied mechanics or not, objects obey the rules.  And, simply by living in the world and observing it since a child, they have an seemly intuitive grasp of how things can be expected to work.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2008)

KM, this post isn't meant to be antagonistic at all, because (after your response to my kobold vs 20th lvl question, and my question about "cheating") I think I've got a pretty good handle on how you like to play, and (unlike some others on this thread) I don't think you're trying to say that other ways of playing can't be done.

What I wanted to do was just pick up on a couple of your comments and say how a different playstyle might handle those issues:



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Because D&D (and most any PnP RPG) allows for more autonomy than a videogame.



In the playstyle I'm trying to articulate, this can be handled not only through the action resolution mechanics, but via GM-player negotiation over the relevant parts of the gameworld (to put it crudely, "say yes" mechanics). Prof Phobos gave some examples way upthread involving town guards and skeletons. And John Snow gave another example by reference to Lois Lane conventions of play.

That is, the playstyle I'm articulating is not interested in thwarting player autonomy. In fact, its principal aim is to enhance player autonomy. That's why I'm upbeat about 4e. Everything I've read about it (especially W&M) seems to me to indicate the default assumption is far greater player control via various metagame mechanics and conventions.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Because the game involves more than PCs on adventures. At least, for me, it does.



The gameworld involves more than this, agreed. Sometimes, the game does also - but I have to admit that when the PCs aren't adventuring it can drag a bit (by "adventuring" here I'm meaning the interesting stuff that PCs do). "Say yes" rules can help reduce those moments of drag by expediting them - as Prof Phobos articulated with his aforementioned examples.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Drama and stories are my day job. D&D I do for fun.



Rules are my day job. Roleplaying - ie creative exploration and development of thematic content in collaboration with others - is what I do for fun.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 9, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The rules definitely don't say or imply that NPCs interacting with other NPCs off-camera are supposed to use the rules.  That would be impossible to run.




No, it would be impossible to resolve all offstage events using the rules, in as much as you couldn't throw all the dice for every assumed event occuring off stage even if you knew what they were.

But you can easily run a game with such an assumption.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 9, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> No, it would be impossible to resolve all offstage events using the rules, in as much as you couldn't throw all the dice for every assumed event occuring off stage even if you knew what they were.




That's all I meant.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> there's more to the organic game world than what you see around the table every Saturday night. Either that, or your PCs are living and functioning in what amounts to a vacuum.





			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> the assumption *has to be safely made* that the battle was fought under the same rules that the PCs used when taking down Krakatoa the Red Dragon last session, and thus if the PCs ever bump into Al-Cid in the future his explanation of how the battle went will at least vaguely jive with the established game mechanics.



Lanefan, I don't want to inflict my posts on you if you're not interested - but in several of them on this thread I've explained how a certain playstyle gives a very definite "Yes" to the first of your quotes above, but an equally definite "No" to the second.

I fully appreciate that you may not want to play that way. But I deny that it can't be done.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Nope. The purpose of the mechanics is to create a certain gameplay result. Tactical elements, genre emulation, speed and ease of play. Those sorts of things.



Agreed. I'd add also - the mechanics are one way of answering the question "What state is the gameworld in?" They are not the only way.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> what happens when the PCs's bubble-of-reality sweeps over something it didn't previously cover?





			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> a world in which there really are two classes of people - PCs and npcs - is very "order of the stick" as well.



If you refuse to even acknowledge a distinction between game and metagame, then no, you will have no alternative but to regard the rules as the physics of the gameworld.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 9, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> That's all I meant.




The reason I didn't think that that is what you meant is that no one has in fact suggested the need to throw dice for every off stage event.  So if that's what you meant, you didn't really say anything about anything anyone had actually said.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 9, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> That.




Exactly.












EDIT: Sorry, the above didn't contribute anything and was done only for my amusement. It's probably not appropriate. No harm was intended. Let me post something more seriously.

The fact that the rules provide a structure for a PC's actions on the world to be adjudicated by the DM doesn't imply, IMO, that they're the actual physics of the game world. They are rules to simulate certain aspects of the game world, sure, but they do so with the goal of providing a base for characters to take actions and see their effects.

Certain design decisions of the game system (like hitpoints, levels, falling damage, etc.) don't lend themselves to believable play but DO lend themselves to resolving PC actions in a consistent manner. 

The rules are there for the players, so that they can PLAY, not to adjudicate the way the world works outside the range of their influence.


----------



## pkt77242 (Feb 10, 2008)

While I personally like the style of play in which the rules are not the physics of the world, I don't begrudge others their prefered play style.  Now the one thing that I don't understand is the talk of how if a 20th level NPC falls off a horse and breaks his neck that it destroys their suspension of disblief.   If I am playing a game that has dragons, magic, demons, efls etc, and really only exists in my imagination, I am pretty sure that I can stretch my imagination just a little bit farther to fit a high level NPC falling off a horse and dying.  In fact I don't think it is a stretch at all but that just my opinion.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 10, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> That.



The other thing.

I think all the bases have been covered now. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 10, 2008)

If the rules are physics can the game world's inhabitants learn them? For example could they discover levels or hit points?

My feeling is that certain rules work like genre conventions, the protagonists must always be blind to them.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 10, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> a world in which there really are two classes of people - PCs and npcs - is very "order of the stick" as well.



Only if the inhabitants know it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 10, 2008)

There's the D&D RAW and there's what is plausible. There is a significant overlap between these two but likewise much falls outside it. For example, by RAW a 90-year old wizard with a con of 3 travels as fast overland as a 25-year old ranger with an 18 con.

If there's a conflict what wins? RAW or plausibility?


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 10, 2008)

Common sense wins.


----------



## allenw (Feb 10, 2008)

*Counting Coup-de-grace*



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> How do you deal with the coup-de-grace rules? A peasant with a small knife is actually more threatening (they can trigger a Fortitude save in a sleeping 20th level Fighter) than is a fall from horseback at full gallop. That suggests that these elites are not that blessed. It suggests to me that the immunity from horseback fall is more a mechanical glitch (as per the sleeping example) than a nod to the physics of the assumed gameworld.




  The coup-de-grace rules, and to a lesser extent the massive-damage and drowning rules, are concessions on the RAW's part to "realism."  I would summarize the message of these concessions to be: 
  "Hit points aren't everything, some mundane things can indeed (though not always 'will') just kill you dead regardless of your starting hit points.  Being heroic can better your chances, but it's not a guarantee (especially against drowning)."  

  The rationale (and mechanics) for the coup-de-grace involve "helplessness."  Per the SRD:
"A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy."  So, while "heroism" and hit points may continue to have a strong effect even in situations where there's literally "nothing the hero can do to save themselves," even the mightiest heroes can be killed by a combination of helplessness, minor damage applied correctly, and bad luck (rolling a 1, or sometimes more).  This is how the world works *for the PCs*, and thus it will inform their worldview.  They should find it believable (though highly ironic, and probably unfortunate) that Naughty King Roger Dragonslayer was stabbed to death by a disgruntled peasant when discovered sleeping (literally) with the peasant's wife; they (and the RAW) recognize there are *some* situations in which neither "plot immunity" nor "heroic toughness" will always save one.

  I would consider it reasonable, and within the RAW, to rule that in your average "knife-at-the-throat" or "crossbow-to-the-head" hostage scenario, the NPC (or possibly even PC) hostage is "helpless" in this sense (barring PC-arranged distraction), and thus there is at least some risk of immediate death (and thus everyone involved should reasonably *act* like there's some risk of immediate death).

  But what about everyone's favorite bugaboo, falling damage?  If you happen to be "helpless" when you fall (paralyzed, bound, nodded off while riding a horse due to that darn insomnia, or even deep in daydreaming about a peasant's wife), can the ground "perform a coup-de-grace"?  For that matter, if you are "completely at gravity's mercy" (e.g. falling under circumstances in which, from your starting point to the impact point, there's absolutely nothing to grab onto, bounce off of, swing from, be cushioned by, or otherwise interact with, even birds; and you have nothing wing-like or parachute-like on your person; let's say you misjudge a Dimension Door while naked and end up in empty air 100' over a stone floor), are you "helpless"?

  Unless its extremely unusual ground, or your gameworld has an interesting interpretation of the "Gaia" concept, I'd have to say "no" (to the first question) by the strict letter of the RAW; coup-de-grace is a full-round, volitional action, and the ground doesn't get any actions, or have any volition.  I do, however, think that the spirit of the RAW is consistent with such a possibility, and if I was inclined to rewrite or reinterpret the falling damage rules, I'd explicitly allow for such a possibility.  That being the case, even if striving to have my gameworld operate consistenty with the RAW, I'd be okay with high-level people *very rarely* dying from "falling badly".

  By the way, even by the approximate letter of the RAW, I do see one way that full-hp King Dragonslayer could be killled falling off of his horse, though not accidentally.  Even if the ground can't perform a coup-de-grace, *the horse can*   .  If the horse notices that the King has nodded off (or is daydreaming about buxom peasant wives), and it really doesn't like him, it could take a full-round action to throw him at the ground "really well," resulting in a coup-de-grace save.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 10, 2008)

There's a scene in _Excalibur_ where Merlin's raven makes the Duke of Cornwall's horse rear up, flinging this (in D&D terms) high level warrior onto a stack of weapons, which impale and kill him.   I guess this could be made to conform to D&D physics, especially if the spears get their x2 "set vs charge" damage bonus.   
To me it didn't seem much more likely than the Duke simply falling off horse & breaking neck, though.  Maybe the raven was a high level Assassin?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 10, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Lanefan, I don't want to inflict my posts on you if you're not interested - but in several of them on this thread I've explained how a certain playstyle gives a very definite "Yes" to the first of your quotes above, but an equally definite "No" to the second.
> 
> I fully appreciate that you may not want to play that way. But I deny that it can't be done.



And if I'm reading those explanations right (and I may not be), they add up to saying, in effect, that X does not equal X even though they are the same.

If the game world is to have any internal consistency, then a battle between an adventuring party and a dragon in the Crystal Mountains has to use the same in-game physics (defined as a sum of game rules and universal physical rules e.g. gravity) as a fight between another adventuring party and a band of trolls in the Mytherendel Forest, or a fight between yet another adventuring party and some pirates in the Kailos Islands.  Whether or not one or more player characters is involved in any of these situations is *utterly irrelevant*.

As soon as you define things such that the PCs function differently from the rest of the game world (without an excellent in-game reason e.g. the PCs are all from another world) then internal consistency and believability race each other to be first out the window.

Lanefan


----------



## GoLu (Feb 10, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> If the game world is to have any internal consistency, then a battle between an adventuring party and a dragon in the Crystal Mountains has to use the same in-game physics (defined as a sum of game rules and universal physical rules e.g. gravity) as a fight between another adventuring party and a band of trolls in the Mytherendel Forest, or a fight between yet another adventuring party and some pirates in the Kailos Islands.  Whether or not one or more player characters is involved in any of these situations is *utterly irrelevant*.




There are interesting points being made in this thread, but unfortunately many of them present information as fact when instead it is opinion and play style.  Many people recognize that game rules have weird corner cases and don't expect the entire rest of the fictional world to live by those corner cases.  Many people expect a consistent world where the backstory is plausible within the game system.

I'm mostly in the first camp (honestly, it's a spectrum of preference, even though it's presented as two opposing camps in this thread), so as far as I'm concerned the bolded text is absolutely untrue.  Except it's really just my opinion against someone else's, where we both have different preferences in our respective games of make-believe.

And to address the original point of this thread: Game rules are clearly not _always_ in-game physics, because there are games out there where this is blatantly untrue and that much is clearly explained by the game.  How this actually applies to D&D is a stickier matter.  I think versions of D&D prior to (and post) 3E are fairly obviously leaning towards that end of the spectrum, but 3E could itself go either way.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 10, 2008)

allenw said:
			
		

> But what about everyone's favorite bugaboo, falling damage?  If you happen to be "helpless" when you fall (paralyzed, bound, nodded off while riding a horse due to that darn insomnia, or even deep in daydreaming about a peasant's wife), can the ground "perform a coup-de-grace"?  For that matter, if you are "completely at gravity's mercy" (e.g. falling under circumstances in which, from your starting point to the impact point, there's absolutely nothing to grab onto, bounce off of, swing from, be cushioned by, or otherwise interact with, even birds; and you have nothing wing-like or parachute-like on your person; let's say you misjudge a Dimension Door while naked and end up in empty air 100' over a stone floor), are you "helpless"?




actually no bad idea. Maye you could make a lesser coup-de-grace and allow a fort save vs damage to break a leg etc.

I would also rule you helpless if a crossbow is aimed at your head while you are bound. If you cannot move at least. If you can move, maybe an opposed initiative check would be appropriate to see who is faster


----------



## pemerton (Feb 10, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> If the game world is to have any internal consistency, then a battle between an adventuring party and a dragon in the Crystal Mountains has to use the same in-game physics (defined as a sum of game rules and universal physical rules e.g. gravity) as a fight between another adventuring party and a band of trolls in the Mytherendel Forest, or a fight between yet another adventuring party and some pirates in the Kailos Islands.  Whether or not one or more player characters is involved in any of these situations is *utterly irrelevant*.



Correct. It's just that the action resolution mechanics are not that physics. They are something quite different - a set of metagame devices for telling us what the outcomes were, in the case of the PC battle, of the ingame physical processes.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 10, 2008)

GoLuAnd to address the original point of this thread: Game rules are clearly not [I said:
			
		

> always[/I] in-game physics, because there are games out there where this is blatantly untrue and that much is clearly explained by the game.  How this actually applies to D&D is a stickier matter.  I think versions of D&D prior to (and post) 3E are fairly obviously leaning towards that end of the spectrum, but 3E could itself go either way.



I'm glad someone else has noted that these non-physics rulesets acutally exist, and are being played somewhere in the world even as we speak!

It's quite bizarre to read posts asserting that something can't be done, when in fact it is being done every day by RPGers across the lands.

I also agree with you about D&D (if I've understood you right) - that 3E is the most simulationist/rules complete approach to D&D we've had (although, perhaps paradoxically, also the most gamist).


----------



## rkwoodard (Feb 11, 2008)

*Only if...*



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> If the game world is to have any internal consistency, then a battle between an adventuring party and a dragon in the Crystal Mountains has to use the same in-game physics (defined as a sum of game rules and universal physical rules e.g. gravity) as a fight between another adventuring party and a band of trolls in the Mytherendel Forest, or a fight between yet another adventuring party and some pirates in the Kailos Islands.  Whether or not one or more player characters is involved in any of these situations is *utterly irrelevant*.
> 
> As soon as you define things such that the PCs function differently from the rest of the game world (without an excellent in-game reason e.g. the PCs are all from another world) then internal consistency and believability race each other to be first out the window.
> 
> Lanefan




But that only holds true if the Players know the whole story.  A fight that happens with no PC involment is going to be hearsay anyway.  They may know the outcome of the adventuring party vs the band of Trolls.  They may be able to guess the other parties levels.  But they will not know the prep the party did, the unusual situation the battle happened in, or other factors.

So no, in my opinion and experience, what happens off-stage does not have to go By the rules on the table or have believablity suffer.

RK


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

> KM, this post isn't meant to be antagonistic at all, because (after your response to my kobold vs 20th lvl question, and my question about "cheating") I think I've got a pretty good handle on how you like to play, and (unlike some others on this thread) I don't think you're trying to say that other ways of playing can't be done.




Hooray!



> What I wanted to do was just pick up on a couple of your comments and say how a different playstyle might handle those issues:




Sure. Just as long as it's clear that I wouldn't really have much fun with a lot of these transparent narrative devices in D&D.

I've got little problem with them in their right settings, but the fact that they don't have to exist in D&D (and yet the game still attempts to focus on playability and simplicity) is part of the reason I play D&D.

And that's why I think 4e shouldn't embrace this idea as wholeheartedly as some advocate, and as some apparently already assume it does. I do think 3e embraces my side a bit too much to let some of the more narrative DMs out there do their thing in a way they like, though, so it is good to see 4e trying to find a better middle ground. I like the idea of easily-built monsters and speedy NPC's. I just have apprehensions that 4e will err on the opposite side of this middle ground than 3e does, and leave me doing a lot of work to make the game breathe how I enjoy.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 11, 2008)

I don't think rules = physics or that consistency between rules and world is particularly important. The rules of D&D are heavily geared towards playing a little dungeon bash game, not simulating a world.

But I would have a problem with the high level NPC dying from a fall. The reason for this is I think that by giving the NPC a level (and presumably a class too) one is making a statement about the character. One is saying he's the same class of entity as the PCs so it's expected that the same rules, more or less, apply. However if he'd never been given a level then there wouldn't be a problem with his death.

The rules of the 'PC bubble' are indeed different from the rules of the wider world. But anything with a class and a level sort of gets sucked into the PC bubble.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

> The rules of the 'PC bubble' are indeed different from the rules of the wider world. But anything with a class and a level sort of gets sucked into the PC bubble.




I think this is basically so close to my position as to be indistinguishable, practically, at the game table.  

My only contention would be one, basically, of color. But saying "A 1st level Aristocrat with 3 hp named King Badness died falling off a horse" and saying "King Badness died falling off of a horse" and letting me assume that, in the background, he was a 1st level Aristocrat with 3 hp, wouldn't be dramatically different from this.

Of course, if he had all the accouterments of a high-level adventurer, that dissonance would creep up again, but that's a lot easier to explain away as being consistent with the rules (various family heirlooms, etc.), and isn't about him falling off of the horse, so it'd really be kind of a separate hydra-head.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 11, 2008)

I've got an idea: exploding dice.  Here's the basic concept; we move to 4E auto-max criticals, and declare that if you ever roll a 20 on an attack (or a 1 on the save), the effect automatically succeeds, and effectively happens again. So, if you roll a 20, you auto hit, automatically do max damage, and roll the attack again.  If you hit, your attack deals the damage/effect of two attacks (one maximized); if you roll a 20 on that attack, you auto-max again, and roll again.  You'd use the same principle for saves; roll a 1 on a save vs. falling damage, and you take the damage, and have to save again.

Using this mechanic, you can, without huge look-up tables, represent that one-to-a-million shot where that one-in-a-million shot did manage to fell a great dragon.  You can inject an amount of uncertainty into combat again; it would crop up commonly enough to drive home that dangerous crap is dangerous, and sometimes suddenly gets a whole lot more dangerous than you expected.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 11, 2008)

I posted this on the other thread in the general board, but I'll expand it here.

The idea that rules=physics breaks down because the rules themselves differentiate between PC and NPC.

PC's gain xp.  NPC's only gain xp when they are with PC's.  

Don't believe me?  Reread your Leadership rules.  Cohorts only gain xp when the leader does and the followers never gain xp, no matter what.

Do you advance the monsters every time the party retreats?  After all, if the party backs off, or dies, it's quite likely that the monsters might actually start gaining levels.

Take another example.

Two smiths, John and Bob, both 1st level commoners.  Both spend their day making iron bits over hot fires.  

However, several times a year, John hunts wild ponies.  He goes off into the bush and kills 4 wild ponies three times a year.

Within three or four years, John is now TWICE as skilled of a blacksmith as Bob.  Regardless of the fact that they actually spend the same amount of time doing smithing stuff, John has 6 ranks in Smith (3rd level) and takes the Skill focus feat that he gets at 3rd level for a total of +9 to Bob's +4.

All because he kills ponies.

And I'm supposed to believe that this increases verisimilitude in the fantasy world?  That Bob could study 24 hours a day, since he doesn't need to sleep, under the greates smith in existence, stopping only briefly every three days to eat a single meal, because that stops the mechanical effects of hunger, but, will STILL only be half as good of a smith as John?  

So, how does killing ponies make me a better smith?

Take another example:

Two ships, on the first ship, the captain has the leadership feat and his companions, his cohort and his followers are on the ship.  The followers are acting as crew.  

The ship meets a sea monster and they defeat it.  Xp is divided as follows:  PC's get full shares, the cohort gets a half share that's created from nothing, resulting in the sea monster actually being worth more xp than if the cohort wasn't present, and the crew get nothing.

The second ship captain has no leadership feat.  

The ship meets a sea monster and they defeat it.  XP is divided as follows:  All of the levels of those on board are tallied and averaged and everyone receives an equal share of xp.  

Or, in the case of almost every campaign out there, the PC's gain an equal share and bugger everyone else.

However, the rules themselves differentiate between PC and NPC in major ways.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 11, 2008)

I think the situation would be helped by killing a PC every now and then by having him or her fall from a horse.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

I really don't know why people keep trying to tell me I'm having badwrongfun, but whatever, I'm game.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> PC's gain xp. NPC's only gain xp when they are with PC's.




Untrue. NPC's gain XP the same way PC's do, according to the 3e DMG. Not just when they are hirelings, but when they are Commoners on the frontier. 



> Don't believe me? Reread your Leadership rules. Cohorts only gain xp when the leader does and the followers never gain xp, no matter what.




Read the rules before the NPC classes, when it talks about what levels and classes the NPC's in your world should normally be. 



> Do you advance the monsters every time the party retreats? After all, if the party backs off, or dies, it's quite likely that the monsters might actually start gaining levels.




In a way, yes. In a way, you already did. The bodies of the adventurers who tried to attack it before and failed serve as testement that they have done their own share of XP-earning encounters "off screen." 



> Within three or four years, John is now TWICE as skilled of a blacksmith as Bob. Regardless of the fact that they actually spend the same amount of time doing smithing stuff, John has 6 ranks in Smith (3rd level) and takes the Skill focus feat that he gets at 3rd level for a total of +9 to Bob's +4.
> 
> All because he kills ponies.
> 
> And I'm supposed to believe that this increases verisimilitude in the fantasy world?




Well, we can start with the disclaimer that one of the many things I would've liked 4e to provide is a robust system for gaining XP via non-combat methods, and an NPC class that doesn't gain much hp, BAB, etc., but gains plenty of skill points. I think this is an area of 3e that can be improved with 4e.

But let's look at how it has been for me in 3e:

It's a fantasy world. Levels are purely a feature of the "heroic." When John goes out and risks his neck in the goblin-infested wilderness killing ponies, he's not just learning about killing ponies. He's also thinking about what killing ponies teaches him about blacksmithing, and applying that to the blacksmithing.

There's several ways to see this:

#1: When John goes out hunting, he goes out hunting with a friend who is a better blacksmith than him, and they swap stories about blacksmithing, and John picks up some tips the don't teach you in books.

#2: As John hunts, he learns about the properties of metal. He identifies veins running close to the surface of the ground. He perhaps does some impromptu forging over a campfire with some clay. He analyzes how different kinds of folding allow for different kinds of wounds on the prey, some more effective than others. 

#3: As John is hunting, he's also finding treasure in some of those pony-infested forests, goblin-holes and old tombs and the like. He uncovers tomes of blacksmithing from bygone empires when the secrets from Moradin himself were passed down, coins of unusual synthesis, shapes and patterns no one back home really knows about.

#4: Hunting ponies leads to all sorts of interesting encounters with travelers, like those dwarves he talked to.



> That Bob could study 24 hours a day, since he doesn't need to sleep, under the greates smith in existence, stopping only briefly every three days to eat a single meal, because that stops the mechanical effects of hunger, but, will STILL only be half as good of a smith as John?




Study all you want, you won't get that "aha!" moment until you take your nose out of the book and go explore the world a little bit.

In D&D, life experience (and a variety of it!) is vastly better than any sort of purely academic learning.



> Two ships, on the first ship, the captain has the leadership feat and his companions, his cohort and his followers are on the ship. The followers are acting as crew.
> 
> The ship meets a sea monster and they defeat it. Xp is divided as follows: PC's get full shares, the cohort gets a half share that's created from nothing, resulting in the sea monster actually being worth more xp than if the cohort wasn't present, and the crew get nothing.
> 
> ...




I'm not really seeing a problem with that.



> Or, in the case of almost every campaign out there, the PC's gain an equal share and bugger everyone else.




I dunno, I take into account potential NPC allies when accounting for PC experience, because having another target to waste actions and limited resources on makes the encounter that much less dangerous. Even if it's just 50 commoners, that's a bunch of actions the sea monster can spend one-shotting mooks.



> However, the rules themselves differentiate between PC and NPC in major ways.




The rules differentiate between Heroes and Mere Mortals in major ways. The rules don't differentiate between On-Camera and Off-Camera much.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I really don't know why people keep trying to tell me I'm having badwrongfun, but whatever, I'm game.



I think, in many cases at least (not sure about Hussar, but I think the OP was doing this rather than what you suggest) they are trying to point out that other ways of playing the game are possible, and are supported by the game rules (to a passable degree, at least).



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, we can start with the disclaimer that one of the many things I would've liked 4e to provide is a robust system for gaining XP via non-combat methods, and an NPC class that doesn't gain much hp, BAB, etc., but gains plenty of skill points. I think this is an area of 3e that can be improved with 4e.



I'm not sure that this would fit with you "heroic realism" interpretation of the D&D world, because it would produce non-heroic heroes.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's a fantasy world. Levels are purely a feature of the "heroic."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In D&D, life experience (and a variety of it!) is vastly better than any sort of purely academic learning.



I think that the core RM XP rules do a better job of implementing this model ("hard field training" being the way to advancement). Those rules, combined with the RM character build rules, also solve the non-combat NPC problem without completely undermining the "heroic realism" approach.

I'm not sure it is such a neat fit for D&D, because the emphasis is not so much on what the character did (successfully used a skill or ability in the field) but on what the character accomplished relative to his/her goals (ie overcoming challenges). It is this element of metagame in the D&D XP system that supports its use for a certain (admittedly limited) range of non-simulationist approaches to play.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> I've got an idea: exploding dice.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You can inject an amount of uncertainty into combat again; it would crop up commonly enough to drive home that dangerous crap is dangerous, and sometimes suddenly gets a whole lot more dangerous than you expected.



As I've already said, if I want to play RM, I'll play RM (which has open-ended high rolls which play a similar role to what you describe).

As I've also said, _RM is not the only way to approach the relationship between the action resolution mechanics and the gameworld_.

In particular, some approaches to play don't benefit from increasing the risk of PC death. Hence they adopt various metagame devices (be they Fate Points, or the metagame interpretation of hit points and other aspects of D&D's mechanics) to control it.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 11, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The idea that rules=physics breaks down because the rules themselves differentiate between PC and NPC.
> 
> PC's gain xp.  NPC's only gain xp when they are with PC's.



If that's the RAW, I smell a houserule coming my way...







> Don't believe me?  Reread your Leadership rules.  Cohorts only gain xp when the leader does and the followers never gain xp, no matter what.



I'm not even going to ask what (or even if) they were thinking when they dreamed that up.  All I can say is I've never played or DMed that way in any edition.







> Do you advance the monsters every time the party retreats?  After all, if the party backs off, or dies, it's quite likely that the monsters might actually start gaining levels.



It's possible, but killing one or two PCs does not (usually) a level make.  Worth noting, however.



> Take another example.
> 
> Two smiths, John and Bob, both 1st level commoners.  Both spend their day making iron bits over hot fires.
> However, several times a year, John hunts wild ponies.  He goes off into the bush and kills 4 wild ponies three times a year.
> ...



You've found a full-ride headache with 3e's skill system.  As others have said, a system whereby commoners could gain ranks in non-adventuring skills without having to adventure would sure be nice.







> Take another example:
> 
> Two ships, on the first ship, the captain has the leadership feat and his companions, his cohort and his followers are on the ship.  The followers are acting as crew.
> The ship meets a sea monster and they defeat it.  Xp is divided as follows:  PC's get full shares, the cohort gets a half share that's created from nothing, resulting in the sea monster actually being worth more xp than if the cohort wasn't present, and the crew get nothing.



Sure, this might be how it works using the RAW, but it's still dead wrong.  Any of the crew who took part in the battle (as opposed to just taking cover) should get some ExP for it, period.







> The second ship captain has no leadership feat.
> 
> The ship meets a sea monster and they defeat it.  XP is divided as follows:  All of the levels of those on board are tallied and averaged and everyone receives an equal share of xp.



Which is how it should work regardless of who is on the ship or what feats they have or how they relate to anyone else on the ship.  







> Or, in the case of almost every campaign out there, the PC's gain an equal share and bugger everyone else.
> 
> However, the rules themselves differentiate between PC and NPC in major ways.



Sometimes you just have to stare your rulebook down, say to it "you're talking garbage", start houseruling, and pretend what you read in the rulebook was just a bad and quickly fading dream.

Lane-"but I'd use a different word than garbage"-fan


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

> Sometimes you just have to stare your rulebook down, say to it "you're talking garbage", start houseruling, and pretend what you read in the rulebook was just a bad and quickly fading dream.




Yes.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 11, 2008)

But, Lanefan, it doesn't matter if you or I agree with the rules.  That's entirely besides the point.  The point being made here is that a D&D world functions as a result of those rules.  That the RAW defines the physics of the world.  That you think the rule is stupid or bad is irrelevant.

I'm presenting how the RAW actually works.  I'm not making anything up.  This is what the RAW specifically states will happen.  Full stop.  That's why RAW doesn't function as the physics of the world because it would be utterly unbelievable if it did.



			
				KM said:
			
		

> Read the rules before the NPC classes, when it talks about what levels and classes the NPC's in your world should normally be.




Yup, read them.  Where does it say anything about how those NPC's got those levels?  Oh, right, it doesn't.  It says pretty much - give them the levels you think they should have to fit in the adventure.  Oh, and if you want to make a town, here's how to do it so that you have a nice spread of levels.  At no point do you ever advance those NPC's by having them go through off camera adventures.  No NPC ever dies before becoming the planned level of your adventure.

DM - Damn, I was really hoping I could use Roderick for this adventure.  Too bad he bought it before he hit sixth level.  Guess it's back to the breeding pit for more NPC's.  

It has nothing to do with wrongbadfun and I certainly never claimed anything of the sort.  My point is that you are taking a completely indefensible position and trying to say that it works.  It doesn't.  The RAW doesn't say what you claim it says.  The RAW differentiates between PC and NPC in significant ways.  Changing my examples doesn't make you right.  If you cannot defend your position without distorting the situation, that means your point is wrong.

Look, how many ways does the RAW need to differentiate between PC and NPC before we can say, yes, they are different by RAW?  Off the top of my head I can think of the following ways:


XP - PC's and NPC's gain xp differently, in that NPC's only gain xp when on camera.  Off camera, an NPC never gains xp, or you would have entire towns gaining levels after a tornado.  People living in Kansas would all be seventh level by the time they were twenty years old.
Wealth - PC's have twice the wealth of an NPC.  Why?  Because PC's are better investors?  Ballocks.  It's because an NPC is meant to be a challenge against 4 PC's.  To bring the classes up to speed against the party, classes need magical bling.  Also note, monsters actually don't get as much treasure.  A 7th level PC has 19k gp, a 7th level NPC has 8500 and a CR 7 monster has 2600 gp.  Despite the fact that they should all be equal.  A 7th level NPC fighter is a CR 7 encounter.  Why does he have just about 4 times more bling than a Hill Giant?
Action Points.  I brought this up before, and it was brushed off, but, other than very rare NPC's, only PC's gain action points.  Why?  Because it would be too complex to give action points to everyone.  Pure gamism.

That's just a few examples of how the rules differentiate PC from NPC.  Never mind the bag full of rules that make absolutely no sense from a world building perspective.  Unless your world is full of extremely skinny insomniacs that is.


----------



## GoLu (Feb 11, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I also agree with you about D&D (if I've understood you right) - that 3E is the most simulationist/rules complete approach to D&D we've had (although, perhaps paradoxically, also the most gamist).



It sounds like you've understood me perfectly well.  And your point about 3E also being the most gamist is weird.  I don't think it's wrong, but it's just weird to think about.  Early D&D seemed so gloriously gamist that it hurts my brain a little to think about how the far more simulationist 3E is possibly even more gamist than it ever could be.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> But, Lanefan, it doesn't matter if you or I agree with the rules.  That's entirely besides the point.  The point being made here is that a D&D world functions as a result of those rules.  That the RAW defines the physics of the world.  That you think the rule is stupid or bad is irrelevant.
> 
> I'm presenting how the RAW actually works.  I'm not making anything up.  This is what the RAW specifically states will happen.  Full stop.  That's why RAW doesn't function as the physics of the world because it would be utterly unbelievable if it did.



The rules = physics discussion is somewhat separate from this.  That is, house rules are still rules (and often still written) and can be treated as in-game physics just like any other rule.  However, I suspect that a lot of house rules get started because the game = physics thing doesn't work perfectly in the ruleset as published by WotC (but it works well enough that it _seems_ like it should work the rest of the way), and so additional (or alternate) rules are created to bridge the gap.

Of course, in this line of thinking, you are first deciding how you want to play (rules = physics?) and then altering the game rules to suit your preference.  I'm not entirely sure that it works in that order.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 11, 2008)

GoLu - I agree that you can write rules to the point where they might begin to start looking like the physics of a world.  But, that's not what even 3e managed to do.  You'd need a large pile of house rules before you could even begin to assume that a world worked the way the rules say in everyday life.

Heck, even the generation of people is split between PC and NPC.  PC's have a multitude of options for chargen.  NPC's get either standard or elite arrays.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2008)

I'm really starting to get annoyed, so I'm not going to respond to anyone in particular.

1) No one, least of all me, is saying that you can't play an RPG where the rules aren't adhered to for events 'off stage'.  Of course you can.  In fact, you could play an RPG where the rules aren't adhered to on stage either.   
2) No one, least of all me, is saying that if something that if there isn't an explicit rule for something, that it can't happen.
3) The objection, 'well, if the rules were adhered to then the rules would be unrealistic', doesn't really bother me at all, and is certainly no argument against my claim.  The game universe being simulated by the rules doesn't have to be realistic, and in fact in many cases its lack of realism is precisely what makes it attractive.  If in fact what bothered me about the rules was that they were unrealistic, it would stand to reason that I'd be far more bothered by the fact that they allowed for highly unrealistic on stage events than highly unrealistic off stage events.  
4) The objection that most NPC's don't use the same rules as PC's in specific cases isn't really relevant either.  If heroes tend to suck up the experience and treasure when they are around, then that describes how the world actually works.  We can worry about why that might be the case, or we can say, "No, I'd rather the world didn't work like that."  If the world works that way on stage, we may presume that it works that way off stage.  Some particulars:
4a) The leadership doesn't treat NPC's differently from PC's, except that it implies that PC's can't be cohorts.  It certainly doesn't say that NPC's can't have the leadership feat. It does treat cohorts and followers differently from non-cohorts and non-followers, but that is a very different thing.  Why it treats them differently is something we could speculate on, but isn't really relevant.  
4b) A rule that says PC's have action points and _most_ NPC's don't doesn't treat PC's differently from NPC's.  It treats heroic characters differently from ordinary characters, which is again, a very different thing.
4c) Ditto for average wealth levels.  In fact, NPC expected wealth levels doesn't even rise to the level of a rule, since nothing in the text implies NPC's (or even PC's) can't have different levels of wealth than expected, any more than NPC's can have different ability arrays than 'elite' or nothing, or that each encounter must have the same EL as the parties average level.  That is to say, 'unexpected' wealth levels aren't against the rules.  Presumably, the PC's are expected to live lives that are 'unexpected'.  Hardly surprising.
4d) Nothing prevents hypothetical rules from saying, 'PCs suffer 1d6 damage from falling off a horse, and NPCs suffer 1d100 damage'.  I personally wouldn't think that these are good rules because they don't describe the sort of world I want to play in, but I would point out that even so, the game rules would still be the physics of the described game world.  It would just be a 'wierd' world where certained people of special destiny fall off horses with less violence to thier persons than everyone else.  NPC's in that world would probably very quickly stop riding horses, to the extent that if they saw someone on a horse that would immediately assume that person was one of those special heroes of reknown and say things like, "Is it true that you can be thrown from your horse without breaking your neck?"

I guess I shouldn't expect people that argue that logic and consistancy aren't important to show much logic or consistancy.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me.  But when they think that they are disagreeing with me, it would at least be nice if they were.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2008)

I hate going in circles, but back to the beginning.

Imagine I have a new game system: 'd2'.  D2 is the most simple game system ever devised.  It has at its heart one conflict resolution mechanic.  

"For any proposition, determine the success by flipping a penny.  If the penny comes up 'heads', the proposition succeeds.  Otherwise it fails."

With a few additional rules (mostly to describe what the above words mean, particularly 'fails'), that's a complete game system.

It does not however describe a world that has physics anything like the real world.  In fact, the world described by D2's rules is so much different from ours that not only is it probably unplayable, but it is probably unimaginable. 

To see this, consider the following propositions:

a) I try to jump over the child's building block.
b) I try to jump over the 10' wide trench.
c) I try to jump over the Empire State Building.
d) I try to jump to Mars.

All of these are valid player propositions.  They are in fact valid propositions in the real world.  I can try to do any of these things in the real world, and the real world physics will determine my chance of success for each thing I try to do.  In the universe described by 'd2', the real physics are, 'You get where you are going half the time, regardless of distance, interveening obstacles, or local gravity'.  Moreover, in d2, the fact that the proposition 'I try to jump to Mars', had for that player's character the resolution, 'Ok you are now on Mars', doesn't imply that the proposition 'I try to jump over the child's building block' is likely to succeed.  Rather, its just as likely to invoke a failure mechanic as jumping to Mars.

In short, 'd2' describes a universe where time, space, mass, energy, and so forth have no real meaning.  Even if this isn't explicit in the rules, it will eventually be explicit in actual play - especially when the player realizes that his character is not constrained to behave in ways that would be valid in the real world.  If the poor game referee of 'd2' didn't realize to start that the 'd2' rules described a universe without time, space, mass, energy, or anything else as we know them, and had set about trying to recreate a gritty historical drama, he's probably going to be really frustrated and complain about either a) the system, or b) the poor job of roleplaying by his players.

But really, the main problem is that the universe described by the rules of d2 bears absolutely no resemblence to the universe described by the rules of the real universe.  They aren't even close enough that the we can get by with not looking too closely.  And if you think about it, what would you expect?  The rules of d2 are so simple that naturally they can't possibly describe all the nuance and sophistication that you find in the real world.  To approximate that, we are going to need more robust rules.

So far I haven't addressed whether the rules of D2 apply to NPCs offstage as well.  In theory, the referee could in fact assume that the rules of this universe governed NPC off stage behavior as well.  That is, you could assume that everywhere the PC's went the universe behaved as described by the rules, but elsewhere for the purposes of story things worked like the real universe.  But the problem of course with this description is that it runs into huge problems whenever an NPC makes an active proposition concerning the PC's.  That is to say, if the NPC's can shoot back, the idea that they off stage lived in something that looks like the real universe, whereas onstage the PC's observe that time, distance, space, mass, energy and the like have no real meaning is going to create distinctly conflicting descriptions.  We could probably try to get around that in the fluff, by saying that perhaps only the PC's (and maybe a few others like them) are actually aware of the real nature of the 'd2' universe, and then leave it up to the DM to decide what 'realistic' means.  For a game as silly as 'd2' is, we might even get away with it (because its going to drive anyone with the slightest gamist inclination away eventually anyway).  

Either the physics of the d2 universe are inescapably created by the rules.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It has nothing to do with wrongbadfun and I certainly never claimed anything of the sort. My point is that you are taking a completely indefensible position and trying to say that it works. It doesn't.




It's weird that you seem to be able to say that without the slightest hint of irony. 

If it doesn't work, then how have I been having perfectly amazing games for 8 years under 3e and have only now, in the edition's final bow, have had anyone say that the way I play, the way I and my players enjoy playing, is somehow "indefensible?"

I'm perfectly willing to admit that the core rules for 3e allow you to validly and constructively have rules only when the PC's are "on-stage." I'm saying that's not a fun game for me, but I can see how a sane, logical, rational human being could see the rules, go that route, and have fun with it. There are a lot of situations where the rules imply that you shouldn't think too hard about what the rules imply because it doesn't matter very much. In general, I agree with this principle, and think that 4e can better accomodate these DMs and groups by embracing it a little bit further (we don't need 4 different NPC classes, we don't need detailed demographic generation rules, we don't need a cohesive economics system, ad nauseum).

But 3e, as is smart, tries to take a middle ground, and there are many places where the rules imply that you can or ought to think about what the rules imply because it creates certain setting and world assumptions that are part-and-parcel of D&D. Having NPC classes _at all_, let along being supplied with detailed town-generation mechanics, and being told how NPC's gain XP, and being told expressly in the rules that NPC's and PC's should, generally, follow the same rules, and having examples of NPC's following those rules off-camera...all these, everything I cited above, and having monsters with skill points and feats, is how the rules currently support *my* playstyle.

And to suggest that they don't, that my position is indefensible, and that I am basically just making stuff up for SOME reason, is to suggest that my way of playing the game is wrong, that I'm not actually having fun doing what I do, and that rules like the ones I'm citing aren't there to create a believable, heroic world, and don't have NPC's obeying the same rules as PC's do off-screen. 

And that is really very wrong. Celebrim went a bit point-for-point against you above, showing quite well how nothing you cite forces anyone to play the game your way or break the rules or have a bad game.

Your way isn't the One True Game anymore than mine is. And all I'm asking is that 4e don't tread (much) on me.

It works. I've defended it, others have defended it, it is defensible. I've played it, others have played it, it is fun. 

Stop trying to tell me I'm some sort of hypocrite or horrible person for enjoying D&D in a way you don't. It. Ain't. Gonna. Stick.


----------



## allenw (Feb 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's weird that you seem to be able to say that without the slightest hint of irony.
> 
> If it doesn't work, then how have I been having perfectly amazing games for 8 years under 3e and have only now, in the edition's final bow, have had anyone say that the way I play, the way I and my players enjoy playing, is somehow "indefensible?"




  It appears to me that Hussar was referring to your (perceived) position regarding the extent (if any) to which NPCs differ from PCs in the RAW, rather than your playstyle or your personal preferences.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 11, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I hate going in circles, but back to the beginning.
> 
> Imagine I have a new game system: 'd2'.  D2 is the most simple game system ever devised.  It has at its heart one conflict resolution mechanic.
> 
> ...




Sounds similar to Prime-Time Adventures' conflict resolution system.

That system is: you get a number of cards based on 1) your PC's importance to the story in this session; 2) any relevant traits you want to bring in (you can only use them once a session, and you only have three); 3) any fan mail you spend (fan mail is a metagame resource).

Other players can spend fan mail on the conflict even when their PC is not involved.

The GM gets a number of cards equal to the amount of budget (a metagame resource) that he wants to spend.

Whoever gets the most red cards wins; whoever gets the highest card gets to narrate.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> It does not however describe a world that has physics anything like the real world.  In fact, the world described by D2's rules is so much different from ours that not only is it probably unplayable, but it is probably unimaginable.




I've played Prime-Time Adventures, and you are *wrong.*  The game we played was in the real world, with our physics, very imaginable, and very playable.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I've played Prime-Time Adventures, and you are *wrong.*  The game we played was in the real world, with our physics, very imaginable, and very playable.




???

Huh?

LOL.

LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL!

You played 'Prime-Time Adventures', and therefore I am wrong?  No, not just wrong... *wrong*.

I give up.  

I've been to Disney World, so therefore lazy tea is not pink.  So there!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

> It appears to me that Hussar was referring to your (perceived) position regarding the extent (if any) to which NPCs differ from PCs in the RAW, rather than your playstyle or your personal preferences.




The RAW does support my position that the rules should be enforced equally offscreen as well as onscreen, as I've gone over (and over) above. The RAW does support the position that the rules can be suspended or changed when "offscreen," in many places as well. 

My choice to emphasize that part of the RAW in having off-screen events conform to the expected rules-results is a playstyle/personal preference descision, just as others' choice to NOT have that occur is a playstyle/personal preference descision. 

Because just like it doesn't ever say "20th level NPC's should never die from falling off of horses," it also doesn't ever say "What happens to the PC's is not how the world beyond the PC's works." Neither of our positions are expressly supported, both have things which support them in the RAW, leaving one person's choice to never kill 20th level fighters of any sort with horse accidents, or another person's choice to murder epic-level wizards with heart attacks largely a matter of what kind of game you're going to enjoy. The RAW strives, as is smart, for a balance, but often in 3e errs on the side of 'too much detail for non-PC-related activities.'


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

> I've played Prime-Time Adventures, and you are wrong. The game we played was in the real world, with our physics, very imaginable, and very playable.




Well, you broke Celebrim, but I'll go out on a limb and say that what you are describing with P-TA isn't what he's talking about with the coin flip game.


----------



## Imban (Feb 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, you broke Celebrim, but I'll go out on a limb and say that what you are describing with P-TA isn't what he's talking about with the coin flip game.




Actually, he is. You can get the same result in Wushu too. It's just that all of those games have at least an implicit "No, don't be an arsehat" rule wherein the other players can refuse your attempt to make "I jump to Mars" part of your narration. I know some have it explicitly, like Wushu.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ...leaving one person's choice to never kill 20th level fighters of any sort with horse accidents, or another person's choice to murder epic-level wizards with heart attacks largely a matter of what kind of game you're going to enjoy.




Not that it matters much at this point, but even this confuses the problem.  

You can be expressly playing where the rules apply on and off stage, and these rules can conform to the RAW, and still epic-level wizards can still die of heart attacks.  

Obviously, any rules governing heart attacks - should we need any - would be completely house rules.  It won't be particularly hard to have such rules, and not have them apply meaningful to the PC's (all PC's are presumed to be healthy, not obese, with no family history of heart ailments, and no other pertinant risk factors) while still either dicing every month to see if notably fat, elderly, pipe smoking NPC's kicked the bucket, or simply deciding that that famous old pipe smoking wizard has finally had too much excitement and had a heart attack and died.  None of that creates dissonance between the game universe as the PC's experience it, and what is happening in the game universe off-stage.

Or in short, we can do this and not make the players expressedly conscious of the fact that the universe divides into on stage and off stage.  The same is not true of 'falling off a horse' if we have communicated to the players rules for falling off horses that make the observed result impossible.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Actually, he is. You can get the same result in Wushu too. It's just that all of those games have at least an implicit "No, don't be an arsehat" rule wherein the other players can refuse your attempt to make "I jump to Mars" part of your narration. I know some have it explicitly, like Wushu.




Yes, but I was describing a hypothetical game system with one rule.  Rules of the sort you describe have been discussed earlier in the thread.  If d2 had such a rule in it, I would have had to list it among the rules of the d2 game system.

But I wanted to talk about a theoretically 'most simple' game system, to avoid complicating the discussion.  The more rules I added to the system, the more easily people would get sidetracked and start arguing things that were interesting but not particularly relevant to the point.  In particular, a rule like 'Don't be an arsehat', turns out to not be a single rule at all, but a metarule that describes a whole huge set of house rules that are to be dynamically created by the referee.  Most playable game systems have this rule, implicitly or explicitly.  For example, I discussed earlier the notion of solid objects in D&D.  'No you can't walk through a brick wall without magical aid.', is a house rule generated under D&D's implicit version of what you are calling the 'Don't be an arsehat' rule.  We could have a whole thread discussing just that sort of metarule, and what problems it either created or solved.

For the purposes of this discussion though, what matters is that the rules created dynamically under such a metarule are themselves rules which are in force once created.  After they are created, the general expectation is that everyone obeys the same rule unless they have an explicit exemption.  If you tell a player, "No you can't walk through a brick wall without magical aid!", if he sees a NPC walk through a brick wall, he has the reasonble expectation that something magical was involved.  His first assumption won't be, "The universe works differently depending on whether it is a PC or NPC", and I would argue that if that is your player's first assumption, you have or are about to have a problem.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 11, 2008)

Well, I certainly don't begrudge anyone their right to play in as complicated or rules-intensive a game as they choose. If that's what you like to do, no one should be able to stop you.

I, however, really hope that 4E holds to the ideal of simplicity. Hopefully they do this by having few "tacked on" mini rule-sets and try to approach as many problems as possible with the very effective: resolution mechanic combined with DM-as-Arbiter. Leave it to the 3rd party publishers to design the rulebook on "Effective Agriculture: Corn; It Will a-Maize You!".


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Or in short, we can do this and not make the players expressedly conscious of the fact that the universe divides into on stage and off stage. The same is not true of 'falling off a horse' if we have communicated to the players rules for falling off horses that make the observed result impossible.




Right, it's not the best of comparisons.  



			
				Imban said:
			
		

> It's just that all of those games have at least an implicit "No, don't be an arsehat" rule wherein the other players can refuse your attempt to make "I jump to Mars" part of your narration.




It's an important difference, I think that Celebrim's example did not.

Because D&D doesn't, anywhere that I can see.

And such a rule, for me, at least, would do little to improve my D&D experience. Quite the opposite, actually, where I think part of the enjoyment of D&D for me is saying "I jump to Mars," rolling some dice, and having the DM and the rest of the players react to that which they couldn't imagine a moment before.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

> I, however, really hope that 4E holds to the ideal of simplicity. Hopefully they do this by having few "tacked on" mini rule-sets and try to approach as many problems as possible with the very effective: resolution mechanic combined with DM-as-Arbiter. Leave it to the 3rd party publishers to design the rulebook on "Effective Agriculture: Corn; It Will a-Maize You!".




I pretty much agree with everything, with the possible quibble that I really hate heavy DM arbitration, and so derive immeasurably more enjoyment from a system where the DM can turn to the rules for arbitration, and mostly just puts together rules to achieve the goal he wants, except in corner cases and other wierdness where the DM arbitration is handy because, as mentioned, no rules system can describe the whole world.

DM arbitration is a powerful tool, and a necessary one, but I'd like to NEED to be employed as rarely as possible. I say this as a player, and as a DM who prefers to use rules rather than to just talk it out.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 11, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If d2 had such a rule in it, I would have had to list it among the rules of the d2 game system.




Do you really think that it would have to be included as part of the rules? Don't you think, instead, that the level of limitation would spring naturally from the actions attempted by the player and those allowed by the other players and DM (if the game had one)? It would actually make for some interesting scenarios where one group is more than happy to allow people to jump to the Moon while another is unwilling to allow someone to do a handstand. Listing the limitation as a rule would be uneeded.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

> Do you really think that it would have to be included as part of the rules? Don't you think, instead, that the level of limitation would spring naturally from the actions attempted by the player and those allowed by the other players and DM (if the game had one)? It would actually make for some interesting scenarios where one group is more than happy to allow people to jump to the Moon while another is unwilling to allow someone to do a handstand. Listing the limitation as a rule would be uneeded.




It won't necessarily spring naturally, and even if it does, it would tend to be arbitrary and based on "narrative," which would exclude certain types of players. 

Plus, there's the aforementioned joy of having everyone at the table say "no, that's impossible!" but having the rules say "yes!" and having it be possible. That's EXCEPTIONALLY evocative of the whole heroic motif for me.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I pretty much agree with everything, with the possible quibble that I really hate heavy DM arbitration, and so derive immeasurably more enjoyment from a system where the DM can turn to the rules for arbitration, and mostly just puts together rules to achieve the goal he wants, except in corner cases and other wierdness where the DM arbitration is handy because, as mentioned, no rules system can describe the whole world.
> 
> DM arbitration is a powerful tool, and a necessary one, but I'd like to NEED to be employed as rarely as possible. I say this as a player, and as a DM who prefers to use rules rather than to just talk it out.




Ah, well, it's just a preference thing then. The most successful and FUN games I've ever had were where DMs used heavy arbitration, and therefore PCs were more free to do those things that felt the most natural to them. 

I remember a player propping up his longsword in a cloud dragon's mouth to keep it from closing on the cleric and killing him. I didn't try to find the rule on whether it was possible; it was creative and so I ran with it and made him roll to hit and let him pull it off. 

That's the kind of thing I mean. It's cinematic and exciting and the player hadn't paused to look on his sheet for the stat on how to prop up swords to keep dragons from closing their mouths, and I didn't go looking through the books for a rule that I knew didn't exist. Maybe there SHOULD have been a rule for it, but with a resolution mechanic it wouldn't have been needed. I could have just used that and it would have felt the same as any other action (this was back in 2E, no simple resolution mechanics anywhere  ).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

> Ah, well, it's just a preference thing then. The most successful and FUN games I've ever had were where DMs used heavy arbitration, and therefore PCs were more free to do those things that felt the most natural to them.




The thing about heavy arbitration is that it's extremely dependant on how good of a DM you have. The most successful and fun games have heavy arbitration, but the most awful, boring, and slow games have heavy arbitration, too. A good narrative DM doesn't need many rules beyond "what I say goes." They can tell a good story no matter what system they use, just because they're naturally engaging, they know neat tricks, and when they make a descision,  you know it's going to be basically for the better.

But no one starts off as a good DM, and the great ones are rare, and I don't think D&D should require a naturally good DM to be enjoyable to play. The rules are there, IMO, to ensure that otherwise good DMs don't do something that scuttles their own game because they are imperfect human beings, as well as to give the vast majority of mediocre and semi-decent DMs out there something to turn to. 

This, IIRC, was, in part, 3e's philosophy. Give them good rules, and they won't need a talented DM to have fun. It's a philosophy I wholeheartedly support, as a lazy, improv-heavy DM who would rather play the game than write the rules. I understand that 3e went a bit too extreme in this direction, though, and I'll be happy to see 4e reign it in, I'm just worried they'll go too far in some places, weakening, in my mind, the game I love.



> That's the kind of thing I mean. It's cinematic and exciting and the player hadn't paused to look on his sheet for the stat on how to prop up swords to keep dragons from closing their mouths, and I didn't go looking through the books for a rule that I knew didn't exist. Maybe there SHOULD have been a rule for it, but with a resolution mechanic it wouldn't have been needed. I could have just used that and it would have felt the same as any other action (this was back in 2E, no simple resolution mechanics anywhere).




The rule of DM arbitration is an important and necessary one, I just don't want my fun as a player to depend on the lottery of DM quality, and I don't want my fun as a DM to depend on my ability/desire to make things up as I go. The heavier DM arbitration is emphasized, the more the game depends on good DMs. Good DMs have the best games, but I do want our medoicre and sub-par DMs to be able to run a fun game, too.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Do you really think that it would have to be included as part of the rules?




Ok, trying again. 

When I say 'rules' in this thread, I'm generally refering to the all the rules being used to arbitrate play.  I am not only refering to the formal rules of the game as have been written down.  When I say, 'rules', I mean literally all the rules.

I believe in my 'd2' example that it was fairly obvious that all the rules being presented formally where all the rules period.  That doesn't mean that in other game systems that this is true, but it was certainly true in my example.



> Don't you think, instead, that the level of limitation would spring naturally from the actions attempted by the player and those allowed by the other players and DM (if the game had one)?




No, I don't.  Why would you think that it would?  I think quite the opposite will occur.  The hypothetical players of 'D2' might not initially realize that they can offer propositions like 'I become President of Universe', but such a limitation isn't naturally arising from the resolution system of the system.  It's arrising naturally from the players conceptual limitations of having lived in this universe, and if we play D2 by the rules it will be eventually overturned by the actions attempted by the player and the observed results.  

Suppose we altered the d2 system just a bit.  Instead of all propositions being resolved by a coin flip, the referee was allowed to classify the propositions into 'heads', 'flip', and 'don't be an arsehat'.  'Heads' propositions always succeeded, 'flip' propositions succeeded 50% of the time, and 'don't be an arsehat' always failed.  This effectively gives the referee in d2 nearly full narrative control of the game.  (This is quite a change, since the first edition of d2 effectively gave most of the narrative control to the player.)  Using this narrative control, the referee can impose limitations on the actions of characters to force the game universe to conform to his idea of how it the universe should actually work.  Depending on the referee, this might make for sufficient 'casual realism' for the story to be believable to a person who expected the game universe to work something like the real universe.  It would however basically boil down to DM fiat, and the players would not be able to foreknow what propositions would fall into each category.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The thing about heavy arbitration is that it's extremely dependant on how good of a DM you have. The most successful and fun games have heavy arbitration, but the most awful, boring, and slow games have heavy arbitration, too. A good narrative DM doesn't need many rules beyond "what I say goes." They can tell a good story no matter what system they use, just because they're naturally engaging, they know neat tricks, and when they make a descision,  you know it's going to be basically for the better.




I agree, though I think there is even more too it than that.

I consider myself a good, though not great, DM.  (Great DM's can run fun and engaging sessions of Toon and Paranoia.  Almost anyone can run fun and engaging sessions of D&D.) 

For me, even if I could run a session on, "what I say goes", after a while its not very fun for me.  For one thing, too much of the game is about me.  I may be entertaining the players, but excercising that much control means that the players are not as likely to be entertaining me.  For another, its just too much mental heavy lifting.  It's exhausting to run a game that way for a long time.  I like to have rules because it's alot easier to resolve something under the rules quickly, than it is to answer questions for myself like, "How far could an atheletic 6' tall person jump consistantly?" and "Does it make a better story if he grabs that chandelier or is the story more interesting if he doesn't?"


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 11, 2008)

Has anybody else gotten to the point of agreeing with my conclusion that this discussion is at this point just pulling a "Merry-Go-Round?"

Folks, we just disagree on how the game plays best. Some people even disagree that we disagree, yet we don't agree that they're right. In my opinion, further discussion on this topic is pointless and I will be withdrawing from this thread.

Obviously, you're all free to ignore me and continue the discussion, but since I'm withdrawing, please don't address me or quote me in a way that would draw me back in.

Thanks.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> For me, even if I could run a session on, "what I say goes", after a while its not very fun for me. For one thing, too much of the game is about me. I may be entertaining the players, but excercising that much control means that the players are not as likely to be entertaining me. For another, its just too much mental heavy lifting. It's exhausting to run a game that way for a long time. I like to have rules because it's alot easier to resolve something under the rules quickly, than it is to answer questions for myself like, "How far could an atheletic 6' tall person jump consistantly?" and "Does it make a better story if he grabs that chandelier or is the story more interesting if he doesn't?"




I'm on board with this.  I'll even add that using the rules to decide how far he jumps and if he grabs the chandelier could, very likely, give me the launching pad for a more interesting story than if I knew the outcome or just decided it myself. The best writers don't know where they're story will take them, after all.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 11, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Or in short, we can do this and not make the players expressedly conscious of the fact that the universe divides into on stage and off stage.  The same is not true of 'falling off a horse' if we have communicated to the players rules for falling off horses that make the observed result impossible.




There is nothing in the current Rules As Written that makes it impossible for a fall off a horse to do more than D6 damage.  (Or if you prefer, that it not result in an instant death effect that bypasses hitpoints.)  Show me where in the PHB or the DMG it says that you can't die from falling off a horse if you have more than d6 hitpoints.

More than d6 hitpoints of damage is not one of the options offered by rolling a die, but that is in no way the same thing as saying that other results are impossible.  Rolling a die can only give you a limited subset of results of all the possible things that could happen.  Presumably, if the results range has been well-defined, it will be the most common results.  But not the only possible results.

As for everyone arguing that they prefer a world where 20th level characters can never die from falling off a horse, that has nothing to do with the rules being the physics of the game world.  Not a blessed thing.  If powerful, competent people never die ignoble deaths, then that is just as much fluff as saying they do.  It's not because they have a mess of hitpoints; it's because you want heroic people to die heroically.

I think I demonstrated that when I offered the alternative scenario of a 1st level fighter falling off a horse, getting his foot entangled in the stirrups, and being dragged along the ground.  That scenario is not going to come from rolling the dice anymore than a 20th level fighter falling off a horse and dying.  Yet the few responses I got seemed to take it as okay for the DM to fiat that sort of thing, because it doesn't make a heroic person non-heroic.

Because it makes sense by the fluff (as they perceive it.)


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Ah, well, it's just a preference thing then. The most successful and FUN games I've ever had were where DMs used heavy arbitration, and therefore PCs were more free to do those things that felt the most natural to them.
> 
> I remember a player propping up his longsword in a cloud dragon's mouth to keep it from closing on the cleric and killing him. I didn't try to find the rule on whether it was possible; it was creative and so I ran with it and made him roll to hit and let him pull it off.




I think you are confusing two concepts again.  Not surprisingly, its the same two things people are repeatedly confusing.

In the above example:

a) The player offered a proposition that was not in the rules: "I want to stick my sword in the dragon's mouth to keep it from closing on the cleric."
b) You decided that the absence of a rule specifically allowing something was not the same as having a rule that explicitly forbids something.
c) You created an impromptu rule for arbitrating what happens when a character proposes to stick his sword in a dragon's mouth to keep it from closing.

That all sounds good to me as well.  In fact, this might surprise you, but it is the sort of thing I'd advocate.  You shouldn't just say, "No.", to a character.  You shouldn't use the formal rules incompleteness as an excuse for not allowing reasonable actions.  You should be able to smith out rules on the fly as the need for them arises.

None of this in fact implies that the game rules are not the physics of the game world.  None of this argues against my claim that game plays better (is more fairly arbitrated, less likely to have DM PC's, is less likely to generate conflict between player and DM, is more emmersive, is more likely to inspire DM's imagination in novel ways, whatever) if the events of the game are assumed to have abided by the rules of the game.

All it says is that the absence of a rule specifically allowing something is not the same as having a rule that explicitly forbids something.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm on board with this.  I'll even add that using the rules to decide how far he jumps and if he grabs the chandelier could, very likely, give me the launching pad for a more interesting story than if I knew the outcome or just decided it myself. The best writers don't know where they're story will take them, after all.




The problem with replying to people who agree with you and who you agree with is that there is very little to say to them after a while except, "Right on!"

Or, "Write on!", as the case may be.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> There is nothing in the current Rules As Written that makes it impossible for a fall off a horse to do more than D6 damage.  (Or if you prefer, that it not result in an instant death effect that bypasses hitpoints.)  Show me where in the PHB or the DMG it says that you can't die from falling off a horse if you have more than d6 hitpoints...Rolling a die can only give you a limited subset of results of all the possible things that could happen.




Indeed, rolling a die can only give you a limited set of results of all the possible things that could happen.  The question answers itself.  It's not possible because 'Instant death' is not a result on my d6. 

If there are possible results other than d6 damage, then the rules ought to specify what those results are.  There is in fact no reason to suspect that the designer thought {1,2,3,4,5,6,'Instant Death'} was the set of possible results of falling off a horse.   Presumably if the results range has been well-defined, it will be all the possible results.  Otherwise, the results range is not well-defined, by the definition of 'well-defined'.



> As for everyone arguing that they prefer a world where 20th level characters can never die from falling off a horse, that has nothing to do with the rules being the physics of the game world.  Not a blessed thing.  If powerful, competent people never die ignoble deaths, then that is just as much fluff as saying they do.  It's not because they have a mess of hitpoints; it's because you want heroic people to die heroically.




I don't follow you at all.  The claim you make at the top doesn't seem to have a logical connection to what follows afterwards.  Perhaps if you rephrased your idea?



> I think I demonstrated that when I offered the alternative scenario of a 1st level fighter falling off a horse, getting his foot entangled in the stirrups, and being dragged along the ground.  That scenario is not going to come from rolling the dice anymore than a 20th level fighter falling off a horse and dying.




No it isn't?  So?



> Yet the few responses I got seemed to take it as okay for the DM to fiat that sort of thing, because it doesn't make a heroic person non-heroic.




I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think that it is Ok for the DM to fiat that sort of thing.  I know as a player, that if my character was thrown from the horse, and the DM said, "You know.  I've always liked the cinematic quality of characters falling off thier horse and getting thier feet tangled in the stirrups and then being dragged along the ground.  I know the rules don't provide for it, but since it doesn't make your hero less heroic, I'm going to make a judgement that it happened here.", I'd be somewhat disatisfied.  

I would probably be actually much more satisfied with that than if the first time it occurred it happened to a NPC though.  I'd feel slightly cheated both ways, but at least in the first case the DM is upping the ante in a good ol' fashion rat b@$@#$! sort of way.  

Now, on the other hand, if the DM started a session by saying, "As you may or may not know, Bob is a rodeo bull rider and an expert horseman.  He's approached me about problems he has with the lack of realism in the horsemanship rules we are playing under.  He says its really interfering with his ability to enjoy the game.  He talked it over and he made some suggestions and I have some new rules that hopefully prove not to be too much more complicated in play.  Among other things, these new rules may increase the risk when thrown from a steed.", then I'd be perfectly fine with that.  I'd also be fine with the DM saying that he personally was having problems with the level of realism/detail in the riding rules.  And likewise, I think at any point a PC ought to be able to say something like, "I strap Black Bob's foot to the stirrup...", and the DM ought to be able to improvise some sort of 'dragged across the landscape' rules.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2008)

GoLu said:
			
		

> your point about 3E also being the most gamist is weird.  I don't think it's wrong, but it's just weird to think about.  Early D&D seemed so gloriously gamist that it hurts my brain a little to think about how the far more simulationist 3E is possibly even more gamist than it ever could be.



Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt anyone's brain!

I was thinking about the complexity of both character build and action resolution mechanics in 3E, which really give scope for gamist play. Earlier editions relied much more on non-rules-mediated player-GM negotiation for action resolution, which could support gamist play, but was also unhappily prone to abusive GMing and 2nd-ed style railroading. 3E is better at avoiding those issues, and is (in that sense) more gamist, I think.



			
				GoLu said:
			
		

> I suspect that a lot of house rules get started because the game = physics thing doesn't work perfectly in the ruleset as published by WotC (but it works well enough that it seems like it should work the rest of the way), and so additional (or alternate) rules are created to bridge the gap.



I think this is right. But that you have to drift D&D to play it fully simulationist suggests (i) that the rules themselves may be a little incoherent, but also (ii) that playing D&D in non-simulationist mode is not necessarily contrary to the rules (as has been suggested by some in this thread).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A good narrative DM doesn't need many rules beyond "what I say goes."



I don't know why you say this. The best explanation I can think of is that by "narrativist" you mean something like "railroading".

Some explicitly narrativist games have reasonably low-key mechanics. Others (like TRoS, or HeroQuest, or The Dying Earth) do not. D&D (3E or 4e), played as a narrativist game, is going to be more like these - that is, rules heavy.

What distinguishes narrativist (ie metagame-heavy, thematically-oriented) play from "rules as physics" play is not that it is light on mechanics, but rather than those mechanics are not interpreted as the physics of the gameworld. Rather, they are a metagame device for distributing narrative control, and (in some cases) determining the resolution of conflicts.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm really starting to get annoyed, so I'm not going to respond to anyone in particular.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Names not having been named, I don't know if I'm among the annoying or not. Given that I've been both logical and consistent, and have defended the importance of logic and consistency in the gameworld, I'll give myself the benefit of the doubt.

Particularly as I do disagree with you.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Imagine I have a new game system: 'd2'.  D2 is the most simple game system ever devised.  It has at its heart one conflict resolution mechanic.
> 
> "For any proposition, determine the success by flipping a penny.  If the penny comes up 'heads', the proposition succeeds.  Otherwise it fails."
> 
> ...



Celebrim, it's a litttle unclear whether your hypothetical system has one rule or more than one. If it really has only one rule, then I agree it is unplayable as, for example, it doesn't tell me (i) how to introduce adversity into the game, nor (ii) what counts as a conflict, nor (iii) what the parameters of player and GM narration are (eg am I allowed to explain my success in jumping to Mars by explaining "It turns out my PC had rocket fuel in his backpack"?), nor etc etc.

But once I supplement d2 with the sorts of rules you suggested would be there in your original post, then I have a game that looks a little like Prince Valiant, don't I? I'm not sure why it would be unplayable. I also don't know why anyone would assume that the d2 rolls modelled anything in the gameworld. They would obviously be a device for saying either "Yes" or "No" to a player's attempt at specifying a certain gameworld situation. The explanation for that situation (assuming the player wins the d2 roll), and thus the ingame physics, would be narrated by the play (as per the rocket fuel explanation above). And such physics may well have mass, space, time etc, (or no not, if we play in a more Toon-ish approach - this is why supplemental rules about the source and context of adversity matter).

Of more mainstream games, Conan OGL has a similar feature in its rule that permits a player to spend a Fate Point in order to specify or change the gameworld to a limited extent. Does anyone really suppose that such Fate Point expenditure correlates to any physics of the gameworld? (Can Conan change the world by wishing?) It is a purely metagame device, for giving the player a limited degree of narrative control.

You have not actually addressed this issue, despite the fact that I have raised it in numerous posts: some mechanics in some RPGs are expressly not about the physics of the gameworld. They are about the distribution of narrative control at the gaming table. The physics of the gameworld are the product of the decisions made by those exercising that control.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> His first assumption won't be, "The universe works differently depending on whether it is a PC or NPC", and I would argue that if that is your player's first assumption, you have or are about to have a problem.



The first assumption, in a narrativist game, presumably would be "I have narrative control (or plot protection in the form of hp and other aspects of the action resolution mechanics) in respect of my PC, that I do not have in respect of the NPCs in this world." Such a thought is consistent with the thought that the ingame universe works the same way in respect of both - its just that, as far as those workings are concerned, the player has some control over them when they implicate his or her PC (just as the GM has some control over them when they implicate an NPC).

And I don't think that the assumption I have described will necessarily create any problems. Many published RPGs expressly state it, and are played in accordance with it.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The leadership doesn't treat NPC's differently from PC's, except that it implies that PC's can't be cohorts.



And what is this rule? It is obviously not part of the physics of the gameworld - there is nothing about PCs, qua ingame beings, that makes it impossible that they should enter the service of a lord. It is an obvious metagame rule.

I'll say it again: if you refuse to distinguish gameworld and metagame - and so refuse to distinguish between the physics of an imaginary universe, and the rules for handling the interactions of players in the actual universe - then of course narrativist play will look strange and problematic. That is why narrativist play begins by drawing the gameworld/metagame distinction very clearly.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I know as a player, that if my character was thrown from the horse, and the DM said, "You know.  I've always liked the cinematic quality of characters falling off thier horse and getting thier feet tangled in the stirrups and then being dragged along the ground.  I know the rules don't provide for it, but since it doesn't make your hero less heroic, I'm going to make a judgement that it happened here.", I'd be somewhat disatisfied.



As would I. The point of plot protection rules is to undergird players' protagonism via their PCs. A GM undermining that by ignoring or breaking the rules is not good.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I would probably be actually much more satisfied with that than if the first time it occurred it happened to a NPC though.



This response depends upon assuming what the narrativist does not, namely, that the action resolution mechanics are the physics of the gameworld, rather than a device for undergirding player protagonism by way of PC plot protection. As such, it is not the response that would be universally had. (To draw another parallel to Conan OGL: if the players found a dead NPC at the end of a battle, would they ask themselves "Why did she not spend a Fate Point?" I assume not - the players know that Fate Points are a purely metagame device, to give the players limited control over their PCs' fates.)



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Now, on the other hand, if the DM started a session by saying, "As you may or may not know, Bob is a rodeo bull rider and an expert horseman.  He's approached me about problems he has with the lack of realism in the horsemanship rules we are playing under.  He says its really interfering with his ability to enjoy the game.  He talked it over and he made some suggestions and I have some new rules that hopefully prove not to be too much more complicated in play.  Among other things, these new rules may increase the risk when thrown from a steed.", then I'd be perfectly fine with that.  I'd also be fine with the DM saying that he personally was having problems with the level of realism/detail in the riding rules.  And likewise, I think at any point a PC ought to be able to say something like, "I strap Black Bob's foot to the stirrup...", and the DM ought to be able to improvise some sort of 'dragged across the landscape' rules.



This is one possible way of handling the action resolution mechanics in the game. There are others. For example, in a fortune in the middle system, how do we know whether Black Bob's foot got stuck in the stirrup? Well, if the PC wins the conflict againt Black Bob, then the player has licence to state that Black Bob's foot got stuck in the stirrup, and Black Bob was dragged across the landscape. In this latter sort of game (eg HeroQuest), no one would suppose that the action resolution rules are the physics of the gameworld. They don't tell us what is taking place in the gameworld. They distribute the right to determine that across the players and GM within certain parameters - and those parameters are driven by metagame considerations, not ingame logic.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 11, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Either the physics of the d2 universe are inescapably created by the rules.




I've seen at least one game with the d2 mechanic you describe; a comedy game simulating the Carry On films.  But of course the GM was expected to have routine actions succeed, and impossible ones fail, with the d2 roll made when the outcome was uncertain.  And the physics was the physics of the real world, as interpreted by the Carry On films.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 11, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> Huh?




Let me explain.

You said that the game experience I had could not exist.  You're wrong.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 11, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Indeed, rolling a die can only give you a limited set of results of all the possible things that could happen.  The question answers itself.  It's not possible because 'Instant death' is not a result on my d6.




Why does the fact that it is not a result on your d6 mean it is not possible?  I honestly can't understand that.



> If there are possible results other than d6 damage, then the rules ought to specify what those results are.  There is in fact no reason to suspect that the designer thought {1,2,3,4,5,6,'Instant Death'} was the set of possible results of falling off a horse.   *Presumably if the results range has been well-defined, it will be all the possible results. *  Otherwise, the results range is not well-defined, by the definition of 'well-defined'.




What definition of "well-defined" are you using that must include all possible results rather than a probable subset of possible results?  Are you using "well-defined" as a term of art form some outside source?

If you assume that the physics of the game world are equal in complexity to the physics of the real world, then it is impossible to include all possible results on a die roll.  It is possible to include all possible results only in a fantasy world with great simplified physics- and I submit that will result in a game world that fails to live up to the one that exists in the imagination of players and DM.

Designer intent has nothing to do with it.  In any reasonably complex world, it is impossible to include all imaginable results (i.e. results that a player can imagine happening with credulity based purely on game world fluff and if they have never read a word of the rules.)  I submit that a world where imaginable results outstrip possible mechanical results is the primary appeal of tabletop gaming.




> I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think that it is Ok for the DM to fiat that sort of thing.  I know as a player, that if my character was thrown from the horse, and the DM said, "You know.  I've always liked the cinematic quality of characters falling off thier horse and getting thier feet tangled in the stirrups and then being dragged along the ground.  I know the rules don't provide for it, but since it doesn't make your hero less heroic, I'm going to make a judgement that it happened here.", I'd be somewhat disatisfied.




Please, let's not get back into "as a player" and "my character".  Assume it happens to an NPC as part of background for setting a scene, because the DM thinks it will be funny and amuse the players.  I don't know why I should have to explicitly state that every time.



> Now, on the other hand, if the DM started a session by saying, "As you may or may not know, Bob is a rodeo bull rider and an expert horseman.  He's approached me about problems he has with the lack of realism in the horsemanship rules we are playing under.  He says its really interfering with his ability to enjoy the game.  He talked it over and he made some suggestions and I have some new rules that hopefully prove not to be too much more complicated in play.  Among other things, these new rules may increase the risk when thrown from a steed.", then I'd be perfectly fine with that.  I'd also be fine with the DM saying that he personally was having problems with the level of realism/detail in the riding rules.  And likewise, I think at any point a PC ought to be able to say something like, "I strap Black Bob's foot to the stirrup...", and the DM ought to be able to improvise some sort of 'dragged across the landscape' rules.




Why does something like this need a rule?  The DM is merely amusing the players.  Perhaps the heroes are reviewing the town guard before setting out on a quest, and to emphasize the inexperience and ineptitude of the guard (thus making it clear how the safety of the town rests on the shoulders of the PCs) one of the 17 year old guardsmen ends up getting dragged along the ground by his horse.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

> I don't know why you say this. The best explanation I can think of is that by "narrativist" you mean something like "railroading".




Why?

By a "narrative" DM, I mean a DM who wants to use the game to tell a story with the players. D&D does that wonderfully, but this kind of 'storytelling game' is old as dirt. It's akin to the whole 'write one sentence. The next person builds on that sentence. Continue to pass it in a circle until someone writes 'The End.'' A DM who wants to tell a good story with the players (rather than over the top of the players like a railroad) just needs to be able to give the thumbs up or the thumbs down to any concept, depending upon their shared goals for the story. The dice add a desirable degree of randomness, but you don't use them unless you want to, so they never add more randomness than you want. 

I steer away from Forge terms in general, and I don't mean anything too specific (or condescending) about a 'narrative' DM. Such a rule wouldn't work as well for a heavily competitive DM who wants to 'win' against the players, for instance. For them, such a rule just gets in the way of killing them fairly, by-the-book. It wouldn't work well for a DM who shares my style of "enjoying the rules of the game," because it's not a rulsey gearhead pleasure, it's a social/creative pleasure. It wouldn't work well for someone who is into simulating a world, either, because the rules need to kind of be a neutral platform for them.

But "what I say goes" is a GREAT narrative tool for a DM, and can create some stellarly fun adventures. Even if "What I say is roll a dice," is the most commonly used response.  And it's needed, to an extent, in a game like D&D.



> Some explicitly narrativist games have reasonably low-key mechanics. Others (like TRoS, or HeroQuest, or The Dying Earth) do not. D&D (3E or 4e), played as a narrativist game, is going to be more like these - that is, rules heavy.




Not very many people are satisfied with pure extremist storytelling games, especially if they come to RPG's through D&D (as many, though not all, do). People who are satisfied with those games take writing courses and play these games as thought excersies and never really look at D&D, unless it's from a different angle. 

In other words, most people seek a middle path, but the *necessary* rules for a storytelling game are, in fact, quite light. Everything else is unnecessary, but it might be desirable.



> What distinguishes narrativist (ie metagame-heavy, thematically-oriented) play from "rules as physics" play is not that it is light on mechanics, but rather than those mechanics are not interpreted as the physics of the gameworld. Rather, they are a metagame device for distributing narrative control, and (in some cases) determining the resolution of conflicts.




Sure. I just played a game like that last night. Good fun. All the rules still boiled down to the DM or the Players making stuff up and then the dice saying "yes, this narrative event happens," or "no, it doesn't." 

I don't know where you're getting accusations of railroading from, really.  :\ "What I say goes" is quite a flexible rule, because it lets you create other rules and then disband them almost as fast. It doesn't really imply that the DM forces the players to go along with a particular plotline, unless they happen to be a bad DM.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Good DMs have the best games, but I do want our medoicre and sub-par DMs to be able to run a fun game, too.




I can't imagine a bad DM running a fun game.  For one thing, bad DMs don't follow the rules!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 11, 2008)

> I can't imagine a bad DM running a fun game. For one thing, bad DMs don't follow the rules!




Good ones don't follow the rules, either.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2008)

pemerton: I know this is unfair, but it is precisely because you have been generally logical and consistant that you don't get responded to as often.  Your objections are generally reasonable.  Addressing your objections involves an extremely complicated argument that would get really technical, and sometimes in the interest of time the more interesting debate - yours - loses out.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> What distinguishes narrativist (ie metagame-heavy, thematically-oriented) play from "rules as physics" play is not that it is light on mechanics, but rather than those mechanics are not interpreted as the physics of the gameworld. Rather, they are a metagame device for distributing narrative control, and (in some cases) determining the resolution of conflicts.




First, I disagree with your claim that the distinction in narrativist play is mechanical or even the assumptions about the mechanics.  What you are describing is features of games designed specifically to facillitate narrativist play, and not essential distinguishing features.

Secondly, I don't deny that a game can have metarules which shape play but which have no real existence at the in game universe level.  I've kind of hinted around that this is true without really getting into it.  And, it's at this point that things get complicated, because alot of the things that you say are metagame rules don't strike me as being pure metagame rules.  Rather, very often the metarules you describe are in my opinion 'simulationist' in character and have both metagame and in game existance.  That is they shape play at the table, and are also from the standpoint of an in game actor 'real'.  

Now, I have to qualify that in as much as that there is often a metagame rule that the in game actors are themselves 'genera blind' and don't know the tropes of the universe that they inhabit.  For example, you keep bringing up the 'Lois Lane' rule, and I would argue that the intent of this rule is primarily simulationist, in that is attempting to simulate the universe in which certain types of heroic literature occur, and in these universes the significant others of a hero enjoy some measure of heroic protection from ordinary harm.  In other words, only a heroes villainous peer can actually harm them and they will otherwise will survive any other threat.  I would argue that that is actually the 'physics' of those sorts of universes.  

I think the general problem is that if a rule has some metagame intention, that it is a metarule, and I don't agree.  A metarule is a rule about rules, but if it actually effects the game universe then it is part of the physics of that universe.  In that universe, events actually do rearrange themselves to protect the significant others of those that have hero status.  And, hero status is real quality.

Take the example with Conan.  You ask, "Can Conan change the universe by wishing?", and the answer is, "Yes, he can."  To an observer in the game universe, that's exactly what has happened.  From Villain's perspective, if we allow him to not be genera blind, he can see that the universe is not 'fair'.  He can see that the Hero consistantly enjoys good fortune that non-Heroes don't enjoy.  And that is actually how the universe in question works.  Heroes really have tangible 'Fate' and 'Destiny' (or whatever) such that the universe is ready to fulfill thier needs, and very likely has arranged itself such that it knows what those needs will be before the in game characters do.



> Celebrim, it's a litttle unclear whether your hypothetical system has one rule or more than one.




I apologize.  My intention was to create a system with one rule.  I may have confused the matters by allowing that this rule needed more explanation than I gave it, but its intended to have one rule.



> If it really has only one rule, then I agree it is unplayable as, for example, it doesn't tell me (i) how to introduce adversity into the game, nor (ii) what counts as a conflict, nor (iii) what the parameters of player and GM narration are (eg am I allowed to explain my success in jumping to Mars by explaining "It turns out my PC had rocket fuel in his backpack"?), nor etc etc.




Errr... I don't think RPGs actually need any of those things.  In fact, very few RPGs have explicit rules for any of those things.  You can get by just fine with a rules set that doesn't define what is at stake, who is in conflict with what, whether you should use FitM or FatE narration to describe the results of the conflict resolution mechanics, or who has explicit narrative control.  None of these things needs to be consistantly defined.  'D2' is a generic, universal system.    It lets the players define what is at stake, what the conflict is, and allows the narrator/referee to adopt whatever storytelling method they prefer.



> But once I supplement d2 with the sorts of rules you suggested would be there in your original post, then I have a game that looks a little like Prince Valiant, don't I?




No, I don't think so.  'D2 2nd edition', from the latter post looks something like a rules light system like Prince Valiant, but even so it's far lighter of a system than even PV.  Both have coins.  That's about it.  For one thing, its a system that still says nothing about relative difficulty.  Things are either easy, impossible, or fail 50% of the time.  I've focused on how badly the system handles things like 'I jump to Mars' or a 'I jump over the dime.' when it comes to versimilitude, but I could have just as easily focused on how poorly it handles 'I jump over the 10' trench'.  It's playable with heavy referee arbitration in the 2nd edition, but just barely so.

But I think you are missing the important point.  It's not playable in its 1st edition form not because it lacks details which IMO are mostly 'fluff', but because the universe it simulates is not imaginable.  Even if we defined everything you think its missing, and you are welcome to try, the 1st edition game is still set in a universe that is so far removed from ours that we simply can't relate to it.  The only way to play it is to add some rules, implicitly or explicitly, on what propositions you are allowed to make.  Thereby you'll backhandedly define what the rules of the universe are by elimenating from consideration anything that makes the world unimaginable.



> I also don't know why anyone would assume that the d2 rolls modelled anything in the gameworld.




Because, in practice it would.  Nothing in the game rules prohibits the impossible from being a proposition that succeeds, and nothing in the game rules makes the easy possible.  Of course the players are going to assume that the universe that the game plays in follows those rules, because that is what they would experience.  Narrating an event like, "I found rocket fuel in my jet pack." doesn't change the basic physics of the game.  It is I think a pretty futile stab to add some coherency into what is going to be an inherently incoherent game universe.



> And such physics may well have mass, space, time etc, (or no not, if we play in a more Toon-ish approach - this is why supplemental rules about the source and context of adversity matter).




Isn't this as much as saying that you need to have a set of assumed rules about the physics of the universe?  I think where we may be sticking is that in your description of narrativist play, there is a body of rules describing the physics of the in game universe which are implied by the setting.  I grant that this is true.  It's true of pretty much every PnP RPG that they have this assumption.  However, as I've repeatedly stated, I think a rule that is in force, but which is not part of the formal written down rules of the game, is still every bit as much of the rules as the RAW.  

The example that keeps coming up on this theme is, the RAW don't actually say that solid objects are solid or define what 'solidity' is.  This is true, but that doesn't mean you can walk through walls in D&D (without special in rules exemptions like incorporality).  

Yes, it may be that in the narrativist games that you play the vast majority of the physics of the in game universe are bound up in these implied rules, but that doesn't mean that the action resolution mechanics aren't part of the physics of the game world any more than the fact that 'fate points' or 'saving throws' have meta-game reasons means that they don't also have in game existance.  Even if an in game observer didn't know the name of the meta-game constructs like 'fate points' or 'saving throws', he certainly could observe thier effects and would recognize them as being a part of the predictable behavior of the universe he lived in.



> You have not actually addressed this issue, despite the fact that I have raised it in numerous posts: some mechanics in some RPGs are expressly not about the physics of the gameworld. They are about the distribution of narrative control at the gaming table. The physics of the gameworld are the product of the decisions made by those exercising that control.




Well, in theory, yes a rule can be entirely a 'rule about rules'.  But you have to be very careful in assuming that a rule has no in game reality, because we could often work back from the constructed narrative to the rule.  For example, one of the more explicitly metagame rules in 3rd edition D&D is that players take turns.  You might say the 'taking turns' rule is about distributing narrative control, and no one thanks that the universe being simulated by 3rd edition D&D is strictly speaking 'turn based' (or more precisely 'impulse based', since players take discrete sequential turns within the turn).  Nonetheless, on observing the narratives we must conclude that it is the nature of events in the game universe to tend to be sequential so that the really pertinent events follow one after the other instead of happening at the same time.  We may not like this.  We may prefer to think of the world being described as being a little more analog, but in point of fact the narratives constructed in universes simulated by D&D would have this inescable feature.  

For example, two fighters never stab themselves at the same time.  Ever.

If we really couldn't stand this, we might note that earlier editions of D&D had simultaneous declarations of intent and sometimes simultaneous resolution of events, and we could adjust or rules such that the universe allowed events more suited to the narrative we wanted to tell.



> The first assumption, in a narrativist game, presumably would be "I have narrative control (or plot protection in the form of hp and other aspects of the action resolution mechanics) in respect of my PC, that I do not have in respect of the NPCs in this world." Such a thought is consistent with the thought that the ingame universe works the same way in respect of both - its just that, as far as those workings are concerned, the player has some control over them when they implicate his or her PC (just as the GM has some control over them when they implicate an NPC).




Part of the problem is that in most narrativist games I'm aware of, the action resolution mechanics are so generic and abstract that the sort of edge case conflicts we are describing simply aren't possible.  Maybe I just don't know the rules of those games well enough, but with an abstract mechanical resolution system - whether narrativist or not - is it ever possible to note that an offstage event was impossible under the rules?  



> And what is this rule? It is obviously not part of the physics of the gameworld - there is nothing about PCs, qua ingame beings, that makes it impossible that they should enter the service of a lord. It is an obvious metagame rule.




Do you have to be a 'cohort' to be in the service of a lord?  I think that the leadership rules describe a universe were people can really have the special status 'cohort', just as they can have the special status 'hero'.  



> I'll say it again: if you refuse to distinguish gameworld and metagame - and so refuse to distinguish between the physics of an imaginary universe, and the rules for handling the interactions of players in the actual universe - then of course narrativist play will look strange and problematic.




I'm perfectly willing to distinguish between gameworld and metagame rules.  I'm perfectly willing to distinguish between a rule that governs the interactions of players, and a rule that governs the interactions of thier characters.  Oddly enough, I think that you are having trouble doing so.  A rule like 'the DM doesn't have to pay for the pizza', governs the interactions of players.  A rule like, 'If we can't decide what the correct interpretation of a rule is, we flip a coin and move on rather than argue', governs the interactions of players.  The rules you keep citing govern the interactions of things in the game universe.

Narrativist play doesn't look strange and problematic.  I don't know where you'd get the idea that I think that it does.  Your description of it is sometimes strange and problimatic, in that you seem to what to define narrativist play in a way that I don't find conventional, but which is highly useful for the argument at hand.



> As would I. The point of plot protection rules is to undergird players' protagonism via their PCs. A GM undermining that by ignoring or breaking the rules is not good.




You seem to want to cloak this responce in language that I'm not sure is applicable.  You are getting hung up in descriptions that depend on us knowing what a particular rule was designed for (nevermind that different players might percieve the utility of rules in a different way).  The GM ignoring or breaking rules is generally not good regardless of what we may think the purpose of those rules to be. 

Just as aside, you appear to be trending toward a FORGEism that I expressly deny - namely that the GNS ways of playing a game are incompatible.



> This response depends upon assuming what the narrativist does not, namely, that the action resolution mechanics are the physics of the gameworld, rather than a device for undergirding player protagonism by way of PC plot protection.




I deny for example that this is a clear distinction.  The action resolution mechanics are the physics of the gameworld, *and* those physics may be designed in such a way that a player's character enjoys some measure of plot protection.  That the rules grant PC's plot protection is not a necessary and inescable feature of the rules (though its often a desirable one), but that they model a universe in which a game takes place is necessary and inescable.  



> As such, it is not the response that would be universally had.




Of course.  But its impossible to control how people respond to something. 



> (To draw another parallel to Conan OGL: if the players found a dead NPC at the end of a battle, would they ask themselves "Why did she not spend a Fate Point?" I assume not - the players know that Fate Points are a purely metagame device, to give the players limited control over their PCs' fates.)




I think I would assume that the NPC ran out of fate points, or that the NPC never had any to begin with.  I would not assume that something called a 'fate point' was intended to model a character's freedom to choose thier fate, but rather in game represented thier lack of freedom to do so.  It indicates to me that in the described universe, some people have bigger destinies than other - like the universe of Greek myth, live big, die big.  That it happened to give the player some control over thier PC's fate is quite possibly even incidental.  But whether incidental to the design or intentional, it inescapably describes something in the game universe.



> For example, in a fortune in the middle system, how do we know whether Black Bob's foot got stuck in the stirrup?




That's another thing.  You keep using FitM in a way that strikes me as very unconventional as well.  Doesn't it just describe a mechanic whereby the outcome is not known until after the dice are thrown?  For example, if in D&D the table rule is that you roll the dice to determine if you hit, and then only after that describe the scene, aren't you using FitM?

You seem to be pigeon-holing FitM to some very specific mechanics, in much the same way that you seem to have an overly narrow definition 'narrativist'.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> Why does the fact that it is not a result on your d6 mean it is not possible?  I honestly can't understand that.




I'm honestly having a hard time understanding you.  The defined result is from 1 to 6.  'Instant Death' doesn't come up.



> What definition of "well-defined" are you using...




I'm getting tired of answering these sorts of questions.

well-de·fined   (wěl'dĭ-fīnd') 
adj.   
Having definite and distinct lines or features: a well-defined silhouette. 
Accurately and unambiguously stated or described: a well-defined argument. 



> ...that must include all possible results rather than a probable subset of possible results?




'Probable subset of possible results' means that given the subset of results, the actual result is still ambiguous.  The subset of results was neither complete nor accurate.  It hense, cannot be 'well-defined'.  What definition of 'well-defined' are you using?



> Are you using "well-defined" as a term of art form some outside source?




The only practice I know of that uses 'well-defined' as a term of art is mathimatics, which given your use of the words set and subset I would have assumed you knew.  

Well defined 

If a function has results that are not known over some space, it is not well defined.  The fuction FallingOffOfHorse(x) = Randomly Choose {1,2,3,4,5,6} is well defined.  Regardless of the input, I know the range of possible outcomes.  A function like FallingOffOfHorse(x) = Randomly Choose {1,2,3,4,5,6} except for undefined values of x, in which case maybe some other stuff like 'Instant Death' is not well-defined.



> It is possible to include all possible results only in a fantasy world with great simplified physics- and I submit that will result in a game world that fails to live up to the one that exists in the imagination of players and DM.




a) Yes, necessarily.  All game worlds are provably more simple than the real universe.  
b) No, not necessarily.  I submit I've been playing in those worlds, and they were satisfying.



> Designer intent has nothing to do with it.  In any reasonably complex world, it is impossible to include all imaginable results (i.e. results that a player can imagine happening with credulity based purely on game world fluff and if they have never read a word of the rules.)  I submit that a world where imaginable results outstrip possible mechanical results is the primary appeal of tabletop gaming.




I submit that the primary appeal of tabletop gaming is that computer referees can't pass the turing test.  But what the primary appeal of tabletop gaming is doesn't really bear on this discussion.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 11, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Even if an in game observer didn't know the name of the meta-game constructs like 'fate points' or 'saving throws', he certainly could observe thier effects and would recognize them as being a part of the predictable behavior of the universe he lived in.




What if we - the people playing the game - say that they don't and can't?  Are we wrong?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> For example, two fighters never stab themselves at the same time.  Ever.




And if we - the people playing the game - say that they _do_ stab each other at the same time, what happens then?  Didn't that just happen in the gameworld?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> By a "narrative" DM, I mean a DM who wants to use the game to tell a story with the players.



The reason I was tempted to equate your use of "narrativist" with "railroading" was because of sentences like the above, which refer to "narrative DMs".

I am not talking about a certain style of GMing. I am talking about a certain style of play which emphasises player control and protagonism. My feeling is that what you mean by "narrative DMing" is an obstacle to, not a facilitator of, the sort of game I am describing. Because - if I have the proper conception of what you are referring to - the "narrative DM" tends to impose his or her own conception of the gameworld on the players (including by ignoring the action resolution rules when the PCs are involved in the action).



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> "what I say goes" is a GREAT narrative tool for a DM, and can create some stellarly fun adventures. Even if "What I say is roll a dice," is the most commonly used response.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



True. I'm also pointing out that it won't necessarily work for a game in which the players want to make thematic statements as part of the point of their gaming. Because (to borrow a phrase from you that you used upthread) it is prone to produce "mother may I" play, which is highly deprotagonising.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> but the *necessary* rules for a storytelling game are, in fact, quite light. Everything else is unnecessary, but it might be desirable.



Well, the necessary rules for a simulationist game are also quite light (eg Moldvay basic played a certain way, which is at least hinted at in the advice to GM section, with its example of assigning percentage chances of success to unusual actions attempted by PCs;  or Call of Cthulhu in the high-concept domain).

But just as there is a certain logic in purist-for-system design that pushes towards RM or RQ (as has been seen in some posts on this thread), so I think there may be a certain logic in narrativist design that pushes towards rules, including action resolution mechanics, that allow players to override the GM's opinion when it comes to certain elements of the gameworld.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A DM who wants to tell a good story with the players (rather than over the top of the players like a railroad) just needs to be able to give the thumbs up or the thumbs down to any concept, depending upon their shared goals for the story. The dice add a desirable degree of randomness, but you don't use them unless you want to, so they never add more randomness than you want.



This again confirms my sense that you are describing a game in which the GM has a very high degree of power in setting the agenda (both metagame and ingame) - what the Forge would call "High Concept Simulationism". I am talking about a situation where the players take control. Hence the importance of dice and action resolution mechanics - they resolve conflicts. But they do not have to do so by modelling the ingame physics (again, I'll mention HeroQuest and The Dying Earth as real-life examples).



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I steer away from Forge terms in general, and I don't mean anything too specific (or condescending) about a 'narrative' DM.



I try to avoid them when I can, but sometimes a technical vocabulary helps, and the Forge terms provide the best I know of for talking about RPGs (though I think that the assimilation of Purist-for-System simulationism - which seems to be fairly attractive to you, certainly to robertliguori and maybe also to Celebrim - with High Concept Simulationism, which no one here really seems to be plugging for, can cause confusion).



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Not very many people are satisfied with pure extremist storytelling games, especially if they come to RPG's through D&D (as many, though not all, do). People who are satisfied with those games take writing courses and play these games as thought excersies and never really look at D&D, unless it's from a different angle.



Well, whether or not a lot of D&D players like narrativist play (in the Forge sense) is I think up for grabs. Many of the changes to 4e seem intended to facilitate gamist play, but will also (in the process) create space for a certain type of vanilla narrativism (IMO). Some of the designers have posted on this forum in a way that (again, IMO) confirms that this is non-accidental (eg Chris Sims on one of the hit point threads from a fortnight or so ago).

Not wanting to do a complete thread derail, but in all the debates about 4e vs WoW I think one thing that table top RPGs offer which computer RPGs cannot is the possibility of narrativist play (in the Forge sense). Whereas computers can do a certain sort of gamism, and a certain sort of simulationism (both purist-for-system and high-concept).

So I'm not surprised that 4e is being designed so as to make more space in its rules for this sort of play.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 11, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> What if we - the people playing the game - say that they don't and can't?  Are we wrong?




Wrong is such a loaded term.  If all participants agreed to something, then they agreed to it. 

But in this case, its not clear to me what that agreement would actually signify.  The stories created using the rules would still bear the clear marks of the rules to the reader.  If some other stories were created without those rules, there would be a notable difference in the character of the stories.  Agreeing that the characters are blind to those differences doesn't change the presence of the elements under discussion.  I think that this is simply creating a rule that in game participants are genera blind.

Maybe if you provided a clear better example of what you meant.



> And if we - the people playing the game - say that they _do_ stab each other at the same time, what happens then?  Didn't that just happen in the gameworld?




Yes.  You have, by common agreement agreed to exempt the scene from the normal rules.  You have effectively created a 'cut scene' within the universe where the normal resolution mechanics didn't apply.  This has the advantage of clearly communicating what the rule was to the players and getting thier clear consent to the rules exception.  But in terms of emmersion into the narrative, I think it suffers compared to finding some other solution - especially if two people stabbing each other at the same time is something you want to happen in the universe without needing common agreement.

But if it works for you, then there is clearly nothing 'wrong' here.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 11, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Wrong is such a loaded term.  If all participants agreed to something, then they agreed to it.
> 
> But in this case, its not clear to me what that agreement would actually signify.  The stories created using the rules would still bear the clear marks of the rules to the reader.  If some other stories were created without those rules, there would be a notable difference in the character of the stories.  Agreeing that the characters are blind to those differences doesn't change the presence of the elements under discussion.  I think that this is simply creating a rule that in game participants are genera blind.
> 
> Maybe if you provided a clear better example of what you meant.




I mean: if we, the players, say that the NPCs and PCs in this world of our imagination do not know about/predict the behaviour of Fate/Action/etc. Points, are we wrong - do they in fact know about them, even though their authors say that they don't?

I know that the fiction will come out differently.  That's the point in having those mechanics.  But that's not what I'm responding to, unless I've totally misunderstood this:



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Even if an in game observer didn't know the name of the meta-game constructs like 'fate points' or 'saving throws', he certainly could observe thier effects and would recognize them as being a part of the predictable behavior of the universe he lived in.




I, as an author of the game's fiction, am saying that the characters (scratch that - _everything_ in the game world, not just characters) involved don't recognize these things, cannot predict results based on them, and don't base their behaviour on them.  Because I, as author, am saying that these metagame points _don't exist at all in the gameworld;_ they only exist at the table in the real world.

Am I, as an author of this fiction, wrong about what I'm creating?  Does my world actually have "Action Point" rules, even when I say that it doesn't?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Yes.  You have, by common agreement agreed to exempt the scene from the normal rules.




I'm not talking about changing the rules, though; I'm talking about describing the action.

The NPC hits me, then on my turn I hit him and do enough damage to kill him.  I decide to describe it like this:

"I feint and he goes for it - he's so fast that his sword nicks me at the same time as I hack his head off with my axe."


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2008)

Celebrim, thanks for the reply. I found it clarified quite a few of your points. I'm still pretty sure we disagree, but I think I'm clearer as to what we disagree about.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> you appear to be trending toward a FORGEism that I expressly deny - namely that the GNS ways of playing a game are incompatible.



In this discussion I'm certainly trying to draw the distinctions starkly (sort of like Weberian ideal types). I'm not sure that they are as stark in play as the Forge would have it, but I have to confess threads like this make me think that the Forge might be right. For example, and hoping it's not rude to say so, I think that your approach to what I am calling metagame rules (which you deny are purely or strictly metagame) suggests that simulationist thinking is winning out. Which does suggest a degree of incompatibility. I don't expect you to agree with that comment (hence my hope that you nevertheless won't take it as rude) but I'll try to explain why I make it.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I disagree with your claim that the distinction in narrativist play is mechanical or even the assumptions about the mechanics.  What you are describing is features of games designed specifically to facillitate narrativist play, and not essential distinguishing features.



Fair enough. I guess my view is this: narrativism can be facilitated by the presence of certain action resolution mechanics. But (and more importantly) it can be hindered by the presence of certain rules, or by a certain approach to the rules and mechanics. If you get rid of the latter (the hindering ones) but don't add in the former (the facilitating ones) then you can play vanilla narrativist.

In the context of D&D, the main rule that I believe hinders narrativist play is the alignment system, which (in play, and I believe also in description, although the latter is more debatable) deprotagonises players frequently and unpleasantly. But other assumptions about play do also, such as the common assumption that the GM is free to introduce adversity at any point of the gameworld. My reading of W&M is that 4e is changing much of this, either expressly or by implication (via PoL).

I also think that an "rules as physics" approach can hinder narrativism, because it can deprotagonise players in certain unhappy ways (RM is notorious for this, I think, despite the fact that many features of its character build rules are very friendly to a vanilla narrativism). Hence my linking of narrativist play to Fate Points, "saying yes" rules, hit points as plot protection rather than ingame physics, etc.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> You keep using FitM in a way that strikes me as very unconventional as well.  Doesn't it just describe a mechanic whereby the outcome is not known until after the dice are thrown?  For example, if in D&D the table rule is that you roll the dice to determine if you hit, and then only after that describe the scene, aren't you using FitM?
> 
> You seem to be pigeon-holing FitM to some very specific mechanics, in much the same way that you seem to have an overly narrow definition 'narrativist'.



I believe I am following the Forge notion of FiTM. So yes, D&D would count as a type of FiTM if played in a certain way. But I think playing it in this way would already take us away from the "rules as physics" approach. For example: the "rules as physics approach" (and here I've especially got in mind KM and robertliguori - I'm less sure about where you stand) treats 50 hp damage as 50 hp damage. So, when a high level hero falls over a cliff and suffers 50 hp damage they have taken a mighty tumble and survived - whereas a lesser mortal would have perished. But in a FiTM approach, we don't know what the 50 hp means until the action is resolved and the damage applied - and in that context, it becomes highly plausible to narrate it differently: "The hero falls over the cliff, but the God of Winds - whose Djinn she rescued from entrapment last session - smiles on her and the breeze slows her fall at the last moment." And once you are playing D&D like that I think that the notion of "rules as physics" has started to take a back seat - for example, under this approach I don't see that any damage to the integrity of the gameworld, or to the integrity of the real world play experience, would be had by having a high level fighter NPC die falling over a cliff. His luck ran out, that's all.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I don't deny that a game can have metarules which shape play but which have no real existence at the in game universe level.  I've kind of hinted around that this is true without really getting into it.  And, it's at this point that things get complicated, because alot of the things that you say are metagame rules don't strike me as being pure metagame rules.  Rather, very often the metarules you describe are in my opinion 'simulationist' in character and have both metagame and in game existance.  That is they shape play at the table, and are also from the standpoint of an in game actor 'real'.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm perfectly willing to distinguish between gameworld and metagame rules.  I'm perfectly willing to distinguish between a rule that governs the interactions of players, and a rule that governs the interactions of thier characters.  Oddly enough, I think that you are having trouble doing so.  A rule like 'the DM doesn't have to pay for the pizza', governs the interactions of players.  A rule like, 'If we can't decide what the correct interpretation of a rule is, we flip a coin and move on rather than argue', governs the interactions of players.  The rules you keep citing govern the interactions of things in the game universe.



I think this is the real crux of our disagreement. The rules you mention - about pizza and coin tosses - are not the rules I'm interested in, as you note. What I'm calling metagame rules (perhaps unhelpfully, but I don't know a better phrase) do govern the interactions of things in the game universe. But (and this is crucial, contentious, and will be taken up again below) not from the perspective of the game universe.

Consider a rule (what I am calling a metagame rule, but I don't think it is a metarule in your sense) which distributes narrative control. Suppose, for example, that we are playing D&D as FiTM, so that when my PC survives a 50' fall I am allowed (within certain parameters expressly or implicitly understood) to narrate how that happened. This is a rule that combines action resolution mechanics - the dice are rolled, the damage applied to my character - with non-mechanical matters, namely, those which tell us who can narrate and what is permitted in that narration.

Under this rule, the action resolution mechanics are, I assert (and I'm pretty sure you deny, but I may be wrong) not modelling, giving voice to or otherwise representing or expressing the physics of the gameworld. The rule about what is permitted in narration _is_ doing that - but the relationship between that rule and the actual mechanics may differ a great deal from game to game.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I don't think RPGs actually need any of those things.



I hope all the above makes it clearer why I think that rules (be they express, or - as is more common in mainstream RPGing - implied) about context, adversity introduction etc matter. These shape the play experience. Thus, if there is no "Lois Lane" rule by which the players can declare sidekicks or lovers off-limits to the GM, at least in certain respects, then a certain sort of play - one which makes thematic points using those NPCs as part of the expressive material - becomes more difficult. Now, the absence of a "Lois Lane" rule is simply the presence of a different rule (again, it may be an express rule or (as in much D&D) an implicit rule): the GM may use any NPC as a site of adversity no matter the relationship between that NPC and the PCs, and no matter the attitude of the player towards that NPC.

Likewise, rules about parameters of narration (eg when playing d2 revised edition as a FiTM game, can I explain my success in jetting to Mars by declaring that I had rocket fuel in my backpack?) help settle the physics of the gameworld (among other things).



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think where we may be sticking is that in your description of narrativist play, there is a body of rules describing the physics of the in game universe which are implied by the setting.  I grant that this is true.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Part of the problem is that in most narrativist games I'm aware of, the action resolution mechanics are so generic and abstract that the sort of edge case conflicts we are describing simply aren't possible.  Maybe I just don't know the rules of those games well enough, but with an abstract mechanical resolution system - whether narrativist or not - is it ever possible to note that an offstage event was impossible under the rules?



I think what you say about implied setting constraints is right. This is what I am trying to get at with references to "the parameters of permitted narration".

As to the issue about abstract action resolution - I think that is also right, and feeds into the flexibility of FiTM resolution. D&D is not as abstract as that.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> For example, two fighters never stab themselves at the same time.  Ever.



Well, that's true if it's a fight being resolved using the action resolution rules. But whether all fights have to be understood as implicitly falling under those rules is what we're debating. I prefer to think of it like this: the physics implied by the setting make it perfectly clear that two fighters sometimes stab one another at the same time. Our action resolution mechanics, however, make this impossible for PCs (and NPCs, when those mechanics are in use). This degree of non-abstraction in our action resolution mechanics puts a limit on the flexibility of FiTM but we may have other reasons for wanting a less abstract set of mechanics (as per your even earlier remark about GNS in/compatibility, maybe we want a little bit of gamism mixed in with our narrativism). But I don't think we're obliged to read this funny "glitch" of our mechanics into the gameworld per se.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Now, I have to qualify that in as much as that there is often a metagame rule that the in game actors are themselves 'genera blind' and don't know the tropes of the universe that they inhabit.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> That the rules grant PC's plot protection is not a necessary and inescable feature of the rules (though its often a desirable one), but that they model a universe in which a game takes place is necessary and inescable.



This point about "genre blindness" is crucial. It underlies my claim that certain rules and mechanics which determine how things are in the gameworld do not do so from the perspective of the gameworld. I actually think it goes beyond genre blindness, however. For example, the ingame characters are blind to the fact that the PCs never perform simultaneous strikes.

There are other ways in which this sort of blindness operates, too. Suppose, for example (as may well be true - I've never checked) that in a Raymond Chandler novel no character ever utters more than a 3-syllable word. Does it follow that no one in Phillip Marlowe's universe has a full vocabulary? I don't think so. There is a "metagame" explanation - Chandler is trying to write punchy crime fiction - which does not have to be taken to model the linguistic physics of his world. Or, to give another example, the effect on nineteeth century novels of their prior serialisation (Dickens, Wilkie Collins) which contributes to their meandering, episodic and surprise plot-twists style: do we infer that the characters all live in bizarre plot-twist world? Or do we treat it as purely a "metagame" feature of the writing, which is not indicative of the "gameworld" reality.

I think the latter. I think by wanting to read these (as I call them) metagame constraints back into the gameworld, you are evincing a systematic simulationist reading of the game rules and mechanics which (IMO) would get in the way of vanilla narrativist play. As this is an attribution of personal preferences, inclinations and obstacles, feel very free to contradict and/or refute it! But to me it seems to be the crux of our disagreement about the relationship between game rules and gameworld physics.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 12, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I mean: if we, the players, say that the NPCs and PCs in this world of our imagination do not know about/predict the behaviour of Fate/Action/etc. Points, are we wrong - do they in fact know about them, even though their authors say that they don't?
> 
> I know that the fiction will come out differently.  That's the point in having those mechanics.
> 
> ...



Lost Soul, you have hit here on exactly the point that I (in my much longer post!) isolated as my point of disagreement with Celebrim.

If I may treat your questions as rhetorical, then let me express my agreement with what you are saying.



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about changing the rules, though; I'm talking about describing the action.
> 
> The NPC hits me, then on my turn I hit him and do enough damage to kill him.  I decide to describe it like this:
> 
> "I feint and he goes for it - he's so fast that his sword nicks me at the same time as I hack his head off with my axe."



Maybe D&D does have more room for highly flexible FiTM than I allowed in my long reply to Celebrim.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 12, 2008)

Just to clarify my point.  I was ONLY speaking to the idea that the RAW could be used to explain all events in a game world.  I don't care about house rules or the rules at someone else's table, since I don't play at that table.  My ONLY point, which should have been fairly clear, was that the RAW distinguishes between PC's and NPC's and thus you have a fairly selective physics.

Heck, PC's are immune to certain skills.  Why can I diplomacy one character and not another?

The rather larger stuff that you guys have sailed onto is all your own discussion.  I was merely pointing out a basic point.  NPC's and PC's are differentiated by the rules themselves.  The differentiation makes Rules=Physics very problematic.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 12, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think you are confusing two concepts again.  Not surprisingly, its the same two things people are repeatedly confusing.
> 
> In the above example:
> 
> ...




I think we agree more than we disagree. I am always most concerned with those situations where rules have not been made. I like it when my players think of creative actions and do things that the rules do not cover. 

Of course, I also believe that the rules are only a rough structure for resolving PC actions and not an explanation for how the world works in general. Combine that with the fact that I consider the NPCs and world in general to be my property and, thus, subject to my will and whim, and I could see our having problems at a table. 

But to each there own. I hope you continue to have fun.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 12, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I, as an author of the game's fiction, am saying that the characters (scratch that - _everything_ in the game world, not just characters) involved don't recognize these things, cannot predict results based on them, and don't base their behaviour on them.  Because I, as author, am saying that these metagame points _don't exist at all in the gameworld;_ they only exist at the table in the real world.




Thank you. This is an excellent point and one of the key things that I have been trying (and failing, I think) to articulate.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 12, 2008)

KM, a few last thoughts before I bow out.  

I didn't mean to accuse you of wrongbadfun.  Not in the least.  In my mind, I think you have mischaracterized your game.  You are claiming that rules=physics in your game, but, I think that you have not explored exactly what that means.

The fact that the only way you can justify the examples I brought up is by rewriting them shows me that.  It's not that you're having wrongbadfun, I think you're having just as much fun as everyone else.  I also think that your campaign is likely exactly the same as everyone else's - NPC's and PC's are treated differently, created differently and, off camera operate under entirely different rules sets.  

I highly doubt you actually adventure that NPC up to 15th level, for example, but rather create him whole cloth, complete with whatever doodads you want to give him.  

That's my entire complaint in a nutshell.  It's not that you're having wrongbadfun, it's that you're trying to make a claim that isn't supported by either your own experience or by the RAW.  IMNSHO.


----------



## Lurker37 (Feb 12, 2008)

Frankly, I find the proposal that an set of RPG rules could be used as a full description of a gameworld's in-game physics to be a little disconcerting.

To truly achieve this, the game system of any world where we assume that the protaganists are biological organisms with complexity remtely approaching that of a human being, where there is an ecosystem of sufficient diversity to provide an engaging variety of flora and fauna, and where at the very least the Newtonian laws of Physics apply, would require a game system so complex that it would comprise several hundred rulebooks and a supercomuter to calculate results in real time. And that's before we add any rules for magic/psionics/pokemon/whatever.

No playable system uses a full simulation of gameworld natural laws. What the do is present a simulation model.

Is anyone here not familiar with the concept of a simulation model? It's a method of simplifying a real-world scenario down to the point where, for instance, a computer can  predict the outcome of something. The trick is taking the thousands of real-world variables and replacing those that will not be changing significantly during the process we wish to model with constants. That requires us to make assumptions about the environment in which the process will occur. If one or more of those assumptions proves incorrect, or if a significant variable is left unaccounted for, then the model will not generate accurate results.

RPG rules are models. They simplify the simulation of the player's experiences in the gameworld to the point where the simulation is playable and enjoyable. For example,  most of them do not do is simulate weather patterns, extinction of species, geographical formations, economic systems etc. Rules that do attempt to do this are usually either gross simplifications (e.g. random tables) or else so cumbersome that they are rarely invoked during a game session. 

Not surprisingly, RPG rulesets tend to focus on the creation of PCs and handling their adventurous activities. This allows further assumptions to be made, further reducing the amount of rules required to play the game. 

The point of contention here is that there appears to be an assumption in the D&D system that PCs will not suffer injuries such as sprains or broken bones. The hit point system lets PCs and NPCs alike function at full efficiency until their condition becomes life-threatening. Why was this assumption made? Presumably becasue although such outcomes of even minor injury are indeed possible, being forced to play the results of such is not widely considered as fun. (Yes, I know. Go figure!)

So the rules do not model broken bones or sprains, because the assumption is that such things will not be required to result from combat involving PCs.

The problem that is arising is what happens when one or more of the assumptions of the rules no longer apply? There are two approaches - extend the rules to deal with the situation, or accept that this is a limitation of the model, and handwave it. If you are only willing to accept the first approach, but cannot establish a rule, the only conclusion is that such an event cannot be handled in game at this time. 

I do not, however, accept that such a situation means that such things are impossible in the gameworld (unless the fact that this is impossible is explicitly stated in the rules, in which case it isn't a flaw in the model to begin with). Instead I take the stance that this is a result of the imperfections of the rules' attempt to model the gameworld, and that the DM is able to go beyond these limits due to rule 0.

Having said where I stand, I'm going to plow on with the example to see where this thought experiment takes us.

I'm going to try to break down the high-level character falling off horse argument into the three ways it jars against the default system. To do this I'm going to thoroughly pain the DM into a corner so that extraneous tangential lines of argument can't draw us away from the point we were originally trying to examine - how can this NPC die from falling off the horse?

Let's assume for narrative purposes that the fighter has been a semi-mentor figure, and the DM wishes for him to die so that the PCs can step into his shoes. It is important that this death be by misadventure, as any fatal illness would be cured by the clerics, and death by foul play would require a revenge plotline that would derail the current main plotline, which has time-critical elements. Alas, the PCs have explored the vicinity and know that there are no deep ravines, so that trick is ruled out. Furthermore, the DM has plans to use the manner of this NPC dying as an omen for a future plotline.

In the RAW, there are three obstacles to allowing the fatal fall from a horse. The falling damage rules only allow for 1d6 damage, there are no rules for broken bones, and the NPC has a respectable hit point total that would absorb most injury.

If this were a PC, then there would be no question. The rules are specifically set up on the assumption that such injuries to PCs do not enhance the game, so there is no page space devoted to rules for them. Ergo, the PC would not be able to die from the fall unless already gravely injured.

The core question seems to be whether the same holds for NPCs.

Let's examine each point to see how much room for interpretation there is.

1) Can a fall result in more damage? The falling damage system is both simple and rigid. Furthermore, despite reports in the news of toddlers surviving falls from 5th story balconies, such things are reported precisely because they are so atypical. Asking for the level of variance in the rules to inflict more hit point damage from falling, say by exploding criticals, would mean that even tripping over could become a life-threatening event. So it seems that reworking the falling damage system would cause far more problems than it would solve.

2) Can NPC's suffer non-abstract injuries that the PCs are assumed to be immune to? For instance, can commoner NPCs sprain ankles or break arms? While many of us would argue that there is no strain on our disbelief to encounter a commoner with either condition, it is equally valid to note that nothing in the rules spells out how such a condition would have been inflicted on them. If we accept that such injuries are possible in the gameworld, then we either need to create rules for them, and thus create the risk the wrath of players whose characters are rendered unable to fight by such injuries, or else persuade them to accept that the absence of rules to inflict these conditions does not mean that they do not exist. I personally would have far more trouble with believing that commoners cannot sprain ankles than accepting that although it can happen in the gameworld there are no rules for it happening in play. Yet. But the DM's spouse is not amenable to this, so we continue.

3) Are hit points extraordinary physical resilience or a simulation of skill and luck/fate/destiny/divine favour? The presence of massive damage and coup-de-grace rules would seem to indicate the latter, but this point is being hotly debated in this thread. How do we handle situations where the hit point system breaks down? The presence of massive damage and coup-de-grace rules point to two cases where the designers thought the default behaviour of the hitpoint model was undesirable. Are there any others? Is the NPC falling from his horse one of them?

Personally, I'd simply handle it narratively. I would not feel it necessary to create a rule for a once-off event, but instead say it happened, and move on.  I'd accept that happily, as would the group I play with, but many posters here would not. 

So let us furthermore assume that one of the players is of such a mindset, and furthermore cannot simply be ejected from the table due to being married to the DM.

(As I said, I'm painting the poor DM into a corner.)

So how to proceed without having to sleep on the couch tonight?

I note that in 4E at least hit points are going to be explicitly defined as not representing extraordinary physical toughness, but rather a combination of skill and luck. Apparently healing spells are even being rewritten to reflect this.

That suggests a solution. Rather than ramp up the damage, houserule that under certain circumstances skill and/or luck no longer apply, reducing the effective hitpoint total.

If the hit point system is a simulation of skil land luck, then situations where skill and/or luck no longer apply would reduce the character's ability to survive damage.

Let's take being immersed in lava, for example. No amount of physical prowess is going to help you once you're in it- the time for it to help you was before you fell into it. Furthermore, there is no probability involved. The chance of the lava NOT conducting fatal amounts of heat energy into your body during any given second is zero. It's going to happen. So anything not magically immune to extreme heat, and with a melting or ignition point below the melting point of rock, is going to die. 

So perhaps a charcter - PC or NPC is deprived of the benefit of half their hit points whenever skill or luck is removed as a factor, and deprived of most of them when both are removed. At this point they only have a low, base amount of hit points standing between them and mortally wounded status. The only trick left is to determine how low this is, making sure it's not instantly killed by a pebble while still allowing coup de grace etc.

Then the GM can simply rule that in this case both the NPC's skill and luck were ruled out, so the few remaining hit points he had were low enough for the fall (which did max damage) to be fatal.

Unfortunately the DM's spouse really liked that NPC, so the DM is still sleeping on the couch tonight.

So now we have a proposed houserule that can allow the NPC to die, and also makes life far shorter for high-level characters dropped in lava or falling from great heights. 

My final question is: does anyone prefer this houserule to just accepting that a DM can make judgement calls on situations not covered by the RAW?


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 12, 2008)

I think the main issue is that falling damage IS covered in the RAW. Therefore, some people think that this rule, unless previously House Ruled (which would render all of this pointless), must be followed because this is how the physics of falling are handled in the game world.

Basically (and I'm sure I'll mess this up somewhere), the Falling Damage rule is a direct reflection of the setting's nature itself. If you change it, fine, but that would mean (from their point of view) that you just changed the physics of the world.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe that Falling Damage does not represent the physics of the world but, instead, is the way the game handles adjudicating the consequences of falling for a PC. Under casual circumstance it could also be used for NPCs, since it allows for quick and easy adjudication, but I believe that this is not necessary.  Since, IMO, the rules do NOT reflect the physics of the world, but are in place to provide a fun heroic fantasy game for the players, I think that it is much more appropriate to not use the rule and instead adjudicate the situation in a way that MORE CLOSELY REFLECTS the physics of the game world. 

I think that a player who thinks that this is impossible because his character has survived much more dangerous falls is kind of metagaming. The character was "lucky" (partially what hit points represent) and should think that he barely escaped with his life--not conclude that every hero of his skill (level) can leap from tall buildings.

But, once again, I don't begrudge anyone their style of play. It did surprise me at first because this is the first I've heard of it, and I've been playing since 1981 and DMing since 1985, with a wide variety of people including many gaming store games. I didn't realize that it was such a popular interpretation of what the rules represent.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 12, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, Lanefan, it doesn't matter if you or I agree with the rules.  That's entirely besides the point.  The point being made here is that a D&D world functions as a result of those rules.  That the RAW defines the physics of the world.  That you think the rule is stupid or bad is irrelevant.



Yes it does matter if you or I agree with the rules, because if we're the DMs and we don't agree with them we're gonna start making changes; at least in our own games.



> I'm presenting how the RAW actually works.  I'm not making anything up.  This is what the RAW specifically states will happen.  Full stop.  That's why RAW doesn't function as the physics of the world because it would be utterly unbelievable if it did.



So change the RAW until it *does* function as at least a modicum of a believable in-game physics model.







> Yup, read them.  Where does it say anything about how those NPC's got those levels?  Oh, right, it doesn't.  It says pretty much - give them the levels you think they should have to fit in the adventure.  Oh, and if you want to make a town, here's how to do it so that you have a nice spread of levels.  At no point do you ever advance those NPC's by having them go through off camera adventures.  No NPC ever dies before becoming the planned level of your adventure.



Fine.  But let's at least assume there's a mechanism in place for those levels to be gained, and if there isn't then build one.  Even if we never functionally use it, at least it exists; and that's important.  If a DM doesn't have an internal consistency within her game that runs far deeper than what the players ever see, it eventually shows through...and the players notice, to the detriment of the game.




> It has nothing to do with wrongbadfun and I certainly never claimed anything of the sort.  My point is that you are taking a completely indefensible position and trying to say that it works.  It doesn't.  The RAW doesn't say what you claim it says.  The RAW differentiates between PC and NPC in significant ways.  Changing my examples doesn't make you right.  If you cannot defend your position without distorting the situation, that means your point is wrong.



All I'm claiming is that if the RAW differentiate between PCs and NPCs in the fundamental ways you note, then the problem lies in the RAW: they are wrong, and need to be changed.







> XP - PC's and NPC's gain xp differently, in that NPC's only gain xp when on camera.  Off camera, an NPC never gains xp, or you would have entire towns gaining levels after a tornado.  People living in Kansas would all be seventh level by the time they were twenty years old.



So ignore the RAW.  Off camera, an NPC does whatever it does, and if that leads to gaining some ExP, so be it. 


> Wealth - PC's have twice the wealth of an NPC.  Why?  Because PC's are better investors?  Ballocks.  It's because an NPC is meant to be a challenge against 4 PC's.  To bring the classes up to speed against the party, classes need magical bling.  Also note, monsters actually don't get as much treasure.  A 7th level PC has 19k gp, a 7th level NPC has 8500 and a CR 7 monster has 2600 gp.  Despite the fact that they should all be equal.  A 7th level NPC fighter is a CR 7 encounter.  Why does he have just about 4 times more bling than a Hill Giant?



Not sure where this is trying to go...there is no reason for them to be equal, but they should be random.  One Hill Giant might have next to nothing, the next might have a sackful of gold...it all depends how good the raiding has been lately and whether their little pea-sized brains can recognize wealth for what it is.   As for opponents, magic-ing up opponents to make them better challenges for the PCs only leads to the PCs wealth-by-level going out the window once they win some of those fights.  Better perhaps just to give the opponents a few more raw levels (or funky abilities) to make up the difference, and ignore wealth-by-level completely.


> Action Points.  I brought this up before, and it was brushed off, but, other than very rare NPC's, only PC's gain action points.  Why?  Because it would be too complex to give action points to everyone.  Pure gamism.



Action points don't exist in 3.x core, do they?  In any case, they *are* purely gamist, and thus will never appear - for PCs or anyone else - in my games.







> That's just a few examples of how the rules differentiate PC from NPC.  Never mind the bag full of rules that make absolutely no sense from a world building perspective.  Unless your world is full of extremely skinny insomniacs that is.



Not quite sure what you're getting at here...skinny insomniacs? (or are you mixing up the characters and players...skinny insomniac *players* are something I've encountered before...) 

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Feb 12, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe that Falling Damage does not represent the physics of the world but, instead, is the way the game handles adjudicating the consequences of falling for a PC. Under casual circumstance it could also be used for NPCs, since it allows for quick and easy adjudication, but I believe that this is not necessary.  Since, IMO, the rules do NOT reflect the physics of the world, but are in place to provide a fun heroic fantasy game for the players, I think that it is much more appropriate to not use the rule and instead adjudicate the situation in a way that MORE CLOSELY REFLECTS the physics of the game world.



I think that this is pretty consistent with what I've been saying about how the mechanics can be separated from the ingame physics. So agreed!


----------



## Hussar (Feb 12, 2008)

Answering things a bit backwards:



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Not quite sure what you're getting at here...skinny insomniacs? (or are you mixing up the characters and players...skinny insomniac *players* are something I've encountered before...)




There are no mechanical penalties for not sleeping in 3.x.  None.  Nowhere does there appear any penalty.  So, I can, by RAW, never sleep and never suffer any ill effects.  The only people who actually DO have to rest are casters, and that's only if they need to get spells back.

By RAW, I only need to eat one meal every three days to stave off the effects of starvation.  

Thus, I was making a bit of a joke about why using RAW to model reality doesn't really work.  RAW allows me to be a very skinny insomniac.  A poor joke perhaps, although it was funny when I first read it in OOTS in Dragon.  

Lanefan - you are assuming that I'm out to change things.  I'm not.  I'm simply trying to debunk the idea that RAW can be used as a set of physics for the gaming world.  Yes, I realize that you can continue to refine the rules, add more rules, whatnot to try to make a more consistant world.  True.  Harn makes the attempt quite nicely.

D&D doesn't.  IIRC, there is a quote in the 1e books about anyone trying to use D&D to simulate reality is doomed to failure.  While I frequently disagree with Mr. Gygax on a lot of things, this is one place where I do strongly agree.  



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> So change the RAW until it *does* function as at least a modicum of a believable in-game physics model.




But, where do you stop?  The amount of work you would need to do in order to even remotely simulate a real world is enormous.  Vast swaths of the game exist for the sole purpose of letting us pretend to be elves, killing crap and taking their stuff.  Large amounts of the game have nothing to do with trying to model reality.

For me, that's a good thing.  I don't want a reality simulator because I recognize that that's virtually impossible for a game like D&D.  Even Harn barely scratches the surface.  GURPS doesn't even come close.  Good grief, Civilization IV barely scratches the surface.

I don't want rules that let me make some sort of Sim Fantasy World.  I want rules that tell me what happens when I stick a sword in something.  Not in too much detail either, thanks.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 12, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> Frankly, I find the proposal that an set of RPG rules could be used as a full description of a gameworld's in-game physics to be a little disconcerting.
> 
> To truly achieve this, the game system of any world where we assume that the protaganists are biological organisms with complexity remtely approaching that of a human being, where there is an ecosystem of sufficient diversity to provide an engaging variety of flora and fauna, and where at the very least the Newtonian laws of Physics apply, would require a game system so complex that it would comprise several hundred rulebooks and a supercomuter to calculate results in real time. And that's before we add any rules for magic/psionics/pokemon/whatever.




The thing you are overlooking is that the in game characters generally aren't complex biological organisms, the in game universe generally doesn't have complex ecosystems, and so forth.

Newtonian laws of physics apply, but only in the vague 'assume for these purposes that the arrow arced in a reasonable ballistic trajectory'.  

"No playable system uses a full simulation of gameworld natural laws. What the do is present a simulation model."

No in game world is actually as complex as you are pretending.  The in game world itself is actually a simulation model.  Consider the case of a computer RPG like 'World of Warcraft'.  Blood doesn't actually circulate in any of the creatures.  We can make a pretence that it does, but the circulation of blood plays no real role in the physics of 'World of Warcraft'.  Neither is there a complex ecosystem.  Trees don't actually transpire, don't actually photosynthesize, and don't actually exchange carbon dioxcide for oxygen.  In fact, oxygen doesn't actually exist, and most of the time _no one is even making a pretence that any of these things are happening_.  No one is simulating any of this even in thier imaginations.  The game universe is actually very simple.  The rules are not an abstraction of the game universe, because the game universe is less concrete and real than even the rules.  We pretend that the game universe is complex, but it really isn't.  It is exactly what you'd expect to be the product of simulation model.

Some people are claiming, "Well, but offstage its more complex and real than on stage."  Hogwash.  Offstage, it is less complex and less real and less concretely imagined than one stage.  That's one of the reasons why I suggest using the rules offstage.  It encourages you to imagine that reality in more detail than merely handwaving away the game simulation.



> For example,  most of them do not do is simulate weather patterns, extinction of species, geographical formations, economic systems etc. Rules that do attempt to do this are usually either gross simplifications (e.g. random tables) or else so cumbersome that they are rarely invoked during a game session.




But that's the thing.  Most games I've played in _don't have weather patterns, extinction of the species, geographical formations, or economic systems_.  It's a rare DM that even imagines that his world has these things or thinks about it.   Most game worlds I've been in don't have any weather to speak of, and the only time anyone even thinks about it is when the DM is using it as fluff to say, "There is trouble in the state of Denmark."  or "This scene is going to be explicitly 'man vs. nature'.  They certainly don't have geographical formations unless the DM is a geologist.  (I'm a member of the NSS, so my games actually have caves, but I wouldn't claim that they have any other sort of geology.)  

The only time I've been in games that have these things on any sort of a regular basis is with DMs that took the time and effort to create a simulation model of these things, because otherwise they simply would never be reminded that these things were going on.  I take the trouble to roll up the weather every day, because I know if I didn't the game universe would never have any weather to speak of. 



> The point of contention here is that there appears to be an assumption in the D&D system that PCs will not suffer injuries such as sprains or broken bones. The hit point system lets PCs and NPCs alike function at full efficiency until their condition becomes life-threatening. Why was this assumption made? Presumably becasue although such outcomes of even minor injury are indeed possible, being forced to play the results of such is not widely considered as fun. (Yes, I know. Go figure!)
> 
> So the rules do not model broken bones or sprains, because the assumption is that such things will not be required to result from combat involving PCs.




No, PCs suffer injuries like sprains or broken bones.  What do you think 'ability damage' is?  In fact, 'sprain' is a result on my house rule fumble table, so my characters really do suffer these sorts of injuries.  But in other game worlds, they really don't happen.  Be honest.  Whens the last time your BBEG entered combat with a sprained ankle or a strained muscle?  

I appreciate you attempt to propose a house rule to allow the story to progress, but I find your house rule very vague and arbitrary.   It is also unnecessary.  I've previously provided a story that works very well under both the RAW and my own house rules explaining how the death of an important high level NPC was caused by a fall from his horse.  (Relevent post here.) Moreover, my story makes a far better 'evil omen' story than the one you proposed IMNSHO.  Again, sticking by the rules forced me to create something more interesting because I needed to provide more detail to explain the event.   And, sticking by the rules made sure that the world was more emmersive and believable, because what happened offstage fit the players conceptions of what should happen based on thier on stage experiences.  So, yes, in theory I could have broke the rules and probably got away with it, but by not being 'lazy' about the story I avoided pitfalls and still told the same story but IMNSHO told it better for my game world.



> My final question is: does anyone prefer this houserule to just accepting that a DM can make judgement calls on situations not covered by the RAW?




Once again, we are confusing the situation.  I've never once claimed that the DM can't make judgement calls on situations not covered by the RAW.  I've even allowed that the DM can if he deems it necessary break the rules.   But this is a situation covered by the rules as written, and he loses something and gains nothing by breaking the rules.  Hense, he is best adviced to stick to the rules.  It's not 'wrong' to not stick to the rules, but it is (at least in the cases thus far discussed) better to do so IMO.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 12, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I don't want rules that let me make some sort of Sim Fantasy World.  I want rules that tell me what happens when I stick a sword in something.  Not in too much detail either, thanks.




You are still making unnecessary assumptions.  I don't think you necessarily need any more rules than that as long as all that happens in your game world is mostly sticking swords in things.

But let's consider the case of the rules on sleep deprivation and starvation.  Suppose the PC's begin to start abusing the rules, not sleeping and not eating except the bare minimum required by the rules.  What are you going to do as a DM?

a) You can start punishing the PCs anyway.  If you do this, you are effectively changing the rules.  If you want the game universe to be one where you can't be a healthy anarexic insomniac, that's the only real approach.  You can do it with ad hoc rulings (though human nature being what it is, these will tend to become informally codified) or with an actual new written house rule.  But either way is essentially 'a rule'.  Now, the game universe actually works the way you always wanted it to work, but it in fact, according to the rules, didn't.
b) You can assume the universe does work like that.  NPC's now follow the PC's lead and don't sleep or eat except as required by the rules.  What you are essentially asserting now is that these rules are realistic for the universe being simulated.  In the game universe, people don't really need to sleep or eat as often as they do here, and push comes to shove, they don't.
c) You can ignore the problem, pretend that the universe works like this one, even though the PCs are doing something flagrantly impossible in this universe.  And if you do, you'll probably be a very unsatisfied DM, and the players will probably continue to feel like they are 'cheating' by taking advantage of a bad rule, and will be continually reminded that this is only a game.  This is not the idea solution.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 12, 2008)

Celebrim - I actually agree with this bit very much:



> Once again, we are confusing the situation. I've never once claimed that the DM can't make judgement calls on situations not covered by the RAW. I've even allowed that the DM can if he deems it necessary break the rules. But this is a situation covered by the rules as written, and he loses something and gains nothing by breaking the rules. Hense, he is best adviced to stick to the rules. It's not 'wrong' to not stick to the rules, but it is (at least in the cases thus far discussed) better to do so IMO.




And I think I got stuck into an argument that actually wasn't being made.  

As far as A, B, or C goes, I'd prolly have to go with A.  But, that was my point  all the way along.

I thought, and perhaps this was wrong, that KM was making a blanket statement that the rules of the game are the physics of the world.  Always and forever.  My point was that they couldn't be.  They are simply too many holes and contradictions for that to be true.  

Trying to plug those holes would be like sticking fingers in the dike.  Eventually it's all going to come crashing down.  

My sense of disbelief being pretty healthy, I'd much rather just not bother and realize that the rules work as an approximation of the action in the world and leave it at that.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 12, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe that Falling Damage does not represent the physics of the world but, instead, is the way the game handles adjudicating the consequences of falling for a PC. Under casual circumstance it could also be used for NPCs, since it allows for quick and easy adjudication, but I believe that this is not necessary. Since, IMO, the rules do NOT reflect the physics of the world, but are in place to provide a fun heroic fantasy game for the players, I think that it is much more appropriate to not use the rule and instead adjudicate the situation in a way that MORE CLOSELY REFLECTS the physics of the game world.
> 
> I think that a player who thinks that this is impossible because his character has survived much more dangerous falls is kind of metagaming. The character was "lucky" (partially what hit points represent) and should think that he barely escaped with his life--not conclude that every hero of his skill (level) can leap from tall buildings.




I do believe you get it. 

For me, the stronger implication, rather than physics, is that by having a rule, the game expects you to use it for all situations that rule covers, not just for the situations that the PC's are involved in. In my mind, this is out of DM/Player fairness and improves my immersion, both. This implies that the rules are the physics, because every time it happens, the rule comes into effect (unless the rule is changed). The kind of self-conscious metagame distinction between heroic PC's and heroic NPC's doesn't exist for me, and if I was forced to realize it, I wouldn't enjoy the game as much. Chalk it up to acting, knowing that even though I'm playing a role, the role doesn't know that.  

For me, the "heroic luck" in the game world is vaguely quantifiable in-character. If you can cast _fireball_, chances are good that a lone goblin with a knife won't kill you. This is regardless of if you're a PC or NPC -- people who possess such skill are greater than most mortals, and they need similarly heroic enemies to challenge them, not goblins with knives. Such a character can be flippant and showcase bravado to the goblin with the knife, and still expect to come out ahead, secure in their arrogance, humiliating the creature with their heroic ability. 

This creates a very satisfying, evocative implied setting for me. I'm pretty sure a D&D game wherein my character is just absurdly lucky wouldn't be to my tastes, but that's just my high demands for the game.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 12, 2008)

KM, I think we could play together without any problems. The scenarios we've all been discussing are pretty extreme and, in reality, we wouldn't run across them often. When push comes to shove, we would lean in different directions on the issue, but the likelyhood of it happening is remote.

Anyway, I'm glad that this thread is here. Some very interesting discussion.


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 12, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Celebrim - I actually agree with this bit very much:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What do you mean by contradictions?  Does it interfere with your suspension of disbelief for a wizard to wiggle his fingers and then be able to fly, despite this not having an analogue in reality?

How about a gold dragon doing the same thing with its wings?

As a thought experiment, imagine that every single corner-case ruling was supported by fluff.  Not with "This is why people don't need to eat but every three days.", but "People don't need to eat every three days."  This is a world that, even in its mundane components, works differently than our world.  There's no holes to be filled, no endless list of rationalizations; the world is just different.  Why can dragons breed with everything? Well, we can posit strange things about dragon gametes and chromosomes, or we can say "The nature of this universe is such that sentient manifestations of planar energy can get it on and have babies.  Obviously, genetics as we understand it does not apply to this universe."

Running a game like this requires a strong level of unconscious rules mastery.  In our world, we have lifetimes worth of experience telling us that falling from horses is generally bad, and that people who claim to be able to strike us down with an unerring missile of magical energy  can't back up their threats.  If the D&D rules were meant to be a simulation of our world, then allowing for either always-nonlethal falls or magic missile would indicate that it is a bad simulation.  Because of this, intuition and common sense are poor judges of how the rules system of D&D will behave.

Moreover, there is no guarantee that your players will share your assumptions about how the world should behave.  If I imagine a level-20 fighter to be a (not-D&D-term-of-art) demigod akin to Hercules, who actually can transcend the limits of our universe just like the magic brigade, and another player imagines him to be just a man, then the problems of this thread arise.  How are the players supposed to know what to expect to behave as akin to our world, and what not?

Now, if these expectations aren't a problem, because you don't mind telling your players "It's plot.  It's not supposed to work like the rest of the world.  Oh, yeah, none of your characters find it at all odd or incongruous.", this isn't a problem.  However, if players value a consistent world over a dramatic story, and value their ability to interact with and shape the story through in-game world-supported action, you pretty much need new players.


----------



## Lurker37 (Feb 12, 2008)

Thanks for replying Celebrim. I'll admit that I'm trying to draw you and people like you out on this topic so I can better deal with players like you in the future. By responding in detail to the points I've made, you're helping to understand what you want from a game. I'm never going to agree - that's a matter of personal preference. But it will head off arguments and ill feeling if I can anticipate what such players want.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The thing you are overlooking is that the in game characters generally aren't complex biological organisms, the in game universe generally doesn't have complex ecosystems, and so forth.




Except when such things become plot relevant. When a PC is stabbed, they bleed. Ergo they have cardiovascular systems. A victim of a grisly murder could have their entrails strewn across the room. No player is going to stand up and declare that since there are no rules for digestion, characters in this gameworld don't have intestines. (Are they?   )

And I seem to recall that there are indeed bleeding rules, which would be an attempt to model the effects of blood loss on significant characters - generally PCs. ( Monsters generally are assumed to die at zero. Let's face it, in 99% of cases no-one's going to stabilise them. ) So I'd actually argue that although there are no rules for blood _circulation_, the rules do point to circulation systems existing. And I point to that of an example of the game world being more complex than the rules would otherwise appear to imply.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The game universe is actually very simple.  The rules are not an abstraction of the game universe, because the game universe is less concrete and real than even the rules.  We pretend that the game universe is complex, but it really isn't.  It is exactly what you'd expect to be the product of simulation model.




Taken to an extreme, that could be mistaken to imply that when a PC's blade cleaves a kobold in two, there should be no blood or guts. That all biological organisms are some sort of homogenous matter clad in skin, scales or fur. When a commoner loses an arm in a sawmill accident, they have a clean flat flesh-coloured stump with no bone, no muscle, and no bleeding. That if you walk too far from the village you're going to reach a flat expanse of nothingness where the published maps end and the DM hasn't made anything new. I know that's not what you're saying, but I'm using extreme examples to point out that every game assumes that the game world is at least a little more complex than what is explicitly spelled out in the rules. The only argument is about where you draw the line.

My position is that the rules do not model the gameworld. They present a model for the players to interact with the gameworld. There are no rules for many aspects of the gameworld because the model assumes that such things will not be plot relevant, and therefore makes no attempt to handle their impact on the PCs, or vice versa. If that assumption fails, then the DM has two options: fiat, or house-rule.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Some people are claiming, "Well, but offstage its more complex and real than on stage."  Hogwash.  Offstage, it is less complex and less real and less concretely imagined than one stage.  That's one of the reasons why I suggest using the rules offstage.  It encourages you to imagine that reality in more detail than merely handwaving away the game simulation.




Actually, offstage is where the model breaks down, IMO. When's the last time the DM ran three succssive NPC vs Monster battles because the players' party was the fourth group sent to deal with the ogre problem?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> But that's the thing.  Most games I've played in _don't have weather patterns, extinction of the species, geographical formations, or economic systems_.  It's a rare DM that even imagines that his world has these things or thinks about it.   Most game worlds I've been in don't have any weather to speak of, and the only time anyone even thinks about it is when the DM is using it as fluff to say, "There is trouble in the state of Denmark."  or "This scene is going to be explicitly 'man vs. nature'.  They certainly don't have geographical formations unless the DM is a geologist.  (I'm a member of the NSS, so my games actually have caves, but I wouldn't claim that they have any other sort of geology.)
> 
> The only time I've been in games that have these things on any sort of a regular basis is with DMs that took the time and effort to create a simulation model of these things, because otherwise they simply would never be reminded that these things were going on.  I take the trouble to roll up the weather every day, because I know if I didn't the game universe would never have any weather to speak of.




And here again this is a difference in our styles of play. In most games I've played in, the assumption is that these things indeed do exist, but are either static enough that there is no need to describe how they change, or so complex that no rules could model them to the DM or player's satisfaction. Taking the example of weather, most DMs I've played with at least take the time of year in-game into account when describing the weather, but do not roll on charts. And weather is rarely described in more then a terse fashion (cool, and overcast) unless something is happening that would give it plot significance. EG, the players are trying to evacuate the villagers to the other side of the river before the rain starts and the river floods.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> No, PCs suffer injuries like sprains or broken bones.  What do you think 'ability damage' is?  In fact, 'sprain' is a result on my house rule fumble table, so my characters really do suffer these sorts of injuries.  But in other game worlds, they really don't happen.  Be honest.  Whens the last time your BBEG entered combat with a sprained ankle or a strained muscle?




Good for you on the house rule! I approve! Unfortunately my experience is that ability damage is far more often the result of disease or poison, neither of which lend themselves to a description of 'sprain', so I never made that leap of intuition. *yoinks house rule*



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I appreciate you attempt to propose a house rule to allow the story to progress, but I find your house rule very vague and arbitrary.   It is also unnecessary.  I've previously provided a story that works very well under both the RAW and my own house rules explaining how the death of an important high level NPC was caused by a fall from his horse.  (Relevent post here.) Moreover, my story makes a far better 'evil omen' story than the one you proposed IMNSHO.  Again, sticking by the rules forced me to create something more interesting because I needed to provide more detail to explain the event.   And, sticking by the rules made sure that the world was more emmersive and believable, because what happened offstage fit the players conceptions of what should happen based on thier on stage experiences.  So, yes, in theory I could have broke the rules and probably got away with it, but by not being 'lazy' about the story I avoided pitfalls and still told the same story but IMNSHO told it better for my game world.




Yes, but your post requires a ravine. I deliberately presented a case where the local geography was well known, and no such ravine existed. I live in an area where we tend to have gentle hills rather than steep slopes and ravines, and I think that may be why most of our homebrewed geography tends to also omit them. Sadly, I think most players I know would have more problem with the sudden appearance of a deep and dangerous ravine than with the original death from the short fall!



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Once again, we are confusing the situation.  I've never once claimed that the DM can't make judgement calls on situations not covered by the RAW.  I've even allowed that the DM can if he deems it necessary break the rules.   But this is a situation covered by the rules as written, and he loses something and gains nothing by breaking the rules.  Hense, he is best adviced to stick to the rules.  It's not 'wrong' to not stick to the rules, but it is (at least in the cases thus far discussed) better to do so IMO.




I think I'm beginning to understand now. In your view of the game, game systems such as hitpoints and dice of damage are absolutes, and the gameworld conforms to them no matter how many minor incongruities that introduces. I'm struggling with this concept because every game I've played in the GM and players have either all assumed that the gameworld defaults to the real world, and the rules are an attempt to simplify that world for play, or a situation of this type has never arisen to reveal which opinion people at the table hold.

It's also clear that someone who holds the one opinion is unlikely to be persuaded to the other.

So I have two final questions: 

1) Has anyone ever played with a group where the difference in opinion on gamerules as gameworld physics became an issue, and how was this handled?

2) Who be able to enjoy a game where the DM held the opposite opinion, and what, if anything, would facilitate this? (e.g. announcement at the start of the game which philosophy was being followed)


----------



## Imban (Feb 12, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> 1) Has anyone ever played with a group where the difference in opinion on gamerules as gameworld physics became an issue, and how was this handled?




I typically have this issue myself with published books and modules far, far more than games in actual play. For example, shadows being easily capable of bringing about an undead apocalypse bothers me in 3e, because by my "rules-as-physics" philosophy, their statblock provides that they can do that, so they can do that, and it leaves me holding the bag for answering why that hasn't happened / doesn't happen.

(And God forbid a Shape of Fire shows up to wreak havoc.)

For an even better example of this, there's a power in Exalted called *Implicit Construction Methodology*. It's not particularly destructive of balance or gameplay, because (in typical PCs' hands) it's much quicker but not notably more effective than comparable abilities for making magical equipment. However, it is destructive to the setting, because in the hands of a very high-powered character (of which a good many exist and existed in the setting), it far obsoletes any other sort of construction for almost everything, including giant factory-cathedrals, which are a major setting feature. As such, from a "rules-as-physics" point of view like mine, that power is bugged.



> 2) Who be able to enjoy a game where the DM held the opposite opinion, and what, if anything, would facilitate this? (e.g. announcement at the start of the game which philosophy was being followed)




I might be bothered by it because I see high-level D&D as almost superheroic fantasy, and I personally would not like a story wherein 16th-level player characters are just treated as tough professional soldiers who have to honestly worry about an angry peasant girl knifing them. I know I would be bothered by things that break the rules in explicitly stupid ways - I believe someone earlier on this thread (or perhaps on another recent thread) mentioned a *fire-immune* creature in a published module that's described as having received crippling burns from a lava bath.

Barring that, if we were still playing a game of heroic fantasy, it's probably all good.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Now, if these expectations aren't a problem, because you don't mind telling your players "It's plot.  It's not supposed to work like the rest of the world.  Oh, yeah, none of your characters find it at all odd or incongruous.", this isn't a problem.  However, if players value a consistent world over a dramatic story, and value their ability to interact with and shape the story through in-game world-supported action, you pretty much need new players.



This paragraph does not remotely speak to the issues under discussion in this thread.

I'll ask you again: do you actually deny that anyone plays The Dying Earth, or TRoS, and enjoys it?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> RPG rules are models. They simplify the simulation of the player's experiences in the gameworld to the point where the simulation is playable and enjoyable.



Lurker37, your post is interesting, but it does contain this assertion which is open to dispute. In the sort of play I am trying to articulat in my posts, (i) the action resolution and character build mechanics are not models of anything, and (ii) talk of "player's experiences in the gameworld" is an unhelpful confusion of two distinct things: the PCs' experience in the gameworld (which accord with the physics of that imaginary world, which physics are not modelled by any rule of the game); and the players' experience of the game (which happens in the real world and is not modelled by any rule of the game).



			
				Lurker37 said:
			
		

> Can NPC's suffer non-abstract injuries that the PCs are assumed to be immune to?



In the sort of approach to the rules I am trying to articulate, the PCs are not immune to sprains or deadly falls. It's just that they never suffer them unless a player him- or herself specfies this to be so of his or her PC (because the rules, including the action resolution mechanics, do not grant anyone but the player of the PC the authority to narrate such an event into the gameworld).



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> If a DM doesn't have an internal consistency within her game that runs far deeper than what the players ever see, it eventually shows through...and the players notice, to the detriment of the game.



You seem to be equating "internal consistency within the game(world?)" with "having all gameworld events be the actual, or at least theoretically possible, outcome of the action resolution and character build mechanics". That equation does not hold true for all approaches to play, and detriment to the game will not necessarily follow from such play.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> I see high-level D&D as almost superheroic fantasy, and I personally would not like a story wherein 16th-level player characters are just treated as tough professional soldiers who have to honestly worry about an angry peasant girl knifing them.



But that is not possible in D&D. An angry peasant girl has virtually no chance of wearing through a 26th lvl PC's AC and hp.

The real question is, do you object to a story wherein an NPC duelist of known repute (ie a high-level NPC) died from a fall from horseback? That's the sort of scenario under discussion in this thread, I think.


----------



## Imban (Feb 13, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But that is not possible in D&D. An angry peasant girl has virtually no chance of wearing through a 26th lvl PC's AC and hp.
> 
> The real question is, do you object to a story wherein an NPC duelist of known repute (ie a high-level NPC) died from a fall from horseback? That's the sort of scenario under discussion in this thread, I think.




Well, of course - I know that out of character, and would prefer to know that in-character as well... but in some styles of play, I'm obliged to act as if I was threatened if an angry peasant girl pulls a knife on me while I'm unarmed and unarmored, or if some loser has a hand crossbow pointed at the small of my back.

I would prefer stories like the duelist who dies of misadventure not happen in D&D, and would avoid them in my own storytelling, but wouldn't lose sleep over it in an actual game. In a printed RPG book, of course, it'd drive me batty - Overlord Invinciblar the Absolutely Invincible Setting NPC can't possibly be killed by your PCs in any reasonable game as he is 26th level, but this setting book says he died from a random fall from horseback or was gored to death by a dire boar on a routine hunt? That pushes my buttons.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 13, 2008)

RoberLiquori said:
			
		

> Now, if these expectations aren't a problem, because you don't mind telling your players "It's plot. It's not supposed to work like the rest of the world. Oh, yeah, none of your characters find it at all odd or incongruous.", this isn't a problem. However, if players value a consistent world over a dramatic story, and value their ability to interact with and shape the story through in-game world-supported action, you pretty much need new player.




You assume, for some bizarre reason, that rules=physics somehow presents a consistant world.  I've argued that it doesn't.  It doesn't because there are specific rules in the RAW where PC's and NPC's are differentiated - by the rules themselves.

So, the only reason X happens is because there happens to be a warm body, other than the DM, behind the character sheet.  That's not consistent.  That's actually the opposite of consistent.  

XP awards, Skills, population generation, action points, wealth, - how many things need to be PC specific before you can say, no, this is not a consistent set of rules that allows us to extrapolate a believable world?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 13, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> 1) Has anyone ever played with a group where the difference in opinion on gamerules as gameworld physics became an issue, and how was this handled?



Yes, though things weren't stated in such clear terms or debated to anywhere near the extent they've been here.  What it usually boiled down to (and still does, on occasion) is a question of abstract game rules vs. common sense.  We almost always let common sense win, and if it means the permanent adjustment of a rule, the rule gets changed.







> 2) Who be able to enjoy a game where the DM held the opposite opinion, and what, if anything, would facilitate this? (e.g. announcement at the start of the game which philosophy was being followed)



I'd probably not play in such a game, but if I did it would be as a purely gamist *game* rather than as a true role-play; my immersion level would be steady at about zero, and I'd most likely get bored out of my mind after about 3 sessions.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 13, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> You seem to be equating "internal consistency within the game(world?)" with "having all gameworld events be the actual, or at least theoretically possible, outcome of the action resolution and character build mechanics".



As far as the ordinary inhabitants of the gameworld (including PCs) are concerned, yes.  Further, internal consistency demands that if something works in a certain manner once, it works in the same manner if-when tried again...this specifically means no mid-campaign rule changes where said change would affect anything that has already happened in that campaign.  (of course, if gods and so on get involved this all goes out the window; they make their own mechanics) 


> That equation does not hold true for all approaches to play, and detriment to the game will not necessarily follow from such play.



Obviously, I disagree; but we'll likely not get much further bashing each other over the head with this. 

My bigger point is still that the game rules don't do enough to define what the game-world physics are or how they work.  Every setting released, for example, should come with at least general weather tables for the various regions...but how many ever do?  And the DMG for any edition needs to at least nod toward the idea of "when in doubt, use real-earth physics (gravity, speed of light, etc.) unless you have intentionally made a chance to such".

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Feb 13, 2008)

> My bigger point is still that the game rules don't do enough to define what the game-world physics are or how they work. Every setting released, for example, should come with at least general weather tables for the various regions...but how many ever do? And the DMG for any edition needs to at least nod toward the idea of "when in doubt, use real-earth physics (gravity, speed of light, etc.) unless you have intentionally made a chance to such".




Yes and no.  I can see real world phyics being a royal PITA when dealing with a lot of things and not actually improve gameplay.  The reason we don't screw around with air pressure after a fireball is that no one wants ot play D&D if it requires that much math.  I should not need a scientific calculator to play D&D.  So, we handwave air pressure.  In the same way, we handwave hitting someone with a shocking grasp spell when grappling.  Or lightning bolts that travel parallel to the ground.  Or that your sword can keep on doing the same damage even after months or years of use.  Or, or or...

Take something like a weather table.  That's a vastly gross simplification.  It's not even a close approximation to how weather actually works.  It works in the game, but, as a reality sim?  Not even remotely.  So, why bother?  Use weather as a thematic device and leave it at that.  I certainly don't want a player turning to me and saying, hey, you can't have a foggy day today, it's not on the chart.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Obviously, I disagree; but we'll likely not get much further bashing each other over the head with this.



I know it's not your preferred way to play. I don't quite get why you think it can't be done by others, however, and enjoyed by them.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2013)

Lurker37 said:


> 1) Has anyone ever played with a group where the difference in opinion on gamerules as gameworld physics became an issue, and how was this handled?




I can't recall ever arguing over rules as physics explicitly.  But I can remember seeing innumerable argements over physics as rules where the player and DM were arguing over what should the resolution be based on differing notions of what is 'realistic'.   I think I can imagine the reverse, a DM arguing for physics as rules in a way that impacts the PC (say having an NPC that the PC is invested in die from falling off a horse, D&D as 'Gone with the Wind'), and having the player respond negatively from a rules as physics stance that what the DM narrated was impossible because the character had 7 hit points (or something of that sort).  But I cant' ever recall seeing the reverse.



> 2) Who be able to enjoy a game where the DM held the opposite opinion, and what, if anything, would facilitate this? (e.g. announcement at the start of the game which philosophy was being followed)




I'm perfectly content to play at a table where the DM holds a contrary opinion.  I was talking about the art of DMing, not the art of being a good player.  I would think though that if it ever came up, that it would break versimiltude for me.  I would hold my tongue about it, but depending on how the DM had his version of 'realism' trump the rules I'd feel he made a mistake.  I'd also have a small peice of me wondering whether in the future, this would be a trend and 'realism' would trump rules next time I offered a proposition.


----------



## D'karr (Mar 12, 2013)

I think 5+ years is a long time to wait for a response.

History became legend. Legend became myth. And for two and a half thousand years, this thread﻿ passed out of all knowledge.

Somethings should have remained forgotten and lost.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 12, 2013)

Holy necro!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 13, 2013)

Fun thread though.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 13, 2013)

D'karr said:


> I think 5+ years is a long time to wait for a response.
> 
> History became legend. Legend became myth. And for two and a half thousand years, this thread﻿ passed out of all knowledge.
> 
> Somethings should have remained forgotten and lost.




I happened to need to dig out a bit of something I wrote in this thread, and then noticed I had been - though not with any intentionality that I recall from this admittedly distant point - so completely rude as to disengage from a conversation while people were asking legitimate questions.  This is not something I normally do, the asking of questions being something I advocate for, and the answering of questions being something that I - self-admittedly perhaps too much - normally take pleasure in.  It being rather completely out of character for me, I decided to if for no other reason than posterity, fill in the open blanks.  I hope no one minds too much.  Carry on.


----------



## D'karr (Mar 13, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> I hope no one minds too much.  Carry on.




Oh. I don't mind.  I just found the LotR "quote" strangely appropriate.  Carry on, nothing to see here, move along.


----------

