I'm not talking especially about houserules. I'm referring to the idea I have often seen espoused, that the rules of the game comprise the laws of physics, as it were, for the game world.

This leads to taking the game rules – and we’re pretty much talking D&D here – and extrapolating from them to create a setting. In other words, asking what would result from a world where D&D’s magic exists (not D&D-style magic, but magic as seen in the actual minutiae of the rules), and then trying to model it. So you have Ptolus, promoted as the most complete and logical extension of 3e’s mechanics to a setting. Or you have an idea like Earthdawn’s explicit inclusion of levels (as “Circles”)  in the game world. There goes the final thread of my suspension of disbelief. Uh, what exactly is fun about these ideas?

To me, it is getting it completely backwards. No longer is your group’s (hopefully) rich imagination running wild, barely checked by the modicum of structure brought by the rules, but instead your imagination is in thrall to the system. And that system was in itself an imperfect attempt to model a hodge-podge of fantasy tropes. So instead of going to the wells of fantasy, whether they be myth, movie or fiction, all you get is retreads of D&Disms, like low-quality photocopies of copies.  Bye bye, sense of wonder, bye bye unique settings, bye bye changing the rules to accommodate your ideas, because you have turned your brain off with the idea that “this is what the game works like. This is what the system promotes. Deal with it or play another game.” So you have self-perpetuating ideas like “D&D is about killing monsters and taking their stuff.” Well, maybe, if you want it to be. I can see that the rules encourage that. But when I got into the hobby I wan’t inspired by the coolness of D&Disms. It was the (perhaps naïve) visions of magic, mystery, action and fun that merely used the rules as a framework that got me hooked, amd which I still strive for in my games.

Is this rules-uber-alles attitude due to laziness? Is it because most gamers are buttoned-down left-brain types who feel threatened by the unknown and uncodified, and want everything in black and white as the Rules, Canon etc.?

But as to why gamers do tend to be that type, which I feel as a generalisation is fairly accurate, well, that’s another rant.

Grognard out.

Dude, it's because System Does Matter...

Or something.

I happen to agree with you.

I dunno.  I don't tend to let the rules drive things too much, because I tend to ignore or forget rules willy nilly.  I have a very carefree attitude towards game system generally, and think it's just flat the best way to handle any game.

What more annoys me is this current tendency to overanalyze the hell out of things, which you kind of hint at, but don't quite go after at the same angle.  To put it bluntly:  The moment anyone starts talking about "dungeon ecologies" or the societal effect of D&D magic, I want to smack the crap out of them.

There's this tendency among modern fantasy fans to basically treat fantasy like it's sci-fi, and it pisses me the fuck off.  It's not just limited to D&D, or even to gaming, it's bloody everywhere.

Shut up!  It's fantasy!  It's fairy tales and legends, it's magic and myth, it's broad strokes and simple concepts.  It's brain candy.  This overanalytical shit just saps all the magic out of it.

Enix needs to translate Dragon Quest 5 for the States finally, and let these people see a good simple fantasy story once again.

It's a sort of tinkering we see in actual science. In the scientific method, what happens is that you come up with a theory to explain the reality. One of the ways to test that theory is to build it into a computer model, play it out, and see if what comes out ends up resembling reality. If it does, great! If not, time to change the model.

Now, if you know "alternate history" at all, "what if the Nazis won WWII?" and all that, you'll know that people like to think about not only, "does this model/theory produce something like reality?" but, "if we have a different model, what does it come out like?"

So I think your questions about following the rules precisely and seeing what comes out of it, it's the same sort of thing. It's just playing around to see how it comes out.

I think also that many people fear uncertainty. Dice uncertainty they can handle, but not knowing the "physics" of the universe, that's a different thing. And that's funny, because looking back at the beginning of our hobby, my AD&D DMG tells me that if the players don't know all the rules, they'll have more of a "sense of wonder".

But then, it depends on what you're after in a game session. If you're after a "sense of wonder", then you'll be comfortable not knowing all the rules. But if you want to "win" by killing things and taking their stuff, then you'll want to know all the rules. So that either all the game rules must be knowable to you, or they should resemble what you think "reality" is.

As for me, I think the rules are just a tool to help us with the roleplaying. If the tool's not suited for the purpose, well then I'll get another tool. The tool has no innate value, it's only useful to me because of what it can help me craft. I master the game, the game does not master me.

Quote from: joewolzDude, it's because System Does Matter...

Or something.

I happen to agree with you.

 Naw, anti-matter enigines just get you to the System, star system that is.

 What ?

 Oops, sorry wrong game.

- Ed C.

Quote from: The_ShadowI'm not talking especially about houserules. I'm referring to the idea I have often seen espoused, that the rules of the game comprise the laws of physics, as it were, for the game world.

You may avoid this point if you wish, but my own suspension of disbelief goes out the window when I'm playing D&D, my 10th level warrior is cornered on a 4 store balcony, and I have to pretend that the idea of falling scares the shit out of me, when it's mathematically impossible that he could die from 4d6 damage.
 
The rules model the way players approach to certain situations, like combat. We're playing a psychic spies campaign (2nd season of the campaign) using the WoD ruleset, and my players have taken a more cautious stance due to the changes in ruleset. So yeah, rules are the physics of the world.

I rather like that fantasy increasingly has an attitude similiar to proper science fiction, because then you actually get good speculative fiction as a result of the process.

When the Mystara setting was re-branded and sold for 2nd ed AD&D rather than classic D&D, it didn't really work. The setting was more or less the same (dumbed down rather to make it an 'introductory setting'), and the ideas were similar... But the system was different, and that did impact on what characters (NPCs and PCs) could do, and how they interracted with their world. I don't think that system should dictate setting, but I think its naive to assume that the two are independent of each other.

If the rules ruin part of how you see your setting, then you have to change one or the other. Generally, if its not an important rule, I'd change that. If I have to change something central to the game then that setting is wrong for the game, I'd think about playing a different game with that setting; I might make a fundamental rule change instead, I might not.

Our group's imagination still runs wild. We still have magic, mystery, action and fun. We have it all within the framework of DnD's "setting". We forget spells as we cast them, we leap off tall buildings without getting hurt, we laugh in the face of 87 goblins with hand crossbows.  We enjoy it because we enjoy it. It suits our tastes and goals. NOT because we're "lazy" or "buttoned-down left-brain types who feel threatened by the unknown and uncodified" (which, frankly, is insulting a little). We (thankfully IMO) are still perfectly capable of suspending our disbelief in the face of these "problems" and enjoy the rich worlds our DMs bring to life for us while still using DnD's particular style of fantasy. Comparing this to all ya'alls seeming difficulty getting past what you see as problems with DnD I'm starting to wonder just who has the richer imagination here, to be honest.

All of this is not to say we don't enjoy other games. Actually, my favorite game to run myself is True20, but I'm also trying Savage Worlds very soon. There's been many other games I've played and enjoyed as well, that just doesn't stop me from playing and enjoying DnD too.

Quote from: ImperatorYou may avoid this point if you wish, but my own suspension of disbelief goes out the window when I'm playing D&D, my 10th level warrior is cornered on a 4 store balcony, and I have to pretend that the idea of falling scares the shit out of me, when it's mathematically impossible that he could die from 4d6 damage.
 
The rules model the way players approach to certain situations, like combat. We're playing a psychic spies campaign (2nd season of the campaign) using the WoD ruleset, and my players have taken a more cautious stance due to the changes in ruleset. So yeah, rules are the physics of the world.

This is simple. A 10th level warrior feels no fear, and in any case, he'll probably just land in a passing hay-wagon or a pile of trash or whatever. This guy confidently faces down hordes of enemies and stares down dragons. He's not afraid of being on a balcony. He's an adventurer.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThis is simple. A 10th level warrior feels no fear, and in any case, he'll probably just land in a passing hay-wagon or a pile of trash or whatever. This guy confidently faces down hordes of enemies and stares down dragons. He's not afraid of being on a balcony. He's an adventurer.

Oh, and I'm totally cool with that - I have nothing against ablative hitpoints or whatever. What I'm against is pretending that the physics rules are other; my PC is a badass and he knows it. I frown upon the people who look down on me because my PCs act according to the rules of the game, instead the "real world" physics.

Eh, I tend to forget rules, make them up, and bend them to make things work on a regular basis.  As a GM, I also cheat.  To me rules are a nice framework, so you don't get all handwavey and Junior Thespian Camp on me, but that's about it.  I bend 'em to fit the setting/mood/attitude we need.  But I also think it's fun to use random charts and tables.

My Mantra:

"Use the rules; don't let the rules use you."

Which is to say that the rules are there for a reason. It gives you answers to questions. It gives the setting some grounding and feel of consistency and gives the players some expectations that they can feel safe to build on. It provides a fair baseline to the social contract about how the game is going to be run.

But when the rules don't define a situation well, or lead you to a conclusion that is not fun or cool for your game, don't be afraid to go beyond the rules.

I include in this admonition the GMs authority to say "no" to new rules material that just doesn't fit and to rules combos that are just loophole seeking.

Because sometimes limits are actually liberating?

Shadow, I tend to agree with you but I've never let the rules tell me what the world physics are.  They may determine the contours of magic since that is totally made up, but the classic falling off a cliff, no way.

The old 4 story fall is no big deal but I still remember once when face with a 100' cliff you could still just jump off.  The DM (this is 1e) wanted us to try all sorts of things to get down or past it.  Since he was by-the-book kind if guy our toughest fighter could have actually just jumped and likely survived no problem even with the requisite system shock roll.  We didn't do this as it would have killed the fun for us the players.  But it was fun to rile the DM up.

There are many ways to deal with this, but I've long ago decided to take the rules for what they are, focused on battles, magic and character progression with abstractions built in for ease of play.  If something is too wonky for the group, ignore/house-rule it.  

I guess a part of your view is that people are want too much to take the rules of a game as a physics text.  When this goes too far, it destroys my suspension of disbelief.  

It also can render meaningless that old school approach to challenging players, if the world behaves too differently than what we expereince in real life (excepting magic of course) then how can one use their powers of deduction and induction to strategize and solve problems?  When logical consequences are replaced with dogma does it come down to guess the DMs mind or learn the worlds physics?  Invariably I've seen the "game world's physics" approach devolve into there is one set of rules for the DM and one set for the players.  That is, it's inconsistent DM fiat/railroad time.

I prefer the DM set a stage where our wits and life experience might help not hurt.