This came about due to a discussion on this thread in the Pathfinder Adventure Path section:
Escape Assassination Attempt Foolishness
It has become clear that different groups have very different ways they view the principles that their individual game worlds work. A few of the different perspectives were:
(A) Any situation that could be related to game rules, must be able to function using the game rules. Situations that are not related to the game rules don't need to function using them. For example, if there is a situation where someone is stabbed, because there are game rules for stabbing people, the game rules must function for that situation. Since there are not rules for pregancy or giving birth, then that situation can be "hand-waved".
(B) There may be situations that could be related to game rules, but are not necessarily covered by the game rules. Again, if a situation where someone is stabbed, it might be covered by the rules covering stabbing people, or it might not be and so can be "hand-waved" by. That just because two situations seem superificially similiar and one is covered by the game rules does not necessarily mean that the other is as well.
Well that's a couple, I don't want to make this too long to start with. So what is your philosphy towards your game world, one of the two listed here, or something else entirely. Game on!
Your descriptions are very apt; far better than the clumsy ones I listed on the other thread. I'm interested to see how other people look at these, if they're willing to post on it.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If the players are thinking about how an event that's real-world-plausible happened in game terms, I'm failing my role as a good Game Master and storyteller. It's like we're in Order of the Stick or The Gamers. It's a funny joke once, but that kind of metagaming is ultimately destructive to a campaign. Because it can't be conducted in-character.
To some extent, any game system has mechanics that reflect a reality that characters can understand. In D&D, spells have levels (although it's sometimes vague as to exactly why) and the longer Ezren practices, the more spells, and the higher-level spells, he can cast. He could legitimately sit in an inn with Seoni and discuss "5th Level Spells".
(Although I'd like to think that characters have more elegant names for them. Perhaps "Passwall-class," like naval vessels.)
But I think there's a difference between "light wounds" and "1d8 + 2 hit points". As soon as players around the table start trying to make sense of in-world actions through their character's eyes, using raw game mechanics, I'm not doing my job right.
"She cast a spell that made me stronger". Fine.
"She cast Bull's Strength on me." Okay, but it presumes at least a passing sophistication on the part of the speaker.
"She buffed me for 4 points of STR." No.
The game mechanics tell the story. The game mechanics are not the story themselves.
--
By the way, I ran a campaign some years ago where the PC's really were different ... because they were player characters. It was a world where everything was tied to fate, except the six people in the world who really were free-willed. And some sages had noticed that there were always six: when one died, some other young adventurer was suddenly "awakened" into free will and joined the survivors. And some unpleasant NPCs had designed spells to identify and exploit the free-willed, those who could oppose the shackles of destiny and cheat fate.
That's an example of something that's normally entirely player-level perspective, brought in-game. (It was a successful campaign, too. And the session where the players realized that the PC's were being hunted explicitly because they were PC's was delicious.)
I used to be a strict simulationist: i.e. everything follows the rules, even when the PCs aren't around. Then I realized that this leads to a slightly more absurd universe: A handful of imps could depopulate most of Korvosa, and no one could stop them. One Clay Golem could bring down an entire army. There would be pretty much no reason that the material plane isn't conquered by the other planes.
Over time, I realized that while certain games rules would have become the 'laws of physics' of the universe, largely the rules of magic, others are merely game emulations of those events. Otherwise peasant villages would be conquered by the first monster that came by, and mortals would be pretty much unable to challenge outsiders. I do try to handwave as little as possible, but sometimes you want someone to actually break their leg in a fall, or lose an eye.
If the players are thinking about how an event that's real-world-plausible happened in game terms, I'm failing my role as a good Game Master and storyteller.
I think that goes without saying (or hopefully so). The question is whether the *GM* thinks about how things happen in game terms.
This reminds me a lot of an essay Larry Niven wrote, about why he produced so few "Gil the ARM" stories. He said he felt compelled to follow all of the sci fi rules (technology must be at least theoretically plausible) AND all the mystery rules (clues should be discernable by the reader, without suddenly pulling a "McGuffin" out of the air on the last page) -- and that adhering to both sets of rules was too much work for the writer. As a reader, they were some of my favorites.
Some of us are like that as GMs; if I give the bad guys' HQ a bodak guard as a story element, then I make sure at least one of the bad guys has access to a create greater undead spell, for example. Upon encountering the bodak, the players don't know what it is (unless they make their Knowledge checks), nor do they know the actual spell or character level (unless they too have access to that spell), but they can surmise that the thing came from SOMEWHERE, and didn't just appear out of thin air. If the encounter scares them enough, they'll start a whole side quest to learn about it, and eventually find out that a powerful evil cleric is required, and they can adjust their plans accordingly. My players seem to appreciate that level of consistency enough so that it's worth the extra work for me. If they didn't care, I probably wouldn't either.
I like rules especially for things like the use of magic and special abilities, but now and then something will come up that doesn't make sense by general consensus and then what I may do is waive it for that session. Barring that I'll check on it for next time.
If a PC is stabbed or is stabbing, it uses the rules. Using the rules for NPC on NPC action is just the DM playing with himself.
To be fair, and it is probably my fault for not being clear, group (A) is not saying the encounter has to be run by the rules (with dice rolling and such), merely that is has to be possible to run it by the rules. So for example, you couldn't have a 1st level commoner walk up to a 5th level fighter on the street and just cut his throat and kill him, because that is just not possible by the game rules. Now if you had a 5th level rogue cut a 1st level commoner's throat in the middle of the street that would be possible given the game rules (assuming he caught him flat-footed and got sneak attack).
In the games I run the rules definitely take a back seat to plausability, particularly for events and things going on off screen. So for the group with the bodak, none of them personally need to be able to make one as long as it's reasonable to think that they had some other way of getting the bodak's service... like having it provided by some other powerful individual who could get a bodak in order to pay off a debt.
As I see it, the rules are for making sure that play proceeds in an orderly and functional fashion... for the PCs and scenes the PCs are in. They're not for setting backstory or justifying events that aren't directly involved with the PCs.
So for the group with the bodak, none of them personally need to be able to make one as long as it's reasonable to think that they had some other way of getting the bodak's service... like having it provided by some other powerful individual who could get a bodak in order to pay off a debt.
After the adventure, my players would likely have their PCs use vision and the like to learn of, and ultimately try and track down this mysterious bodak supplier, and put an end to him. So I'd use that approach if I had a follow-up adventure in mind -- it makes THEM feel like they're driving events, not me railroading them -- but if I was really hoping to run a totally unrelated adventure arc next, I'd come up with an explanation that wouldn't lead elsewhere. They might not ever check, but I can't count on them always doing what I expect!
This is such a great topic :)
I'm a bit on the fence, but I usually lean toward rigorous adherence to the rules (except when the players can't catch me).
The rules are a contract -- when a player casts Bigby's Middle Finger, he/she needs to know it works a certain way. Similarly, when an enemy casts fireball, players can't react usefully if the DM can't be counted on to follow the rules.
Just my two cents.
|
I run a resounding "B"-type Game as described in the OP.
In fact, the game system I (and various gamers I've played with over the years) play now is a homebrew system which (tries to) eliminates all of the verisimilitude problems with the "A"-type Game. No more Hit Points, for example, but that's just the beginning.
It's my experience that Gamers everywhere (100% of ever gamer I've ever met across 30 years and 8 states) wish for a game of heavy realism. Unfortunately it's extremely difficult to make a mechanically smooth and playable game that is also realistic. Moreover, as the majority of DMs are poor referees, DM/Player trust can often not be established well enough for DMs to have "absolute law."
-W. E. Ray
B. My players trust that I'm not out to screw them. None of them ever cry foul when I go outside the rules in my descriptions.
If I didn't know my players that well though, I'd probably run a type A game, so as not to rock the boat and avoid rules arguments.Rules arguments suck.
--By the way, I ran a campaign some years ago where the PC's really were different ... because they were player characters. It was a world where everything was tied to fate, except the six people in the world who really were free-willed. And some sages had noticed that there were always six: when one died, some other young adventurer was suddenly "awakened" into free will and joined the survivors. And some unpleasant NPCs had designed spells to identify and exploit the free-willed, those who could oppose the shackles of destiny and cheat fate.
That's an example of something that's normally entirely player-level...
I love this idea. I think i'm going to "yoink" it.
In the name of full disclosure, I am well in the (B) camp. I am interested if there are other viewpoints besides these 2 as well.
On the Bodak discussion, one thing to consider is that Bodaks are intelligent undead, so they might agree to work for someone for some personal reason of their's.
It's my experience that Gamers everywhere (100% of ever gamer I've ever met across 30 years and 8 states) wish for a game of heavy realism. Unfortunately it's extremely difficult to make a mechanically smooth and playable game that is also realistic.
Seems like an odd statement. Immediately upon reading this I think of the concept of 'player character levels'. I mean these things are so obscenely unrealistic its not even funny.
I think it'd be very easy for almost any RPG to be more realistic and probably even easier to run if the whole concept of 'levels' was removed from the game. For most games the players at 1st or maybe 2nd level are pretty fair representations of normal, fairly well (martially) trained people, its only after they start gaining these levels that things start getting really unrealistic (or at least unrealistic enough that it really starts to strain credibility).
Despite this only a small handful of RPGs - few of them really very popular, escew the concept of gaining more abilities, skills or powers simply by virtue of doing interesting deeds. I'd argue that, for the vast majority of RPG players, realism takes a real back seat to a fair number of game mechanics - foremost among them being 'levels'.
On the Bodak discussion, one thing to consider is that Bodaks are intelligent undead, so they might agree to work for someone for some personal reason of theirs.
Yes, absolutely! So if I had in mind some backstory involving the bodak I wanted to involve, I'd give some hint of that, and then let the players chase that down. Either way, I'd make sure the bodak came from somewhere, with that "where" depending on where I'd want them to go next. I'd need other clues as well, of course, because they might never investigate the bodak at all. But eventually one of the players figures out a clue, and they all cheer and gear up for the next phase, and everyone tells me how much they enjoyed the adventure, so it's worth it (even though all that planning takes me a LOT of work, personally, to write an adventure). I just never tell them about the 2 or 3 other clues they might have missed, and everyone's happy.
In a prewritten AP, I can't do that, but the setting and characters are ususally consistent enough that I have very few problems. Sometimes, though, something can pop up in an AP to derail my game (which wouldn't necessarily impact anyone else's), and that is, indeed, a great weakness in our play style. Mary has had even worse luck than me in that regard, apparently.
P.S. Thanks for hosting this thread. It was a great idea to start a new discussion, instead of trying to build off of that last one.
Although this does possibly raise an additional question for discussion of how the use of optional rules are determined, which may or may not work alongside the opening post as a topic for debate.
That's an interesting question. I'm not sure how other "Type A" gamers would approach it, but in our group, the guiding law is always "it's a rule if we all agree it is." That applies to core rules, houserules, and 3rd party sources equally.
I think I definitely fall into the type A category of GM, a referee I guess you call it. Partially because I'm terrible at improv. Mostly though, my players and I all prefer that feeling of internal consistency. I try to make sure the World/Adventure/Dungeon is fully created BEFORE the PCs step into it. My players seem to really enjoy the idea that my hands are tied by the rules. Sometimes, it means their characters die due to unfavorable rolls. Sometimes, important NPCs end up dead, too.
In short, I think my players feel like the game is more real because of my refereeing style. It makes them feel like they are in charge of their own fates and never have to worry about being railroaded into anything.
Please note, that I'm not criticizing the more Story-driven style. I've played under that before and had a great time. I just think I'd be lousy at running that way.
B. My players trust that I'm not out to screw them. None of them ever cry foul when I go outside the rules in my descriptions.
Most of mine are like that, thankfully...
If I didn't know my players that well though, I'd probably run a type A game, so as not to rock the boat and avoid rules arguments.Rules arguments suck.
...but we've had enough rules lawyers that I try to watch my step -- I'm just safer that way, and so is our game. Unfortunately, my own personal experience as a player includes a number of DMs that tended to screw players when they ignored rules.
Like that Living Force GM -- oh my...
B. My players trust that I'm not out to screw them. None of them ever cry foul when I go outside the rules in my descriptions.
Though for the record, I'm usually pretty good at making my players think I'm following the rules when I'm not :)
I'm definitly type A.
For me its part and parcel of a psychological trick I'm using in order to keep the players 'inside' the game. I don't want the fact that I've broken the rules to be so salient that my players 'break character' to start discussing the fact that what just took place or is being described can't possibly happen in D&D. So its far more important that I stick to rules about things they know intimately then it is for me to stick to things that they have little game knowledge about.
Another aspect is that my games are pretty lethal. I kill characters and I do so pretty regularly. Its extremely important that my players are certain beyond any reasonable doubt that I'm playing fair.
Some of them have played under bad DMs in the past (you know the jerk that loved to kill everyones character more or less arbitrarily except for the one run by his girlfriend or any other (pretty) girl that happened to be playing) and I don't want them equating my game with any bad experiences they have encountered at other DMs tables.
This reminds me a lot of an essay Larry Niven wrote, about why he produced so few "Gil the ARM" stories. He said he felt compelled to follow all of the sci fi rules (technology must be at least theoretically plausible) AND all the mystery rules (clues should be discernable by the reader, without suddenly pulling a "McGuffin" out of the air on the last page) -- and that adhering to both sets of rules was too much work for the writer. As a reader, they were some of my favorites.
Asimov wrote the same thing about the Daneel Olivaw stories, except he didn't have as much trouble with it. Of course, he broke the first rule way more than Niven did (at least in the Gil stories. Niven comes up with some pretty fantastic tech.)
(A) Any situation that could be related to game rules, must be able to function using the game rules. Situations that are not related to the game rules don't need to function using them. For example, if there is a situation where someone is stabbed, because there are game rules for stabbing people, the game rules must function for that situation. Since there are not rules for pregancy or giving birth, then that situation can be "hand-waved".
For rules on conception and pregnancy, see The Book of Erotic Fantasy, pp. 47-49. Yep, there really are rules for everything in the d20 system. But to answer your question, I generally lean towards "B"... story is more important than rules, IMO.
I am a bit old school here. If the rules get in the way of a description, or something I think is likely to occur in game terms, I toss the rules. I sometimes tell a player that he can make an extra attack, Do non-standard things with monsters. Make judgement calls about an environment, and hand out modifiers for things the books never dream of. I grew up on AD&D, where the DM is like unto a god, and the rules are suggestions.
I have a munchkin player in my Age of Worms game, who hates my houseruling. He thinks the game is more fun if the D.M is bound by every rule. He wants to buy magic items in downtime. and doesn't understand why I had the characters play through the difficult task of finding an artificer. Or why I ruled that his character should roll a will save versus fear when he was left alone in the dark. For him, finding mechanical advantage with the rules is primary, and story and setting and role-playing are secondary. He learned to play by way of WoW, and took a lot of assumptions from that kind of world. (As an aside, and not as an attempt to start a flame war, as this is only an opinion, and not an attempt to derail this thread....He is looking forward to fourth edition tremendously, whereas I cancelled my pre-order with Amazon. This philosophical difference, between DM power and rule power, is at the root of our disagreement between editions.)
He thinks the game is more fun if the D.M is bound by every rule. He wants to buy magic items in downtime. and doesn't understand why I had the characters play through the difficult task of finding an artificer.
Heh, I make them find an artificer also! But that's by mutual consent - we all agreed that it was "cooler" that way than just stopping by Wal-Mart. Like Kelso, at my table I also refer to my role as "referee" rather than "DM." So, I'm bound by rules, but many of them might be my own houserules. The thing is, they're agreed upon, not imposed. That works because I haven't had to put up with munchkins like Taliesin's player - my favorite player, for example, once ended up with a fallen paladin/ex-blackguard/sorcerer (talk about a lot of class abilities down the toilet!).
It also helps that I favor small groups (I try to shoot for 4 players or less), which makes my detail-orientation and also my preference for agreement a LOT easier. With a bigger table (6+ players) I'd probably resort to Style B and godlike power, because otherwise I'd be totally overwhelmed.
In my game, my players "referee" almost as much as I do... I'm finding it ever more difficult to keep up with the zillions of rules, skills, feats, and spells. So my players do most of that part for me.
We rule together, usually with me having the last word (but I agree with them most of the time cause it makes sense). I'm more of a narrator than a referee, I guess... And certainly not a god. I try to have as much fun as they do.
And as for where and when do I use the rules... I use them when the players interact with my NPCs. I rarely use them otherwise (I just tell the story). If it's in the story that the town 7th level Paladin got stabbed by a local kid, then so be it. Although I would never tell a PLAYER paladin that his PC got stabbed and killed (by whoever)without a rolling for initiative.
Ultradan
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Since the game rules are written to form a decent, though admittedly incomplete basis for what the PCs do on screen, that is where i try to use them. That means that as long as it happens during a session, and is actively played out, rules do apply. As soon as it either is not happening with direct PC intervention, or something the PCs do "on their own time", the rules take a back seat to what i consider a better story development.
There might be no rules for becoming a full-fledged demon in your own lifetime, but a villain might still have this as a goal - and not be doomed to failure from the startoff. The rules can not cover everything, and even on screen, i find it more satisfying to say "There is this ancient ritual", than not tell the story. The ritual might be "statted out" or not, depending on mood, phase of the moon, likelihood for it to be relevant, ...
There might be no rules for becoming a full-fledged demon in your own lifetime, but a villain might still have this as a goal - and not be doomed to failure from the startoff.
Hopefully no one is advocating that nothing is possible that falls outside the current rules set -- there are no core rules governing childbirth, for example, but I think we can all agree that most PCs of normal races were, in fact, born at some point.
The idea is, if there are already rules in place that are currently being used for PCs, which GMs/referees/"storytellers" feel bound by those rules to the same extent, with regards to NPCs? And is the answer different, if NPCs and PCs are both involved in a particular encounter (vs. scenes in which only NPCs are involved)?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
As i said, if it is not on screen, i would not bother. After all, how could the PCs ever tell? While the commoner fighting off the orc chieftain with his fierce determination and a pitchfork would never stand in the game rules, having that guy the village founder and / or town hero makes for a more colorful place than it would otherwise be.
As i said, if it is not on screen, i would not bother. After all, how could the PCs ever tell?
I love the town hero story! And I'd use it in a minute. But with my particular players, my thoughts would run like this when I made him up: If the manner of the orc's death turns out to be important to the story, my PCs might use divination spells like replay of the past, or speak with dead on the orc, or they might just straight-out raise the orc and ask him, or even devise some other means that I can't think of right now. I love to play with people who surprise me. Sometimes they think something is important that turns out to be nothing; rather than tell them so, I prefer to let them run down the supposed lead on their own and then draw their own conclusions. So I try not to take it for granted that there are things they will never find out, because if they do investigate the orc's death despite it being totally unimportant to me, then I'm forced to backpedal and retract my story, or else admit to them that different rules apply to different people. Now, if the orc had been fairly low-level, and the hero had some levels of commoner and some lucky crits, there would be no issue. So in the example you gave, I'd just make sure I scribble a note to that effect ("Mayor Quimby, Comm6," for example) -- because otherwise I might forget and make him a 1st level commoner who gets killed by a normal rat during the course of the game, and then the inconsistencies start to creep in.
Like I said, it's often a pain in the neck, but worth it with those types of players. On the other hand, if the players always did what I expected them to do, I'd probably adopt your style in a minute.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
With my players, this is rarely if ever an issue. They accept that the world and the game rules do not quite mesh up ideally. I mean, really. If the world operated strictly be the RAW, there would be no standing armies, since it is much cheaper to just use constructs who would mince most battalions, which cost less to make than it costs to train and equip even a handful of Warrior 1s.
As an added note, revival magic is something i am keeping very scarce. PCs can get it, and very lucky NPCs. Essentially, you need some major unfinished business, and a good reason to return. Most good people just are not too keen on letting go of their well-earned rewards, and most evil ones are just not too easily let go. It might be a shortcut, but it makes a backstabbing political vipers nest more believable. After all, to pull off an assassination, in this case you need only a few killers, and not the tacit approval of all the major churches, wandering heroes and whatnot.
In our game, I get around the problem by limiting access to the Craft Construct feat. There are other factors that could work, too; it's just a matter of thinking of them. I certainly don't insist on all core rules, just that NPCs follow whatever rules that PCs follow (so, if the PCs have construct armies, it shouldn't be impossible for equally well-equipped NPCs to have them).
I agree with you completely about raising the dead; we've added a level check, with a DC that scales according to the longevity of the race in question (elves live a long time, but are hard to resurrect). Sometimes it's fun to have a player say "I cast raise dead!" and for the throw to fail; everyone groans and throws pretzels at the cleric's player.
All a matter of personal taste.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I certainly don't insist on all core rules, just that NPCs follow whatever rules that PCs follow (so, if the PCs have construct armies, it shouldn't be impossible for equally well-equipped NPCs to have them).
I usually use just the opposite. The PCs have to follow all the rules the NPCs follow, but not necessarily the other way around. The NPCs are essentially devoid of free will anyway. Devoid of individual creativity. They do what is necessary for the adventure, and letting them do so believably is the job of the greater universe (the DM). The PCs have free will, and hence, need more safety nets.
The NPCs are essentially devoid of free will anyway. Devoid of individual creativity. They do what is necessary for the adventure, and letting them do so believably is the job of the greater universe (the DM).
That's a really interesting observation! I guess because our group occasionally "swaps out" the GMing job, sometimes PCs show up as NPCs in later adventures. Occasionally a PC will die, and the player picks up running an NPC who is already involved, so that a random new hero doesn't just fortuitously appear on the set. The line between PCs and NPCs is quite blurry, for us, so I always do my best to present the NPCs as if they indeed were free-willed... and the players usually feel free to help in that task. ("Hey! Wouldn't it be cool if that annoying baker was passing messages to the BBEG?" I consult my notes to make sure there's no conflicts, put a puzzled look on my face, and say, "well, how do you propose finding out?"). So, the line between player and GM is a bit blurry as well... which suits our dynamic, but would probably fail miserably with some other groups.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
That might actually be the reason. If the NPCs start seeing things with "PC goggles" more frequently, then the PCs assume they do every time. Which makes them just as genre savvy, semi-metagame conscious, and most of all, variable as a PC. Since there is no telling what that NPC might come up with next, they need to be "ruled in" as harshly as any PC.
I can see where you are coming from here, but i really prefer the stronger delineation, because it makes my job as DM easier, and it also makes the players jobs easier (though not always more fun - it really depends on how well the DM delivers his part).
I can see where you are coming from here, but i really prefer the stronger delineation, because it makes my job as DM easier, and it also makes the players jobs easier (though not always more fun - it really depends on how well the DM delivers his part).
You've hit the nail exactly on the head there, I think. Type A gaming makes my job as referee a LOT harder, because I have to keep track of everything, and the players are also forced to ruthlessly squash recommendations that aren't consistent, but that simply benefit their characters. It makes for a lot of give-and-take, and it takes longer to play. We personally find that the rewards are worth the extra effort -- but certainly not everyone would. And if I had more than 3-4 players, in the end it would probably be impossible for me in any event.
Some thoughts I’ve had while reading this.
And I understand this completely, I have played with some really crappy DMs and it is nice to be able to say, “Oh really. Sorry I must have been confused. See on p. *** it says [blah], are we not using those rules?” As a DM, I often like to point players to material that has already been developed instead of trying to make something just for that person. “Well if you want to make your own prestige class, that’s fine. Just get it all together and I’ll look over it. Though you might look in Complete [blah], I think there is a class in there that is close to what you are describing if slightly weaker.” I almost never say “no” outright, because it is not just my game but all the players, and so I think we can be reasonable and come to a balanced compromise in most cases.
But for myself, I think this fear of DM abuse can become too restrictive. I have heard comments from other posters to the extent of, “If I have an NPC off-stage do [blah], then I have to hold the PCs to the same thing.” Why? “Because that is how the game world works.” See, I don’t quite buy into that. It seems to me to backwards thinking. The rules, I always thought, were meant to be a way to simulate a heroic story. The story wasn’t meant to simulate the game rules, from my understanding. In that understanding, if the game rules are inadequate to tell a particular part of a story, then they should either be ignored if it is not meaningful (if you don’t intend on actually rolling attacks and such then using the rules is basically pointless in my view, you are not trying to simulate the situation using the rules) or possible new rules should be developed (such as the shingles chase in Edge of Anarchy, which the current rules could only simulate very crudely).
Another problem I see, for me, with the viewpoint that the story must simulate the game rules is that it cases some things that should be possible in the real world with humans and animals to not be possible. The example I’ve been using the idea of someone falling and breaking a leg or other bone. If the story must simulate the rules this situation can’t happen, but in the real world we know it is a very real probability. Any game world that would make such a thing impossible for everyone (though I understand making it impossible for some special individuals while on-stage) would just feel too surreal to me to buy into. To me the people may as well be described as Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam, where anvils can be dropped on their heads and they are fine a few seconds later. Those aren’t humans but cartoon versions of humans, which are fine, but not what I want to use in a D&D game. Just to note, I am not saying that is how people who are more a type “A” view or treat their humans, merely how I emotionally/subjectively (perhaps irrationally) feel in such a setting where broken limbs from falling are impossible. I might mention, I have had the party meet a dire rat with a broken leg that they helped heal and by doing so caused an encounter with its nest mates and keepers to be non-violent.
Well if I want such a level of “realism”, why don’t I play some other game where people can die from a splinter? Why not? Because I understand there is a difference between special characters such as the PCs and more standard characters. Just as when you watch an action movie and you see the hero keep going despite being shot multiple times and walking through glass and being beaten to a pulp and you can suspend your disbelieve because this person is suppose to be above the norm, so can I buy into the PCs being extra special, being able to survive things others could not. But if everyone in the movie could do the same thing, the hero loses much of their heroic “shine”, similarly with the PCs, if every NPC can survive what the PCs can, the PCs are less special. What was that quote, “When everyone is special, then no one is.”
Sorry, I might be wandering here, I’m kind of going with the flow of consciousness, so my thoughts might not be following a necessarily logical pattern. Let me say, I am not suggesting that it is appropriate for a DM to suddenly out of the blue to tell a player, “Well when you just fell, you broke your leg.” Though I could think of a situation where it might be appropriate to do so, say if the player was going to be gone for an extended period of game sessions, and the DM wanted a semi-elegant way to have his character temporarily retire, something that the characters in the story could buy. A broken leg might fit that situation well. But no in most cases I would say a DM making arbitrary decisions for the PC such as that would be bad form.
So to sum up. In my view, the game rules are meant to simulate actions in the game world, the game world is not meant to simulate the game rules. In situations where the game rules are not intended to be used (by that I mean if you don’t intend to actually roll any dice, then you aren’t really using the game rules), then sticking to them is fairly pointless since the game rules are not the laws of the game world but merely a means of simulating those laws in certain situations. If a PC wants to describe their character has having a slight limp that they got when they fell off a roof during a shingles chase from the authorities when they were a child and broke their leg which never healed quite right, then more power to them. Long live the story tellers!
The rules, I always thought, were meant to be a way to simulate a heroic story. The story wasn’t meant to simulate the game rules, from my understanding. Long live the story tellers!
I can certainly see where you're coming from, and actually agree to a larger extent than may be obvious. The thing is, I've never had too much of a problem with the rules preventing me telling the types of stories I had in mind; I just needed to be clever enough to find a way around those rules, or through them, or even amend them if need be. If it were important at some point to have broken limbs, I'd happily add some guidelines for that, and call it good. I just never blatantly break existing rules without everyone agreeing, even if I reason that the other players "shouldn't care" if I do. Maybe because I've played with so many different game systems; I'm comfortable with adapting my stories to new rules sets and vice-versa, even if those rules really aren't good for that kind of storytelling. (Shoot, we managed to keep one campaign continuously going that started with Amber Diceless, shifted to 2nd edition D&D when we decided that diceless gaming sucked, then to Victory Games 007 rules (believe it or not), then to a mishmash hybrid of all of those, and finally to 3.5. It took a lot of creative interpretation, but it still managed to work out OK). So, I don't let the rules get in the way, so much as view them as a way to keep things relatively consistent.
|
|
I mean (PC levels) are so obscenely unrealistic its not even funny.
I think it'd be very easy for almost any RPG to be more realistic and probably even easier to run if the whole concept of 'levels' was removed from the game.
Indeed, my system does not have levels either.
Think about about it, no Hit points, no levels...
Indeed, my system does not have levels either. Think about about it, no Hit points, no levels...I mean (PC levels) are so obscenely unrealistic its not even funny.
I think it'd be very easy for almost any RPG to be more realistic and probably even easier to run if the whole concept of 'levels' was removed from the game.
That's why I love the Victory Games 007 rules. You get more skilled, but not more superhuman. That makes everyone easier to kill, but they give you hero points (kind of like action points on steroids) to help with that, so the whole thing works. Unfortunately, converting monsters (and especially D&D adventures) becomes a godawful chore.
|
|
I'm definitly type A.
Well, no one's perfect ;)
... I don't want the fact that I've broken the rules to be so salient that my players 'break character' to start discussing the fact that what just took place or is being described can't possibly happen in D&D.
Yes definetly. Whichever style of game a group plays, this is very important.
For me I let the Players know before a campaign that I may secretly change things (dice rolls, NPC abilities, etc.) during fights to make it a better gaming experience. However, I also tell them that if I do choose to "break the rules" for a particular encounter I will not allow a PC to die in that encounter.
Of course, the Players won't know if I'm running the fight fair or not so they can't tell if an NPC can or cannot kill them in that fight. They also have no way to know if I'm keeping my end of the bargain but have (almost) always trusted me anyway.
Another aspect is that my games are pretty lethal. I kill characters and I do so pretty regularly. Its extremely important that my players are certain beyond any reasonable doubt that I'm playing fair.
Again, very true. I think if I ran a heavy TPK game we would have to be much more strict with the rules.
PCs die in my campaigns, even regularly, maybe. But nothing like what you're describing. I've gamed in a couple of those campaigns myself and I've never felt comfortable. Different Rock-N-Roll for different folks, as the saying goes.
-W. E. Ray
If it were important at some point to have broken limbs, I'd happily add some guidelines for that, and call it good.
And if I thought something like that would be a meaningful contribution to the "on-stage" game experience, I would use rules for it (by the way, my group has pretty much ruled that things like critical failures and such are NOT enjoyable). But if I never, not once, have any intention of rolling any dice with respect to having someone, an NPC most likely, breaking their leg, but instead deciding on it happening as a story teller ("Did I let Boromir roll his stablize check? Aragorn make a heal check?"), why make rules for it. Just because the PCs won't break their legs "on-stage" (though they might choose to if they wished for story reasons), doesn't mean the characters themselves would assume they are immune to leg breakings, the characters don't know the difference between "on-stage" and "off-stage". That would be like me, pres man, in real life assuming because I have never broken my leg, I must be immune to leg breaking. No, I have just been lucky that any of the situations where I could have broken my leg, I haven't.
But yes, if an aspect is meant to be part of the "gaming" part and not just the "role-playing" part, certainly developing or finding rules for it is perfectly reasonable to me, and most people.
EDIT: Also let me mention, I don't use a screen when I DM. I roll in the open, and if someone dies, they die. I don't fudge the rolls one way or the other or change the creatures' abilities, and I don't go out of my way to keep a PC alive. Of course, I also don't develop storylines that can't function without someone, PC or NPC. I think in our current group of 6 PCs, 3 are still their original character, and even one of those was raised.
|
|
I am a bit old school here. If the rules get in the way of a description, or something I think is likely to occur in game terms, I toss the rules. I sometimes tell a player that he can make an extra attack, Do non-standard things with monsters. Make judgement calls about an environment, and hand out modifiers for things the books never dream of. I grew up on AD&D, where the DM is like unto a god, and the rules are suggestions.
Wow, so rarely does one see his own past experiences and current game-play preferences so similar in another's post.
For (some munchkins), finding mechanical advantage with the rules is primary, and story and setting and role-playing are secondary.
I've run into this alot. I've only gamed with one or two munchkins* but I've heard many gamers express the sentiment that "one should learn the rules so one can better exploit them."
Even for these Players, though, it's been my experience that once you discuss with them the style of game your group plays (wants to play) they get a kinda dreamy look in their eyes and want to join the bandwaggon.
I think we've just all had experiences with bad DMs. After that a Player just wants to learn the rules, like a defense mechanism.
-W. E. Ray
*
I think we've just all had experiences with bad DMs. After that a Player just wants to learn the rules, like a defense mechanism.
-W. E. Ray
I think there is certainly some of that out there.