DM/Player Dictating Realistic Physics into games

[Legato Endless]

So, the age old conflict rears its head. Realism vs abstraction. Balance vs consistency. A player in one of the pathfinder/3.5 games I run in has finally taken turn toward madness.

"Dan" always fell felt irritated when the workings of a game didn't gel with his understanding of how it should. He spends hours deliberating over whether a spell should do what it says based on whether or not it makes sense…that it should do so. Ahem. Mages conjuring light without heat? Absurd! This has led to rather frustrating DM Style, whereupon you have no guarantee something the rules normally allow won't be forbidden by him. I don't mind fitting my character's personality, ethos, abilities into a DM's overall world. That's just what good players do. Leadership feat banned? Fine. However, the tactical movement of the game under him is now going wonky.

Giant Wolf in front of us. Caster creates a pit in front of it to prevent a charge. But "it doesn't make sense" for the creature to not be able to simply make a slight course correction. So it charges forward and pounces on the cleric. Positioning and area denial spells don't matter now if the creature's range of motion is high enough. The monk's ability to run up a straight wall to a point? No. That doesn't make sense without a second wall to jump off of, so he can't conveniently reach the roof to join a battle that turn. Because Monks are so horribly OP as is. Fight with a Cannon Golem? Icy Prison doesn't do anything. It can't stop the Golem from firing its cannon and breaking the hold, then it full attacks the party. Nice try.

Not being able to use any tactical tricks isn't very fun, and makes the CR+5* and above enemies something of a slog to fight through. Now He is running a game in his own home brew world but the list of house rules has now eclipsed the Pathfinder Core Rule book in length. Exceptions, alterations, everything in line with his gut. You could ask to change systems, but frankly this comes up everywhere, even in the supposed gritty scenarios.

*In relation to the party, if that wasn't obvious in context.

So yeah. I can leave, but I'd rather get some decent advice so the rest of my friends don't have to suffer through this anymore. Simply taking him off the DM list won't work, because he still chafes as a player if it conflicts with his sensibilities. Any advice, deconstruction or amusing anecdotes of this apparently not uncommon phenomenon with certain players would be appreciated.

[Tyndmyr]

Take notes of his rulings with date and time. Exploit the ever-living cheese out of the exact same things. Refer to notes.

I've never seen a DM of the "makes sense" variety who didn't create a great many more holes than they fixed in this way.

In this particular case, he seems to have an aversion to anything that doesn't come down to a hp slog. This is a common case. Make a char who is very, very good at grinding down hp.

[Kraken]

I've never seen a DM of the "makes sense" variety who didn't create a great many more holes than they fixed in this way.


This is my experience as well. For instance, I once had a DM who wouldn't allow us to take AoOs on a dragon as it moved by, because it's moving so fast that it doesn't make sense for you to be able to hit it. However, the ramifications of that statement would make baseball impossible, for instance, because he didn't actually have a good grasp of what that dragon's 'real life' speed would be. Further, any character wishing to attack it, even with a ranged weapon, had to make a spot check to be able to track its location correctly to even be able to get the attack roll. I was also unable to cleave with a piercing weapon (a lucerne hammer).

We ended up as a group just telling the DM to please stop. 3.5 D&D as a system is not a realistic combat system. Not even a little bit. You're going to create so much time, energy, and hassle in 'fixing' it for realism that you're better off just using a different system, if realism is what you want. Otherwise, trying to contort 3.5 to such ends will only bog down the game and make sessions move at a glacial pace.

[Kerilstrasz]

Take notes of his rulings with date and time. Exploit the ever-living cheese out of the exact same things. Refer to notes.

This!
Really.. i 'd do this.. he is either go bk to "book rules" or let you abuse his, just because "it makes sense".

[TheIronGolem]

Take notes of his rulings with date and time. Exploit the ever-living cheese out of the exact same things. Refer to notes.


There's no aggression like passive aggression...

Really, this is just yet another out-of-character problem that needs the standard out-of-character solution: Talk to the person you're having the problem with, and don't game with that person if they can't or won't change.

[TuggyNE]

Ahem. Mages conjuring light without heat? Absurd!

As is so often the case, sloppy attempts to gain "realism!!1!" end up sacrificing it. How much heat do LEDs emit? (Very little.) If, then, it is possible for us to generate light without heat, it is similarly perfectly practical for a spell to do so.

Same with charging; creatures can make small adjustments to their course, but not enough to change their 5'-wide squares without special training.

In short, "Dan" has sacrificed rules consistency and a smooth game for the chimera of realism, and has gained nothing.

[Grinner]

There's no aggression like passive aggression...

Really, this is just yet another out-of-character problem that needs the standard out-of-character solution: Talk to the person you're having the problem with, and don't game with that person if they can't or won't change.

I hate to say it, but this is the most sensible advice.

You can't play the DM at his own game, because the game is asymmetric. If he's of a sufficiently petty temperament, he'll have a falling rock to counter each of your rules callings. Moreover, it's unlikely that he'll ever understand the point you're trying to get across, barring open discourse. He'll just think you're trying to be an *******.

I think the best you can do is to say "Hey, Dan. Look. We need to talk. I see that you're trying to make the game a little more sensible. I can appreciate why you're doing so, but we need you to stop. It's ruining the game for the rest of us.

See, D&D just wasn't built to be realistic. It's a mash of rules built around a tabletop tactical skirmish game. It's inherently abstract. When you try to shoot for realism, you end up selling out the game's strong points."

[AMFV]

Well just split the atom with prestidigitation and call it a night... You could probably even do it with Mage Hand, that should put the nail in trying to use D&D with realistic physics. Or it might just drive the DM to insanity, but that'd be fun too.

[Cassidius]

It never hurts to remind him that this is a game, one with mythical and imaginary creatures, spells, and various planes of existence. If we go down the "it makes sense path" it will never end until we are playing real life with various multi-sided die and stat sheets. "Nope you can't cast call lightning on the bad guy because he's a medium creature standing next to the enlarged fighter in metal armor and it will just hit him."

C'mon house rules are for increasing fun or creating better balance (or balance if you listen to some people).

[Captnq]

Actually, tricking out a monk is easy.

Check out my sig. Download the file. Key word search "monk" and "unarmed strike" and "natural attack". Should give you a bazillion ways to tick off the DM. It's some serious dumpster diving for the rules, however. Go warforged monk, with aberrant feats (Hey. Nothing says you have to have flesh to have tentacles), then get Inhuman reach and Deepspawn. Graft on a pair of mighty arms (Nothing says you can't graft warforged grafts onto a warforged) that will give you a monk with no less then four natural attacks. Now get Maug Stone Spikes and two stone spitters. Very cheap, and you'll have like a bazillion attacks, including 2 natural ranged attacks (that do extra damage because of the stone spikes. Nothing says that it doesn't affect RANGED natural attacks) And load those stone spitters up with halfling skiprocks so they each get two targets.

Your "realistic" DM should spit out his own skull just for asking.

[Elderand]

So, the age old conflict rears its head. Realism vs abstraction. Balance vs consistency.

I'm sorry, I have to stop you right there.

There can be no such conflict in dnd.

Dnd fails miserably on all those points, we all know it's not realistic, it's ability to work as an abstraction is more than dubious.

Consistency isn't any better.

As for Balance it took one look at dnd then swallowed some rat poison, leapt out the window from the 52nd floor and proceeded to put a bullet in it's brain before hitting the ground.....on spike.....smeared with black lotus extract......that shoot fireballs.

My advice is this, don't present it as any of this to the player, just tell him the rules represent how physics actually work in dnd. It's not an abstraction, it's not a simulation. It's the actual rules. Peasent railgun and all.

Embrace the madness.

[Spore]

Speaking as a Chemistry major and soon to be physics/science teacher:

"Dan" is as narrow minded as the people that laughed about Galileo. Modern science is far from completed and what if your ingame wizard HAS just so happened to find a light source without heat radiation? What if your sorcerer has found a way to propel himself into the air without proper boost? What if that conjurer can actually teleport (a feat that has already been done although on massless photons and a short distance)?

As long as we didn't find the world formula and physics keep changing you can always - and especially in fantasy - substitute your own reality for real physics. Tell him, "physics" is just a ruleset for the real world. You are NOT playing in the real world obviously, so other rules are substituted. If he doesn't like them, maybe he should make up house rules (and discussing them beforehand instead of making them up on the spot).

[Rogue Shadows]

Next time a giant wolf shows up, ask him how it's able to even support its own body weight with comparatively spindly legs. Elephants and rhinos and such have legs like tree trunks for a reason.

Or in other words,

http://i43.tinypic.com/oglz53.png

[olentu]

Step 1: Cast a spell. Step 2: Refuse to allow the game to progress until he can explain how waving your hands around makes magic happen realistically. Step 3: Continue to require an explanation for everything ever until he has either given up or created a perfect simulation of real life.

Well that or you could try gathering the other players and talking it over out of game until it is resolved. This is probably the better choice to start with.

[Andezzar]

In this particular case, he seems to have an aversion to anything that doesn't come down to a hp slog. This is a common case. Make a char who is very, very good at grinding down hp.Make a Spiritual Lion Totem Barbarian and exploit the fact that the DM already ruled that you can evade a suddenly appearing pit. Surely charging around a corner or some other static obstacle, cannot be more difficult than the former situation.

[jedipotter]

Fight with a Cannon Golem? Icy Prison doesn't do anything. It can't stop the Golem from firing its cannon and breaking the hold, then it full attacks the party. Nice try.

Any advice, deconstruction or amusing anecdotes of this apparently not uncommon phenomenon with certain players would be appreciated.

Well, he was right about the cannon golem. Golem's are immune to spells that allow spell resistance, and Icy Prison is spell resistance:yes.

So first off, you want to be careful. I've seen lots of players try and push the rules with reality, and you don't want to be one of them. For example, in real life it was possible to block a cannon so it could not shoot...though it was rare for the cannon to explode like a bomb. So if you stuff a rock in a cannon in the game, you should not auto expect a 10d10 fireball. Even more so as there is not a rule to cover it. And the thing is to keep the game in the rules.

There is a lot you can do in the rules that leaves no room for interpretation. The spell Shatter can destroy an object. Simple. Direct. No room to interpret. Tactics is one thing, but expecting odd things is wrong. Why would not a foe see a pit made in front of them and just jump over it? Maybe try a 'tactic' that the foe can't ignore...like targeting it.

I'm a DM with a ton of House Rules (Hey can you post Dans?). Some players read them over and use them. And some players ignore them. Though the ignoring players have less fun when they ''try a tactic'' and it does not work and I point out the house rule they did not read.

[ericgrau]

It's not really accurate physics so much as unbalanced rules changes. Most of it is arbitrary not physics. Light is physics I guess, but efficient light doesn't make much heat. Arbitrary DMs with an excuse to be full of themselves aren't fun. So that's the tough part, convincing him that all this is actually only his opinion. It sounds like you have more people on your side, so that helps.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Tell him flat that appeals to physics are bull. D&D doesn't run on RL physics at all.

Take gravity for example. Subjective directional gravity is a situation wherein a person determines which way gravity pulls him as an act of will[/u] regardless of whether there's anything to exert gravity nearby at all. Then there's objective directional gravity in situations where the gravity exerted -far- exceeds the what should be exerted by the nearby masses and that should pull those masses into a single huge clump, but doesn't.

Light; no. Darkness spells and effects [b]radiate negative light without causing an annihilative reaction with normal light.

Elemental creatures. Holy hell, a creature made of solid fire. Creatures made of animate rock with no internal organs to speak of.

Energy; no. Cold descriptor spells create cold energy.

Chemistry; no. Alchemical items blatantly defy physics in most cases. See also solid fire above.

RL physics has -no place- in D&D.

Beyond that, the rules being consistent is a much more important concern than that they make perfect sense. In most cases the rules are already fairly consistent, save a few oversights here and there, and should be left the heck alone unless the DM can think of a -very- good reason to change them.

If your DM doesn't get that, he may not be fit to DM. Seriously, the point of the game is to have fun and constant rules tweaks for "what makes sense" tends to go against that point far more often than not, primarily because most people aren't very good at extrapolating the consequences of making those tweaks and all too often because "what makes sense" actually doesn't if you know what you're talking about.

If the DM is causing the group to not have fun he -needs- to stop what he's doing to cause the problem or he needs to step down. If he needs to step down and still causes problems as a player then you need to seriously consider if you want to game with him. Just because he's your friend doesn't mean he has to be invited to every activity you engage in with your other friends.

Can someone link the 5 geek social fallacies for me?

[Beowulf DW]

There's no aggression like passive aggression...

Really, this is just yet another out-of-character problem that needs the standard out-of-character solution: Talk to the person you're having the problem with, and don't game with that person if they can't or won't change.

^Another vote for this.

Passive aggression solves nothing. At best, it accelerates tension and an inevitable direct confrontation. At worst, you end friendships. You must sit down and talk this out as a group before the latent resentment gets to the point where a civil discussion and airing of grievances is no longer possible.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Another vote for "out-of-game talk." I'd certainly ask him to not DM anymore-- a little "grumblegrumblefantasyphysics" is OK, but a list of "houserules" longer than the core rulebook is ludicrous. You might be able to divert him by suggesting that he write his own system-- it sounds like he's halfway there already. Hopefully that would get him to see the importance of abstraction.

You could try looking for a more accurately simulationist game (GURPS?) but from what you've said I doubt that would work.

And if all else fails, there's always antimatter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2010735#post2010735).

[Scow2]

-snip-Actually, while D&D does have some solid breaks from reality, and a few that are attempts at simulation of realism, it is NOT as far off from the real world as the prevailing opinion on these forums believe.

However, you do want to tell the DM that he's not as accurate as he thinks he is.

First off - the monk's ability to run up a wall is a real-world maneuver (Has he never heard of Parkour?), though exaggerated for fantastic effect.

The laws of momentum prevent changing course during a run or charge - while having a gradual course correction might be acceptable (If in violation of the rules), a sudden change cannot - and if you summon a pit, by the time the beast has a chance to react, he's already in it. Reaction time is a thing.

The rules in D&D are more like real-life than people give them credit for.

[TuggyNE]

Can someone link the 5 geek social fallacies for me?

Lo, here they be (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html).

[Kelb_Panthera]

Actually, while D&D does have some solid breaks from reality, and a few that are attempts at simulation of realism, it is NOT as far off from the real world as the prevailing opinion on these forums believe.

However, you do want to tell the DM that he's not as accurate as he thinks he is.

First off - the monk's ability to run up a wall is a real-world maneuver (Has he never heard of Parkour?), though exaggerated for fantastic effect.

The laws of momentum prevent changing course during a run or charge - while having a gradual course correction might be acceptable (If in violation of the rules), a sudden change cannot - and if you summon a pit, by the time the beast has a chance to react, he's already in it. Reaction time is a thing.

The rules in D&D are more like real-life than people give them credit for.

I never said it was -far- from reality in most instances (though the instances I listed are ridiculously far off). I was simply pointing out that using RL physics as a basis for -why- it's close is disingenuous at best.

It's close because it needed to be at least somewhat familiar to players so that it would be accessible and reasonably appealing. You could design an RPG that operated on a dramatically different set of basic assumptions for how objects and people interact with their environment but it won't have as broad a target audience and it won't be as accessible to players. Might be interesting, at least.



Lo, here they be (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html).

Thank you. :smallsmile:

[PaucaTerrorem]

Remind him that every time someone uses real world science in a D&D game, a cat-girl dies. Save the cat-girls.

[Squirrel_Dude]

You could always suggest he play FATAL, the most simulationist game on the market.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You could always suggest he play FATAL, the most simulationist game on the market.

If you do, however, be prepared to be kicked from your group, excommunicated from your church, tarred, feathered, and stoned in the street.

[Craft (Cheese)]

If you do, however, be prepared to be kicked from your group, excommunicated from your church, tarred, feathered, and stoned in the street.

And that's nothing compared to what'll happen in-game...

[Metahuman1]

Ok, tell him the following.

1: It's magic, the entire point of it is that it works by re-writing the laws that govern reality on demand.

2: It's a system designed to emulate every stunt you've ever read in a Conan Story, Seen Legolas do in a Peter Jackson Movie, or watched in a Wuxia Kung Fu Movie.

3: Realism has no place in this system. If you want a realism simulation game, talk with us (the players.) and will consider changing systems form time to time for you for that, but when were running D&D/Pathfinder, realism is out the window.

[Morphie]

What does the rest of the group think of his rulings?
My advice would be: Just say "NO". If he's changing the game as he desires, bending the rules to his liking, he isn't giving you the chance to know the rules of the game and what can and can't be done before you do it. In my book, that's cheating.

If he really wants to play something that he "thinks" is right and balanced, he should explain all of his rulings and interpretations in advance. Then, if the group is ok with that, the game can begin. He's just the game master, he doesn't control the minds and desires of the players that also want to have fun.
So, just say No.

Note: I'm not saying you should stop playing with him, that would just be avoiding the issue. What I'm saying is that you and your group should let him know that everyone has to enjoy the game in some manner and that isn't happening the way things are.

[Legato Endless]

Thank you all very kindly. This has been an excellent array of opinions. I'll try resolving this amicably at next juncture. If that fails, I'll see if this is the deal breaker for everyone it was for me, or if it was all idle complaining on their part. If that doesn't work, mayhap I'll try one of the lovely more creative interpretations herein.

Again, thanks, this was extremely useful.

…except for those you suggested FATAL. Don't even joke about that. *shudders*