Should the world be aware of the rules?

[Kyutaru]

Recent mentions of Milo and his Harry Potter adventure had me thinking: what if every NPC was like him?

In short, what if NPCs were aware of and understood the rule system of their universe? That people could keep fighting as long as they had 1 hp left. That dark wizards had high will saves, or what the world referred to as will saves after countless millennia of data collecting. That wizards had spell slots and could only memorize so many spells per day. That resting for precisely 8 hours restored a number of health points. That spells either had no effect or all of the effect. That the economy worked on FIXED gold prices and there was no such thing as inflation and crafting could not be shortcut through improving one's talent but always took precisely the same number of days and gold/xp costs to produce an item.

In the fiction, a boy from the 3E D&D world explores the differences between his universe and that of the novel's, highlighting the very different ways both magic worked and physics did. People learn by incremental plateaus after they kill enough monsters, everyone knows that! Not by practicing the same spell over and over until to obtain gradual improvements that were effectively limitless. Bleeding out or critical hits can be instantly fatal in the real world yet they're perfectly predictable in the D&D universe with identical severity given the same attack and damage total regardless of where it hits.

Imagine then a world where every monster, NPC, and player character is aware of these rules laid down by the great DM in the sky who ruled over all even above the gods. More importantly, they metagame and exploit them wherever possible. Maybe the local famed lord only obtained his wealth and power through technicalities and rule loophole abuse, or by a very liberal reading of the holy Rules as Written that were limiting his level's power and wealth. Asking the barkeep about feats he possessed would get a legitimate answer, assuming he wasn't being evasive because people knowing your build could be advantageous to them.

Would such a world be intriguing to adventure in?

[OldTrees1]

"Should" is the wrong question.

A world that works like that would be fine. In that case the rules are the underlying reality / physics.
A world that assumes the rules merely approximate and are subservient to an underlying reality is fine too.

You can even hit a middle ground where the players use the game terms when talking as shorthand for whatever more accurate underlying reality the characters know about and are talking about.

And you can make this decision independently for each aspect. Your group's decision about "will characters know about leveling" can be different from their decision about "will characters know about xp".*


* I ran a campaign where a frontier colony used their naturally faster rate of accumulating xp as a resource to trade magic items back to the mainland. They understood something about frontier life made it better able to fuel the creation of magic items. So they were willing to rotate turns helping visiting mainland mages craft items in exchange for refined goods (including some magic items).

[Jay R]

The answer to almost any question of the form "Should games run a particular way?" is:

You can certainly run good, satisfying games that way. You can also run good, satisfying ways that are not that way.

You can run bad, frustrating games that way. You can run bad, frustrating games that are not that way.

There is no one single way that games "should" run.

[Unavenger]

I ordinarily assume that the characters are roughly aware of the fact that, for example, training for a matter of a few years can make you many times as tough as you started and move you from "Practically incapable of hitting" to "Practically incapable of missing" without actually understanding levels, hit points, or base attack bonus, and that a player knowing their skill bonus and being able to guess the DC of a task is a reasonable analogy for characters being able to guess their own capabilities and the difficulty of that task without the character actually having to understand the numbers.

Certainly, spell slots and levels are a thing that a character has to understand, although games which aren't D&D and might use a mana system of some kind might not entail a character being able to put a number on the mana cost of each spell they cast. In this case, the magic system really is part of the system for how the world works.

[Cazero]

Most ruleset are meant to be abstractions that don't apply universaly (see drown-healing). Making the world aware of such rules would be nonsensical.

[Mastikator]

IMO the rules of the game should not be the in game laws of the universe, but the interface through which the players interact with the game.

[Satinavian]

Short answer : YES

Long answer : People should be aware of the rules of the world they live in, at least to the extend that they can observe them (level of science). But the rules of the games are an abstraction, not necessarily identical to the rules of the world. If you leave the abstraction layer and investigate something deeper or try to use the rules for things that were never intended to be covered, you will get other results.

If i play D&D i would never have a normal housecat being able to kill a commoner for example. Even if the rules tell me it was passible, it does not fit the implied fantasy and is just a rule misfunction resulting from abstraction.
And while i would have wizards only being able to cast spells per slot per day, i would not have nomal NPCs being aware of only advancing in distinct class level steps because that missing granularity is just an abstraction result.


Imagine then a world where every monster, NPC, and player character is aware of these rules laid down by the great DM in the sky who ruled over all even above the gods. More importantly, they metagame and exploit them wherever possible. Maybe the local famed lord only obtained his wealth and power through technicalities and rule loophole abuse, or by a very liberal reading of the holy Rules as Written that were limiting his level's power and wealth. Asking the barkeep about feats he possessed would get a legitimate answer, assuming he wasn't being evasive because people knowing your build could be advantageous to them.

Would such a world be intriguing to adventure in?That reminds me of certain Isekais. It might be interesting but it would be very different from any normal fantasy setting. If I wanted to go there, i would go the whole way. Item boxes for everyone, nonsensical crafting systems, spawn points for monsters instead of monsters being biological beings (they would also spawn with treasures). Everyone can check their own character sheet and training is done by buying assigning skill points/feats after some powerlevelling.

[NorthernPhoenix]

People are aware of the rules of their world, but those rules aren't always the same as the rules of the game. In the context of 5e DND, the rules of the game exist to simulate a (type of) fiction, rather than to neutrally simulate a world. Characters in a world that is real to them would view the world differently than the players who view it through rules designed to facilitate a certain type of play.

[Onos]

Are the 'DMG' and the like available? Or rather, how valuable would various collections of rules, rulings and content compendiums be in-world? How about the differences between RAW and RAI as they apply to the game world? Does the 'GM' ever switch to a different campaign style, or favour Rule of Cool more heavily in the 'Era of Awesome' etc?

As OOTS has shown, there's a lot of potential for this kind of setting, and it doesn't even need to be comedic. Does the setting break the Fourth Wall at any point? What impact does that have? If your players are interested, go for it!

[Darth Credence]

There is a series of books called "The Land" by Aleron Kong - they may have been the first major examples of litRPG. It focuses on a person from Earth that has become part of the world, but everyone else is from there. They all get status notifications, and quests, and everything that you would associate with an RPG. I'm here to tell you, it's one of the most tedious things that you can possibly read. The story is mostly worthwhile (although there are some things I shake my head at), but the more the books go on, the more the book becomes dedicated to showing all of the skill increases, and it becomes a slog to get through. If they would just make it so you could skip that, it would be fine, but he tucks part of the story into these interminable stat blocks. This is markedly different from how OotS handles it - we know that everyone knows they are in a D&D world with the associated rules, but I certainly don't recall getting a single stat sheet for any character, much less an updated one every time a skill advances.

Anyway, my gut answer to your question is for the love of the Deity of your choice, NO! Can it be done? Sure. It could probably be done well, and be fun to play. But what does it buy you? Metagamers would hate it, because they would be trying to metagame against the DM who can beat them at that every time. Role players would hate it, because it would pretty much destroy the ability to play a role if everyone in game knows and attempts to beat the rules. And how in the world could someone actually do that justice as a DM? We all know how players will tend to become murder hobos - what happens when 10% of the world is a murder hobo?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

One side thing to consider is that the rules of the world may not be quite as strict as they seem.

What I mean by that is this: in the first generation of Pokémon games NPC's will sometimes have impossible pokémon, in their evolved form while at a lower level than what they evolve at. Maybe that's because Pidgey doesn't evolve at exactly level x, it's just your Pidgey that did. It's a thing that happened on your journey. Maybe some or these cheatermon we see were a higher level ones, but lost power with age, something for which the game has no mechanics but which doesn't seem unreasonable.

Granted, in all subsequent games Pidgey still evolves at exactly level x and cheatermon mostly vanish, so at the very least this doesn't seem to be intentional world building. But in d&d the world building is partially our own responsibility. So we can employ elements of this where it makes sense. There may be no feasible way for a PC to level up through crafting, but that doesn't mean that 15th level blacksmith has to be an accomplished adventurer. Maybe he's just more talented at it than you are and that allows him to learn the craft by doing it.

Similarly, stuff like the exact number of spell slots a character has based on their level and casting stat may not be universal rules. There could be people with an extra cantrip or some stuff between 2nd and 4th level shuffled around. Your PC's just happen to have this distribution. But the existence of spell slots themselves? Yeah, that seems pretty hard to deny. It may be a game mechanical abstraction, but it's so baked into the world that it seems almost silly for the people in it not to have a concept of it. In this world it's plain possible to run out of the ability to magic A because of doing too much magic B while magic C is unaffected. That seems like something wizards in universe would notice.

[Alcore]

Yes, it should. Game mechanics should be visible to an extent. For instance;

G = 9.81 x M/(S squared)

This is gravity; a mechanic of our world. We can see it in motion, at work. We have managed to quantify it as an equation.



In the anime "Overlord" the main character is transported to a world that operated like an MMO (levels 1 to 100 with attributes going from 1 to 999) with XP and levels. He still had some of his mmo mechanics working so he could open some menus. The inhabitants could not but they noticed something;

When people were subjected to adverse conditions or dangerous fights they miraculous got stronger after the fact.

The people could not view XP or levels yet they could observe the effects. Scholars the world over are absolutely stumped on what is happening and why. They have yet to quantify it.

[Mastikator]

Yes, it should. Game mechanics should be visible to an extent. For instance;

G = 9.81 x M/(S squared)

This is gravity; a mechanic of our world. We can see it in motion, at work. We have managed to quantify it as an equation. [snip]


Which edition of D&D has this game mechanic for gravity written down in one of its standard rule books (player manual or dungeon master manual for example)? As far as I know falling damage and weight/carrying capacity are in there but that being a phenomenon of acceleration is not mentioned, at least not to the best of my knowledge.

[OldTrees1]

Which edition of D&D has this game mechanic for gravity written down in one of its standard rule books (player manual or dungeon master manual for example)? As far as I know falling damage and weight/carrying capacity are in there but that being a phenomenon of acceleration is not mentioned, at least not to the best of my knowledge.

I believe Alcore was referring to our world. In our world we can and have identified the physical laws of gravity to some extent. I think it is fair to conclude the denizens of Faerun might have a similar (although maybe less or more precise) understanding of the physical laws of Faerun.

But notice how I said "physical laws" instead of "game rules"? That is the root question. I think we can all agree that the denizens of the fictional world would have some (probably incomplete and imprecise) knowledge about the physical laws of that world. However are the game rules the same as the physical laws or are the game rules merely a guideline approximation for the physical laws? That is not universal.

Personally I treat Faerun as having similar laws of gravity (including terminal velocity as a byproduct of drag) as our world. So I consider the game rules to be a guideline approximation rather than the rules itself. However some campaigns (like HP and the Natural D20) use RAW as the physical laws. Those campaigns also work.

[Alcore]

Which edition of D&D has this game mechanic for gravity written down in one of its standard rule books (player manual or dungeon master manual for example)? As far as I know falling damage and weight/carrying capacity are in there but that being a phenomenon of acceleration is not mentioned, at least not to the best of my knowledge.

Wow... you missed every point i made. Good job.

There is no more to say; if you read your own words and what you quoted carefully they answer all your questions.



But notice how I said "physical laws" instead of "game rules"? That is the root question. I think we can all agree that the denizens of the fictional world would have some (probably incomplete and imprecise) knowledge about the physical laws of that world. However are the game rules the same as the physical laws or are the game rules merely a guideline approximation for the physical laws? That is not universal.

Personally I treat Faerun as having similar laws of gravity (including terminal velocity as a byproduct of drag) as our world. So I consider the game rules to be a guideline approximation rather than the rules itself. However some campaigns (like HP and the Natural D20) use RAW as the physical laws. Those campaigns also work.
indeed.

Erfworld (no, i won't tell; go Google it) actually used game mechanics as its physics. If fact they could see some of it to an extent. We, the readers, could not see those mechanics but the people lived by them and saw nothing wrong in it. People spawned (popped) at cities and that was that.


If God came down from heaven and told us we are in a simulation would we believe? Would we accept it? Or would we wear ourselves apart knowing that everything (even our emotions) is nothing more than numerous mathematical equations interacting that define existence...

Am i going too deep?

I think I'm going too deep.


*****

I think whether they see HP as hit points or life force would set the standard for the game. OotS is self aware and it has been fun to read it. I use past tense as the comic doesn't poke as much fun at the mechanics and things are serious. Still good to read but in a different way.

[kyoryu]

Somewhere between "mostly" and "sorta".

The people in the world would absolutely be aware of spell slots, for instance.

But.... hits all doing the same damage wherever they were hit? That's based on a particular definition of how HP and damage work, and it's just as reasonable to say that (in melee combat), damage isn't actually getting hit, but is all of the nicks, bad hits, and stressful dodges, and that only the final hit is actual "damage". So areas where abstractions exist can be applied over semi-realistic world assumptions.

In other words, yeah, they'd be aware of the "physics" of the game world, but not necessarily a naive, surface-level interpretation of the mechanics. As I don't personally use that naive view even when running the game.

[Anti-Eagle]

Rules that are thematic and based in the world? Yes.

Rules that are abstractions for the sake of gameplay? Not really.

[AdAstra]

Basically, characters in the world should understand the things that the rules represent, so long as they have a decent reason to. For example casters should understand spells. They might not understand them as spell slots, but they should know what their own spells do, and that they have a limit on the number of spells they can cast each day of each type. Characters might not necessarily understand HP, but they should understand that they can survive a certain amount of hurt, and they should understand about how hurt or close to being hurt they are in any given moment.

Same thing with EXP and such. While a character might or might not know what a "level" is, they should absolutely understand the idea that they can get stronger by winning fights and overcoming challenges.

You can also go full Isekai and have everyone think and talk in terms of the game systems. It can work depending on the tone of the game. And being a jerk about players talking to each other about their HP and Spell Slots is rarely a good idea.

[Telok]

One point of confusiin is whether or not a game would have rules that are only pc facing. For example, in an mmo if two npcs fight they use the rules whether or not there are pcs involved because in the mmo the rules are the physics. A table too game could have instructions that you only consider the rules when the players are rolling dice and that dramatic narrative is the only concideration the rest of the time.

For example, a chariot race with the pcs betting on the outcome and an npc trying ti use magic to cheat the race. D&D doesn't absolutely tell the dm whether or not to just decide what the results are or to check movement & roll skils/saves. So rules of the world depends on the dm.

I've found that outcomes often are more interesting if I run much of the world on the rules, simply because I can get unexpected results and the outcomes match the player's expectations better. I think that works out because the pcs interact with the world through the rules, therefore for the pcs the rules are the physics of the world and the player's expectations of how the game world works are shaped by that.

So I'd roll the saves and chariot skills for the example race, even if the pcs weren't racing. Because the outcome might surprise me and push things in an interesting direction tbat I hadn't thought of.

[Mastikator]

Wow... you missed every point i made. Good job.

There is no more to say; if you read your own words and what you quoted carefully they answer all your questions.

[stuff]

indeed.
[snip]

I think whether they see HP as hit points or life force would set the standard for the game. OotS is self aware and it has been fun to read it. I use past tense as the comic doesn't poke as much fun at the mechanics and things are serious. Still good to read but in a different way.
But there is no physical laws of Faerun, at the very least not the ones that govern reality? It's a narrative world sometimes based on Aristotelian physics but mostly based on the rule of high fantasy action/drama.

In D&D 5e the rules of falling states that you take 1d6 damage for every 10 feet, maximum 20d6. This indicates that either terminal velocity is reached at 200 feet (61 meters), or that kinetic energy maxes out at the speed you'll reach from 61 meters.
In reality terminal velocity is reached after 450 meters, (1500 feet).

Something is very wrong here, if you stipulate that the gravity of Faerun is 9.82m/s/s then you're already on very thin ice. Nothing in the game mechanical rules state that the physical rules are the same as in reality.

[Kyutaru]

Something is very wrong here, if you stipulate that the gravity of Faerun is 9.82m/s/s then you're already on very thin ice. Nothing in the game mechanical rules state that the physical rules are the same as in reality.

He did not though. Reading what he wrote he stipulated that EARTH has gravity and that gravity was one of the "mechanics" of the real world's rules. This does not imply that Faerun also has gravity, only that Faerun also has its own rules and mechanics that its citizens may be aware of in the same way that we are aware of gravity and can measure it. Faerun has fall damage and no doubt some citizen somewhere has MEASURED fall damage and published a textbook describing the way it works.

[Cluedrew]

I'm actually going to go with (generally) no. Simply put any set of rules that you could use to play a game world result in an unworkable reality. There are generally two solutions to this: play it off as a joke (ones that are explicitly inside a game as some VRMMO go with this) or apply some game rules on top of reality and to some hand-waving about where they meet (as the Overload example above). And you can do both of these if you want.

But I'm still going to say no overall because the first case is probably only good for a joke and the second case you are either going to need a very focused game or rules for the part of the game that doesn't have the in game special rules which means the world isn't aware of all the rules. So yes you can, for most cases I think the rules should be viewed of a very particular abstraction over the laws of reality that the world does know.

[Mastikator]

He did not though. Reading what he wrote he stipulated that EARTH has gravity and that gravity was one of the "mechanics" of the real world's rules. This does not imply that Faerun also has gravity, only that Faerun also has its own rules and mechanics that its citizens may be aware of in the same way that we are aware of gravity and can measure it. Faerun has fall damage and no doubt some citizen somewhere has MEASURED fall damage and published a textbook describing the way it works.

Faerun has fall damage for players. There's nothing in the game that states that those rules are physical laws, they may just as easily be narrative laws. Since HP works as a plot armor which is explicitly a narrative device. A GM is not constrained by the player handbook when he or she makes a "cut scene" for the game.

My point is that you can't find the laws of physics from the game mechanics. The NPCs will find whatever laws the GM decides they find, which may or may not be at all related to what the player handbook says. But if they did it would be nonsensical laws

[OldTrees1]

But there is no physical laws of Faerun, at the very least not the ones that govern reality? It's a narrative world sometimes based on Aristotelian physics but mostly based on the rule of high fantasy action/drama.

If an object falls in Faerun, then there are physical laws in Faerun. Those laws might be identical to the game rules, OR the game rules might be an abstraction of those physical laws. However if something falls, then the world has physical laws about how things fall.


In D&D 5e the rules of falling states that you take 1d6 damage for every 10 feet, maximum 20d6. This indicates that either terminal velocity is reached at 200 feet (61 meters), or that kinetic energy maxes out at the speed you'll reach from 61 meters.
In reality terminal velocity is reached after 450 meters, (1500 feet).
Yes, different worlds are different.


Something is very wrong here, if you stipulate that the gravity of Faerun is 9.82m/s/s then you're already on very thin ice. Nothing in the game mechanical rules state that the physical rules are the same as in reality.
Please don't misrepresent other's posts. This strawman is annoying.


Faerun has fall damage for players. There's nothing in the game that states that those rules are physical laws, they may just as easily be narrative laws. Since HP works as a plot armor which is explicitly a narrative device. A GM is not constrained by the player handbook when he or she makes a "cut scene" for the game.

My point is that you can't find the laws of physics from the game mechanics. The NPCs will find whatever laws the GM decides they find, which may or may not be at all related to what the player handbook says. But if they did it would be nonsensical laws
This on the other hand is more on topic. Faerun does have physical laws, but they may or may not be the same as the game rules. That is up to the GM to decide. Personally I treat the game rules as abstractions of the physical laws rather than as the physical laws. Unsupported objects accelerate to a terminal velocity when I am a GM, but we use the non accelerating game rules as an abstraction of that event. Other GMs, like the one in Milo's case, have the physical laws match the game rules.

Both work but with different tonal outcomes. Cluedrew has a good post going over the tone difference.


I'm actually going to go with (generally) no. Simply put any set of rules that you could use to play a game world result in an unworkable reality. There are generally two solutions to this: play it off as a joke (ones that are explicitly inside a game as some VRMMO go with this) or apply some game rules on top of reality and to some hand-waving about where they meet (as the Overload example above). And you can do both of these if you want.

But I'm still going to say no overall because the first case is probably only good for a joke and the second case you are either going to need a very focused game or rules for the part of the game that doesn't have the in game special rules which means the world isn't aware of all the rules. So yes you can, for most cases I think the rules should be viewed of a very particular abstraction over the laws of reality that the world does know.

[kyoryu]

This on the other hand is more on topic. Faerun does have physical laws, but they may or may not be the same as the game rules. That is up to the GM to decide. Personally I treat the game rules as abstractions of the physical laws rather than as the physical laws. Unsupported objects accelerate to a terminal velocity when I am a GM, but we use the non accelerating game rules as an abstraction of that event. Other GMs, like the one in Milo's case, have the physical laws match the game rules.

For additional funsies, I use the rules when the outcome is in reasonable doubt. So, get hucked off a flying airship a mile in the air? We don't roll damage. We roll damage when fallling down extremely steep cliffs or other things where there's a heroic ability to do something to Not Die.

[Telok]

I'd say it partially depends on how abstracted the rule is and how much cognitive dissonance it causes.

In StarFinder the space combat rules are totally abstract. A 30' long fighter takes up the same amount of space as a mile long super battleship, radiation weapons only work against PC ships, ships stop moving if they stop applying thrust, stuff like that. It's so abstracted that the players can't plan on anything working or happening without a specific rule saying that something works, and the rules are different in and out of combat. Players can't figure out how to commit space piracy, it's that abstract and undefined. So the rules obviously can't reflect the game world physics and there's a fair bit of "what the heck?" that goes on. In this case it doesn't make sense for the game characters to be aware of the rules in any way, the rules simply don't reflect what's happening in the game world at a sufficently granular and observable level.

In ShadowRun you have (in the editions I played) the "chunky salsa" rule that covers the effects of shockwaves from explosions that are reflected by sufficently strong barriers. While the game rule is a simplified abstraction of a complex physical event it is something that characters in the game world understand. It's logical, repeatable, testable, plus it always applies to both PC & NPCs both in & out of combat. The game character's understanding of it may not use the same words as a player would, but it is something the character understands because the rule accurately maps to the in game causes and effects.

So what about falling? I'd argue that game characters would understand the falling rules as their physics. In D&D a 50' fall onto a hard surface does 5d6 damage, average 18 - 19. Pesants die from this. Guards and people who cast more than 1st level spells live. Elephants, knights, and people who cast 3rd level spells stand up and walk away. This is always true when PCs are present. Whether it is true the rest of the time is up to the DM. Cognitive dissonance can set in when the game world acts one way (people don't jump elephants off cliffs, they expect fire/heat spells to burn things) and the PCs act differently (jumping off cliffs without a care, checking for mimics because fire spells can only target creatures).

The issue of course is where do you draw the line? Does a paladin know how much lay on hands they have? By the rules, yes. By the fluff, undefined. Is there some sort of divine fule gauge or do they occasionally try to heal when they're out? How would a couple of paladins discuss it in the game world?

To me it's less whether or not characters know how their world works, they have to in order to function in it. It's a question of where do you draw the line so that there is consistency in how players experience their characters compared to how they experience the npcs and story/plot/setting/world.

[Jay R]

Both “yes” and “no” are over-simplistic answers, that ignore the complexities of the phrase “the world”.

Consider our own world. [This is an analogy that has already been used, but hasn’t been adequately explained.]

Should “the world “ be aware of the rules? Yes, of course, but only scientists know the rules with precision, and then only to the level of current science. Everybody knows that you fall down. But Aristotle thought air fell up. It took centuries of experimentation and thought to show that air falls down, but that things with higher density fall down more. It took Galileo to show that heavy and light things fall at the same speed.

Similarly, “the world” should know that experience leads to more abilities. But nobody except a scientist beyond the level of a standard D&D era should have quantified experience points, hit points, or saving throws.

Fighters should know that long swords do more damage generally than short swords or battle axes, but should not know the difference between 1d8 and 1d6.

Besides the obvious fact that that level of science is beyond a sword-based culture, it doesn’t help the game.

[NigelWalmsley]

The rules should be written in such a way that NPCs (and, for that matter, PCs) acting in a way that is consistent with them is not disruptive to the fiction. Mechanics should be associated, or the gaps should be small enough to not matter.

[DrewID]

They would be as aware of the laws of nature as a medieval scientist was. They would be aware of the rules insofar as those rules deliberately change the "laws of nature" for the game world. It is probably pointless in their being aware of rules that, while taken to extremes may violate what we currently know to be the laws of nature, are intended merely as in-game simplifications.

Spell slots and spell levels are obvious and quantifiable. Wizards are almost certainly aware of them (considering as they need to be so when memorizing spells). Are they aware of the quantum jumps that levels create? That depends on whether that is how the world operates (you go from being able to memorize/cast one mix of spell levels at 4th level, then jump to the next mix at the point you hit 5th), or if you see that as an in-game simplification, and that in theory (if not in practice), you gradually improve from the one state to the next.

DrewID