[Generic] Rules as Shared Language

[Matthew]

Just thought it was worth starting another thread on this subject, rather than further derailing the Purpose of Class thread.

This same discussion plays out time and time again. For those of you arguing that the DM should be bound by all the same rules as the PCs (specifically when making NPCs for this thread), you enjoy tactics-first gameplay. You like to metagame as an exercise. Its ok, its a playstyle.

You enjoy meeting an enemy, trying to guess what class/powers they have, and then have your character react in what you think is the most optimal response. That's ok, its a playstyle.

That's how you have fun. You crunch the numbers on your side, crunch the numbers using your best guess of what the DM has put forward, then compare them, and go ahead making your battle plan. That's ok, its a playstyle.

For those of us who don't play that way, it has nothing to do with cheating, or the DM trying to screw the players over, or anything remotely like that. Some of us don't play D&D in a tactics-first gamestyle. That's ok, its a playstyle.

I think there is some merit to the idea of "maths/rules as a shared language" between players and game master, and I am not sure if it is entirely a product of a "game first" philosophy. It is definitely a concept worth exploring in more detail. Perhaps another thread offshoot is called for.

Is it really preferable to communicate with one another via the rules and math of the game rather than by ordinary communication? Is it still roleplaying when you use knowledge of the game rules as the foundation for the decisions your character makes, or is that rather the game part of roleplaying? Is it a separate part, or are they mutually supportive?

Related Threads:

[D&D] How would you react if the DM asked all of the players to hand in their DMGs
[Generic] Consistent Rulings
[D&D] The Purpose of Class

[Morty]

I'd just like to say that associating the preference to have NPCs and PCs work by the same rules with putting tactics first is false. Belive me or not, but there are people who want PCs and NPCs to work by the same rules because it makes the game more immersive -I have troubles finding an exact word, actually- rather than because it makes metagame planning easier.

[Saph]

I agree with Matthew on this; the 'rules as shared language' idea is a good one. As a player, the more that the NPCs and monsters tend to follow the game rules that I know, the more I can understand the 'physics' of the gameworld, which in turn means I tend to be more involved in the game.

Of course, every DM sooner or later just makes stuff up, and I'm not going to hold it against him when he does . . . but all in all, I have more fun when he makes it up and also goes to the trouble to fit it into the existing game rules.

- Saph

[kamikasei]

My character in a game has a good idea of how the world around him works, which is described by the rules; he has a fair understanding of his own skills and what he can accomplish with them and probably a decent capacity for judging the difficulty of anything he might attempt. For me, knowing the rules well and being able to rely on the world behaving in a consistent way according to those rules makes it easier for me to put myself in the character's shoes; otherwise I'm dealing with a layer of obscuration where my perception is much more imperfect than the character's. I don't like to have a character take an action that, in character, wouldn't have made sense because my understanding was flawed.

This applies more to matters that touch directly on PCs - skill DCs, how rules work, etc. - and much less to matters that are guidelines for DMs in world construction, such as how to put NPCs together or modify monsters.

[Zen Master]

I have the most fun when the GM is able to somehow surprise me. What ever form of task-specific, overpowered build he may come up with will never achieve that - and him being able to dissect his NPC/monster and explain every detail of his inner workings is going to entirely fail to impress me after he wiped the floor with our group.

On the other hand, if and when he manages to come up with an idea that's totally unexpected, I will gleefully go to my death (or rather my characters) without needing to know his inspiration or whether it complies with the rules or not.

The two are not mutually exclusive. It's just that they are mutually completely independent, and the stuff I care about (creativeness) doesn't need even a nodding acquaintance with the stuff I don't care about (rules micro management).

If you can achieve both, by all means do .... but really, I'd much rather a GM invests time in making up his own ideas, rather than reading the entire array of thick (and more often than not mind numbingly stupid) splatbooks and appendixes.

Personal flavour note: I really dislike anything non-core. I mean - really.

[Thrud]

Just thought it was worth starting another thread on this subject, rather than further derailing the Purpose of Class thread.

I think there is some merit to the idea of "maths/rules as a shared language" between players and game master, and I am not sure if it is entirely a product of a "game first" philosophy. It is definitely a concept worth exploring in more detail. Perhaps another thread offshoot is called for.

DANGER, WALL OF TEXT APPROACHING!

Well, the rules may be a shared language, but I still don't see what that has to do with the differences in playstyle here. I have had a lot of fun playing in game with few or even no rules. I have had fun playing in games with a fair number of rules but no mathmatics (no numbers ever come into play, no dice are ever rolled). Those are game where you completely put your trust in the GM, and let him tell a story in which your characters are a part.

The problem with gamers in general is that, on the whole, gamers are at the high end of average intelligence, and also often social misfits. We are used to being combative and belligerant when it comes to the thing we excell at (using our brains) because we aren't so good at other things. Yes, I realize this is a SWEEPING generalization here, please don't flame me for it. But I have been gaming for over 30 years at this point, having lived in 5 different countries whilst doing it, and played in about 15 different gaming groups, not to mention about 30 or so gaming conventions which have given me an even broader base to draw from. If nothing else simple life experience has taught me that humans as a whole have a desire to prove that they are the best at something.

With most people who play RPGs, the desire to prove that they are the best possible gamers takes the form of encyclopedic memorization of the rules in the desire to prove themselves the best. And why not? Everyone likes to have something that they are very good at. The problem comes when this encyclopedic knowledge is in the possession of a player to a greater degree than the DM. Then the player wishes to prove their knowledge over and over by correcting 'mistakes' that the DM makes.

The trouble is, sometimes the percieved lack in the DM is not actually there, and the player just wishes to prove themselves, and the game is disrupted. Sometimes the lack is there, but the DM tells a very good story, even though he makes minor mistakes in the rules from time to time. Once again the player is disruptive.

So this is the difference in the attitudes that you are talking about. I have no problem playing a game under a DM who makes mistakes with the rules and even bends them from time to time intentionally, as long as I am having fun because the DM tells a good story. And I have come to a realization that I actually enjoy these games more than the ones run by someone who has total encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. And I'll tell you why.

Unpredictability.

Many people I have talked to who are great proponents of the total math/rules gaming experience put forward the theory that they have to know the minutest details of the rules in order to play their characters correctly. And yet, the most fun I usually have playing a game is when the rules are brand new and I DON'T know exactly what is going to happen. And I can get that experience back by having a DM who tweaks things whenever he wants. Life is unpredictable, and a good game duplicates that unpredictability. That is why I prefer not to know the math involved if I don't have to, because if you think about it all the rules in dice based game are created simply to try to duplicate to one degree or another the randomness of the real world. Otherwise why have any random elements at all? Other games that don't have dice or similar random elements put that randomness in the hands of the DM. I have played enough of those other games, that if the DM wishes to add a little more unpredictability to the game it doesn't cause me to scrabble for my books to tell him he is wrong. I enjoy it and go with the flow. This leads to a fundamental difference in play styles.

Sorry about the wall of text but this is something that has been brewing in the back of my head for some time. I think I'll stop here for now and try to gather my thoughts. Perhaps I'll post more later.

[nagora]

The concept is useful up to a point.

Player characters are in various classes and, although rare, members of those classes are a larger set than just the PCs. An NPC druid is just like a PC druid, and so on. Unless you are going down the "Player characters are unique" road, this is all a useful shorthand.

But, for example, when it comes to monsters I don't see any great need for ability score generation systems for every humanoid monster like kobolds or titans. The characters would have little in the way of means to find that information out anyway, so there's simply no use or advantage in having a unified language that describes them in the way that a PC is.

If I say "He's a half-elven illusionist" then that tells the players something and cuts out a bunch of things I might otherwise have to explain; if I say "He's a ur-vile loremaster" then, chances are, I am going to have to explain myself. And, if I'm going to explain what that means, I'd far rather explain it in terms the character would understand than try to fit it into some class or template:

"It's black, eyeless, and carries an iron rod which seems to emit a metallic smell, like air after lightning. He seems cross." Is MUCH better than "He's a basic goblin with the breeding construct template with 'darksight' and 'blind' plus <list of feats that explain the magic use etc.>".

So, sometimes the practical answer is that the players know a fair amount about how characters and simple things work and if the equivilent NPCs are talked about in those terms then everyone can get on with the game, but the alien things in the world need not, and maybe even should not, be forced into that limited way of speaking.

But, if the DM says that the opposing MU is casting dozens of lightning bolts, then either there should be a reason that the characters were deceived into thinking it was a magic user, or there should be a reason why that magic user could do that rather than the DM just saying "When I say 'magic user', I am of course not suggesting that he was a PHB magic user! Is that what you thought I meant?". At that point the players are entitled to string the DM up.

[Will this do? N.]

[Matthew]

I agree with Matthew on this; the 'rules as shared language' idea is a good one. As a player, the more that the NPCs and monsters tend to follow the game rules that I know, the more I can understand the 'physics' of the gameworld, which in turn means I tend to be more involved in the game.

This point just came up in the Purpose of Class thread as well. I think there are principally two 'extreme ways' of perceiving the game that are related to the "crunch and fluff" dichotomy.

1) The imagined world informs (or takes precedence over) the rules
2) The rules inform (or take precedence over) the imagined world

They seem similar, but are in fact radically different perceptions of the function of game rules. I much prefer the former to the latter. That said, I suspect many people stand somewhere between, giving precedence to one or the other in different situations.

But, if the DM says that the opposing MU is casting dozens of lightning bolts, then either there should be a reason that the characters were deceived into thinking it was a magic user, or there should be a reason why that magic user could do that rather than the DM just saying "When I say 'magic user', I am of course not suggesting that he was a PHB magic user! Is that what you thought I meant?". At that point the players are entitled to string the DM up.

Excellent point. When game terms interfere with "real terms". Characters who are not knights but have taken the knight base class strike me as another example of something that needs to be explained outside of the rules language.

[Raum]

Is it really preferable to communicate with one another via the rules and math of the game rather than by ordinary communication?

Does it need to be mutually exclusive? Communicating in ordinary language shouldn't be a straitjacket nor should using meta game terms. It's simpler to use jargon to get specific concepts across at times.

From a purely RP point of view, there needs to be a separation between the player speaking as a character and the player describing the character's actions. The first should avoid meta game jargon while the second should use any specific game terms necessary to avoid confusion. Often this means following descriptive prose with game mechanics. As the players learn each others' game and communication styles the mechanics often need less elucidation. But try playing a new game without mentioning mechanics...confusion will abound.

Is it still roleplaying when you use knowledge of the game rules as the foundation for the decisions your character makes, or is that rather the game part of roleplaying?

This is why I compare mechanics to the 'physics of the game world'. You and I understand Newtonian physics at a basic level. We may not know why or be able to predict all of the variables, but we have a fair idea how far we can throw a baseball. Shouldn't characters in a game world have a similar basic knowledge?

And no, Newtonian physics don't truly describe the world. They do describe how we interact with it more often than not...just as game mechanics describe how characters interact with the game world.

Is it a separate part, or are they mutually supportive?

I think they can be supportive. They can also be opposed. Much depends on how well the rules are written.

• When the mechanics directly describe a character's actions, they're supportive. The Jump skill is one possible example of this.
• When the mechanics have little or nothing to do with character actions there's no interaction between the two. Think of the attack roll. Does an attack mean I'm swinging a sword, bashing with the pommel, or kicking him while he's distracted by the sword? You don't know until it's described.
• Poorly written mechanics sometimes oppose role playing. Consider Diplomacy...do we really believe a diplomat could turn the BBEG into his best friend with a few moments of conversation? Or that a poorly worded demand should succeed due to a high skill?

[nagora]

This point just came up in the Purpose of Class thread as well. I think there are principally two 'extreme ways' of perceiving the game that are related to the "crunch and fluff" dichotomy.

1) The imagined world informs (or takes precedence over) the rules
2) The rules inform (or take precedence over) the imagined world

They seem similar, but are in fact radically different perceptions of the function of game rules. I much prefer the former to the latter. That said, I suspect many people stand somewhere between, giving precedence to one or the other in different situations.

Well, it'll be no surprise that I pick #1 too. Skill-based systems usually have a big dollop of #2, which is why I dislike them. As an example, Jump skills are almost always so totally out of whack with players' real world knowledge of how far people can jump that the skill is counter productive. I find that the more I know about any real-world skill, the more I find RPG skill systems embarrassingly bad.

As such, I normally pick #1, throw out the skill system and tell the player what really happens in the gameworld.

Rules should support, and obviously one should probably pick the rules that support your vision of the gameworld best, but you'll never, as a DM, find one that is an exact fit so DMs should always feel free to discard rules that are getting in the way (shall I mention "fluff" and "crunch"? Best not to...)

[Raum]

This point just came up in the Purpose of Class thread as well. I think there are principally two 'extreme ways' of perceiving the game that are related to the "crunch and fluff" dichotomy.

1) The imagined world informs (or takes precedence over) the rules
2) The rules inform (or take precedence over) the imagined world

As you say, those are extreme points of view. I prefer a game where rules describe how characters interact with the world. Neither trumps the other, they work together. If I must have a trump, I'd choose "fun". Perhaps overly optimistic.

[Ulzgoroth]

This point just came up in the Purpose of Class thread as well. I think there are principally two 'extreme ways' of perceiving the game that are related to the "crunch and fluff" dichotomy.

1) The imagined world informs (or takes precedence over) the rules
2) The rules inform (or take precedence over) the imagined world

They seem similar, but are in fact radically different perceptions of the function of game rules. I much prefer the former to the latter. That said, I suspect many people stand somewhere between, giving precedence to one or the other in different situations.

I disagree with your division to a degree.

To some degree, I'm with 2, straight out. Because I don't consider an RPG where I can't make rules-based predictions to be playable, so the rules-based predictions have to inform the game world.

But on the other hand, this doesn't mean that every individual game should be pinned into the same physics by the rules. If the imagined world calls for rules changes to support it, those changes should be made.

Overall: The game world informs the rules, ideally but not necessarily prior to play. If this is done effectively, the rules never need to take precedence over the imagined world because they should be producing results that agree with it.

[Saph]

This point just came up in the Purpose of Class thread as well. I think there are principally two 'extreme ways' of perceiving the game that are related to the "crunch and fluff" dichotomy.

1) The imagined world informs (or takes precedence over) the rules
2) The rules inform (or take precedence over) the imagined world

They seem similar, but are in fact radically different perceptions of the function of game rules. I much prefer the former to the latter. That said, I suspect many people stand somewhere between, giving precedence to one or the other in different situations.

Well, it depends. In some cases it's imagination all the way. However, once the rules have been brought in, I like to be able to depend on them.

To take a simple example, the Glitterdust spell. If my wizard character gets hit with it, I'll be calculating how many rounds it'll last, and working out the enemy's rough caster level from that (okay, I probably won't get the count exactly right, but I can get a general idea). Now, it's possible that this won't work out - maybe the enemy's got Sudden Extend, maybe he's got something that boosts his CL - but it matters quite a lot to me that the NPCs "play by the same rules". If the Glitterdust spell lasts as long as the DM wants it do, and does whatever the DM feels like at the time, then I'm going to be annoyed, because the DM's basically saying to me "You have to follow the rules, I don't." Which is obviously true, but rubbing my face in it is just bad manners.

I like feeling that I'm playing in a real, consistent world, and rules as a shared language is one of the ways to reinforce that.

- Saph

[nagora]

To take a simple example, the Glitterdust spell. If my wizard character gets hit with it, I'll be calculating how many rounds it'll last, and working out the enemy's rough caster level from that (okay, I probably won't get the count exactly right, but I can get a general idea). Now, it's possible that this won't work out - maybe the enemy's got Sudden Extend, maybe he's got something that boosts his CL - but it matters quite a lot to me that the NPCs "play by the same rules". If the Glitterdust spell lasts as long as the DM wants it do, and does whatever the DM feels like at the time, then I'm going to be annoyed, because the DM's basically saying to me "You have to follow the rules, I don't." Which is obviously true, but rubbing my face in it is just bad manners.

Well, that's what I was saying about the magic user with lightning bolt incontenance: the problem arises if the DM said that you were looking at a Glitterdust spell - that's a defined term and the DM's being a prat if s/he doesn't mean it.

If the DM at least says "It looks like a glitterdust spell," or simply describes the effect then they've at least covered their modesty and left it up to you to assume. After all, you can research a spell which looks like glitterdust but has the effect of cloudkill if you want and watch the NPCs reaction

[Saph]

Well, that's what I was saying about the magic user with lightning bolt incontenance: the problem arises if the DM said that you were looking at a Glitterdust spell - that's a defined term and the DM's being a prat if s/he doesn't mean it.

If the DM at least says "It looks like a glitterdust spell," or simply describes the effect then they've at least covered their modesty and left it up to you to assume.

Sure, but if they keep on doing this over and over again, it starts straining credulity after a while. Okay, my wizard's got a +20 Spellcraft and +20 Knowledge (arcana), and she still can't figure out anything about these spells she keeps getting hit with? It's cool when rare or unusual enemies have unidentifiable effects, but not when everyone does.

I'm fine with the never-before-encountered Unknowable Aberration from Beyond being able to break the rules up, down, and sideways (it makes it more fun, in fact), but I'm not fine with every random NPC I meet on the road being able to do the same thing.

- Saph

[Matthew]

Does it need to be mutually exclusive? Communicating in ordinary language shouldn't be a straitjacket nor should using meta game terms. It's simpler to use jargon to get specific concepts across at times.

Heh, heh. No it does not, the questions were not intended to define all the possible permutations. Game jargon is an excellent way of describing things that describe game rules, though problems arise when "game jargon" becomes confused with "real language" [e.g. the "strong wind" discussion].

From a purely RP point of view, there needs to be a separation between the player speaking as a character and the player describing the character's actions. The first should avoid meta game jargon while the second should use any specific game terms necessary to avoid confusion. Often this means following descriptive prose with game mechanics. As the players learn each others' game and communication styles the mechanics often need less elucidation. But try playing a new game without mentioning mechanics...confusion will abound.

I don't know about that. When everybody is new it might be an issue, but only one person really needs to know the rules in an RPG.

This is why I compare mechanics to the 'physics of the game world'. You and I understand Newtonian physics at a basic level. We may not know why or be able to predict all of the variables, but we have a fair idea how far we can throw a baseball. Shouldn't characters in a game world have a similar basic knowledge?

I wish. Whilst I may understand the theory, people continue to surprise in real life, even as to the distance they can throw an object. I might have a ballpark idea, but I couldn't guess what the chance is of somebody accurately throwing a baseball 300 feet and hitting a person sized target might be (let alone the probability of knocking a person out at that distance).

And no, Newtonian physics don't truly describe the world. They do describe how we interact with it more often than not...just as game mechanics describe how characters interact with the game world.

I don't think game mechanics describe how characters interact with fictional worlds. I think they abstractly describe how players interact with the game world. Some stuff is very precise [i.e how many arrows can Talric shoot in a six second combat round (note, not how many arrows can Talric shoot in six seconds, which is a slightly different issue)] and some stuff is very ambiguous [i.e. how many times does Talric attempt to strike his enemy in a six second combat round]

I think they can be supportive. They can also be opposed. Much depends on how well the rules are written.

• When the mechanics directly describe a character's actions, they're supportive. The Jump skill is one possible example of this.
• When the mechanics have little or nothing to do with character actions there's no interaction between the two. Think of the attack roll. Does an attack mean I'm swinging a sword, bashing with the pommel, or kicking him while he's distracted by the sword? You don't know until it's described.
• Poorly written mechanics sometimes oppose role playing. Consider Diplomacy...do we really believe a diplomat could turn the BBEG into his best friend with a few moments of conversation? Or that a poorly worded demand should succeed due to a high skill?

Well, apart from disagreeing with whether jump is a good example, yes a rule can describe something specifically or something very abstractly.

As you say, those are extreme points of view. I prefer a game where rules describe how characters interact with the world. Neither trumps the other, they work together. If I must have a trump, I'd choose "fun". Perhaps overly optimistic.

Fun is definitely the key. I consider the rules to be a mechanism that allows the players to interact with the game world. There would be no probability in an imaginary world left to its own devices, things would just occur as the person imagining it decided.

I disagree with your division to a degree.

Well, it depends. In some cases it's imagination all the way. However, once the rules have been brought in, I like to be able to depend on them.

As I said, people are more likely to be somewhere on the spectrum, giving the rules precedence in some situations, and the imagined game world precedence in others. How they decide which has precedence in which situation is I think a potential source of dispute, as it basically comes down to "what feels right" (which is to say, it's preferential).

I like feeling that I'm playing in a real, consistent world, and rules as a shared language is one of the ways to reinforce that.

It can be.

This has been very interesting so far, thanks to everyone for their input. The distinction and crossover between "game jargon" and "descriptive language" (probably a better term for that) is a particularly valuable insight. The number of "descriptive terms" invested with specific and fixed "game meaning" is probably one of the core differences between "rules light" and "rules heavy" systems.

Being clear when you are using game jargon and when you are using descriptive language (assuming they are not one in the same) seems very important to communicating between participants.

Interesting Examples:

"A strong wind blows across the vale."

"The mercenary draws a long sword from his scabbard."

"Heldras is a sorcerer."

[Tormsskull]

To take a simple example, the Glitterdust spell. If my wizard character gets hit with it, I'll be calculating how many rounds it'll last, and working out the enemy's rough caster level from that (okay, I probably won't get the count exactly right, but I can get a general idea).

Here's the thing. A DM cannot control what a player thinks, it is impossible. A DM should not be trying to control what a character thinks, except in specific circumstances. So, if you're doing these calcuations in your head, and you have determined that an NPC is a level 5 wizard by it, fine. If the DM has all the NPCs by the book, you have just determined his level.

But what do you do with that information? At this stage, have you metagamed? I would say yes, but again, its in your head, DM can't do anything about it, and doesn't even know about it.

The question is, once you have figured that out, can you say to the other players "Hey guys, that guy that hit me with glitterdust is a level 5 wizard."

To me that is a HUGE no no. There is nothing more breaking to an atmosphere than constantly quoting rules and formulas in game play.

Now, if you turn that knowledge into "Hmm, I've seen this spell before. It is a relatively easy spell for a novice wizard to use. But by its strength, the fact that it lasted so long, I'm guessing he is a bit more capable then a novice. We had best be careful." Then I'd say you could pull it off.

[Raum]

I wish. Whilst I may understand the theory, people continue to surprise in real life, even as to the distance they can throw an object. I might have a ballpark idea, but I couldn't guess what the chance is of somebody accurately throwing a baseball 300 feet and hitting a person sized target might be (let alone the probability of knocking a person out at that distance).

I don't need to know the exact chance in real life. I know I'd have such a low chance of succeeding I wouldn't try if I had other options.

Why get hung up on whether or not we can calculate values IRL as we can with game mechanics? Just because game mechanics are more limiting doesn't mean it's particularly useful to throw them out altogether. Mechanics are part of a player's decision making process. Just as inertia is part of yours and mine.

I don't think game mechanics describe how characters interact with fictional worlds. I think they abstractly describe how players interact with the game world. Some stuff is very precise [i.e how many arrows can Talric shoot in a six second combat round (note, not how many arrows can Talric shoot in six seconds, which is a slightly different issue)] and some stuff is very ambiguous [i.e. how many times does Talric attempt to strike his enemy in a six second combat round]

Semantics. Mechanics describe how characters interact with the game world to players.

Well, apart from disagreeing with whether jump is a good example, yes a rule can describe something specifically or something very abstractly.

How poorly Jump simulates RL jumping is a separate issue. The Jump skill directly describes the character's action. He jumps X feet. It directly supports the action's description - "I run forward and leap 20' to grab hold of the ship!" The mechanic supports, even drives the role playing.

This has been very interesting so far, thanks to everyone for their input. The distinction and crossover between "game jargon" and "descriptive language" (probably a better term for that) is a particularly valuable insight. The number of "descriptive terms" invested with specific and fixed "game meaning" is probably one of the core differences between "rules light" and "rules heavy" systems.

Being clear when you are using game jargon and when you are using descriptive language (assuming they are not one in the same) seems very important to communicating between participants.

Agreed!

[Colmarr]

it matters quite a lot to me that the NPCs "play by the same rules".

I wanted to poke my head in here and seek a clarification on this point, both from Saph and others.

Obviously, playing by the rules is of some importance to D&D players. After all, the game is definitely "rules-heavy". My question is (and I use 4e terminology only for reasons of being specific):

If the monsters play by internally consistent rules (eg. all monsters operate under parameters outlined by their role, type and level) and PCs play by internally consistent rules (eg. all PCs operate under parameters outlined by their role, type and level), how important is it that the "rules" for monsters are the same as the "rules" for PCs?

To answer my own question, for me "not very". As long as I am reasonably able to anticipate what sort of abilities might be available to enemies and allies, behind-the-scenes consistency is of quite low importance.

[Matthew]

I don't need to know the exact chance in real life. I know I'd have such a low chance of succeeding I wouldn't try if I had other options.

Why get hung up on whether or not we can calculate values IRL as we can with game mechanics? Just because game mechanics are more limiting doesn't mean it's particularly useful to throw them out altogether. Mechanics are part of a player's decision making process. Just as inertia is part of yours and mine.

Well, indeed, that's rather the point. Whether you have very explicit visible game mechanics that calculate probabilities of success to within 5% or you have a general idea as to your chances of success or failure, makes little difference in the decision making process. That is to say, both are equally valid approaches.

Semantics. Mechanics describe how characters interact with the game world to players.

I could be by myself on this, but I think this semantic difference is an important one. The mechanics exist only for the game, not to simulate the imaginary world. They are a separate layer from the characters and imagined reality, only used to determine outcomes when players are involved.

How poorly Jump simulates RL jumping is a separate issue. The Jump skill directly describes the character's action. He jumps X feet. It directly supports the action's description - "I run forward and leap 20' to grab hold of the ship!" The mechanic supports, even drives the role playing.

Well, I take your point, but it seems to me to contrast with the believability distinction you drew for diplomacy. I suppose it's not an exclusive list though, and that something can both support and oppose roleplaying.

If the monsters play by internally consistent rules (eg. all monsters operate under parameters outlined by their role, type and level) and PCs play by internally consistent rules (eg. all PCs operate under parameters outlined by their role, type and level), how important is it that the "rules" for monsters are the same as the "rules" for PCs?

To answer my own question, for me "not very". As long as I am reasonably able to anticipate what sort of abilities might be available to enemies and allies, behind-the-scenes consistency is of quite low importance.

Yes, the consistency issue is an interesting one. Few complex rule sets can truly be completely consistent. D20 especially is an exception based rule set. We just have to compare the movement speed of Goblins to Dwarves to see that arbitrary decisions get made at the design level all the time. Once they are enshrined as part of the rule set they may appear consistent, especially when explicit mechanisms for introducing exceptions exist, such as classes and feats. D20 isn't really very consistent in and of itself, but it is very structured.

[Deepblue706]

Is it really preferable to communicate with one another via the rules and math of the game rather than by ordinary communication? Is it still roleplaying when you use knowledge of the game rules as the foundation for the decisions your character makes, or is that rather the game part of roleplaying? Is it a separate part, or are they mutually supportive?

I pretty much always use ordinary communication to convey any ideas about what's going on in-game. I do not believe players should inherently be allowed to access the explicit knowledge of anything just because they happen to be familiar with the idea (ie, knowing that the DC for swimming through rough water is 15). Instead, I take a look at the PC's sheets, check their probability of success (sometimes factoring in their Wisdom, for an individual character's judgment) and then explain the situation in vague terms (I might say "You think swimming across looks a bit risky"). To me, that seems like the only "right" way to play.

[OneFamiliarFace]

But, if the DM says that the opposing MU is casting dozens of lightning bolts, then either there should be a reason that the characters were deceived into thinking it was a magic user, or there should be a reason why that magic user could do that rather than the DM just saying "When I say 'magic user', I am of course not suggesting that he was a PHB magic user! Is that what you thought I meant?". At that point the players are entitled to string the DM up.

Yes. Even as someone who is all for monsters operating under different rules, I still know I need to make sure that PCs don't feel cheated. When a monster breaks the rules dramatically, it should be a rare occurance and, in my opinion, an important story point, which probably reveals that something about the current quest or adventure that the players believed is also untrue. Otherwise, the monsters should be restricted in their powers and abilities to things which are similar to, and able to be dealt with by, the PCs.

@OP: I agree with Matthew on this, and have said something very similar in the "Taking away the DMG" thread he links above. I think the key to good roleplaying is not having a good backstory or acting well. It is being able to ensure that your in-character actions move the game forward, keep the party together, and facilitate the fun of the game. THAT is the real challenge of roleplaying games. I think even the Giant has a bit about that in his Gaming articles.

So, in that sense, a knowledge of the rules is beneficial to the PCs, because it helps them keep their characters doing what they want to be able to do (moving the game forward and facilitating fun), but good roleplaying will turn that metagaming into something their characters actually would know or do.

The Key:
So the guy with swimming ranks, for example, not the DM, should be the one who explains how hard it would be to swim across a given pool or river!

[bosssmiley]

Rules as a shared language - interesting.
Arguing over the rules of that language and their application - uh oh!

You do realise that having this argument turns people into the gaming equivalent of Lynne Truss and the other smugly punctilious wannabe sub-editors on "Never Mind the Full Stops".

I'm not criticising, I'm just saying...

[Matthew]

You do realise that having this argument turns people into the gaming equivalent of Lynne Truss and the other smugly punctilious wannabe sub-editors on "Never Mind the Full Stops".

Ha. Better than endlessly arguing over the nature of RPGs without ever understanding what the other person is saying or why.

[Saph]

But what do you do with that information? At this stage, have you metagamed? I would say yes, but again, its in your head, DM can't do anything about it, and doesn't even know about it.

But you see, I don't think this is metagaming. This is my character using her in-character knowledge of the laws of reality for the universe she lives in, which state that a more powerful caster can make a spell last longer. This actually makes the game more immersive for me, not less. In-character, it would be something like "Mordenkainen's Second Law states that, all things being equal, the duration of a spell is directly proportional to the power of the caster." If my character can count on these in-game laws being true, then I find that the world feels more real.

I wanted to poke my head in here and seek a clarification on this point, both from Saph and others.

Obviously, playing by the rules is of some importance to D&D players. After all, the game is definitely "rules-heavy". My question is (and I use 4e terminology only for reasons of being specific):

If the monsters play by internally consistent rules (eg. all monsters operate under parameters outlined by their role, type and level) and PCs play by internally consistent rules (eg. all PCs operate under parameters outlined by their role, type and level), how important is it that the "rules" for monsters are the same as the "rules" for PCs?

To answer my own question, for me "not very". As long as I am reasonably able to anticipate what sort of abilities might be available to enemies and allies, behind-the-scenes consistency is of quite low importance.

I don't agree here, and the reason I don't agree can be framed as a simple question: what's the in-character difference between a PC and a monster?

If my PC has to come up with something like, "Well, we're special, and the laws of reality are completely different for us," then I can't help losing interest a bit - it breaks suspension of disbelief. That said, I'll still play, as long as the physics (game rules) are basically the same for PCs and NPCs - in other words, as long as there's some level of consistency.

- Saph

[Matthew]

But you see, I don't think this is metagaming. This is my character using her in-character knowledge of the laws of reality for the universe she lives in, which state that a more powerful caster can make a spell last longer. This actually makes the game more immersive for me, not less. In-character, it would be something like "Mordenkainen's Second Law states that, all things being equal, the duration of a spell is directly proportional to the power of the caster." If my character can count on these in-game laws being true, then I find that the world feels more real.

One of the definitions of meta gaming is apparently somebody using "knowledge of the mathematical nature of character statistics" to "change the way they play their character." I culled that off wikipedia, though, so it's anybody's guess how true it is. The definition is problematic, as it implies that if the mathematical conclusions are in accordance to how you would have played the character anyway, then it's not metagaming (since it didn't change the outcome), and determining whether it did or did not change the outcome once done seems difficult to me. It is more obvious when a player chooses to do something, then someone informs them of some maths that changes their decision, but if the process is occuring in the person's head, it is much more difficult to perceive.

I should say, I don't consider meta gaming to be intrinsically bad, it's just something that you do in play.

I don't agree here, and the reason I don't agree can be framed as a simple question: what's the in-character difference between a PC and a monster?

If my PC has to come up with something like, "Well, we're special, and the laws of reality are completely different for us," then I can't help losing interest a bit - it breaks suspension of disbelief. That said, I'll still play, as long as the physics (game rules) are basically the same for PCs and NPCs - in other words, as long as there's some level of consistency.

What is the mechanical difference between a player character and a monster, though? The players aren't actually using different rules from the monsters in play, they're using different rules than the monsters for advancement/construction, and that has always been the primary disconnect in D&D.

[Charity]

When the orc raiding party cuts a swaith of destruction through the local villiages, they don't advance in level as they do so, fundimentally there is always going to be a seperate reality for monsters, and we as players conspire to keep this knowledge from our characters... it stops them from getting too up themselves.

[hamlet]

Ha. Better than endlessly arguing over the nature of RPGs without ever understanding what the other person is saying or why.

Would this be a sly way of referring to that other thread?



Forgive me for not reading the entirety of this thread, but I'm just going to throw my two cents in here.

The rules are a common language between the DM and the Players in the way that they are a common understanding of how actions are resolved in relation to the players and in their general vicinity. Without the content of the PHB largely intact as a common ground, players and DM's often are incapable of effectively communicating to a degree.

However, that does not mean that the rules are primary, or even especially important in the long run.

Of course, the rule do inform, often, what happens and how it happens in the game world. So when the DM uses the language of the rules, it's a common understanding: i.e., if the DM informs you that the evil wizard casts fireball at you, you understand the basic function of the spell based on your knowledge of a player.* However, the rules do not govern the game world in any larger sense, but merely facilitate task resolution as related to the PC's. Outside of the realm of the PC's, events, tasks, and anything else is governed entirely by the DM and the world itself.

*You as a player will most likely know the full effects of the fireball spell, but whether or not your character does is an entirely different story.

This post is basically a rambling way of saying . . . I'm not entirely sure what.

[Matthew]

When the orc raiding party cuts a swaith of destruction through the local villiages, they don't advance in level as they do so, fundimentally there is always going to be a seperate reality for monsters, and we as players conspire to keep this knowledge from our characters... it stops them from getting too up themselves.

Technically, because the DMG states that NPCs gain experience just as PCs do, then an Orc raiding party in D20 would advance in precisely that manner. In practice, it's a nonesense, and D20 is the only version of Dungeons & Dragons to suggest it.

Would this be a sly way of referring to that other thread?

Just a general observation.

[Thrawn183]

I'm not actually entirely certain what this thread is about, but I agree with Saph. People become more powerful as they gain levels. If I see somebody casting a maximized fireball without a scroll or something, I know they are a powerful, powerful mage. That's not metagaming, that's using in character knowledge that your intern wizard isn't going to be able to do something like that.

Characters probably don't know the 5 ft. step mechanic. They do, on the other hand, know that they can move a little bit without opening themselves up for attack but that at a certain point they're going to get hurt. They also probably have a decent idea of how far this "little bit" is.