{"id":15595,"date":"2015-06-09T00:53:09","date_gmt":"2015-06-08T14:53:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/?p=15595"},"modified":"2015-06-09T00:53:09","modified_gmt":"2015-06-08T14:53:09","slug":"what-is-a-game-physics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/what-is-a-game-physics\/","title":{"rendered":"Plunging Into Game Physics Pt 1 – What Is a ‘Game Physics’?"},"content":{"rendered":"
This entry is part 1 of 4 in the series Plunging into Game Physics<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\"caption\"

This captivating image is “High Voltage” by bluesideup (Joerg Loehnig)<\/p><\/div>\n

“Game Physics” is a term that not enough GMs take the time to think about in depth.<\/p>\n

Physics is about isolating a single variable and measurable quantity, then altering that variable while observing the measurable quantity to shed light on the relationship between the two – then trying to explain the results in such a way that future observations can be predicted. Unifying many such relationships brings together a more complete picture of the universe around us.<\/p>\n

Games, on the other hand, are about a holistic abstraction of reality that places a far simpler relationship between cause and effect. Even the most accurate game rules are superficial and selective in incorporated “physics”; it’s only a question of how<\/em> simplified and abstracted the relationships between object and event properties are.<\/p>\n

The term “Game Physics” is therefore inherently contradictory at a fundamental level. This article looks at how this contradiction can be resolved in various ways to see what we, as GMs and game designers, can learn from the results – and what we can then do with them.<\/p>\n

The Genre Factor<\/h3>\n

Before we get into all that, however, there’s a related topic that needs immediate examination: the role of Genre.<\/p>\n

The term “Game Physics” was first coined, insofar as tabletop RPGs are concerned, in relation to original D&D. This game system did not have a robust game physics in back of it, and most of what game physics it did<\/em> have was unstated in the rules; it was only when the “further reading\/inspiration” list was examined did some of the source concepts reveal themselves, especially the relationship between some of the stories of Jack Vance and the way the magic system worked. GMs and grognards have been debating the merits of the “Vancian” magic system ever since.<\/p>\n

It’s easy to cast too wide a shadow and state that all games should have an underlying game physics. As a general principle, the more fantastic and exotic the possible phenomena within the game, the more appropriate it is that the game have a defined “Game Physics”. That means that Fantasy, Sci-Fi, and Superhero campaigns are at the very top of the list. Horror and Pulp Campaigns are usually only a little behind those prime candidates, as are Super-agent Campaigns (which are really just Modern-era Pulp when you get down to the fundamentals). Cyberpunk campaigns are supposed to be fairly gritty and realistic, and so are most Western Campaigns, so they are at the very bottom of the list.<\/p>\n

Which is not to say that they can’t benefit from a Game Physics, just that there are usually better things to spend creative time on in such campaigns.<\/p>\n

But there’s one type of campaign that hasn’t been mentioned, and which – perhaps surprisingly – should be right up there at the top. Cartoon Campaigns – whether something a little generic like Wabbit Wampage or Toon, or an Anime or other TV tie-in like The Legend Of Zelda RPG, comprise environments in which the fantastic is routine and the laws of “normal” physics are routinely violated. These need a clearly-defined Game Physics to specify when traditional physics can be violated and how such violations manifest – otherwise, quite literally, anything can happen and anarchy reigns.<\/p>\n

Game Physics as Selective Rationale<\/h3>\n

Most games – and certainly most players and GMs – presume that the physics of the game world are embedded within the Game Mechanics, even when those mechanics are at variance with the physics of the world we see around us. However, the relationship is also presumed to be simplified for game-play and convenience purposes, so the game mechanics is only an imperfect reflection of the Physics within the Game Environment.<\/p>\n

I was going to use the term “Game World” but suddenly realized that many games also have “Planes of Existence” or “Alternate Realities” or a “Universe” or “Multiverse” – all of which extend the arena of play well beyond any single “world”. However, the term looks and sounds clumsy, so most of the time from here onwards, the term “Game World” can be assumed to include the broader scope. Just being a little pedantic for a moment :)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The corollary of this relationship between Game Mechanics, Game Physics, and Real-world Physics means that Game Physics defines and contains essential principles, cause-and-effect relationships, and concepts that are not captured by the imperfect reflection.<\/p>\n

These principles, relationships, and concepts define and justify overriding of Game Mechanics. In other words, since Game Physics is a selective rationale for what occurs within the game environment, I don’t care what the Game Mechanics says – if the unique circumstances of a situation suggest that the outcome of the mechanics is nonsense, I will override them.<\/p>\n

\nA great example from my Fumanor campaign: A character about to be swallowed by a Purple Worm cast “Blade Barrier” down the monster’s throat.<\/em> How much damage should be inflicted? The book permits multiple 5′ spaces of the Blade Barrier to inflict damage simultaneously, but only specifies the damage that results to a target in one such space. Ruling that the result was “one hit” by the Blade Barrier seemed ridiculous; so I ruled that every 5′ length of the beastie copped Blade Barrier damage, killing it instantly.<\/p>\n

I could also have ruled that the creature had a “bend” in it, and only a fraction of the blade barrier was therefore contained inside it, justifying any value in between.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You can’t assume that the Game Mechanics are a perfect description of everything within the game; almost all rules systems are explicitly NOT complete. The onus is on the GM to decide what the right answers are whenever you encounter a situation the mechanics don’t address, or address imperfectly. Doing so consistently defines<\/em> the Game Physics – without necessarily being explicit in articulating the “why”. The Game Physics provides the rationale that lies behind the Mechanics.<\/p>\n

Game Physics as Essential Pseudoscience<\/h3>\n

Many games feature characters with abilities far beyond those which “normal people” posses. This is as true of some interpretations of D&D\/Pathfinder as it would be of “Avengers The RPG”. Game Physics aims to provide Pseudoscience explanations for those abilities.<\/p>\n

Again, consistency is the key to satisfactory usage of Game Physics in this way – and the inclusion of the word “Physics” in that term inherently implies that the metaphysics will be applied consistently.<\/p>\n

Before it became the modern disciplines, science was covered by the general term ‘Natural Philosophy<\/a>‘. This proceeded from a theoretical or philosophical foundation to rationalize the relationships between observed phenomena, and thereby to explain why causes yielded the effects that were observed.<\/p>\n

The primary difference between Natural Philosophy and Modern Science<\/a> is essentially a philosophic one: Modern Science employs the Scientific Method<\/a> which states that the value of a theory is it’s capacity to generate testable predictions that are subsequently validated and independently replicable. “Science” is the process of enlarging understanding of the universe by steady improvement of provable theory, and Physics is the Science of measurement of the properties of the universe and its content. A key aspect of science is the presumption that any such understanding is inherently temporary and incomplete, to be superseded whenever it is found wanting in its’ ability to predict outcomes. In particular, scientific theories have to define “falsifiable” tests, ie testable predictions of what would result if the theory were incorrect or incomplete in some respect. If these predictions are subsequently observed, the theory is partially or completely invalidated.<\/p>\n

Game “Physics” is therefore more akin to Natural Philosophy than it is to Science; by definition it incorporates outcomes beyond those available to “true” physics and those outcomes are the equivalent of modern science being invalidated by the application of the abilities in question. Rather than attempting to rigidly analyze and define a true “scientific” understanding of the phenomena, a task for which few GMs are well-equipped, a rationale to lend plausibility to the abilities is defined and taken as a “best understanding” of the scientific principles. Game Physics for almost every campaign is therefore built upon a theoretical and philosophic foundation and not on hard measurements, and must be characterized as a “Pseudoscience” or “Metaphysics” that is a valid and objective “reality” within the game environment. It is the essential or core Metaphysics of the campaign.<\/p>\n

Game Physics as Metagame Ubermechanics<\/h3>\n

The clearer the understanding that the GM has of the underlying Game Physics of the world they are refereeing, the more that Game Physics transforms from mere justification to Metagame Ubermechanics, ie a set of principles that override the detailed interpretation embodied in the Game Mechanics. The ultimate outcome of this trend is the transition from a Gamist perspective to a Simulationist perspective – by way of a Narrativist perspective. (If you don’t recognize those terms, and their implications, read my 2011 article on House Rules – The Quality of Rules<\/a> – and especially the discussion in the comments.)<\/p>\n

A Game Physics can be considered an Applied Metaphysics, as shown in the preceding section. GMs can leave the physics unstated, and handle the contradictions that may arise between that Metaphysics and the Game Mechanics on an ad-hoc process; or they can define a “working definition” for the Game Physics and then use the game physics to define House Rules that actually update the Game Mechanics to embody and reflect the “working definition”.<\/p>\n

Or they can simply embed some House Rules into their campaign for whatever reason, changing the Game Mechanics and the underlying Game Physics without really analyzing or understanding the consequences; this risks consistency at every turn, however, weakening the game.<\/p>\n

For this reason, I prefer to make some attempt at defining a game physics that yields whatever conceptual or mechanics changes I want within a campaign and then embed that Game Physics into the Rules as Metagame Ubermechanics.<\/p>\n

Ubermechanics to add options<\/h5>\n

There are three real applications of such Ubermechanics. The first is to add new options to the palette of choices available to players. Explicitly defining some alternative explanation of “Infravision,” for example, even if only in the case of one particular race, means that the difference should manifest in different applications of the ability; in effect, you are stating the operating principles of the ability and opening the door for it to yield different outcomes than those described in the official rules and game mechanics. The Ubermechanic overrides what the rules say.<\/p>\n

Ubermechanics to constrain<\/h5>\n

The obvious alternative is to incorporate Ubermechanics to take one or more options off the table. By explicitly stating this restriction in the House Rules, you are saying to the players “You can’t do this and I can’t do it either – that’s not the way the world works”. Quite often, a single Ubermechanic does both at the same time – eliminating some usages and replacing them with others.<\/p>\n

Ubermechanics to add Flavor<\/h5>\n

There have also been instances where the actual game mechanics are unchanged, but the explanation of the ability being described is different, to create a flavor that is more compatible with some aspect of the game world or history, or simply to impart a little uniqueness to something that’s becoming too standardized and familiar, opening up new story possibilities. I did this for Fumanor when I redefined the Elves as having a “life sense” instead of standard Infravision; there was no change in the resulting game mechanics, but it opened up new ways to use the enhanced sense in addition<\/em> to the standard ones, while also imposing new limitations. I then made interpreting<\/em> this sense a learned skill in the same way that Spot and Listen were applications of the senses of Sight and Hearing. This created a conduit for me to feed information to the players that they would otherwise not be entitled to receive – and made most Undead invisible to the sense, just as a wall would be. This change better reflected the nature, origins, and purpose of the Elves within the game world, more tightly integrating the game mechanics with the in-game environment.<\/p>\n

\nThis is just the first installment of a three- or four-part series. Part Two will explore the processes and considerations of creating House Rules from a Game Physics and look into “rules infusions” from other game systems (or even from other editions of the same system). Part Three will look at Game Physics as a plot generator. If there is time, it will also go into the campaign-level implications of a Game Physics and how a Game Physics can break down – and what to do when that happens; if not, one or both of those subjects will be the subjects of a fourth part in the series. There isn’t planned to be enough material for four parts, but the third part plus those extra topics would be a rather large article, possibly too much so. So we’ll see what happens…\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This entry is part 1 of 4 in the series Plunging into Game Physics<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>

“Game Physics” is a term that not enough GMs take the time to think about in depth. Physics is about isolating a single variable and measurable quantity, then altering that variable while observing the measurable quantity to shed light on the relationship between the two – then trying to explain the results in such a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[65,67,83,158,159,70,32,74,85,93,87,86,97],"tags":[98,107,155,117,284,218,136,137,223],"series":[269],"class_list":["post-15595","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-campaign-creation","category-dnd","category-fantasy-games","category-one-faith","category-seeds-of-empire","category-gm-ing","category-game-philosophy","category-mike","category-pulp-games","category-rules","category-sf-games","category-superhero-games","category-world-design","tag-3x","tag-campaign-setting","tag-dd","tag-game-mechanics","tag-house-rules","tag-pathfinder","tag-philosophy","tag-plausibility","tag-sci-fi","series-plunging-into-game-physics"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p1toiD-43x","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15595"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15595"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15595\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15600,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15595\/revisions\/15600"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15595"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15595"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15595"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=15595"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}