L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
D&D 5E Common sense isn't so common and the need for tolerance
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Telegraphing, plus teaching your players to always state their goal and approach, neatly avoids such issues without a lot of negotiation at the table in my experience.
If I say that the zombie horde is primarily focused on feeding and make that clear via my description, it may come as no surprise to the players when the dead stop to munch on a dying character. If a player tells me that his or her character wants to cast silence (approach) so as to "blind" the bats (goal), then I can say "Yes, and..." to the approach and adjudicate accordingly. If the player just says "I cast silence on the bats," the DM may or may not think that this could effectively blind the bats. It might not even occur to him or her at all, even if he or she would believe that it would be effectively blinding to the bats.
Both telegraphing and stating a goal and approach are, essentially, just effective ways of conveying the "common sense" of the situation by setting expectations.
If I say that the zombie horde is primarily focused on feeding and make that clear via my description, it may come as no surprise to the players when the dead stop to munch on a dying character. If a player tells me that his or her character wants to cast silence (approach) so as to "blind" the bats (goal), then I can say "Yes, and..." to the approach and adjudicate accordingly. If the player just says "I cast silence on the bats," the DM may or may not think that this could effectively blind the bats. It might not even occur to him or her at all, even if he or she would believe that it would be effectively blinding to the bats.
Both telegraphing and stating a goal and approach are, essentially, just effective ways of conveying the "common sense" of the situation by setting expectations.
Gardens & Goblins
First Post
I'll see your Common Sense and raise you a Rule of Cool.
Not sure what the Rule of Fun is. We banned fun at our tables a long time ago. Too many arguments.
Not sure what the Rule of Fun is. We banned fun at our tables a long time ago. Too many arguments.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Case in point, many predators do continue to attack prey after killing it. The real driving factor is the reason for the attack. If it's to eat, then, yes, they will kill their overtaken prey. Dogs and cats bite and shake, for instance, as do their large cousins wolves and big cats. If the animal is attacking to defend territory or dens, they'll accept driving off the target. Bears, brown, black, and grizzly, are a good example of dangerous predators that're usually not interested in eating people and will often stop attacking once the prey is knocked down and no longer a threat. Polar bears are not, as they look at people as food.
But, to circle back to your point, the correct ruling is the one that works at the table, and the best common sense is the sense that's common to that table, so what predatory animals do in real life is neither here nor there at the gaming table.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
The DM's ruling stands in any case. If he or she wants to say the action fails, then it does. Maybe the DM allows for some reversies. However, I would say a good rule of thumb for the DM is that if he or she hasn't telegraphed that something won't work, then it works (or there's uncertainty). So, while the zoologist DM thinks silence wouldn't blind bats, if he or she hasn't telegraphed that to be the case in some way, then it's at least uncertain.
Gardens & Goblins
First Post
Yeah, that's pretty much how we run things. DM ruling stands - maybe some wiggle room or open question to the group for a vote if there's time but really, keeping the pace of play is more important. The understanding is, of course, that we can talk about it after.
Sure, consistency is something to strive for and of course fun should be the focus but sometimes human nature and different experiences that inform often mean a consensus isn't going to present itself in a timely manner.
As long as folks realise its a game and not a science debate, then I believe things are a lot easier. It's ok for someone to be wrong, less so for folks to commit to an argument.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
I’ve really been trying to allow wacky creative ideas to work in my campaigns, to balance both common sense and the rule of cool. When I’m unsure of a ruling, I tell the group “I’m going to allow this now, but by next session I will do some research and come back with a formal ruling.”
Where all this withers on the vine is with rules lawyers that wait to pounce on every ruling for a loophole they can take advantage of, or what they view as a contradiction they can exploit or gripe about.
Really guys, if you want to go back to adversarial, DM vs. players style gaming, we can do that. I just don’t think any of us are going to enjoy that.
Where all this withers on the vine is with rules lawyers that wait to pounce on every ruling for a loophole they can take advantage of, or what they view as a contradiction they can exploit or gripe about.
Really guys, if you want to go back to adversarial, DM vs. players style gaming, we can do that. I just don’t think any of us are going to enjoy that.
We use whoever knows the most about a subjects version of common sense, cause I know Bob knows more about hydrodynamics than I do.
And of course Bob respectfully does not bring up things that really don't matter just to prove a point..
Similar Threads
