Logic making you angry?

[djdaidouji]

Something I'm finding a lot in discussions is "this shouldn't work because." Things like sneak attacking a slime or charming undead in 4e, though this idea isn't restricted to 4e.

The thing is, the mechanics are there. To make mechanics balanced, you have to get rid of a certain amount of logic. So what I suggest is putting "This would work if" in your mind rather then "this shouldn't work because."

For example: a rogue remembers a piece of lore about slimes, if you cut off a piece of them in the top left with a bubble shaped like a star, it harms them significantly, but it requires timing and concentration to pull off. Therefore, a rogue can sneak attack a slime.

This one was mentioned in a thread earlier: The charm spell is actually taking the soul and make it more receptive to you, which makes the target think they like you. A skeleton still has a semblance of a soul, or at least something similar enough that the charm spell will affect it, so a charm spell works on a skeleton.

Even if there is no logic problem, I like to think of other reasons for things to work. A fighter beats an enemy's AC. The terrifying fighter holds up his greatsword in front of the enemy, and the enemy is terrified because he thinks his armor wont hold up, so he becomes mentally stressed out and that much closer to being knocked out (which is damage to the new all-encompassing HP.)

We can't get around mechanics, so we just have to make the mechanics work for us. If anything, it makes for a very interesting game if you rule that every action must be described as different then the previous one.

 

[Deset Gled]

The base mechanics should always be logically and mathematically solid. The end cases, exceptions, and minor details are where I allow logic to be tossed to the side.

 

[djdaidouji]

The base mechanics should always be logically and mathematically solid. The end cases, exceptions, and minor details are where I allow logic to be tossed to the side.

That's what I'm trying to say, only instead of tossing logic aside, make up logic. That is, if your group enjoys that kind of thing.

 

[Richards]

Logic making you angry?

Somehow that question conjures up an image of the Hulk beating the crap out of Mr. Spock.

Johnathan

 

[Brimshack]

Where convenient and plausible sure, make up explanations. But I think sometimes, attempting a rational explanation just stretches things too thin. A good scifi or fantasy story doesn't belabor the premise. It establishes it and moves on. Spend too long trying to convince people that this or that element in a fantasy story is plausible and you just give them enough time to get tired of thinking about it.

There is a point where you are better off just saying "that's how it works" and leaving it a mystery. How did Gandolf and the Balrog both survive the fall at the outset of their battle? Because that's the way the story is told. And there is a real power to just sticking with the narrative. How did Paul Bunyon's axe make teh grand canyon? It freakin did. That's how. Why does passing an arrow through the cicade of Diné origin narratives change the morphology of that entire species? Because that's the way the medicine man sings the story every fall. Sure, you could think up explanations for any of those, but that just weakens the whole idea. The power of those ideas lies in the way the events fit into the story, not in some ad hoc apologetic.

Try to hard to explain how some things work and you only underscore the erros of the system. By keeping the effort to rationalize things a bit light, you keep people's attention where you want it, and away from the logical problems that cannot always be solved. The trick is to realize that solving those problems is not the crux of the game to begin with.

But of course this is a minor disagreement. In essence, I agree with you. Players focusing on how things would work in real life are asking a question that can play havoc with the game. I am for example always amazed at the way people will debate whether or not the wings on a dragon miniature appear to flimsy, saying this one wouldn't fly or that pair of wings couldn't lift that much weight, as if such a creature were real to begin with. Focusing on that too much misses the point. Granted, one can stretch the laws of physics to the point a player has trouble suspending disbelief, but that should be the exception. Measuring rules consistently against what would actually happen, so to speak. There lies madness. ...or worse yet, sanity. Boring, non fantasy-type real world-as-it-is, yawnage...

 

[Felon]

All well and good to conjure up rationalizations, but in regards to logic, there's more than verisimilitude to consider. One of the major points of using a slime is that its amorphous form is resistant to standard combat tricks, and conversely one of the main benefits to recruiting a horde of mindless zombies is that they can't be stopped with mind tricks. If they're suddenlty affected by those attacks just like any human, they become ubiquitous and rather pointless.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

All well and good to conjure up rationalizations, but in regards to logic, there's more than verisimilitude to consider. One of the major points of using a slime is that its amorphous form is resistant to standard combat tricks, and conversely one of the main benefits to recruiting a horde of mindless zombies is that they can't be stopped with mind tricks. If they're suddenlty affected by those attacks just like any human, they become ubiquitous and rather pointless.

Good points there. I've heard some nifty 'explanations' for various rules, but no one has ever explained how one can be standing in the middle of a twenty foot diameter fireball and be missed! Some days you just have to shrug and move on. Or quit.

 

[Satori]

I see both sides, and agree with both to some extent.

Of course, the "Logic Must Win" side has/is the mainstay of 3.xE.

The strengths of this side are easy to see. Actions make sense, things have a purpose, and the whole tends to make sense if you look at it closely.

"I sneak attack the slime! Wait, I can't? Oh, I guess that makes sense. Um...I'll hide behind the barbarian."

Unfortunately, we all know what the drawbacks of this can be...

...so I think it's time to give the other side a shot.

"Wait, you mean I can sneak attack a slime? SWEET! I guess I don't need to sit this one out!"

 

[eyebeams]

The base mechanics should always be logically and mathematically solid. The end cases, exceptions, and minor details are where I allow logic to be tossed to the side.

It's been my experience that many people use less than meaningful criteria for these. For example, averages are almost meaningless in many game systems, because there are not enough iterations of roll using a single set of conditions to create a large number of results that will reliable cleave to the average.

By "logic," many people mean verisimilitude: how reasonable it sounds for a character to do something. Things like sneak attack restrictions mechanically reinforce this, but the price is a set of situations where the ability doesn't work well, that are decided outside the game's structure -- by whether the DM decides you're fighting oozes today. I think it would be better in many cases if systems pulled back from this in favour of general guidelines, perhaps linked to some kind of compensation/reward for players who get restricted by it.