Hiya!
You can't argue that to get around vague and unclear rules you should "Just use common sense".
D&D is not a game about common sense. Many core mechanics defy common sense.
I'm sorry, but yes, it is. More so than ANY board game and ANY card game that I'm aware of. In other games, the rules are the "law". If something isn't' in it, you can't do it. If you and your friends agree on some house-rule for a board game, that's fine, but it's not assumed that you will be doing so on a regular basis as far as the written rules for it are concerned. The common sense referred to by RPG'ers is "game common sense", not "real life common sense" almost every time. Is jumping into lava, resulting in instant death, fun for the players/DM? Probably not. Is jumping into lava, laughing at the absurdity of not having ANY chance of actually dieing due to HP's, fun for the players/DM? Probably not. That's where "game common sense" comes into play.
RPG's are not like board games. There are *constant* situations that arise during the course of a game session that require the DM to make a "common sense" ruling. His common sense. Maybe not yours, maybe not the players...but his. It is his/her game, and they are the final arbiter on what does or doesn't "work".
You can take the more simulationist approach and say lava = death and Rogues can't hide in a watched box, that's fine, but you can also take the more gamist approach where D&D is more of a game, and these things are all possible because they're within the rules.
I thought you just got through saying D&D isn't a game about common sense? It's the DM's common sense that decides how, or even
if, a game rule is applied. Lava = death obviously makes "common sense" to some DM's, but not to others. That's fine. In fact, that's *great*, as an RPG is the only game that I know of that has rules that basically say "When in doubt, make it up using your own judgement and desire" (re: common sense).
I get tired of DMs who say "Its my game so you'll do what I tell you!". The DM is a player too, just like everyone else. Some groups are ok with vesting ultimate power in him, others are not ok with that, and the rule book is the contract that each player agrees to abide upon, just like many other games, including the very popular pathfinder.
No, the DM is not a player "just like everyone else". The DM sits "above" the players in terms of him/her being the ultimate decider on pretty much *anything* that goes on in a game. Now, most people are not complete a-holes, DM's included, and so most DM's take their players desires, dislikes, and concerns into consideration with significant weight. Everyone agrees to whatever level of "athor-it-tay" that the DM has and what is expected of the players (e.g., to know the rules...be they in the book or the DM's house rules...to the basic game and their specific character; to be expected to come to a game session more or less on time, or call as soon as they know they can't make it; and all the other general politeness and manners that is expected of any other human attempting to live with other humans). If a player doesn't like the way a DM runs his/her game, or finds the DM's style too strict or too loose, etc., they are free to find another game or find a way to live with it. The player does NOT get to decide how a DM is going to run his game or just how things "are" in that DM's campaign world.
5e is clearly aimed more at the former group than the later group, with the "story" having emphasis, milestone leveling being encouraged, and vague rulings not rules philosophy. That's ok, and I understand the design intent.
It doesn't mean however that some rules couldn't do with some clarity, or at least just completely ditch the mechanic aspects of them and go completely DM fiat.
After all the designers did say they will only errata stuff that causes arguments at the table. I'm simply chucking in my observations on things that not only have caused arguments, but where confusing in the beginning, and some (passives) still somewhat arbitrary and confusing today.
...and herein lies the problem. You may find the rules for Hiding and Stealth falling into the "needs errata" bin....whilst I (and others) don't. You may find the specifics on a Druid's
wildshape ability confusing and in need of expanded specifics or guildlines... whilst I (and others) have no problem with them or have otherwise already decided on how we are going to handle them in our own games.
As I said in this (or was it another?) thread... Errata = "1+1 = purple"
does need errata ...and "1+1 = some number between 0 and 6", does
not need errata.
Just to be clear: not being clear doesn't mean it needs errata. It may do well to have some clarification on how some DM's handle it, or how the designers may have intended it.... but that clarification doesn't, and IMHO,
shouldn't be written into the core game. Because then EVERYONE who wants to try and use the 5e rules, but doesn't agree with it, now has to directly and purposefully go against RAW. Best to not have that amount of RAW to begin with. At least with less specified RAW I can say "This is how I do it" and you can say "This is how I do it" and we are BOTH RIGHT. This is a *much* better way to have a set of rules for a game about make believe and imagination.
PS: Sorry for the total derail there to the OP. IMHO, jumping purposefully into any situation that would 'obviously' result in the death of a common person just because the player
knows they can't die due to [whatever; HP's, saves, etc] should actually equal "You die" coming out of the DM's mouth. Jumping over the cliff to avoid certain death, without knowing what is at the bottom of that cliff or how high the cliff is should equate to "You plummet 50' down...[rolls dice]...you take 40 points of blunt damage as you land at the edge of a river of lava! Dex Save, DC 15, to avoid bouncing into it" (or something similar) should come out of the DM's mouth. In other words, the
players decision is what should determine the outcome...not the rules. If you, as DM, know the player is doing this because he "knows he can game the system" somehow...you, the DM, should lay'eth thine most ponderous smack down upon thoust noggins! (yeah, maybe my Hackmaster 4e DM'ing kicks in a bit too much during those situations...but I still have the same players after 20 to 30 years of play with all of them...so I guess that's saying something...
).
^_^
Paul L. Ming
