What's tactics got to do, got to do with it.

[gizmo33]

First of all Gizmo, let me apologize if I've offended you. It's not my intention.

You didn't offend me at all. I was referring to my experiences of how players would feel 99% of the time being involved in some of the interactions that you (and others) have advocated. I'm arguing against the suggestion because AFAICT that DMing style is rude. Suggesting or discussing the style is not rude IMO and I didn't mean to suggest it was.

The phrase "Common Sense" is an idiom. The meaning is not derived from either word or their logical combined whole, instead it is determined by a traditional meaning assigned by the majority of english speakers.

One English speaker (Mark Twain I think) said something to the effect that "common sense" is just biases that are internalized before the age of 12. I think he was suggesting a distinction between "conformity" and "wisdom".

The situation IMO requires that the DM respect the intentions of the players in the game. If he cannot, then the problem should be solved outside of the game. The concept of "common sense" in this case AFAICT seems to just diminish the opinions of persons who disagree with the DM in an unwarranted way, and is counterproductive. Otherwise, it's not useful because if it were truly common then there would be no need to debate the issue.

I'm not referring to some commonly held ideal, well... not directly anyway. But sufficient wisdom to realize that if a particular interpretation of the rules seems too good to be true, then it probably shouldn't be interpreted that way.

But, as I said, your use of "common sense" doesn't appear to be communicating *anything* directly that isn't a tautology. So the indirect (but obvious) interpretation here is that the player's opinion lacks reason.

In any case, it seems very likely that a player in this situation wouldn't find his interpretation of the rules to be "too good to be true" at all. The "too good" part of this is the DMs bias. It's not "too good to be true" that I'm able to use an axe to chop down a wooden door. Nor do I care to speculate why NPCs haven't thought of this before me. Your wisdom, AFAICT is really heavily dependant on a particular view point that is entirely subjective.

I don't think that the DM's job is to enforce their opinions upon the game.

I'd rather the DM enforce his opinion on the game than on my sense of reason. IMO it's important to note here that what we're talking about is largely a matter of interpersonal relationships and people sharing a hobby. In that way the DM is not "superior" to anyone else (as I think you agree). As a result, it's much more fair to say "I don't allow halfling PCs in my game" than it is to say "you, as a player, are showing a lack of common sense for wanting to play a halfing in my game".

In any case, I meant to say "incorporate" (and I think I did) rather than "enforce". And "incorporate" means that the normal etiquette of house ruling is followed. If I want to run an "Arthurian knights" type of game, it's fair for me to adjust the game's rules so that "Arthurian knight" type technologies and problem-solving strategies are dominant. Not expect the players to guess at what my opinion is about those things.

The DM is an elected official, of a sort, entrusted by a group of players with authority and responsibility to adjudicate the rules on their behalf.

And in the process of doing so imply that the very people that have entrusted him with this resonsibility lack common sense? I know that's not what you intend by your suggestion, but I think that would be the unintended consequence. (And one I've observed when this DMing method has been employed).

This does not mean that I think anyone who disagrees or finds the 'spellcasters only' argument more persuasive lacks "common sense".

But if someone says (as an extreme example. This is not meant to typify your viewpoint as a strawman, or to invoke some kind of slippery slope argument. This is for illustrative purposes only)...

As I was saying, if someone says "But it never says you can no longer take actions after you die, therefore my character can", then I would describe that as lacking "common sense".

But there are two different approaches here. The one you use in your actual game I agree with. The other (and I'm not sure what it's illustrating) is not. In any case, the key conditions that your second example set up are not at issue here.

Take for example a player saying "my character should be able to act after he dies.". This example fails to be a good analogy in a number of respects. The most important one is that there's nothing in the rules that logically implies this. This rule is completely of the player's own devising. In the case of the war dogs or alchemists fire, this is definitely not the case. The prices are given. The stats are given. The DM just simply doesn't like the results. If the case were as simple as the revenant example you give, the DM would not be experiencing heartburn. IMO it's that the players have a pretty good case for their action that causes the DM his reaction.

The OP was not trying to solicit advise on how to handle a player that wants his character to continue to act after death (or anything as comparably simple). And so here the devil is in the details.

While we disagree, sometimes a great deal, it is not because they lack common sense... at least not in my opinion. We merely have different ideas.

Some ideas though seem to me to lack common sense.

At this point in your post I'm not sure we disagree about anything. I'm sympathetic with the idea that in a constructed, extreme situation a player's suggestion (like anyone elses) could lack "common sense". However, I don't really see how it applies to the examples given (alchemist's fire, war dogs) which are pretty solidly based on rules (which is really the problem the DM is having, otherwise, the problem is easily solved).

 

[ExploderWizard]

The distinction I'm wanting to make is between tactics which would be good in the real world, and those that are only good because of the rules. An example of the former would be fighting at a choke-point (such as a doorway or corridor) when the party is greatly outnumbered, rather than in the middle of a great hall which would allow the enemy to encircle the party. This is a sound tactic according to the rules but it would also, imo, be a sound tactic in the real world.

Agreed.

Flaming lantern oil otoh only works because the rules say it does.

This one is more subjective. It would depend on the game rules being used. Using it because it provides a cheesy way to get high damage would be the rules reason. OTOH, coating an area of floor with oil, lighting it when enemies enter, and trapping them in the area can be a good tactic.

 

[Krensky]

My point is simply that I think there are very good reasons why we don't see battalion-columns of Rin Tin Tin very often in the real world.

Yes. Guns.

The classical and medieval world both fielded large formations of war trained dogs in armor.

 

[MichaelK]

You didn't offend me at all.

That's a relief. It's hard to judge tone on the internet and I was worried I had.

Sorry, I'm at work and have just finished (don't want to stay here any longer than I have to) so I'll have to respond to the rest of the post in a short while when I get home.

But I'm glad I didn't offend you.

 

[Ariosto]

I agree with what I think is gizmo33's point: The latest batch of PCs are unlikely to be an unprecedented factor. The old D&D price lists were unabashedly inflationary, clearly reflecting a local concentration not only of gold but of weirdness (Garlic costs WHAT?!) regardless of its frequency in the wider world.

 

[gizmo33]

(Please henceforth assume that "from what I have seen and heard", etc., is implied even if not continually restated, and that I know I am no expert on the subject.)

But you could be considered an expert on your campaign setting. So the imaginary dogs in your campaign world could very well have all of the attributes you describe (and the resemblance to real-life is a bonus). Specifically, for example, you could say that it takes a move action to issue a command to a dog each round. In any case, by houseruling according to the "facts" that you give for your campaign, the problem is solved without having to resort to punishing the players.

 

[billd91]

Your construct here seems to make too many assumptions that go beyond the OPs original problem (and that seem to violate basic economic principles). First of all, you're assuming that you can confine this problem (and the PCs actions) to a certain "region". And that the region would have some sort of scarcity of trained dogs. And how does waiting to "replenish" your army of dogs solve the original problem? - because obviously the PCs must *have* an army of dogs to begin with in order for anything to need "replenishing", so the problem AFAICT is not really solved.

This assumes that the army of dogs doesn't suffer from attrition, a highly unlikely situation if you're using them as meat shields/brute squad.
As far as assuming scarcity, it's a far greater stretch to assume no scarcity. Dogs take a while to raise and train. Scour the area for 5 miles around and buy up all the appropriate dogs except for breeding stock and it'll be a year or so before you can do it again.
The market may eventually respond with enterprising merchants, but shifts will take time, probably months. By then, the PCs may have moved on. They may drain the next town of dogs, and then the next, come back that way and try to replenish, they'll be facing the shortages they left behind if they don't wait long enough.

But in fact a "realistic" feeling game world would have already assumed that many NPCs had trod this path before the PCs. That means the price would have already stabilized to meet the demand/usefulness and the availability of materials. Local fluctuations are one thing, but PCs aren't typically constrained to a certain region in the game, and they have an inordinant amount of wealth to spend on average. DMs who assume they can use economics to stop PCs with pockets full of astral diamonds from buying dogs aren't playing the same DnD that I am.

If we assume that many NPCs have trod the path before the PCs, we'd be able to assume there'd be no dungeons to explore and loot, no monsters to kill. But there are, so why? Because we assume that nobody has trod the path before the PCs, or at least not recently or successfully enough to get the treasure, kill the monsters, return to tell the tale... or cause a large change in the distribution network of trained war dogs and flasks of alchemists fire.

Eventually, the PCs will be able to afford obnoxious numbers of war dogs and may even be able to teleport around from breeder to breeder or trainer to trainer to obtain and get them prepared for their short lives of meat shieldery. But by that point, I fully expect the PCs to have evolved WAY beyond the tactic. The dogs simply won't keep up with PC capabilities and won't provide much of a speedbump against the substantial challenges the PCs will be seeking out by then.

 

[Ariosto]

The classical and medieval world both fielded large formations of war trained dogs in armor.

Not to very good effect is the assessment I recall from WRG rules, in which they were of a kind with scythed chariots and flaming pigs.

("Not very often" is a salient point here, and a lot of things were more common in the Inca Empire than in medieval Europe -- business ends of stone rather than metal being another example.)

I would prefer "elephant dominoes", but dungeons tend to lack the elbow room for that!

 

[gizmo33]

This assumes that the army of dogs doesn't suffer from attrition, a highly unlikely situation if you're using them as meat shields/brute squad.

The important thing that you seem to be missing here is that *you're already using the tactic* if the DM is attempting to attrit it. In the meantime, since it is such a powerful tactic (which is the premise of the example) the PCs are already accumulating successes (and gold!) and somehow what you suggest puts this genie back in the bottle?

As far as assuming scarcity, it's a far greater stretch to assume no scarcity. Dogs take a while to raise and train.

Yea, hence having to buy them for money. GOLD takes a while to dig up and refine. Coins take a while to strike. This is what I mean by being overly narrow in your economic theorizing - you're only applying these principles to one side of the problem in order to support a forgone conclusion. The price of a war dog already assumes all of these factors.

Scour the area for 5 miles around and buy up all the appropriate dogs except for breeding stock and it'll be a year or so before you can do it again.

And how many war-dogs are to be found in a 5-mile radius? And what relevant is the number 5? Why wouldn't the PCs follow sensible lines of distribution like everyone else does, instead of bumbling around and knocking on doors at random? There are people who have a financial interest in hooking you up with the things you want to buy. It's only the fact that ALL of those people are controlled by the DM that seems to apply here.

The market may eventually respond with enterprising merchants, but shifts will take time, probably months.

But shifts to what? Dogs have been domesticated IRL for tens of thousands of years. A vanilla sort of DnD setting would IMO be reasonably set that dogs had been bred to the level of their usefulness. Yes, if it takes all this work and training and such to make a war dog available, then it's not worth 25 gp. Suddenly suggesting that dogs are worth 250 gp (or even unavailable) once the players start making use of them is not simulationist - and so I don't see the use in given simulationist explanations for this ruling.

If we assume that many NPCs have trod the path before the PCs, we'd be able to assume there'd be no dungeons to explore and loot, no monsters to kill. But there are, so why?

The same reason that there are apples to buy even though apples have been consumed by NPCs in the past.

Because we assume that nobody has trod the path before the PCs, or at least not recently or successfully enough to get the treasure, kill the monsters, return to tell the tale... or cause a large change in the distribution network of trained war dogs and flasks of alchemists fire.

Given the mechanical advantages that are assumed to be at the heart of the problem, this doesn't really seem to fit the circumstances. The vanilla DnD setting probably has armies and bunches of people with weapons - which would suggest that military technology is not some niche only of interest to adventurers.

Eventually, the PCs will be able to afford obnoxious numbers of war dogs and may even be able to teleport around from breeder to breeder or trainer to trainer to obtain and get them prepared for their short lives of meat shieldery. But by that point, I fully expect the PCs to have evolved WAY beyond the tactic. The dogs simply won't keep up with PC capabilities and won't provide much of a speedbump against the substantial challenges the PCs will be seeking out by then.

Right, so it's on to trained griffons and cheaply priced magic items and all sorts of higher-level versions of the same problem. So the can IMO has just been kicked down the road - and it's arguable that even these short-term 'solutions' were all that plausible.

 

[gizmo33]

The classical and medieval world both fielded large formations of war trained dogs in armor.

What?! Large formations? Could you cite one source for this? It doesn't hold up to a number of my immediate impressions. First is that I can't imagine a dog biting into armor. Secondly, as was pointed out, I don't think dogs can operate in "large formations" independant of a human handler. Thirdly, any mention of this has been noticably absent in any book I've ever read on warfare of the time period.

IRL initiative doesn't work like it does in DnD. All things being equal, the spear is going to go before the dog, and the dog is probably going to be killed. It's primary weapon is it's teeth, attached to it's head - which is a bad thing to be sticking into combat.

I've seen mention of dogs for patrolling and hunting. Certain breeds have been mentioned as being used to pull knights off of horseback. But then what? This is very specialized work that would require a human to finish the job, and probably distract the knight initially. A padded sleeve used by a trainer is sufficient to protect people from police dogs. Sending a pack of dogs after a run-away slave or half-naked tribesman is not the military usage I think that was being contemplated.