This is highly contentious, because it assumest that "To follow the rules as written" is the same thing as "To follow the rules to the letter" ie in a literalist fashion. Why should I accept this, when better principles of interpretation that lead to a more playable game are readily available (eg by borrowing techniques of legal interpretation).
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Literal reading vs common sense - which should take precedence?
- Thread starter Runestar
- Start date
ExploderWizard
Hero
It would appear so until you encounter the references to what is "unfun" in a game and what the designers considered boring and should be skipped in order to "move on to the fun".
Midknightsun
Explorer
As has been stated, I am leary of literal interpretations because they almost inevitably lead to absurd, or nearly absurd conclusions. At the same time, common sense isn't all that common in most parts that I've seen. In most cases as a DM I would throw out my objections and or interpretations to the group and see if there were any disagreements or ideas for how to work it. it they don't care either way, I just make a ruling. If they have strong objections then i would put it to them toexplain how and why it could work their way. if they come up with something good and reasonable, I'm all for it.
I tend to go by rules as intended - that is, I attempt to interpret what the game designers meant by a given rule.
I do in principle require that players wishing to do something bizarre must explain how the heck they're doing it. In other words, if the halfling rogue in my game wishes to shift the tarrasque, it's on the halfling's player to explain how he's making this happen. If he comes up with a halfway plausible explanation - keeping in mind that at 30th level, this guy is to rogues what Hercules is to bodybuilders - it's all good.
So far, it hasn't been an issue in practice. For all the handwringing over the supposed board-gameyness of 4E, I have yet to encounter a situation where the rules clashed with verisimilitude (once I settled some basic issues in my head like how healing surges work).
I do in principle require that players wishing to do something bizarre must explain how the heck they're doing it. In other words, if the halfling rogue in my game wishes to shift the tarrasque, it's on the halfling's player to explain how he's making this happen. If he comes up with a halfway plausible explanation - keeping in mind that at 30th level, this guy is to rogues what Hercules is to bodybuilders - it's all good.
So far, it hasn't been an issue in practice. For all the handwringing over the supposed board-gameyness of 4E, I have yet to encounter a situation where the rules clashed with verisimilitude (once I settled some basic issues in my head like how healing surges work).
ExploderWizard
Hero
This is a good general guideline.
This on the other hand, is opposite of that sound advice. If the designers intended for a rogue to be able to shift any opponent as a power then the player shouldn't have to justify how they can do it any more than a wizard has to justify how he can make someone fall asleep in the middle of a fight. Coming up with a cool explanation for how an ability looks while being used is certainly encouraged but that is quite different from the burden of justification.
Sorry, I'm not willing to throw verisimilitude out the window entirely. As I said earlier, I have not yet run up against a case where the rules clash with verisimilitude, but in the event that it happens, I consider it unacceptable to fall back on "The rules say so." I don't think it's okay for me as DM to tell the players "The rules say so" when they complain that my narrative doesn't make sense, and to some extent that standard applies to them as well.
Somebody needs to come up with an explanation when the rules do wonky stuff, and I think it's only fair that the burden should fall on the person invoking the rule.
Of course, I'd probably help out. I'm pretty good at justifying wonky rules results, and my goal is not to slap down the player - it's to create a sense of internal consistency about the game world. And if nobody at the table can come up with a way to make the rules result believable, I'll allow the player to retcon his character's actions (since the character would have known that what he was trying wasn't possible).
ExploderWizard
Hero
Fair enough. I agree with your philosophy in a general sense. Its the main reason why 4E is not my system of choice. Verisimilitude has been evicted in the name of fun.
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
Get two or more people with different interpretations of the same rule using common sense and you will find out why it is a problem.
keterys
First Post
And their advice is absolutely dead on correct for its target audience. Further, you're incorrect that other older books haven't had similar references.
Much like in a recipe you may decide to alter the portions because your own tastes deviate from the norm or expected, that doesn't mean that, for instance, everyone should take out the honey or maple syrup because it makes it taste bad.
It means the recipe should say to use the honey or maple syrup, and when you know your tastes vary _you adapt_.
