Literal reading vs common sense - which should take precedence?

[Cadfan]

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.

1. I do seem to recall that the DMG or the PHB, I forget which, mentions that a DM may disallow the use of your abilities, in his discretion, based on the situation. Does anyone remember where that was?

2. In any case it is inevitable that an RPG work this way. The rules can't spell out every eventuality, so a DM is appointed to act as referee when dealing with unforeseen circumstances.

3. Finally, I used the example of shifting an enemy because that's what the OP used. I do not think that shifting any enemy of any size is something that needs extensive justification, because I don't find it unbelievable that a small PC could make a very large enemy shift a distance that, to the very large enemy, is actually very small. The general principle, however, applies in other circumstances where a power is being used in a context which is not contemplated by the rules, and doesn't make immediate, intuitive sense.

 

[Syrsuro]

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.

But all that matters is what I and those at my table think. If you disagree with our version of 'common sense', there IS no problem.

We don't all have to be playing every situation the same way.

And even if common sense is just shared assumptions, it is not uncommon (and in fact, the norm) for a group of associates or friends to share the same set of assumptions. And, of course, if we did find that we disagreed we have the ability to discuss and arrive at a consensus.

So again, speaking specifically about D&D and not any other endeavor, what is the problem?

Carl

 

[Kwitchit]

IMC:
Common sense applies when it is a situation that might reasonably occur in real life- i.e. mundane animals, low-level characters, no magic. For instance, the horse climbing a rope.
However, high-level PCs like the Tarrasque-shifting Halfling are different. There every action is to some extent supernatural, as they have gone beyond what is possible in real life, and into the realm of action heroes and possibly even wuxia. If you can imagine Jet Li doing it, a high-level PC can do it without magic.
In this case, common sense only applies to prevent exploits like infinite loops...

 

[77IM]

I follow an "Exception-Based" interpretation. The core RAW are just the baseline rules, and are not meant to cover every scenario, only the very most common. They would work fine for a tactical-skirmish game or video game, but in an RPG, there are always going to be tons of special cases and unusual situations which are exceptions to the baseline rules and not covered in the RAW. It's the DM's job to assign little bonuses and penalties for these using existing rules as a guideline.

In the case of the halfling moving the Tarrasque, if he's using a power or bull rush, it works as normal. The relative physics of the halfling and the Tarrasque are already factored into their stat blocks, and these are standard maneuvers, so there's no "exception" present. If the Tarrasque is on loose scree, though, the halfling might get a bonus, or if the Tarrasque is particularly well-braced, the halfling might get a penalty.

-- 77IM

 

[Vayden]

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.

Same reason why it is my system of choice.

Returning to the OP's question, I wouldn't make a hard rule either way - in my experience, DMing is like ethics, situational. You can't just declare something in a vacuum and say that this is the right way to do it - you have to judge what the people at the table are like, past precedent, current situations for everything.

 

[Skyscraper]

As far as the rules forum goes, you should read the rules just like a lawyer would.

I'd like to add to that. Litteral interpretation of the rules is not necessarily the best way to go about determining how a rule should be addressed. For example, case law in Canadian patent cases relies a lot on the so-called purposive construction, which means that interpreting the legal scope of the patent will be done by trying to find what the intent of the inventor was when the patent (application) was drafted. (I'm a patent attorney by the way.) I think common sense should and does intervene in such an interpretation.

My point is: common sense should play an important part in reading rules, be that as a lawyer or not. I don't think we can dissociate common sense and reading of the rules.

DMs and players are well within their right to play a rule however they want, but its important to have a baseline, and that should be the rule as written in the book.

I agree, to the extent that the rules are interpreted with common sense in mind.

To the question of the OP, can a halfling rogue shift a tarrasque? I say: why not? Does the power say that the rogue lifts the creature on his back to shift it? Or only that it shifts it? Forcing a creature to shift does not necessarily require actually moving that creature yourself, as the OP noted. Feints or other maneouvers could be used.

Can an immobilized creature be pushed by an ally to save him from his condition? Again, i say: why not? Why would you not be able to tackle your friend out of the vines that hold him by the legs or out of the grasp of a bandit?

In both examples that are provided, i think that common sense and interpretation of the rules would go side by side and not against each other.

I think that the main problem is that common sense is very subjective. No two persons will have the same definition of it. Mostly, each person believes that his view on a particular topic is the right one and common sense is based on this perception of that view. It "officially" becomes common sense when many persons communicate their agreement to a point of view in particular.

Sky

 

[Syrsuro]

Can an immobilized creature be pushed by an ally to save him from his condition? Again, i say: why not? Why would you not be able to tackle your friend out of the vines that hold him by the legs or out of the grasp of a bandit?

This actually makes a far better test case than Tarrasque versus Halfling.

A target is immobilized (lets say it was a ghoul attack since vines really ought to restrain him, not immobilize him). I use a ranged ability that allows me to slide him (say, Trick Strike using my shuriken). The shuriken certainly lacks the force to move him, and he can't move himself. And yet he still moves.

Or the fighter power "Get Over Here" which allows you to slide a willing target 2 squares to a square that is adjacent to you, leading to the odd situation that the character who can't move to be next to you (because they are immobilized), but you can summon them to your side without having to be adjacent to them or touch them (whatever is immobilizing them in the first place). Note: the Fighter Power "Come and Get it", which is somewhat similar but works on opponents, has a forced shift to end adjacent, rather than a slide. I think that mechanic should have been used for "Get Over Here", not a slide). It would have made far more 'sense' that way, imho.

These would seem to violate so-called 'common sense', but would also seem to be clearly legal by the rules.

Carl

 

[Leatherhead]

But all that matters is what I and those at my table think. If you disagree with our version of 'common sense', there IS no problem.

You act as if everyone at the same table will automatically view the rule with the same common sense. This is not the case. It is quite a bit easier to see this problem when you game with people who come from different states, or other parts of the world.

 

[pemerton]

Skyscaper, good to see someone else explaining the actual interpretive methods that lawyers use.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I actually started a thread not so long ago because this tendency in the rules forum is really starting to get on my nerves. Well, the thread was apparently deleted which probably was fine since I guess my annoyance led to my abandoning politeness.

It wasn't deleted; it was moved to the Meta forum, which is where discussion about the nature of forums or administration of the boards belongs.

-Hyp.