D&D 5E (2014) Specific overrides general: a general rule, or a specific rule?

[GSHamster]

It can work this way:

General Rule 1: All other general rules can be overriden by specific rules.

 

[Grammarsalad]

It can work this way:

General Rule 1: All other general rules can be overriden by specific rules.

Exactly! I would put it like this: rather than using terms like "general" and "specific" I would place these rules in a hierarchy; at the top are the "first order rules" that apply to all rules of a lower order, but not to themselves. Here you can say that all rules of the lower order are domain specific, and rules that apply in the smaller domain supersede those rules that apply to broader domains that contain those smaller domains...

Without realizing it, this was "understood". We somehow "imputed" this amazingly complex hierarchy of rules. More amazingly, we did it so automatically and easily, that we didn't even notice, nor could we, without some introspection, say exactly what we were doing...

 

[Blue]

Holy meta brainteasers, Batman!

So say we have:

Rule 1: Specific rules trump general rules.
Rule 2: Grammersalad is my hero.
Rule 3: Even number rules are not enforced.

Rule 3 is more specific then Rule 1, so it trumps it. And has clarity even without Rule 1. Sorry Grammarsalad, no longer hero.

Let's try it more self-referential.

Rule 1: Specific rules trump general rules.
Rule 2: Odd number rules are not enforced.

Well, the removal of rule #1 is not the institution of a reversal of it, just a lack of rule. Rule #2 still has clarity and can be followed.

How about self-negation.

Rule 1: Specific rules trump general rules.
Rule 2: Even number rules are not enforced.

Rule 1 is in force. Rule 2 is in force so it's not it force so it's in force, and so on. A contradiction like "this sentence is false". But it would be false even if Rule #1 didn't, so the paradox isn't because of it's interaction with that rule.

All in all, Rule #1 stood up or didn't cause any problems caused by it, even with more specific rules playing with it.

 

[steeldragons]

Without realizing it, this was "understood". We somehow "imputed" this amazingly complex hierarchy of rules. More amazingly, we did it so automatically and easily, that we didn't even notice, nor could we, without some introspection, say exactly what we were doing...

Nah. It was just up front.

We read it first. On the clearly labelled "this stuff applies to all other stuff/everything else in the game" page. I believe it was entitled "Using This Book."

So it has precedence to what we read after.

I imagine I can't be the only one who noticed that? So, I would say, at least some up us knew exactly what we were doing, noticed and understood, correctly, and accordingly.

 

[Grammarsalad]

Nah. It was just up front.

We read it first. On the clearly labelled "this stuff applies to all other stuff/everything else in the game" page. I believe it was entitled "Using This Book."

So it has precedence to what we read after.

I imagine I can't be the only one who noticed that? So, I would say, at least some up us knew exactly what we were doing, noticed and understood, correctly, and accordingly.

I did not notice this! And yet still, I imputed. And I don't think I was the only one

Edit: I looked again in his basic rules, and I didn't find it

I found this in the section titled "using these rules" which seems to say something different:

"Part 1 is about creating a character, providing the
rules and guidance you need to make the character
you’ll play in the game. It includes information on
the various races, classes, backgrounds, equipment,
and other customization options that you can choose
from. Many of the rules in part 1 rely on material in
parts 2 and 3."

Edit: the mention of "specific beats general" is before section one, so this last edit isn't relevant to this rule... But I don't see anything about the specific>general rule itself before it is mentioned

 

[TreChriron]

While debating the nuances of "common verbiage" and how they apply to "rules enforcement" you generally fail to (passively) notice your impending doom, are surprised and promptly eaten by a specific rule.

Please roll up a new character. Let's go with something LESS... let's call it "INT focused"... m'kay?

 

[Nebulous]

I don't understand this thread