D&D 5E When a rule is clear but leads to illogical efffects

[Celebrim]

Like I said, not going to get into this. I was pointing out that assertion about Rule Zero was incorrect.

This is what I asserted with respect to Rule Zero:

"It's not a given that a DM can use Rule Zero not only to cover things not covered by the rules, but to decide not to follow the rules when he doesn't like the results of doing so. A player can be justly upset when Rule Zero authority is claimed in a situation that is well covered by the rules, and can justly protest that the referee is in fact being arbitrary, uncreditable, and inconsistent when the referee violates the letter of the rules. No DM that wants to keep his player's long calls Rule Zero when he's going to overturn a rule mid-session, without calling a quorum, explaining his position, and validating his authority in this matter with "the people". What is clear and sensible to one person by no means is going to be clear and sensible to everyone. And don't expect simple "majority rule" to be sufficient here. You need pretty much unanimous consent if you aren't going to harm the player's sense of you as a fair and neutral arbiter."

You are focusing on whether the DM has the authority to ignore the rules, something I don't disagree with. What I wrote focused on whether he acts wisely when he does so, and is based on my practical experience as a DM and is meant as practical advice. So which assertion is 'that assertion' that is incorrect?

It is, in fact, the entire point of Rule Zero.

What is 'it'? And whatever 'it' is, I doubt I'm going to agree that any one simple thing is the 'entire point' of Rule Zero.

As to the type of table you play at, YMMV. Given that I play either with:
a) Experienced grognards with longstanding trust; or
b) Teaching children so that they can go on and run their own games; then-

I don't really run into those issues. YMMV.

Right at the moment I run with a high trust group, and that's fine. My advice regarding when to use rule zero would be one which I would certainly try to impart to any child that wanted to be a GM. I think "YMMV" is entirely the point. You pulling rule zero with a group of grognards to change or ignore rules on the fly is very different than a 12 year old DM pulling rule zero to ignore rules on the fly with a group of 12 year olds. My advice is about maintaining and keeping trust even when you can't assume it exists.

"Get a better group" isn't a particularly helpful thing to tell that 12 year old DM.

 

[Celebrim]

The bigger point is not that the DM makes a ruling on the fly, but that she makes the same ruling if and when the same situation arises again.

I already mentioned that. I wrote: "And moreover, any 'ruling' here would be de facto new common law rules, as post such a 'ruling' any player at the table would rightly expect the 'ruling' to be applied consistently, non-arbitrarily, and credibly in every similar case that came up. Even if you don't write such a ruling down to make it reviewable, it's still going to be a verbal rule that is part of that table's social contract."

As long as the player is given a chance to then propose a different action, this seems fine to me.

You think "Just retcon." is really functional advice?

 

[Celebrim]

One attack role isn't necessarily one swing of your sword.

No one said it did.

Hitting a swarm doesn't mean only hitting one creature in a swarm.

No one said that either.

Killing a swarm doesn't mean killing every single component creature.

No one asserted that it did.

Non-existent illogical effects solved.

Nope.

 

[Lanefan]

You think "Just retcon." is really functional advice?

It's not a retcon if the action hasn't happened yet.

Player: "I swing my sword at the swarm on Bralee."
DM (ruling on the fly): "You're pretty sure a weapon attack of any kind won't do anything to it."
Player: "OK, then I pour water over Bralee and try to wash them off."
DM: "Roll d20,then; the higher you roll the more successful you've been."

::shrug:: Seems like normal run of play to me.

Lanefan

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Celebrim]

It's not a retcon if the action hasn't happened yet.

Player: "I swing my sword at the swarm on Bralee."
DM (ruling on the fly): "You're pretty sure a weapon attack of any kind won't do anything to it."
Player: "OK, then I pour water over Bralee and try to wash them off."
DM: "Roll d20,then; the higher you roll the more successful you've been."

::shrug:: Seems like normal run of play to me.

Well, sure, if you only 'code for the happy path', great.

What I think is more likely is going to be something like:

Player #1: "I swing my sword at the swarm on Bralee."
DM (ruling on the fly): "You're pretty sure a weapon attack of any kind won't do anything to it."
Player #1: Wait, what??
DM: Yeah, I decided it would be ridiculous for your weapon to effect the spider swarm because it's pretty silly if you think about it for you to be able to use a Morningstar to smash 10's of thousands of tiny spiders.
Player #2: Well, that's pretty important... I would have never even walked into this room if I thought spiders were immune to weapon damage.
Player #1: That's right. I want to retcon back to when we opened the door. If I had known ordinary spiders were so dangerous, I would have thrown a vial of flaming oil into the room as soon as I saw all the cobwebs.
Player #3: Does this mean I didn''t take damage? And can I have my spell back?

I mean seriously, whenever I have to retconn anything at all, I figure it means I've screwed up big time. As far as stunting to wash the spiders off, I'm totally on board with players ad hocing stunts, and in general have a similar methodology. But retconns are like one of the biggest headaches a DM ever faces.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's not a retcon if the action hasn't happened yet.

In my experience, as often as not, decisions in the present are made based on future considerations. If I'm on one end of the hall, and I decide to pick up either a sword or a bucket of water, then my decision is based on what I expect to do with that object later on. If I expect that we'll be foraging for food as we travel, and the DM later tells us to mark off rations because foraging would be too difficult, then we're probably at least a day outside of town already.

That's why it's important for a DM to introduce any house rules well in advance of when they might apply, so players can take them into consideration at every step along the way.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is no ambiguity over how any part of the encounter should function by the RAW. But basically, the rogue killed dozens or hundreds of tiny spiders, crawling on his body, with the swipe of a poisoned sword. Those who survived the blow were somehow very sick. A round or so later, his brother the barbarian killed the last of them by striking them (again, the tiny spiders crawling all over the rogue) with a morningstar.

To mis-quote Cool Hand Luke: "What you have there, is a failure to associate."

You're seeing a disconnect between the resolution of the action and the visualization of the action. It's fairly straightforward, really. Consider a video-game where you have an attack with a morningstar animated one way, say an overhead swing: it'll look fine some of the time, and odd when there's a low ceiling or you're attacking a creature whose size or shape or own animations don't match up. In an RPG, you don't face that restriction. You (typically the player) can declare whatever action you want, then you (typically the DM) decide which resolution mechanic applies & how, then you (all) visualize how that resolution plays out.

If those fall out of whack, you can adjust one or more of them.

Using your example, above, and working backwards:

1) Change how you visualize the resolution: The rogue swipes his poisoned blade over the swarm, close contact with even the fumes of the toxin, lethal in the bloodstream of a much larger creatures, kills and debilitates many of the spiders. His barbarian friend helps him up, brushing off or crushing most of the remaining spiders with the handle of his massive spiked club.

2) Change the mechanics used to resolve the actions: "You cant just stab a sword into a swarm and expect to poison any of them, make a DEX check plus (insert references to the Thule rogue special ability with poisons) to deploy your poison effectively." "You cant hit many spiders with a giant spiked club, so make a STR check to pull your buddy free of the swarm and shake some of them off him."

3) Change the action declaration in the firs place: "I pour soak my cloak in some of my poison-making solutions to create an impromptu insecticide and use it to brush the spiders off of me." "I help by brushing off the spiders he can't reach and stomping any of them on the ground."


You (as the DM) should try to avoid gotchyas, like ruling against the perfectly clear rule after the fact and in a way that badly messes with the players. "Yeah, swarms normally have taken half damage from weapon attacks, but in this case it took no damage - oh, and you poisoned yourself."

I suppose a person can point out the difference between poisons that are administered on contact, poisons administered through the blood, and poisons administered through other methods (ingestion, inhalation) and, further, the differences that can happen when you aersolize different poisons ....

... and the differences between poisoning a large creature with a closed circulatory system vs a minuscule one that breathes through spicules. I mean, if the tone of the game is all junior-high-science-class like that. (He said as someone who played D&D in junior high & enjoyed science class almost as much.)

My second least-favorite clear-cut rule is that anyone with a swim speed can use any melee weapon effectively while underwater. If you can swim, there's no reason to prefer a trident or dagger over your maul.

Having a swim speed is different from being able to swim. Buy yeah, tritons with great swords instead of tridents doesn't seem right.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, sure, if you only 'code for the happy path', great.

What I think is more likely is going to be something like:

Player #1: "I swing my sword at the swarm on Bralee."
DM (ruling on the fly): "You're pretty sure a weapon attack of any kind won't do anything to it."
Player #1: Wait, what??
DM: Yeah, I decided it would be ridiculous for your weapon to effect the spider swarm because it's pretty silly if you think about it for you to be able to use a Morningstar to smash 10's of thousands of tiny spiders.
Player #2: Well, that's pretty important... I would have never even walked into this room if I thought spiders were immune to weapon damage.
Player #1: That's right. I want to retcon back to when we opened the door. If I had known ordinary spiders were so dangerous, I would have thrown a vial of flaming oil into the room as soon as I saw all the cobwebs.
Player #3: Does this mean I didn''t take damage? And can I have my spell back?

I mean seriously, whenever I have to retconn anything at all, I figure it means I've screwed up big time.

Same here, but we pretty much run on a "what's done is done" basis thus making retcons a very rare thing (even then they usually happen only because someone missed or forgot something on their character sheet that would have made a difference).

Lanefan

 

[Bacon Bits]

Since I went philosophical on this earlier, I'll pitch a tale this time.

4E, I think. Few years ago. Robot Rules Lawyer (one of my players, RIP) was playing the tankiest Dwarf there ever was. Stalwart by reputation, stubbornly good an honorable, unyielding and unrelenting in all the best ways.

Anyway the party are facing down a nearly complete wipe against a giant (who was a campaign nemesis). And while everyone else is down, this dwarf is still toe to toe with this giant. It's gonna be close. In fact, after the dwarf scores the killing blow and fells the foe, he succumbs to his own death due to ongoing damage.

But, he has dwarven sturdiness (or whatever it was called). So instead of falling over dead, he makes the fort save and dies standing and stays standing.

We all thought it was metal as hell.

Nah, that's just because Dwarves are built like Weebles.

The way we play, if a rule would result in something illogical or inconsistent with the reality of the game world:

1. If it's important or fun, then the rule is ignored.

2. If it's not important or fun, then it's not important. We do whichever, because it doesn't matter.

Here, I'd say a poisoned blade attacking a swarm falls under #2.