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

[Celebrim]

Actually, it is the best advice you can impart. Because the larger advice is this (and this is why we have Rule 0)-

This is a game. A game is supposed to be fun. If you aren't having fun, then why are you doing this?

My point is that it's probably not the case that the it's a bad group. Despite all the heated table arguments I had with various groups when I was a kid, we were having a blast. The few times when we had arguments, sometimes hurt each others feelings, even cried over dead characters or shouted at the DM because we thought he was unfair (often with just cause), didn't for the most part detract from the fact that we were friends, the games were usually fun, and we wanted to keep playing. Indeed, if anything, it was the very fact we were having so much fun that made us care so much.

That's why we have Rule 0.

I assume by 'that' you mean "To have fun". And I guess that is true so far as it goes, but Rule Zero is far too powerful of a tool to wield lightly and quite often, if it isn't wielded artfully it's going to be 'not fun'.

But in the end, people don't look back and recall, "Hey, remember all the rules that we applied consistently?"

No, but that doesn't mean that they look back fondly at those times the rules weren't applied consistently. Players can be legitimately burned by bad decisions on the part of the DM.

Good DMing is not a science, but an art. Most people will fail, and make mistakes, before they "git gud." And that's fine. A good sense of humor, and a bit of understanding, gets everyone over those rough patches. But if you don't have a good group, well, why bother?

None of which justifies pulling Rule Zero in the middle of a situation to overturn clear and unambiguous rules unless, as I said in the post you are quibbling with, everyone at the table agrees that doing so will make the situation more fun.

 

[dco]

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.

If the characters have not fought the swarms previously in their lifes the only problem with your example would be players metagaming and complaining to take an advantage.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Celebrim]

Same here, but we pretty much run on a "what's done is done" basis thus making retcons a very rare thing...

Same here.

Now apply that table rule to the above situation you just quoted and see where it gets you. In some groups, you're going to have players storm away from the table and that will be the end of the session. I'm not sure I'd be completely unsympathetic to them. Best case, you've just spent some of the trust you've built up as a DM for no good reason. Why is it suddenly important to change the rules now, instead of at the end of the session going, "Ok, so, that scene with the spiders was pretty silly and illogical. From here on out, swarms of fine creatures will be immune to weapon damage. Expect to have to use various stunts to deal with them."

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[BookBarbarian]

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.

So anyway there's mine.


-Brad

I see this as mildly illogical, but majorly epic. It's the kind of story that makes me play D&D in the first place.

 

[Celebrim]

If the characters have not fought the swarms previously in their lifes the only problem with your example would be players metagaming and complaining to take an advantage.

Twenty years or so ago I would have agreed with you. I was totally into the whole "metagaming is bad and when players metagame they are being bad players". Since that time though, I've come to see metagaming as inevitability, and complaints about metagaming as either a sign of poor rules or poor DMing or both.

Take this particular case. The player knows from the rules that he can attack swarms. It is grossly unfair to ask the player to forget that he knows that and try to predict how he would behave if he didn't know that. It is impossible for the player to know how he would behave if he didn't have the information that he has. What's he supposed to do, guess how likely he would have been to make a bad decision? Throw the dice?

If you perceive your players are metagaming, it's rarely their fault. You either need to adjust your procedures or adjust the rules.

 

[Ath-kethin]

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.

So anyway there's mine.


-Brad

. . . the stuff you'll still talk about 20 years later. The best times.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Twenty years or so ago I would have agreed with you. I was totally into the whole "metagaming is bad and when players metagame they are being bad players". Since that time though, I've come to see metagaming as inevitability, and complaints about metagaming as either a sign of poor rules or poor DMing or both.

Take this particular case. The player knows from the rules that he can attack swarms. It is grossly unfair to ask the player to forget that he knows that and try to predict how he would behave if he didn't know that. It is impossible for the player to know how he would behave if he didn't have the information that he has. What's he supposed to do, guess how likely he would have been to make a bad decision? Throw the dice?

If you perceive your players are metagaming, it's rarely their fault. You either need to adjust your procedures or adjust the rules.

Let's say that's it's a swarm of Lilliputian were-spiders (and the players only have non-silver mundane weapons). The players still made a bad decision based upon the rules and he's still in the same situation. Sometimes things don't go your way and you have to roll with it. That might involve on the fly improvisation or beating a tactical retreat so that they can regroup and come up with a plan.

 

[Ristamar]

If you perceive your players are metagaming, it's rarely their fault. You either need to adjust your procedures or adjust the rules.

Conversely, brash metagaming with an unfamiliar DM or unusual campaign setting is presumptive and foolish regardless of the players' past experiences within the system.

Predisclosed house rules, expectations, and clear communication of the game world are certainly a big part of the equation, but players also have to be willing to give the "new" DM latitude as a table language or mode of play is established.

Running a good game is a two-way street.

And, FWIW, I generally don't have a problem with metagaming, and I'll offer helpful warnings if I see a player about to make a clearly misinformed metagame decision that should be obvious to the character or if I forgot to disclose an important modification to the rules directly pertaining to a character's skills or powers. I do, however, take issue with a player when metagaming resulting in an unfavorable outcome is followed by unyielding resistance stemming from an unfounded sense of entitlement.