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

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The rules are not complete and do not cover every conceivable situation. It is part of the DM's job to make rulings in edge cases where following the rules explicitly leads to unsatisfactory results.

What is "unsatisfactory" depends on the group though, it sounds like in the OP's example they had more fun by following the rules into a nonsensical situation than they would have had if the DM had made a ruling to get a more "realistic" result.

 

[Werebat]

The question is not and has never been "are spiders immune to poison?"

It is "is stabbing a swarm of spiders with a poison-coated rapier an effective means of using said poison to poison them?"

Obviously, this would be a terrible way of trying to poison said spiders in the real world. In the real world, you would try to use some sort of area affect poison like an aerosol spray or poured liquid.

To those arguing that what the rapier wielder is REALLY doing is not stabbing, but whipping the rapier around and splashing poison on the spiders -- no. The rapier is doing PIERCING damage, and unless the poison being used is specifically a contact (as opposed to injected) poison, it is poisoning the spiders not by touching them but rather through entering their bodies via a wound.

You can defend game-world vs real-world logic, physics, and whatnot, but the reality is that stabbing a swarm of spiders with a poisoned rapier is an effective way of killing them ACCORDING TO THE RULES because 5E simplified swarms to the point of frequent silliness.

Are you OK with that silliness? That is a question for you and your table to answer.

I would add, though, that all too often a table of PLAYERS will balk at following the rules off of a silly cliff when doing so would be disadvantageous to their characters, while also digging in their heels and insisting that the DM follow the rules to the letter (no matter how silly the outcome) when doing so would be advantageous to their characters. This is how things often were back in 2E and before, and why many DMs were all too happy to see rules clearly spelled out to an almost microscopic level in 3E -- before they realized what splatbook proliferation and CharOp forums would do with those detailed rules (remember, back when 3.0 first came out, internet gaming forums were still limited to Usenet's rec.games.frp.dnd and the like).

Now that the rules are more fluid and based on DM call, the name of the powergame is not (so much) to rules lawyer but rather to badger, cajole, and in other ways convince the DM to rule how you want them to rule, even in ways contradictory to the way you wanted him to rule fifteen minutes ago.

As I have said before:

5e did not eliminate powergaming. It just changed it from an Int-based skill to a Cha-based one.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Celebrim]

Heh. Don't get me wrong- I love the sports as much as the next guy (or girl). But it's a fairly rare scenario when a group of people get together and one of the friends say, "Hey, I will be the impartial and neutral arbiter for our sporting contest." Because either the people call it themselves (pick up soccer, pick up basketball, backyard football) or it's organized play with a paid or volunteer referee who isn't "part of" the group - and this is important, because it's teams playing against each other.

Sports generally do not have a position that corresponds to an RPG Game Master. The GM wears lots of hats. He's the secret keeper, world builder, antagonist, and chorus of the story. He's granted virtually unlimited authority over the game. So among the hats he has to wear is "referee". He's the final arbiter of rules disputes and the final judge and interpreter of every single player proposition. It's essential in any game style that he be perceived as someone who is always fair and reasonable, and never abusive of his authority. The rules of the game help give the player some sense of what to expect from the game, and a feeling of control in that the player has the expectation that if he makes certain propositions, that he'll be validated as having a certain amount of authority over the scenario as provided by the rules. That is, he can propose to move this far in a round, or cast a spell that has this exact effect, and so forth.

A player understands that his attempted move may be interrupted by his falling into a pit trap, but he has a reasonable expectation that the pit trap didn't suddenly come into existence because the DM wanted to interrupt his move, or that the unseen pit trap won't morph. And he has a reasonable expectation that he will be given the normal chance to avoid such a trap, whatever it happens to be and that if he fails at some task, it won't be because the DM favors his girlfriend's PC or his put NPC's over him.

There are certainly scenarios where the DM's role is more akin to just a completely neutral arbiter....That is not a playstyle I embrace. YMMV.

Increasingly when I hear you say "YMMV", I'm interpreting it as "badwrongfun". For example, it's not at all the case that the DM's neutrality is predicated on turning the RPG in to a tactical wargame. Trust is not an issue that only effects tables that have gamist or competitive aesthetics of play. Asserting otherwise is pretty transparently condescension toward game style, regardless of how much "YMMV" you put at the end of your messages. I hear you about how superhigh trust your game is and you never have any of these problems and so no one ever expects to the GM to be a fair and neutral arbiter, and they just trust them to perform their art, but none of that clarifies to someone who might not be as experienced as you what that art is or how to reach that state of superhigh trust at a table.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's the same observation as saying, "I don't think Basketball referees should take money to influence games." Of course. And your point is?

Typically the point, there, is that your team lost.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Celebrim]

Yes, good DMs are good, and bad DMs are bad. Of course, nothing in the rules prohibits a DM from favoring his boyfriend or girlfriend, and that's the kind of thing that no rule or gamesystem can prevent. It's the same observation as saying, "I don't think Basketball referees should take money to influence games." Of course. And your point is?

That GM's have to be impartial referees.

Consider you just said: "Heh. Don't get me wrong- I love the sports as much as the next guy (or girl). But it's a fairly rare scenario when a group of people get together and one of the friends say, "Hey, I will be the impartial and neutral arbiter for our sporting contest.""

And now you are saying:

"Yes, good DMs are good, and bad DMs are bad. Of course, nothing in the rules prohibits a DM from favoring his boyfriend or girlfriend, and that's the kind of thing that no rule or gamesystem can prevent. It's the same observation as saying, "I don't think Basketball referees should take money to influence games.""

Too right they shouldn't, but that's a contradiction of what you'd said to MNblockhead. Do you or do you not think referees have an obligation to be impartial?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That GM's have to be impartial referees.

Did I miss something? Did that statement become controversial at some point?