D&D 5E Common sense isn't so common and the need for tolerance

[Gardens & Goblins]

We use whoever knows the most about a subjects version of common sense, cause I know Bob knows more about hydrodynamics than I do.

And of course Bob respectfully does not bring up things that really don't matter just to prove a point..

Bob must be a terrible forum poster

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'll observe that in the last few years here in the U.S. the phrase "common sense" has been used extensively in the context a specific political/social issue by a group with a certain agenda, and as far as I can tell it's a euphemism for "the data doesn't support this, but our gut feel is that..."

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, one thing I love about 5e is that goes back to the notion of rulings, not rules.

But that brings up a separate issue- when rulings are based on "common sense," how common is that sense?

"Common" has a number of meanings. One of them, maybe not the one 'common sense' is commonly viewed in terms of, is "pertaining or belonging equally to an entire community." Y'know, like 'held in common...'

I write this because recently, in a separate thread, I posited that the proverbial zombie horde, should they down a PC, would likely stop to feast on the downed PC (as opposed to letting the unconscious PC chill, make death saves, be healed, etc.).

Certainly, if they're they're 70's Italian Zombie Movie zombies, they should. ("
Disporre nel foro e coprirti con questa frattaglia scaduta che abbiamo ottenuto dal macellaio gratuitamente! Sembra che gli extra che giocano gli zombie stanno tirando fuori il tuo culo!")

Another poster wrote that "predators" generally wouldn't stop to eat a PC,

Obviously, Predators would stop to remove and steam-clean the PC's spinal column & skull.

...the more freedom given to players to do things outside of the relatively detailed combat rules...

ie, the more vague, incomplete, inadequate or dysfunctional the system may be... ;P

the higher the probability that the DM will have to make an adjudication based on the DM's common sense

Or his decades of DMing experience. Which isn't that common.

Ultimately, Rulings-not-Rules is a DM-Empowering philosophy. Overall, it could be used by any give DM to run D&D in any give style for any given group where everyone's down with it, so, in that way, it allows 5e to 'support all styles/fans/past-editions/settings/etc' without having to actually put any effort into supporting most of them. An elegant solution to an intractable problem.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Yardiff]

I've been trying to use "makes sense" instead of "common sense" (been failing more often then not, teaching old dogs new tricks and all that).

 

[Satyrn]

It's a reasonable thing to say that most wildlife would not continue to attack a downed PC, but it's also a reasonable thing to say that most wildlife wouldn't attack a well-armed adventuring party, period.

I just pictured an ambushing lion pouncing onto the party wizard, and just as it's about to dig his jaws into the wizard's neck, it looks up at the PCs in confusion - why aren't these other gazelles running away?

 

[TwoSix]

I just pictured an ambushing lion pouncing onto the party wizard, and just as it's about to dig his jaws into the wizard's neck, it looks up at the PCs in confusion - why aren't these other gazelles running away?

Nice, but that picture is five times more fun if it's the party paladin.

 

[Shiroiken]

The key to defeating common sense is to avoid science as an answer. In my campaign for example: astrology is real, the sun revolves around the world, alchemy isn't early chemistry (magic is involved), and maggots spontaneous appear in rotten meat. People who believe in the notion of science are considered charlatans, heretics, or madmen.

Edit: Also to have the paladin proficient with the katana

 

[Oofta]

The key to defeating common sense is to avoid science as an answer. In my campaign for example: astrology is real, the sun revolves around the world, alchemy isn't early chemistry (magic is involved), and maggots spontaneous appear in rotten meat. People who believe in the notion of science are considered charlatans, heretics, or madmen.

Edit: Also to have the paladin proficient with the katana

Huh. My paladins all have to be gnomes dual wielding rapiers.

But back to the point, just because you change some aspects of the world does not mean that other aspects wouldn't work as expected. To me it's a question of logical consistency. So zombies will eat and ignore because I base my zombies on modern zombie tropes. It actually makes them scarier. Most predators will knock their opponent down and start dragging them off to eat in peace, defending their supper if they need to do so.

There's also a balance between fun and realism. Realistically if the bad guys are facing a party with a healer, they should double (or triple) tap to make sure their opponent stays down. Heck, they should probably focus fire on the healer every round until they go down and then triple tap.

But is that fun? It will depend on your group.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But back to the point, just because you change some aspects of the world does not mean that other aspects wouldn't work as expected.

Those're just examples. The whole setting could run on outdated 'natural history' proto-science, superstition, Aristotelian physics, and divine decree.

There's also a balance between fun and realism.

IMX, the two are inversely correlated.
OTOH, genre-fidelity can be kinda fun.

Realistically if the bad guys are facing a party with a healer, they should double (or triple) tap to make sure their opponent stays down. Heck, they should probably focus fire on the healer every round until they go down and then triple tap.
But is that fun? It will depend on your group.

It may or may not be 'realistic' - healers aren't too realistic, in any sense - but it would definitely be fun... for the DM... the first time...