D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[hawkeyefan]

Exactly - for me, nothing is more jarring than something that has to happen in the story because "the rules say so" rather than because it makes sense. Most of the time, though, the rules and the story work just fine together. On the rare occasion where there is a conflict, I always but the coherence of the story first, rules be damned. I think Lanefan and I are arguing the same point on this - we just disagree about whether one particular rule makes sense or not, which is pretty small potatoes.

Yup. I don't think anyone's goal is "I want the fiction to be incoherent!"

Everyone just has different thresholds of what makes something coherent or not, and different ideas about it.

In a conversation that's about the timing of magical spells... which includes talking about how the casting of spells may be interrupted... I'd expect a little more leeway in "exactly" how these things work.

 

[Maxperson]

Exactly - for me, nothing is more jarring than something that has to happen in the story because "the rules say so" rather than because it makes sense.

You can't say this in agreement with @hawkeyefan's disagreement with my post since this is exactly what I mean by, " If the fiction has to twist itself to fit the rules, there's a break in the coherence." You are agreeing with me there.

Twisting the fiction to fit the rules is making something happen in the story(fiction), because the rules say so. You are twisting the fiction to fit the rules. And it's so jarring because it's causing the fiction to be incoherent.

Most of the time, though, the rules and the story work just fine together.

I agree. And another bunch of the time it can go either way depending on the group and their views.

On the rare occasion where there is a conflict, I always but the coherence of the story first, rules be damned. I think Lanefan and I are arguing the same point on this - we just disagree about whether one particular rule makes sense or not, which is pretty small potatoes.

I think we're all(except maybe Hawkeyefan) on the same page here. If the rule doesn't make sense for a situation in the fiction, it gets changed at the very least for those situations.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Twisting the fiction to fit the rules is making something happen in the story(fiction), because the rules say so. You are twisting the fiction to fit the rules. And it's so jarring because it's causing the fiction to be incoherent.

Can you provide another 5e example for us of this "twisting the fiction to fit the rules" that has been jarring to you - one that doesn't have to do with spells with a casting time of Reaction?

 

[Maxperson]

Can you provide another 5e example for us of this "twisting the fiction to fit the rules" that has been jarring to you - one that doesn't have to do with spells with a casting time of Reaction?

The adventuring day. It's bogus to have to pack 6-8 encounters(or the equivalent) into a 24 hour period. I had to change long rests or I would have had to twist the fiction somehow to fit the adventuring day.

 

[Irlo]

The adventuring day. It's bogus to have to pack 6-8 encounters(or the equivalent) into a 24 hour period. I had to change long rests or I would have had to twist the fiction somehow to fit the adventuring day.

To be fair, the adventuring day is not a rule.

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair, the adventuring day is not a rule.

No, but it's one of the few guidelines that has the force of rule. The game is balanced around it.

 

[Mort]

The adventuring day. It's bogus to have to pack 6-8 encounters(or the equivalent) into a 24 hour period. I had to change long rests or I would have had to twist the fiction somehow to fit the adventuring day.

I REALLY wonder what caused the last minute shift to 6-8 encounters per day? It was initially 3-4, which is hefty but not ridiculous.

 

[iserith]

The adventuring day. It's bogus to have to pack 6-8 encounters(or the equivalent) into a 24 hour period. I had to change long rests or I would have had to twist the fiction somehow to fit the adventuring day.

If there isn't 6 to 8 encounters worth of blood per day, the grass doesn't grow.

 

[Mort]

No, but it's one of the few guidelines that has the force of rule. The game is balanced around it.

And yet, this MAJOR assumption is buried in 1 section of the DMG and has very little space devoted to it. It's very frustrating that WoTC doesn't place such a major design assumption front and center. I wonder if that will change in 1D&D, I suspect not.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Twisting the fiction to fit the rules is making something happen in the story(fiction), because the rules say so. You are twisting the fiction to fit the rules. And it's so jarring because it's causing the fiction to be incoherent.

I don't tend to think of it as "twisting" in most cases. I think I would view it as such if something is established and then changes to accommodate rules. The counterspell example lacks that.... there's nothing established that needs to be twisted.

It seems to me that reading it that way is a product of an overly strict interpretation of turn order... which itself is a game necessity more than anything. That the things that the characters observe and do can't or don't overlap at all.