D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[The Sigil]

And what about the players who aren't physics majors who will be significantly hamstrung by that particular bias toward physics majors?

Or physics majors who have enough knowledge to annihilate everything in the game?

The kind that turn Daern’s Instant Fortress into a controlled tactical nuke? D&D General - Have You Ever Used A Magic Item In A Manner Other Than Prescribed?

 

[overgeeked]

If something works one way once and then a different way the second time, one way or the other it's unfair.

Hence, precedent.

And while perfect might not be possible, that's no reason not to try to get there.

Or you have more information the second time around, or you've thought about it and come to a different conclusion, or the circumstances are different, or...

In about 40 years of gaming I've yet to come across many instances where identical circumstances are repeated. Even similar circumstances are enough to justify similar but not identical rulings and resolutions. All trying for the perfect ruling for all time does is stop the game dead while the referee tilts at windmills.

Well, it seems rather pointless to try to do something you already know is literally impossible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or you have more information the second time around, or you've thought about it and come to a different conclusion, or the circumstances are different, or...

In about 40 years of gaming I've yet to come across many instances where identical circumstances are repeated. Even similar circumstances are enough to justify similar but not identical rulings and resolutions. All trying for the perfect ruling for all time does is stop the game dead while the referee tilts at windmills.

Well, it seems rather pointless to try to do something you already know is literally impossible.

And yet stuff in the books regularly gets used over and over the same way without being reviewed and adjusted. Why would it be treated differently?

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think I've ever heard of that rule. Of course, we likely ignored a lot of rules back in the day.

I can't remember the page reference etc. but it's in 1e somewhere. Might be specific to Dragons, but would still apply here as the creature in the story was one.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm as big a fan of consistency as there is, but at some point if a prior decision turns out to be dumb, sticking with it is doing as much harm to most people's play experience as changing it and more.

Which is why I prefer to take a moment and get it right the first time, even if it means play at the table stops for a break while I think it through and-or talk it over with the players.

And yes, I've been stuck with my own bad rulings in the past; to the point where one of my old campaigns eventually collapsed in part due to their accumulation.

 

[Oofta]

I can't remember the page reference etc. but it's in 1e somewhere. Might be specific to Dragons, but would still apply here as the creature in the story was one.

It may have been in a magazine, supplement or house rule, but I don't see it anywhere. It's not a bad house rule if it is one and lord only knows there's been half a bazillion supplemental rule books over the years but I don't recall ever seeing it.

 

[Lanefan]

And what about the players who aren't physics majors who will be significantly hamstrung by that particular bias toward physics majors?

Or physics majors who have enough knowledge to annihilate everything in the game?

Some people know things others don't, and rather than suppress that knowledge it seems to make sense to make use of it as-when appropriate.

For example, my DM doesn't know much about sailing and boating but I (to a small extent) do; so when some maritime-related question comes up I'll often get asked. Flip side: he has a masters in astronomy and I don't, so if I've got any questions about in-game astronomy, guess who I'm gonna ask.

Here, if someone were to try freezing a red Dragon from the inside out* I'll do what I always do: think it over a moment, figure out a possible range of results, and have us start chuckin' dice.

* - though in my game I can't offhand think of how this might even be attempted.

 

[Lanefan]

It may have been in a magazine, supplement or house rule, but I don't see it anywhere. It's not a bad house rule if it is one and lord only knows there's been half a bazillion supplemental rule books over the years but I don't recall ever seeing it.

Found it.

1e DMG p. 53 - Damage: "Any winged creature that sustains damage greater than 50% of its hit points will be unable to maintain flight and must land." It goes on to say that at or above 75% hit-point loss the creature can't control its descent and plummets instead.

I guess I must have changed the can't-remain-aloft threshold from having 50% to 25% hit points remaining somewhere along the line; and the must-plummet threshold to at or near 0 h.p. (creatures in my game can go into minuses just like characters can).

 

[Argyle King]

I'm not sure how "all simulations are incomplete and all simulations are faulty" is at all hard to understand. It is a very simple and objectively true statement in the case of TTRPGs.

...

No, it isn't.

 

[Oofta]

Found it.

1e DMG p. 53 - Damage: "Any winged creature that sustains damage greater than 50% of its hit points will be unable to maintain flight and must land." It goes on to say that at or above 75% hit-point loss the creature can't control its descent and plummets instead.

I guess I must have changed the can't-remain-aloft threshold from having 50% to 25% hit points remaining somewhere along the line; and the must-plummet threshold to at or near 0 h.p. (creatures in my game can go into minuses just like characters can).

Huh. I bow down to your rules mastery, have an updoot. I probably don't remember it because I don't think we ever had flying mounts.