Amusing Jump Detail

[moritheil]

As an individual poster--not as a moderator--I tend to disagree. If there are two DMs:

1) who understands the rules perfectly and hasn't a lick of common sense; and
2) Who has a terrible understanding of the rules but has a wealth of common sense,

I'd immediately choose to play with #2.
Daniel

Understandable. But, as I was pointing out, many people who feel that they have a wealth of common sense do not arrive at the same conclusions due to this common sense. Witness the 4-page thread about when combat starts and whether or notthe current initiative rules discourage parley.

People with opposing common sense conclusions tend to deadlock. Then we are left with the rules.

 

[Pielorinho]

Understandable. But, as I was pointing out, many people who feel that they have a wealth of common sense do not arrive at the same conclusions due to this common sense. Witness the 4-page thread about when combat starts and whether or notthe current initiative rules discourage parley.

People with opposing common sense conclusions tend to deadlock. Then we are left with the rules.

Very true, and common sense is a subjective measure. All I require is for my DM to have common sense that usually dovetails with mine. (I also want a DM whose sense of adventure usually dovetails with mine, and whose sense of character usually dovetails with mine: a DM who thinks spending an evening fighting 10 battles against 10 groups of goblins in 10x10 rooms is exciting won't please me, especially if he thinks it's awesome for every goblin to squeak Monty Python quotes mid-battle).

For me, if my DM has common sense that significantly opposes mine, the rules aren't going to help: if he interprets the rules in a way that defies my sensibilities, my sensibilities will still be defied. When there's a truly ambiguous stretch of rules, rather than doing the cross-reference tango, I'd far rather that we both put the books down, look at one another, and talk about what would lead to the most fun.

I recognize that's not everyone's playstyle; but it works for me.
Daniel

 

[moritheil]

For me, if my DM has common sense that significantly opposes mine, the rules aren't going to help: if he interprets the rules in a way that defies my sensibilities, my sensibilities will still be defied.

I recognize that's not everyone's playstyle; but it works for me.
Daniel

That's a very mature and reasonable way to do things. Doesn't it fall outside the purview of the Rules forum, though? I'm not trying to be difficult, but it seems to me that people come to the Rules forum to get authoritative rulings on what the Rules themselves say.

 

[Pielorinho]

That's a very mature and reasonable way to do things. Doesn't it fall outside the purview of the Rules forum, though? I'm not trying to be difficult, but it seems to me that people come to the Rules forum to get authoritative rulings on what the Rules themselves say.

Not a problem! Speaking as an individual, not a moderator, I think it can fall within the rules forum. My approach to the rules is sometimes to say first, "What do the rules clearly and unambiguously say?" In cases where that question can be easily answered, with a single rules passage and maybe a reference to the glossary, it ends there.

But if the question can't be easily answered--if an answer combines looking at the spell's duration cross-referenced with the repeating crossbow's footnote, comparing the way the word "repeat" is used in both and compared to the word "repeat" used in a passage in the monster manual talking about a dragon's breath weapon--then I'm no longer interested in that path of rules understanding. Once it's not unambiguously answerable, my approach is to say, "What plausible interpretation of the rules will lead to the most fun?"

And that question, while lacking an objective answer, is in my opinion wholly within the purview of the rules forum.

Daniel

 

[Celebrim]

Understandable. But, as I was pointing out, many people who feel that they have a wealth of common sense do not arrive at the same conclusions due to this common sense. Witness the 4-page thread about when combat starts and whether or notthe current initiative rules discourage parley.

Note that these are rules interpretation issues.

People with opposing common sense conclusions tend to deadlock. Then we are left with the rules.

Do you see the flaw in the logic of that? People can have opposing common sense conclusions about what the rules themselves say. In fact, in the rules forum almost all the arguments are over how to interpret the rules, and I daresay that most game arguments are about that too. Take any particular game action, and if you go into enough detail you'll eventually run into enough ambigous space in the rules to have an interpretation problem. So, then you aren't even left with the rules.

Unlimately, when people with opposing common sense conclusions deadlock, all you are left with is DM authority and the willingness of the PC's to cede thier preferences to the DM's for the sake of the game. If you don't have that willingness to respect the DM's decision as final - regardless of whether you agree with it or even think its reasonable - then you don't have anything and the rules can't save you. Some people's willingness to do this is limited (for perfectly understandable reasons), and having 'the rules' as a crutch can provide them enough reassurance to allow them to continue playing, but ultimately the game will always come down to whether the PC's trust the DM's judgement.

 

[Felon]

That was my point exactly. Since people in this forum often interpret the rules to mean that any restriction not expressly stated in skills or abilities must be a house-rule added by the DM, 99% of DMs out there are running a house rule and they don't know it.

Yes, many people on this board believe that which is not mandatory is forbidden. I remember recently having someone argue that you can't voluntarily become helpless.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But if the question can't be easily answered--if an answer combines looking at the spell's duration cross-referenced with the repeating crossbow's footnote, comparing the way the word "repeat" is used in both and compared to the word "repeat" used in a passage in the monster manual talking about a dragon's breath weapon--then I'm no longer interested in that path of rules understanding.

[blink]

But...

... those are the best kind!

-Hyp.

 

[Pielorinho]

[blink]

But...

... those are the best kind!

You just like watching my head asplode.
Daniel

 

[Felnar]

has anyone tried:
1. step off the cliff
2. move <fall> 20 feet straight down
3. jump back up (DC 80 to land on top, or DC 48 for a medium creature to grab the ledge)

i dont think my DM will allow it
- Felnar

 

[Ferret]

Could you climp up 20 foot and then jump? Swim 20 foot, then jump up out of the water?