Common sense

[dren]

Never happens to me...98% of the time I use RAW, the other times I use house rules which I have picked up from other games or from here at ENW. But come off it people, this is a game. There will always be things which don't work "right" regardless of which system or mechanic you use. So, pick one, use it consistenlty, shut up about it and have some fun.

 

[painandgreed]

When there is a difference between how think it should work and the rules, I usually go with what I want but offer the players a veto to keep with the rules if they want. Then I add the change to my house rule notes for other players to read later.

 

[MadMaxim]

i wish you would of also included " a little of both" as an option.


If i know the exact ruling on a situation i will go with RAW....if i dont understand it than i go with Common Sense......if i kinda understand something i will go with a mixture of RAW and common sense.

Honestly it usually depends on which one is faster

Wow, your answer didn't include something with a frying pan, LordBOB!

Back on topic, I usually do a mixture of the two like LordBOB mentioned, but it's RAW first then common sense. Or sometimes the other way around...

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Common sense, but if common sense results in an argument or disagreement, I default to the RAW. It settles things pretty quick to go with the shared codified ruleset.

 

[demiurge1138]

If it's RAW vs. common sense, I usually go for the common sense.

Demiurge out.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

When the situation arises, I'll use the RAW to conclude it and to speed things alone. Afterwards, we'll talk about it and decide if the RAW makes sense to us or if we need to house rule anything.

AR

 

[argo]

If we're talking about a corner case where several rules interact to produce a strange result or a gray area where the rules only kinda-sorta cover it, then I have no problem bending the rules to get the result I feel appropriate to the situation.

However, if we're talking about a clearly defined part of the game and someone wants to complain about "common sense" "realism" or the "real world" then it is RAW all the way. This is a game, not a physics simulator.

Houserules, carefully considered before the game starts, are also allowed.

Later.

 

[The Shaman]

If we're talking about a corner case where several rules interact to produce a strange result or a gray area where the rules only kinda-sorta cover it, then I have no problem bending the rules to get the result I feel appropriate to the situation.

However, if we're talking about a clearly defined part of the game and someone wants to complain about "common sense" "realism" or the "real world" then it is RAW all the way. This is a game, not a physics simulator.

Houserules, carefully considered before the game starts, are also allowed.

I'll go with argo's answer as well.

 

[diaglo]

I'll go with argo's answer as well.

ditto.

 

[ForceUser]

I've been DMing my group for many, many years. Seeing how I have their trust I can get away with just ruling as I see fit. However, I imagine that would be tougher to pull off if I were running a game for a new group of players.

It is tougher for a new group. I'm running two new groups and some of the players have complained that sometimes the decisions I make seem arbitrary and not by the RAW.

Of course, some of those same players also petition me to house rule feats, prestige classes, and supplimental materials so their PCs can be cooler and tougher, so I'm inclined to think it's either a matter of testing the new DM's boundaries, miscommunication, or both.

On topic, I'll echo argo as well. I've had some hiccups with the powerful build SQ from half-giants in the XPH. As written, powerful build allows a half-giant to wield a large longsword (2d6) in one hand with no penalty, but not a medium greatsword (also 2d6, and arguably the same size). My half-giant's player was disgruntled to discover this. Does it make sense? Eh, not really. Am I bending the rules to allow it? no--powerful build is powerful enough.