Common sense
- Thread starter Mishihari Lord
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
I really think Quasqueton has the right of it.
How can anyone argue a common sense approach in combat when DnD combat is entirely abstract? Actually, most of the mechanics are abstract, so, any attempt to use common sense would automatically be problematic. I've often wondered why people have no problem with a human killing an elephant with a sword but will argue forever that you cannot fire into melee without hitting your friends.
Something that does surprise me is that people use the term rules lawyer like an epithet. Heck, I'm PROUD to be a rules lawyer. I make a point of reading the rules threads, reading the FAQ's and Errata for books, and, yes, actually sitting down and READING the entire combat section of the PHB. Given the choice of two players, one who has excellent theatrical skills but the gaming skills of a stump and another with limited rp ability but an excellent grasp of mechanics, I'll take the gamer every time. I don't want to put up with, "But, why can't I do this? It would be so good for the story." Bugger that. Gimme the guy who can calculate his to hit bonus for a 14th level fighter in under 12 seconds any day of the week.
The biggest problem I see around the table are two kinds of people. The first is the person who only thinks that they have a good grasp of rules, but, really don't. Even after being repeatedly shot down in rules arguements, they continue to try. This person is a problem. He's not a rules lawyer, he's just a schmuck. The other problem is the screen monkey who figures that he knows better than the rules without bothering to learn the rules in the first place. He's got a fingernail grasp of mechanics, but starts making broad, sweeping changes anyway. Sorry, but a book ruling that's been discussed at length on umpteen web sites by umpteen DM's is almost always superior to anything someone comes up with on the fly.
In the end, I have two pieces of advice. First, READ THE MANUAL. Don't assume that something is broken or needs to be fixed until after you've done that. Second, READ THE MANUAL AGAIN.
Really. Even experienced DM's should brush up on mechanics from time to time. It's amazing how much easier life gets when everyone has a solid grasp on mechanics. In those instances when no mechanics exist, then, fine, go with your gut. But, given the choice between RAW and your gut, I'll bet dollars to donuts that the RAW works better 99% of the time.
How can anyone argue a common sense approach in combat when DnD combat is entirely abstract? Actually, most of the mechanics are abstract, so, any attempt to use common sense would automatically be problematic. I've often wondered why people have no problem with a human killing an elephant with a sword but will argue forever that you cannot fire into melee without hitting your friends.
Something that does surprise me is that people use the term rules lawyer like an epithet. Heck, I'm PROUD to be a rules lawyer. I make a point of reading the rules threads, reading the FAQ's and Errata for books, and, yes, actually sitting down and READING the entire combat section of the PHB. Given the choice of two players, one who has excellent theatrical skills but the gaming skills of a stump and another with limited rp ability but an excellent grasp of mechanics, I'll take the gamer every time. I don't want to put up with, "But, why can't I do this? It would be so good for the story." Bugger that. Gimme the guy who can calculate his to hit bonus for a 14th level fighter in under 12 seconds any day of the week.
The biggest problem I see around the table are two kinds of people. The first is the person who only thinks that they have a good grasp of rules, but, really don't. Even after being repeatedly shot down in rules arguements, they continue to try. This person is a problem. He's not a rules lawyer, he's just a schmuck. The other problem is the screen monkey who figures that he knows better than the rules without bothering to learn the rules in the first place. He's got a fingernail grasp of mechanics, but starts making broad, sweeping changes anyway. Sorry, but a book ruling that's been discussed at length on umpteen web sites by umpteen DM's is almost always superior to anything someone comes up with on the fly.
In the end, I have two pieces of advice. First, READ THE MANUAL. Don't assume that something is broken or needs to be fixed until after you've done that. Second, READ THE MANUAL AGAIN.
Really. Even experienced DM's should brush up on mechanics from time to time. It's amazing how much easier life gets when everyone has a solid grasp on mechanics. In those instances when no mechanics exist, then, fine, go with your gut. But, given the choice between RAW and your gut, I'll bet dollars to donuts that the RAW works better 99% of the time.
Psychic Warrior
First Post
I generally follow the rules as written and, as argo said , only bring my sense (common or otherwise) into it if strange, overlapping rule effects produce a result I am dissatisfied with. In the 5 years I've been running 3E games I would say 98% of the time I use the rules as written.
This is pretty close to how I ran 1E and 2E too, btw.
This is pretty close to how I ran 1E and 2E too, btw.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Hussar said:
Being a "Rules Guru" is not a bad thing, and is in fact desirable to have at least one at your table. As most people here, at WotC forums, at RPG.net, and at Dragonsfoot mean it (the forums I frequent), "Rules Lawyer" is someone who uses the rules for the party's personal gain, when the rules are advantageous. Just as a lawyer in court does not point out when his client is actually guilty, most people define "Rules Lawyers" as advocates for one side ONLY (players or DM, not "the game").
In the end, I have two pieces of advice. First, READ THE MANUAL. Don't assume that something is broken or needs to be fixed until after you've done that. Second, READ THE MANUAL AGAIN.
RTFM -- sound advice, truly. However, "works better" has a different connotation for me. It isn't better if the RAW is a multi-step process taking several minutes to resolve but which adds no fun or drama to the resolution. While knowing the rules is great, if the rule is something involved ( a LOT of people use the Grapple rules as an example; I tend to use the town creation system from the DMG, myself) it can bog things down no matter if you have a cheat sheet in front of you or not. "Keeping the game moving" is the standard I use, and if it slows things to a crawl where people are getting bored, then something's not moving like it should and an alternative needs to be found.
glass
(he, him)
The trouble with common sense is that it is not remotely common.
For example, it offends my common sense that you can search a chest from 10ft away. But I realise that I can't expect another player to guess that that in particular would bother me in a games where a slender human female can potentially bench press a Mini Cooper. So, if I am DMing, I house rule it and tell the players.
So I voted for the third option, since neither of the first two fit: I neither rely on common sense nor slavishly follow the RAW.
glass.
For example, it offends my common sense that you can search a chest from 10ft away. But I realise that I can't expect another player to guess that that in particular would bother me in a games where a slender human female can potentially bench press a Mini Cooper. So, if I am DMing, I house rule it and tell the players.
So I voted for the third option, since neither of the first two fit: I neither rely on common sense nor slavishly follow the RAW.
glass.
Hussar
Legend
Henry said:
"Rules Guru". Hrm, I like the sound of that. Ok, gonna use that one from now on.
I'll agree with keeping the game moving. Although, to be honest, when everyone has a grasp on mechanics, it gets much easier to keep things moving. Having to explain the rules for the umpteenth time to the chowderhead who figures that rules are for other people, annoys me to no end. YMMV.
Similar Threads
