Common sense

[Mishihari Lord]

The extended argument on the DM's power thread has gotten me wondering how most people resolve a rules-as-written vs common sense issue.

Suppose you're the DM and there's a situation in your game where due to some unusual circumstance following the usual rule for that situation doesn't make sense to you (you can look at the other thread for examples if you like) Do you follow the RAW or let your common sense guide you?

 

[Crothian]

Common sense. Its quicker, people understand it, and it works for us.

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

I go by common sense, and have been known to manipulate the rule(s) in question on the fly in order to allow a character to pull off that cool manuver/character concept/etc.

Although, the DM I primarily play under goes by the RAW pretty much in all cases where that's an issue. Of course, what's common sense to me might not be an issue to him, so who knows?

 

[Hjorimir]

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.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Not only will I use common sense when unusual situations come up to extend the rules, I've been known to chuck the RAW if it conflicts with common sense.

Current favorite examples of the latter include 3.5's Darkness spell, and 3.5's Intimidate skill.

Originally, I was very,very, RAW-oriented. But over the years I've been playing I've been hit with the The-RAW-Doesn't-Cover-That Bat too often (at least once per session) to stay that way.

 

[Wormwood]

As an adjunct to the alcohol thread, trust me when I say it's easier to follow the RAW when you're on your fifth beer.

 

[Sejs]

Gut first, RAW as a guideline for mechanics resolutions.

Recent example: A djinn (large air outsider) is still vulnerable to crits and has no DR when it transforms into a whirlwind. This, particularly the vulerability to crits, made no sense. What, it's a whirlwind with organs? After a quick comparison to a large air elemental (DR 5/-, immunity to crits) and the Gaseous Form spell (DR 10/magic, immunity to crits), I decided that a djinn in whirlwind form is immune to crits and has DR 10/magic, similar to the protection granted by Gaseous Form. An argument could be made for instead of 10/magic, granting 5/- as both base creatures were size large and of similar hit dice, but I felt that the /magic DR was the more PC friendly route so I went with that.

Gut said whirlwinds being crit-able didn't make sense, the RAW pointed me toward an amicable solution.

 

[Thanee]

Never happens to me.

I house rule what seems to be against all common sense.

Of course, this is more like option 2) than 3)...

Bye
Thanee

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I go by common sense, and have been known to manipulate the rule(s) in question on the fly in order to allow a character to pull off that cool manuver/character concept/etc.

Not only will I use common sense when unusual situations come up to extend the rules, I've been known to chuck the RAW if it conflicts with common sense.

Exactly. My players have always expected me to allow the "outside the box" method of thinking, and I do so whenever I can. The RAW are, to me, just very strong guidelines, and for the greater part, I follow them. But I'm not above pitchin' 'em if it will allow some really good Wow Factor to come into play.

 

[LordBOB]

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