I follow the rules as written for the benefit of my players. I see it this way: If a player attempts a maneuver because he understands that a certain combination of rules allow it to be done and I put the kaibosh on it because it makes no sense, then I am punishing the player for knowing the rules of the game... something that I advocate (READ: REQUIRE OF) to my players. This could make a player especially bitter if something happens to his PC.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Common sense
- Thread starter Mishihari Lord
- Start date
ioun_stone
First Post
I follow my common sense and sense of story, as well as fairness. However, Ihave that rules lawyer who just can't help but argue every minor rules point...
Ranger REG
Explorer
Because they're strictly lawful gamers. And yet they still break real-life law like going 1 MPH over the posted speed limit.Mishihari Lord said:
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
ThirdWizard
First Post
I have to wonder how often common sense is in favor of the PCs and how often it is in favor of the NPCs/monsters when first brought up.
wingsandsword
Legend
Go with common sense.
At heart, D&D is a game that facilitates a shared story, an experience where you all sit around rolling dice, pretending you are other people, telling some collectively made up tale. When the rules get in the way of that, the rules need to step aside. Ideally, the rules should help things move along, not hinder things. If the RAW tells you that something should happen, when common sense tells you that's impossible, think of how weird it would look to the characters.
Could you honestly tell your players something completely nonsensical, and back it up only with "well, according to the rules, that's what happens" and expect them all to be cool with it?
Or another way: If you were reading an account of the events of the session in a novel, and you would pause and go "what the heck was that all about?" and the only possible explanation would be "the rules of the game said that is how it had to happen", the rules probably need to step aside.
At heart, D&D is a game that facilitates a shared story, an experience where you all sit around rolling dice, pretending you are other people, telling some collectively made up tale. When the rules get in the way of that, the rules need to step aside. Ideally, the rules should help things move along, not hinder things. If the RAW tells you that something should happen, when common sense tells you that's impossible, think of how weird it would look to the characters.
Could you honestly tell your players something completely nonsensical, and back it up only with "well, according to the rules, that's what happens" and expect them all to be cool with it?
Or another way: If you were reading an account of the events of the session in a novel, and you would pause and go "what the heck was that all about?" and the only possible explanation would be "the rules of the game said that is how it had to happen", the rules probably need to step aside.
wedgeski
Adventurer
I chose the third option since it's closest to how I feel, although there have been a few occasions when the RAW seems contradictory and as a DM I feel inclined to house rule something. Very few, though. I 99% trust the design of this game and the abstractions that have been included to make it work, and common sense was abstracted out of D&D almost from the word go.
Quasqueton
First Post
I have never regretted going with RAW (in any game or edition). I have, however, sometimes regretted going with "common sense".
The RAW has been considered, playtested, and vetted much more than any off-the-cuff "common sense" ruling. If I were to bet which one would be better in the end, I'd lay my money on the RAW.
"Common sense" is not nearly as common or sensible as many people think. Just from seeing some of the house rules and rulings that many people here have made based on their "common sense", I beleive RAW is more common and sensible on a regular basis.
After all, were's the "common sense" in dragons (flying; breathing fire, acid, lightning, etc.), polymorph spells, characters surviving 100' falls, walking and talking objects, darkvision on 99% of the worldly races, and all the other things that we take for "common" and "sensible" in this game?
I, personally, would dread the prospect of playing with a DM who ruled "common sense" over RAW on a regular basis.
Quasqueton
The RAW has been considered, playtested, and vetted much more than any off-the-cuff "common sense" ruling. If I were to bet which one would be better in the end, I'd lay my money on the RAW.
"Common sense" is not nearly as common or sensible as many people think. Just from seeing some of the house rules and rulings that many people here have made based on their "common sense", I beleive RAW is more common and sensible on a regular basis.
After all, were's the "common sense" in dragons (flying; breathing fire, acid, lightning, etc.), polymorph spells, characters surviving 100' falls, walking and talking objects, darkvision on 99% of the worldly races, and all the other things that we take for "common" and "sensible" in this game?
I, personally, would dread the prospect of playing with a DM who ruled "common sense" over RAW on a regular basis.
Quasqueton
frankthedm
First Post
Lord Pendragon said:
I agree with this, though my cringe threshold is kinda low.
