No, I would not use a rule because it is the rule. That is exactly the opposite of my viewpoint. I would like a rule that follows from logic. The question is only, "What is the rule?" A well-designed RPG describes many general cases, from which special cases can be judged. Sometimes the general rule does not agree very well with reality. In other cases, it works fine but certain special cases raise eyebrows.
Actually, you may be surprised, I absolutely agree with this. It seems that this discussion has tended to consider the effect of GM making a ruling or "hand-waving" without carefully deciding what this means.
To me "hand-waving" is a non-technically based explanation of something that avoids careful consideration. That's a GM arbitration that links to our unserstanding of arbitrary.
Or- it may be a quick decision that keeps the story rolling. That's another reason for the background of a decision.
I would hope to see a considered decision (what I'd call a ruling) that arises from the details of the rules so, as you say,
"A well-designed RPG describes many general cases, from which special cases can be judged."
I cannot empirically test whether someone gets sneak attack dice in a dark alley. I have no way of knowing who is a rogue in real life, nor do I have a way of measuring how much damage they do or what level the victim is. I also lack convenient murder victims to perform tests on.
Really? That's why I said that I'd expect rulings to consider that genre tropes (as well as the general cases of the rules).
I thought it was clear from the OP that I was interested in talking about how the rules do not allow it, and the conversation has turned to some approaches and fixes.
Actually, I thought the OP was a snide nitpick that these rules are still broken as you did not offer or ask for suggestions. I guess that's why I looked for general comments on how to resolve such problems.
Second of all, you are speaking to me as if I were a novice, which I am not. I have been roleplaying for 25 years. I am a former columnist at RPG.net and I have RPG writing credits.
Well, good for you. I'm not sure what help you think this is to the discussion. I am supposed to defer to your wisdom given this?
In a show not tell way, however, you reference to the Oberoni fallacy was very interesting for me and certainly does show your expertise in game rule philosophy.
To imply that I simply need to wake up and realize that the rules do not cover all situations is pretty condescending.
Sorry. I didn't mean to patronise. I've been roleplaying for 31 years and have been a professional physicist for 23 years. It's the physics that makes me all to aware of the limits rules/laws/models.
Obviously, you do not know my personal background, but you do not know a lot of people's backgrounds and you are making a big assumption by thinking others need to "see the light."
I honestly believe that people can play the game in whatever may makes them happy as long as they do so with consenting adults of equal persuasion. I apologise if my tone faltered at the end of my previous post: an urge for rhetoric overcame my better sense. I thank you for your comments to me - they have been helpful.
