How many Tools do you Need?

[Imban]

But I know I don't have a problem because I don't need everything spelled out. The second target is at range so he is not a valid target for cleave.

Okay, so we're back to "common sense means we don't need rules." It must be real nice to always have a gaming group where everyone is on the same page about everything though, even when they have to extrapolate half of the rules from common sense.

The reason I'd be writing up this document is because most of the time, it only takes a small change or clarification to make sure everyone is on the same page with how something works.

 

[hong]

Okay, so we're back to "common sense means we don't need rules." It must be real nice to always have a gaming group where everyone is on the same page about everything though, even when they have to extrapolate half of the rules from common sense.

"When in doubt, the DM's version of common sense takes precedence."

 

[D'karr]

Okay, so we're back to "common sense means we don't need rules." It must be real nice to always have a gaming group where everyone is on the same page about everything though, even when they have to extrapolate half of the rules from common sense.

The reason I'd be writing up this document is because most of the time, it only takes a small change or clarification to make sure everyone is on the same page with how something works.

Common sense and a DM means that we don't need rules for every little case that might or might not be applicable at the time, or even come up in play. If the answer to something is yes, then yes is a good enough rule. Most DM's and players don't need the rules for the 70+ iterations of bag-of-rats, when in reality a common sense approach to it is good enough.

Unfortunately, I can see by the arguments on these boards and the comments of some posters that common sense is very obviously rare.

 

[JohnSnow]

"When in doubt, the DM's version of common sense takes precedence."

Yes. In-game and until the session is over.

This is part of the contract of playing in a DM's game: at the table, the DM functions as arbiter and judge, not just referee. If I'm DMing, and one of my players has a reasonable disagreement with my ruling that they can back up with facts when the session is over, I will reconsider my ruling for future sessions.

In addition, in cases of dispute, I will usually err on the side of the players. If there is a disputed case where one ruling means instant death for the player, and the other means survival, I'll err on the side of survival and/or allow the PC to take back his action.

PC: "I do X."
Me: "X is not something you'd survive. Would you like to reconsider?"

I'm also careful about placing any "instant death pits" in my set pieces. Threat of death? Sure. But there will always be a reasonable chance to avoid it...and it will be contingent on several failed die rolls, rather than just one.

For instance, being pushed over a deadly precipice would require bad positioning by the defender, a few successful strength (bull rush or grapple) checks on the part of the attacker, and the defender failing on a relatively achievable check to grab for the edge as they reach said precipice. Since the confluence of events is unlikely, the set-piece couldn't be considered unfairly lethal.

As a side note, the more likely a character is to fall in, the more survivable the fall should be. Or, to put it another way, only Gandalf should be plummeting off the bridge in Helm's Deep...

 

[D'karr]

As a side note, the more likely a character is to fall in, the more survivable the fall should be. Or, to put it another way, only Gandalf should be plummeting off the bridge in Helm's Deep...

Yes, very good point.

 

[Mouseferatu]

As a side note, the more likely a character is to fall in, the more survivable the fall should be. Or, to put it another way, only Gandalf should be plummeting off the bridge in Helm's Deep...

Gandalf was never in Helm's Deep (at least in the trilogy). You're thinking of the Mines of Moria.

But other than that brief moment of nitpickery, I agree completely.

 

[JohnSnow]

Gandalf was never in Helm's Deep (at least in the trilogy). You're thinking of the Mines of Moria.

But other than that brief moment of nitpickery, I agree completely.

*LAUGH*

You are absolutely correct. I meant to say Moria, and my brain stalled completely. :\

Thanks for the nitpickery, and I'm glad you agree!

 

[ThirdWizard]

Of course. The question is whether the second target also has to be adjacent to you. If it is, then the only problem I have with Cleave is gone.

He's also a target of Cleave.

But in any case, we must keep in mind that we haven't seen the rules text on Cleave!

 

[Hussar]

I'd like to pick out two points from your post Celebrim, if you don't mind.

Such as, more rules? You see, that line of argument doesn't really help you. Yes, ideally, you'd only have rules for the things which would come up in your campaign as the rest is 'wasted space' that you had to pay for. But what is going to come up in each person's campaign is different. That is what source books are for.

That's not exactly true though is it? You can add a lot more to rule books than just more rules - art, design sidebars, play examples, flavor text can all be added instead of more rules.

The total number of rules has very little impact on the speed of play or resolution. For example, the rules in 'FrostBurn' or 'Stormwrack' don't impact the speed of play in most campaigns at all, because they are just ignored. 'Lords of Madness' didn't slow down many campaigns because the detailed rules there don't impact the ordinary task resolution system in the vast majority of cases. Detailed rules regarding how lava behaves and how dangerous it is would not slow down the speed of resolution of anything but a bad GM. For any GM worth his pizza, he's not going to concern himself with lava rules when they don't concern his campaign, but if he plans on featuring lava in a scenario he will familiarize himself with those rules sufficiently before play begins and make what notes he needs so that he's not flipping through books at the game table looking like an idiot. And this will not slow down preparation for the scenario significantly either, because the sort of things he needs to draw from the rules are the sort of decisions he would have to make before or during play anyway.

But, do those expanded rules need to be included in the core rules?

I never meant that extra books shouldn't be printed. Far from it. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I have zero problems with them coming out with specialized books to cover edge cases - like naval combat or expanded undead rules or whatever.

However, I don't think that the core rules should have to have that much depth in them. The core rules will cover one or two adventures in the desert. If you want to run a whole campaign in the desert, pick up Sandstorm.

In other words, we don't need a radial arm saw in everyone's basement. If you need one, go buy one, but, otherwise, it's just a really expensive paperweight.

 

[Celebrim]

Unfortunately, I can see by the arguments on these boards and the comments of some posters that common sense is very obviously rare.

Common sense tells you that, so naturally you don't get the joke. But the truth is unfortunately that common sense is really common, and unfortunately its the lack of common sense that is rare.