STARP_JVP said:
What's the dumbest argument with a PC or DM you've had regarding something scientific, ie. what a player can and can't do according to the laws of physics/time/causality, whatever.
Oh I can recall a couple of them. The first that springs to mind had to do with a lich and a bag of Dust of Sneezing/Choking back during a 1E game. I was sort of annoyed that my BBEG was about to be rather easily trumped - death, no save. I ruled that because the lich was undead, it did not need to breathe and thus was effectively immune to the dust. The magic essentially required an already breathing creature to then magically be PREVENTED from breathing in order to kill it. I think I was technically correct and justified in the ruling but the player with the dust was highly annoyed since it was also clear I was scrambling to nerf his otherwise clever idea to save my BBEG. Nowadays I'd probably let it go as I'm less protective of my villians and more inclined to want to reward clever ideas. But we "discussed" that little ruling for a while before moving on.
Then there was the dagger and table thing. A player had a character with an 18/xx strength and as I recall was attempting to use a table as a normal, hand-held shield by hammering a dagger into the table to make a handle. I told the player it was too unwieldly to be used effectively as a shield but he could still swing it around to provide cover. This was not satisfactory to the player who then declared he would pull the dagger OUT of the table. I then told him since he'd HAMMERED it in he wasn't going to be able to just pull it back out, 18/xx strength or no. This was also unsatisfactory to the player.
Had any number of arguments back in 1E days about ILLUSIONS that defied physical logic by having no actual damaging effect. Most of them started when a player decided he was going to eoll up the first Illusionist PC we'd ever had. It came down to my
strenuously suggesting he cease attempting to have his illusions do direct damage without the description of the spell actually STATING it was capable of somehow dealing damage, otherwise the LACK of damage being dealt would be obvious and affect the saving throws of anyone who saw it. The understandable response was how in the world the spells were supposed to be able to... like... DO anything, but really I think the player just didn't quite have the necessary mindset about deception and misdirection that was really needed for a 1E Illusionist to be enjoyable and effective.
And of course the requisite "debates" regarding just what kind of spell effects or weapons could simply NOT be avoided if the victim were already incapacitated. For example, every player seems to love being able to CDG an NPC villian or monster, but let their own PC's fail a save vs. Hold Person and suddenly they want a simple pointy stick to the eye socket to require surgical training to be effective. Understandable of course, but when players get desperate they can get VERY annoying.
) is to check that they would feel happy if I started utilizing the same work around (one or two spells spring to mind here 
). This has been so effective that other players will do all my arguing for me if the idea / rules use is overbalancing.
