jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf talk amongst themselves

[Rystil Arden]

Heh, I disagree (let's see if we can get this engine going again!)

While the last SRD quote makes part of the issue clear, I think that jgbrowning was approaching this from a different perspective from Hypersmurf. The latter seems to be arguing from a highly technical reading of the rules, in which it's appropriate to build arguments by cross-referencing passages and assuming that every word is written the way it is for a precise, almost programmatic reason.

The former seems to be arguing from a common-sense approach: reading the rules as a whole, and trying to figure out what the gist of them ought to be, and not worrying so much about whether the adjective on page 67 combined with the footnote on page 312 lead to a certain conclusion.

I far prefer the common-sense approach to rules. It makes sense to me thata giant isn't affected by dominate person, so that's how I'll rule it. Whether the word "humanoid" is repeated in paragraph 2 is immaterial: the gist of the spell is that giants aren't affected by it.

Either approach to the rules is appropriate, I think: programmatic readings are fine, as long as everyone in the group likes them, and the same caveat applies to common-sense rulings. But I like the common-sense approach much more.

Daniel

Personally, I believe that the common sense approach is an extraordinarily dangerous basis to use for interpretation of the rules, as it serves no purpose except to allow Rules Lawyers to have room to manoeuvre. After all, everyone has their own idea of what common sense is. If you want to use common sense, my opinion is that you should first admit that the mechanistic argument is the way that the rules intend, and then announce that you are creating a house rule to help the rules fit in better with your idea of common sense.

I'm guessing that the way to avoid arguments over the common sense approach (since its subjective) is to say "whatever the DM's common sense says is right," but this could cause some serious upsetting of players. I know that if I was playing a wizard who cast magic missile against a wall and the DM ruled that common sense dictated that I would take equal and opposite damage to the force I created from slamming into the wall, or made other weird rulings that weakened my character ad hoc, I would become upset and probably find another campaign. That's the problem with common sense rulings: you have to determine them on the fly, since you have already admitted that the codified rules are not what should be the basis, and so you may come across as arbitrary, and even if you don't it could still seem very unfair.

 

[blargney the second]

Why not use the logical AND that 3.5 provides?

Augmented Subtype: A creature receives this subtype whenever something happens to change its original type. Some creatures (those with an inherited template) are born with this subtype; others acquire it when they take on an acquired template. The augmented subtype is always paired with the creature’s original type. A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type.

A human Polymorphed into a giant is a Large Giant [Augmented Humanoid (Human)]. Dominate Person would apply because Humanoid is still one of their types, AND a hypothetical Dominate Giant would apply for the same reason.

-blarg

 

[Pielorinho]

Personally, I believe that the common sense approach is an extraordinarily dangerous basis to use for interpretation of the rules, as it serves no purpose except to allow Rules Lawyers to have room to manoeuvre.

On the contrary, it entirely removes their wiggle-room. "I don't care what cross-reference you've made," the DM can say, "that's just goofy, and it doesn't work like that!" I love having such a tool in my arsenal, and I appreciate my DM having that tool.

I'm guessing that the way to avoid arguments over the common sense approach (since its subjective) is to say "whatever the DM's common sense says is right," but this could cause some serious upsetting of players.

Only if the DM has no (or very quirky) common sense, in which case I'm probably not going to enjoy playing with that DM in the first place. I need to be able to trust the DM not to make annoying decisions, and if the only thing preventing that from happening is the programmatic reading of the rules, then I can't trust the DM.

I add another guideline on top of common-sense interpretation: when in doubt, an action should be resolved in favor of the actor. That means if a PC says, "Can I do X?" and you're not sure whether X can be done, you should say, "Sure!" When a villain says, "Can I do X?" then you should also say, "Sure!"

And when the PCs and the villain's Xes come into direct conflict, resolve it in favor of the players. You can always screw them down the road.

Daniel

 

[Rystil Arden]

On the contrary, it entirely removes their wiggle-room. "I don't care what cross-reference you've made," the DM can say, "that's just goofy, and it doesn't work like that!" I love having such a tool in my arsenal, and I appreciate my DM having that tool.



Only if the DM has no (or very quirky) common sense, in which case I'm probably not going to enjoy playing with that DM in the first place. I need to be able to trust the DM not to make annoying decisions, and if the only thing preventing that from happening is the programmatic reading of the rules, then I can't trust the DM.

I add another guideline on top of common-sense interpretation: when in doubt, an action should be resolved in favor of the actor. That means if a PC says, "Can I do X?" and you're not sure whether X can be done, you should say, "Sure!" When a villain says, "Can I do X?" then you should also say, "Sure!"

And when the PCs and the villain's Xes come into direct conflict, resolve it in favor of the players. You can always screw them down the road.

Daniel

On the contrary, it entirely removes their wiggle-room. "I don't care what cross-reference you've made," the DM can say, "that's just goofy, and it doesn't work like that!" I love having such a tool in my arsenal, and I appreciate my DM having that tool.

Ok, but that falls under the DM Fiat statement that I made below.

Only if the DM has no (or very quirky) common sense, in which case I'm probably not going to enjoy playing with that DM in the first place.

Well, to give you an example of where this doesn't work, I like to play enchanters and telepaths, and I would refuse to play in a campaign with a DM who used your version of common sense, allowing the spellcasting NPC that I risked my spell slot to dominate (even though they have good Will save!) to just decide that the best way to fulfill my command is to Polymorph and then immediately eliminate my 5th-level spell with a 4th-level spell while buffing themself to kill me. And I don't think you have very quirky common sense (I think you are a bit out of touch with the rules, and that either way makes sense with common sense, but I don't think your ruling fails the common sense test), but I still consider it to be cheating me out of my spell, whether or not it makes common sense (and I think both ways make common sense, I mean, the giant has the same mind in that new body, right?), if you are breaking the written rules like that.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Either approach to the rules is appropriate, I think: programmatic readings are fine, as long as everyone in the group likes them, and the same caveat applies to common-sense rulings. But I like the common-sense approach much more.

Well the point to these threads is to find out what the right rule is. You can determine that to be "most accurate" or "best." Everyone's definition of "best" is going to vary. Some will say the best is one thing, another will say it is another, and a third will say something different again. Noone can back up their claims with texts because they're going with gut instinct, so there is no resolution. If you go with what the rules actually say, you can get a resolution, decide if you like it, and then choose what to do in your own game.

But, if everyone says the rule is what they want it to be instead of what the rules point to, then what has been accomplished?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Well the point to these threads is to find out what the right rule is. You can determine that to be "most accurate" or "best." Everyone's definition of "best" is going to vary. Some will say the best is one thing, another will say it is another, and a third will say something different again. Noone can back up their claims with texts because they're going with gut instinct, so there is no resolution. If you go with what the rules actually say, you can get a resolution, decide if you like it, and then choose what to do in your own game.

But, if everyone says the rule is what they want it to be instead of what the rules point to, then what has been accomplished?

If you go with what the rules actually say, you can get a resolution, decide if you like it, and then choose what to do in your own game.

This is exactly my opinion.

 

[Pielorinho]

Well, to give you an example of where this doesn't work, I like to play enchanters and telepaths, and I would refuse to play in a campaign with a DM who used your version of common sense, allowing the spellcasting NPC that I risked my spell slot to dominate (even though they have good Will save!) to just decide that the best way to fulfill my command is to Polymorph and then immediately eliminate my 5th-level spell with a 4th-level spell while buffing themself to kill me. And I don't think you have very quirky common sense (I think you are a bit out of touch with the rules, and that either way makes sense with common sense, but I don't think your ruling fails the common sense test), but I still consider it to be cheating me out of my spell, whether or not it makes common sense (and I think both ways make common sense, I mean, the giant has the same mind in that new body, right?), if you are breaking the written rules like that.

Hey, if that suits your playstyle, that's fine with me. HOWEVER, here's where something funky would come into play:

If a spellcaster is dominated and realizes that polymorphing into another form will remove the domination effect and that he'd then probably not do whatever the dominator is commanding him to do, then he would be unable to polymorph, because doing so would be in direct violation of his orders.

Does that make sense?

A spellcaster could only do this accidentally (or under an unwisely-issued direct order to polymorph), and it wouldn't happen very often.

It's possible I'm out of touch with the rules, if you mean the programmatic approach to the rules. I'm perfectly okay with that; for what it's worth, I think that you're somewhat out of touch with the spirit of the rules. The spirit of the rules is far more subjective, which is something I regard as a feature and you regard as a weakness. It's a fundamental difference in playstyle, but not one that necessarily has a right or wrong answer.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

But, if everyone says the rule is what they want it to be instead of what the rules point to, then what has been accomplished?

The common-sense approach doesn't mean that logic flies out the window; it just means that the gist of the rules is given a seat at the table, and that extreme parsing is given less priority.

There's no common sense in the idea that magic missiles propel the casting wizard backwards: that's not mentioned in the rules, and common sense tells you that something so significant would be mentioned, and it'd make the spell have a major weakness that's out of character with all other spells. I can argue against it without counting adjectives.

In fact, I think you'll find that a lot of people apply the common-sense approach to their games and are very unhappy with the programmatic approach. It's just that such people tend to avoid the rules forum .

Daniel

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think somewhere along the line people started thinking of House Rules as a bad thing. Maybe its the frequent use of the term RAW. Playing an "all RAW" game was considered superior or something, and people started to somehow feel bad when the way they interprieted something wasn't RAW so they were playing in some inferior way. Which is totally not true. House Rules are a good thing! There's a whole forum devoted to them.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Hey, if that suits your playstyle, that's fine with me. HOWEVER, here's where something funky would come into play:

If a spellcaster is dominated and realizes that polymorphing into another form will remove the domination effect and that he'd then probably not do whatever the dominator is commanding him to do, then he would be unable to polymorph, because doing so would be in direct violation of his orders.

Does that make sense?

A spellcaster could only do this accidentally (or under an unwisely-issued direct order to polymorph), and it wouldn't happen very often.

It's possible I'm out of touch with the rules, if you mean the programmatic approach to the rules. I'm perfectly okay with that; for what it's worth, I think that you're somewhat out of touch with the spirit of the rules. The spirit of the rules is far more subjective, which is something I regard as a feature and you regard as a weakness. It's a fundamental difference in playstyle, but not one that necessarily has a right or wrong answer.

Daniel

Does that make sense?

That does make sense, at which point you'd have to bring up a whole slew of metagame issues with, "But shouldn't the Int 26 Wizard have been able to figure that out even if I didn't know it?" and that whole bag.



I completely agree that people don't need to follow the exact letter of the rules, but I think you are either missing or skipping an important point that makes me think (perhaps incorrectly) that my view is more inclusive than yours:

I say that the the "programmatic" as you call it decision of the rules should be determined, and then acknowledged as the rule. Afterwards, the DM decides if they think this rule makes sense and works for them, and makes a house ruling of their own, which can be for or against the rule.

You say (I think, I could be wrong) to not even bother determining the actual ruling, and to instead skip straight to the part where you make your own house ruling and then call it the rule itself.

So in that sense, I don't think I'm out of touch with the spirit of the rules, because in actual play, I break the rules as written to go with the spirit.

I may be misinterpreting you though, for what its worth.