Literal reading vs common sense - which should take precedence?

[jedrious]

I have a simple rule at my table:

If it takes you more than 30 seconds to say what you're doing and roll your attack(s) you lose that turn (I don't require the dice actually be counted in that 30 seconds but, I do expect power name stated and attack rolls done in that amount of time) (Color-coded dice sets FTW)

 

[Family]

Design intent, when vague go by the book, unless someone really wants an experiance, in that case let the DM decide (and hope they know the power of saying yes).

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Of course, nothing keeps the *player* from deciding that moving the tarrasque is impossible and voluntarily abstaining from the use of the power in that situation. But that is a decision best made in the quiet of an internal monologue rather than open meta discussion at the table.

 

[James McMurray]

If the way a power would work seems contrary to "common sense", which should come first?

Whichever will be the most enjoyable.

 

[Mistwell]

Common sense should overrule rules, HOWEVER, I often find that what people call common sense is instead an excuse to not use ones imagination to try and make sense of a rule.

Only if you simply cannot come up with some imagined scenario where something could be described in a cinematic manner should "common sense" overrule a rule. And you need to try HARD. The times when a rule is overridden by "common sense" should be incredibly few and far between, and if they are not then you are likely not trying hard enough to imagine how it could work.

 

[Benly]

Swiftshiv, the legendary trickster, sinks his bloodthirsty dagger deep into the tenderest spot of the Tarrasque's ankle. The great beast casts about for the source of this new pain, then tries to stomp it - without realizing that its other foot is weakened from the stab it didn't feel. It stumbles right into the blades of Swiftshiv's allies.

There you go, epic halfling rogue applies forced movement to the Tarrasque. Bear in mind that forced movement needn't be "I hit you so hard you go flying".

 

[Pielorinho]

Common sense should overrule rules, HOWEVER, I often find that what people call common sense is instead an excuse to not use ones imagination to try and make sense of a rule.

I agree with this, with one proviso: if I the DM am having trouble coming up with a justification for a scene, and the player wants it to happen, it's on the player's head to describe it without rules before I'll let it happen within the rules.

For example, last night, a player tried to intimidate a bloodied ("fractured" being the preferred term) skeleton to surrender. That's pretty silly: skeletons are, at least in my world, something like animated constructs made from bones, with no survival instinct and no understanding of language. However, the player couched it in terms of exhorting the undead to be at rest, and I decided that appeal to whatever shred of humanity was left in the skeleton was cool enough that he could make the attempt. If he hadn't rolled a 2 on his check, it might've worked.

Daniel

 

[DM_Blake]

I use common sense for 3.5E. For 4E I find I need to use a strict reading of the rules.

That's mainly because 4e threw common sense out the window, right along with the baby and the bathwater.

 

[fba827]

What are your experiences? Where would you draw the line?

Honestly, the line should be drawn wherever your group as a whole is comfortable with it.
Some groups will have more "by the book it says ..." while other groups will have more "really now, you're going to what?" people in it.

Our group defaults to 'by the book' but at the same time, none of us are really hard core rules lawyers nor powergamers, so we anything that stretches common sense further than all of us can accept, we just say no.

 

[Cadfan]

Common sense should win. However, claiming that you're making a ruling because "its common sense" when it is not, in fact, common sense, is still bad.

I tend to find that just asking the player to explain how what he did worked is a great way to avoid abuse without squelching anyone.

For example, were I to be running a game with a PC who wanted to trip a giant snake that's already laying on its belly, I might ask the player to describe how it worked. And if he couldn't come up with anything, then maybe I'd rule that he couldn't do it. On the other hand, he might say, "I chop at its face and as it rears back I kick it over onto its back." I'd allow that.

For rogues moving tarrasques, I believe the rogue's power descriptions already include descriptions of the rogue using misdirection and feints to trick his opponents into moving as he chooses. So... a plausible explanation for a rogue forcibly moving a tarrasque is already canon.

As it stands, I really can't think of much that doesn't match common sense reasonably well. The only ones that boggle my mind are the rogue's close blast powers that use ranged weapons. I totally buy throwing a handful of shuriken at a bunch of guys, but I don't buy rapid firing a crossbow like its a mac10.