Literal reading vs common sense - which should take precedence?

[EdPovi]

Skyscaper, good to see someone else explaining the actual interpretive methods that lawyers use.

I agree that the interpretive method is a better way to read laws (rules). Some folks feel that the only "correct" way to read a rule is literally. But in my opinion, it is just as important to look at the intent of the rules, if not more so.

D&D is unlike many games in that it actually has a Judge, the DM. The DM is empowered to make decisions. He should use the rules as a guide to those decisions, but he isn't a slave to them. He should also listen to his players point of view, as they may provide some insight.

The Arcane Initiate - Archmage is an example of where intent useful.

 

[Syrsuro]

I think you need to know and understand exactly what the rules say (RAW) in both likely and unlikely situations before you attempt to deviate from those rules either in the name of RAI or house-rules.

Thus the forums are useful, but (as I mentioned earlier) are not the final authority. The DM is the final authority (overruling even CS if necessary).

Carl

 

[pemerton]

I think you need to know and understand exactly what the rules say (RAW) in both likely and unlikely situations before you attempt to deviate from those rules either in the name of RAI or house-rules.

This presupposes what is very contentious, namely, that we can work out what the rules say without asking questions about context, purpose, intention etc.

It also, controversially, presupposes that purposive or contextual interpretation involves deviation from the text - whereas the standard view (at least in the domain of legal interpretation) is that this tells us what the text says.

Unless all you mean is that we have to look closely at the ink marks on the paper before we start working out what is written there, which is true but doesn't takes us very far into working what has actually been said.

 

[Derren]

IMC:
Common sense applies when it is a situation that might reasonably occur in real life- i.e. mundane animals, low-level characters, no magic. For instance, the horse climbing a rope.

Cats can trip Giants or the Tarrasque itself. So much for common sense with real life animals.

And that is the problem with 4E. More than other editions its core rules defy common sense. And when reading the responses here it seems that the consensus is that rules come before common sense. Strangely, whenever someone finds a very good combo in the rules which can be defined as an exploit people are quick to argue that you shouldn't allow it because of common sense...

 

[theNater]

Cats can trip Giants or the Tarrasque itself. So much for common sense with real life animals.

And that is the problem with 4E. More than other editions its core rules defy common sense. And when reading the responses here it seems that the consensus is that rules come before common sense. Strangely, whenever someone finds a very good combo in the rules which can be defined as an exploit people are quick to argue that you shouldn't allow it because of common sense...

Common sense says a kitten cannot tackle a bull.

Common sense says that a game in which one particular player can win by simply saying "I win" will not be very much fun, even for that player.

I say that exactly one of these pieces of common sense should be applied to D&D. Applying real-word common sense to a fantasy world is not generally appropriate, applying game-related common sense to a game is entirely appropriate.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Common sense says a kitten cannot tackle a bull.

Common sense says that a game in which one particular player can win by simply saying "I win" will not be very much fun, even for that player.

I say that exactly one of these pieces of common sense should be applied to D&D. Applying real-word common sense to a fantasy world is not generally appropriate, applying game-related common sense to a game is entirely appropriate.

So the value of common sense is to be judged strictly by its metagame applications?

If a character finds a combination of powers that is really effective and works better than other tactics then NOT using it would show a lack of common sense.

I agree that, from a gameplay perspective the kitten should be able to tackle the bull if the game rules include powers that allow this to happen. In that case knowing that the kitten possessed such a power and seeing the result makes perfect common sense in the game world.

If a game system produces a great many " I win" tactics then its a pretty clear indication of poor playtesting and not a lack of common sense by the players.

An example of common sense:

A player in a 3rd ED game got affected by dust of sneezing and choking. After suffering the effects, the player used common sense to determine that this was possibly the deadliest weapon in the game. Equipped with some of the dust and a necklace of adaptation he charged a powerful foe alone, used the dust and killed his enemy with ease.

Using the dust offensively was using common sense. Against a breathing foe without protection it was the " I win " button.

 

[Jhaelen]

It wasn't deleted; it was moved to the Meta forum, which is where discussion about the nature of forums or administration of the boards belongs.

Ah, thanks for pointing that out! I never thought to look there. I'll try to continue arguing my point over there.

 

[theNater]

So the value of common sense is to be judged strictly by its metagame applications?

Exactly. There is a purpose to common sense rulings by the DM; namely to maximize fun, usually by maintaining game balance. A DM generally should not make common sense rulings for the purpose of realism.

If a character finds a combination of powers that is really effective and works better than other tactics then NOT using it would show a lack of common sense.

It is common sense for a character to use the best tactics available. However, it is the duty of the DM and the players to ensure that the character not have tactics available that make the game too easy to be fun.

I agree that, from a gameplay perspective the kitten should be able to tackle the bull if the game rules include powers that allow this to happen. In that case knowing that the kitten possessed such a power and seeing the result makes perfect common sense in the game world.

We're in agreement here.

If a game system produces a great many " I win" tactics then its a pretty clear indication of poor playtesting and not a lack of common sense by the players.

True. However, a little common sense on the part of the DM can be used to remove the "I win" tactics. These are the times common sense rulings by the DM are appropriate.

An example of common sense:

A player in a 3rd ED game got affected by dust of sneezing and choking. After suffering the effects, the player used common sense to determine that this was possibly the deadliest weapon in the game. Equipped with some of the dust and a necklace of adaptation he charged a powerful foe alone, used the dust and killed his enemy with ease.

Using the dust offensively was using common sense. Against a breathing foe without protection it was the " I win " button.

Did the player ever have an excitingly challenging fight against a breathing foe without protection after that? How much fun is it to enter a battle with no risk?

"I win" tactics are fun to think up, but after they've been used a few times, they tend to become boring. However, if they always win the fight, there's no reason to try anything new. Such abilities tend, in the long run, to make the game less fun, which is why the DM may need to step in. With this particular example, a good DM will ensure that the party face a fair number of creatures immune to the dust in one way or another, so that there are still solid challenges for the players to overcome.

All of this comes with with the usual array of IMNSHO and YMMV tags, of course.

 

[ExploderWizard]

"I win" tactics are fun to think up, but after they've been used a few times, they tend to become boring. However, if they always win the fight, there's no reason to try anything new. Such abilities tend, in the long run, to make the game less fun, which is why the DM may need to step in. With this particular example, a good DM will ensure that the party face a fair number of creatures immune to the dust in one way or another, so that there are still solid challenges for the players to overcome.

All of this comes with with the usual array of IMNSHO and YMMV tags, of course.

This kind of problem takes care of itself when similar nasty tricks get used against the party, kind of like the old " everyone has poisoned weapons" syndrome from earlier editions.

 

[Runestar]

This kind of problem takes care of itself when similar nasty tricks get used against the party, kind of like the old " everyone has poisoned weapons" syndrome from earlier editions.

Not always true. Let me cite a a 3e example from an old discussion on the gleemax boards.

Another really funny party was Fighter, Wizard, Wizard, Nymph. Both of the wizards focused on control spells, with one favoring summons and the other favoring defensive stuff. Basically, this party was the exact opposite (even though the fighter in this party was one of the fighers in the other party) of the other. They simply did not so any damage, instead completely looking up the fight with stunning gaze, acid fog, wall of ________, trips, summoned elementals, etc. while slowly chipping the opponent away. Every combat took a long time to resolve, but usually it was a forgone conclusion early on. The opponents would get seperated and stalled while the fighter individually pounded them. For a powerful single opponent would be subjected to repeated save-or-abilities from behind barriers of spell created obstacles and the fighter. Probably the most "professional" party I'd ever been in, from the perspective that they always were able to solve every encounter they faced with a clear, efficient strategy that was often ad-libbed and always effective.

In this sort of situation, I am not sure what can be done. The players are astute (which is represented by them playing their PCs to perfection), and are merely reaping the rewards of their flawless strategy. While it may be frustrating for the DM to constantly see his challenges being overcome so readily, it is not as if the players are abusing any particular rule or loophole. They are just that good. It somehow seems wrong to want to punish them for excelling.

Lets assume that a similar issue crops up in 4e, where you are able to create some super all-stars party. What would you do?