Rules as Law vs. Rules as Guidelines

[Lanefan]

Well according to my PHB, just blindness, deafness, and disease. Now I know what you might be thinking "but wait James, isn't insanity a mental disease?", to which I reply, well, according to that book nobody reads:

"A calm emotions spell can suppress the effects of madness, while a lesser restoration can rid a character of short-term or long-term madness. Depending on the source of the madness, remove curse or dispel evil might also prove effective. A greater restoration or more powerful magic is required to rid a character of indefinite madness".

Interesting. Clearly an intentional move away from the idea of Heal fixing everything.

 

[smuckenfart]

Yes when you separate them enough they are two objects with no separation. That's irrelevant to whether or not when the two pieces of the dagger are close enough they are two pieces of the same object WITH a gap or separation. Nor is it relevant to the spell whether or not someone places those pieces close together. Manipulation is not forbidden by the spell, nor does it even make sense to forbid it.

The spell by intent and by language allows for Mending to repair objects that are completely broken, providing those objects and/or breaks are small. You are conflating complete with large, rather than looking at the size alone. The break is complete once that crack widens enough to become a separation, but it isn't large for the purposes and intent of the spell.

How are you not doing the exact same thing in ignoring the definitions that refute you? There are in fact definitions that do apply to objects as I posted.

There can be a gap between two pieces of an object. A single object when broken in two has a discontinuation/discontinuity. There is an interval between the two pieces. I hadn't known what lacuna meant, but it fits as well. those qualify as a disruption to the uniformity or continuity of the object.

Then going to synonyms for gap or opening. A broken object can have space between the break that is total. The same for a gap. And you can split something in two. I mean, the last one is a classic example of a synonym that is often used for objects. "I split a log in two with my axe to make firewood."

Man, if it's a definition then it CAN apply to Mending. You just argued that if there are more definitions that don't apply objects, then none of the definitions that do apply to objects can ever apply to an object. Language doesn't work that way. All definitions are valid and on the table to be used.

I'm not the one cherry picking here. You are. You are deliberately excluding valid definitions for both break as a noun and it's synonyms that can(you'll see I say can, not do when I talk about this) apply to objects and therefore Mending.

Nothing in the wording of Mending excludes any of those definitions, but it does confine itself to objects, so definitions of break that don't apply to objects are out, and ones that do are in. That means that the ones you are cherry picking and mean cracks are in AND the ones that you are deliberately excluding that mean a complete break of the object are also in. I am including all of them which is the opposite of cherry picking.

Again, English doesn't work that way. You don't get to unilaterally declare for the world that the definitions of break that apply to objects having complete separation are no longer valid just because there more definitions that don't involve total separation.

Are you telling me that you haven't in your life ever heard people describe an object that is in pieces as "broken?" I have, and by an uncountable number of people. When I dropped a plastic cup a few weeks ago a piece of it broke off, I told my wife that I broke a cup. I didn't tell that I had cleanly broken a cup, because that would have been silly. Using the word "clean" when talking about breaks only applies to certain types of things and only at certain times. A bone would be one of those times and is not even used to describe all complete breaks of a bone. It is used to describe a complete break of a bone that causes no malalignment.

The bolded sentence is incorrect. Nobody is telling you that break doesn't mean a crack or fracture in an object. We are just not cherry picking only those definitions and excluding the ones that include complete breaks.

Nothing in the spell says a small amount of damage. Literally nothing. Only that the measurable size of the break be small, which a complete break of a slender dagger is. You keep talking about language used, but ignore the deliberately used language of "slender." There's a reason why they say slender dagger and not dagger. It's because a small break size is purely measurable in length/depth and has nothing to do with whether it is partial or complete. There is a reason that the objects described in their language are all very small.

You have also brought up Make Whole as evidence that Mending doesn't fix complete breaks. That is not logically sound. Yes it's a level 2 spell which makes it more powerful, but it describes in what way it is more powerful than mending. Mending only affects an object that weighs 1 pound or less(again, must be small) and only fixes a single break(partial or complete). Make Whole on the other hand affects an object that is up to 10 cubic feet per level of the spellcaster, so a 10th level caster could affect a single object that is 100 cubic feet in size and has no limit to the weight at all. Further it fixes multiple breaks in that object. So while I could mend a broken statuette with a single break with the Mending spell, with Make Whole I could repair a completely shattered Michelangelo's David if I were 20th level.

Destroyed and ruined in D&D terms simply mean unusable for it's function. That's it. It doesn't mean annihilated. It doesn't mean shattered into 100 pieces. Those words just mean unusable for it's purpose, which a slender dagger broken into two pieces is.

These are the guys who made the spell. And it literally says that the only difference is the materials it can be used on(i.e. no metal). You keep arguing that words mean things and here you are ignoring the meanings of the words used.

"Mending will only work on pottery and glass; otherwise it is identical to the magic-user spell. A piece broken into a number of pieces (not fragmented to shards or dust) can be put back together."

The logical conclusion is that the magic user spell allows pieces to be welded back together.

And I agree with that in principal. Except for the part where we would need to homebrew it working on the dagger

I have used house rules for every edition of the game except 4th since I did not play that edition. So long as the group is having fun, nothing else really matters, including not allowing Mending to work on complete breaks.

1. Broken means damaged and no longer working. It can mend broken objects PROVIDED it has but one break. Broken can mean into pieces, it can also mean damaged, such as a crack, and no longer working. It doesn't mean it IS absolutely broken into pieces. That broken must adherer to the condition in the conditional part of the sentence. Broken is the only word used in the spell description which can mean separated into pieces, but the authors stipulated that the type of broken must match that which is "a break", and.....

2. "A break" does NOT mean total separation. The only instance that is does is with an idiom, clean break, which has its own meaning independent of its individual words. It means "a total separation", it does not mean "a large break". Sorry mate, but you're wrong.
"Mending only affects an object that weighs 1 pound or less(again, must be small) and only fixes a single break(partial or complete)."
Your words, not the author's, your perception of what "a break" means. You think that it could mean "a space" could be some artificial gap, even though it contradicts the vast majority of every other synonyms. We could go through each one and draw it, go out in the real world and see what each object looks like, and see if this "space" as you define it lines up with the rest.

3. The cumulation of all the definitions of the synonyms used for objects is overwhelmingly still attached to the source and coincide with the wording of the authors and applying the rules. It doesn't contradict anything until people define it as to mean a separation. Cherry picking is choosing the 1 percent out of the 99%, it is not choosing the category to which the object in question belongs!

4. Context is absolutely important when defining words, that's why the noun has a different meaning inferred for objects than it does with "a page break", you don't need to fish around in other contexts to find a relevant meaning for one that is already defined. I'm actually including every thing in that category as a means to prove that the root word in fact does not mean a total separation. A crack is similar to a fissure or a crevice, while those subtle differences change the meaning of the word, they are all breaks and match with each other. A rush or a dash in a particular direction, ie make a break for it, has nothing to do with a small gap or hole in an object. An interruption is NOT the same as a fissure or a crack, the synonyms listed for a break.

1. interruption, interval, gap, hiatus, lapse of time, lacuna, discontinuation, discontinuance, discontinuity, suspension, disruption, cutoff (not to be confused with cut off), stop, stoppage, cessation, caesura, surcease (jeez, there aren't many words I come across that I don't know but this lists a couple )

2. gap, opening, space, hole, breach, chink, crack, fissure, cleft, rift, chasm, tear, split, slit, rent, rupture

You're going to tell me that these are comparable????? They're totally different and would not be used synonymously.
Look at those examples in #2. Which ones mean a total separation, and come at me again with the cherry picking argument. What's the rational common denominator there, that there is a total separation, or that it means a partial separation? Open the window a gap is not wide open. A space in the traffic is a break in continuity, suited for the first definition and not as an object. Is it not? Which synonyms, meaning similar words to the defined words, are suitable for "traffic"? A space, which is it more similar to, a rent or rupture, or a suspension or disruption? Totally different context. An opening, a cleft/tear or a hiatus/interval? Put the words beside every word that they're comparable to and it's EASY to see what it means, although it may not agree with how you have come to understand it. Relevance is not cherry picking nor is it omission by obstinance, my friend. It's knowing the language, and I'll be happy to explain why one thing is relevant and the other is not. These posts are quite lengthy, we both try to keep it as terse as possible by not overexplaining ourselves.

5. Viewing "a break" as a percentage is science, and more precise than a human perspective. I'm being accurate, precise, irrespective of what I think is small or large. What you think is large or small doesn't change the fact of what is large or small, relative to the size of the object in question. The larger the object, the smaller that 1 inch is. The smaller the object, the larger that 1 inch is. That's just common sense!
This is the fundamental difference of beliefs, I think, that is the core of the argument. I believe the accuracy of language and science determines the relative size of a break, where others believe that the size of the break is determined by a human perspective. What do you think? In that regard, neither of us are wrong from our relative perspectives. I can't disagree, that an inch isn't large. A 1 inch crack on my windshield is small, but a 1 inch crack on the glass of my watch covers the entire face, and would be hideous. To me, relativity matters, as much as word choice matters.

Pierce your ear and put a 1 inch hole earring in it. It's HUGE! But in a storm giant, it's just a normal piercing. Relative! Am I wrong there?

I could see why you think they way you do, but I'm only ignoring the definitions not relevant to subject matter, because it can be easily taken out of context. The definition has been given and used in context and synonyms provided because that's categorically the way it is to be approached and used, and others might be related in meaning but not suitable. The definitions are parallel, but the examples are completely different ballparks.

I still say that people making certain arguments aren't accurately representing RAW.

 

[MNblockhead]

Man, I thought I was over the top with rules lawyering.

In my first 5e campaign, at low levels the party was on a ship and Sahuagin attacked. While some boarded the ship to attack, others stayed under water drilling holes into the hull. The wizard was running around below decks casting mending to close up the holes and stop the leaks while other party members were helping the crew fight the Sahuagin boarding the ship. Since the holes were nowhere near a foot in diameter, I let them do it. That seems legal per RAW, although I didn't pause the game to research how thick a medieval ship's hull is. In any event, it made for a cool encounter that made a low-level wizard very important.

But if I'm allowing the mending of a ship's hull, I really don't have a problem of letting a wizard use it to put together a cut rope. Even if a 10' rope was cut into 10 foot pieced, I'd let the wizard cantrip it back to its original 10' length (using 10 actions to do so), so long as all pieces were from the same original piece of rope. Video illustration:

 

[smuckenfart]

Man, I thought I was over the top with rules lawyering.

In my first 5e campaign, at low levels the party was on a ship and Sahuagin attacked. While some boarded the ship to attack, others stayed under water drilling holes into the hull. The wizard was running around below decks casting mending to close up the holes and stop the leaks while other party members were helping the crew fight the Sahuagin boarding the ship. Since the holes were nowhere near a foot in diameter, I let them do it. That seems legal per RAW, although I didn't pause the game to research how thick a medieval ship's hull is. In any event, it made for a cool encounter that made a low-level wizard very important.

But if I'm allowing the mending of a ship's hull, I really don't have a problem of letting a wizard use it to put together a cut rope. Even if a 10' rope was cut into 10 foot pieced, I'd let the wizard cantrip it back to its original 10' length (using 10 actions to do so), so long as all pieces were from the same original piece of rope. Video illustration:

As a DM you're within your right to make any amendment to any rule that you want. My DM uses the "Rule of Cool" when deciding whether to allow something or not, which works great. If it isn't a gross manipulation why not? That's not to say that the spell's function was designed that way.
People became agitated to the idea that they might be wrong because they so firmly believe that they are right, even when contradictions are pointed out to them. Accuracy is important in such debates when the debate becomes about the words themselves and how they're interpreted. But in doing so they completely lost the point as to why the spell was brought up in the first place.

Reasonable amendments to rules. Just because you allowed the rope to be mended doesn't mean that is the way the spell was intended to function, but who is anyone to say that it can't work that way in your campaign? Everyone in that adventure enjoyed themselves, it was cool. Mission accomplished.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm far from allergic to house rules, though I've reached the point where if I have to do more than a few I start seriously questioning whether I'm using the right system in the first place (that said, sometimes there's no proper tool for the job and you just have to pick what's closest and hammer until it is).

I do, however, think that people ought to know what rules they're working under before they commit to a game, and once that's done they have a right to expect those to apply to the vast majority of situations. Otherwise I'm of the opinion they're stuck either playing guessing games with the GM's state of mind or making decisions that are fundamentally irrational, both in and out of character.

 

[Blue]

I generally follow the rules. Including that some systems have rules that the GM can change rules.

For example, in some games a DM can clearly cheat. Not following the principles and agendas in Apocalypse World for example. Here, treating the rules like guidelines leads to aberrant play. (Which doesn't mean it might not be enjoyed at any particular table.)

In others like D&D 5e with a "rulings not rules" focus or earlier editions with "Rule 0", the DM can rule things are different than that specific rule for a reason, and is following the rules by doing so. Heck, I just had pointed out to me that fudging dice is listed in the 5e DMG. Many (but not all) would even say that a DM can not cheat, since the rules enshrine them above the rules themselves.

Some rule system also encourage hacking and house rules - putting these in place seems like it is still following the rules. Part of that would be that these rules are generally known about before character creation and agreed to by the players.

 

[pemerton]

@Blue

What would you think of an AW GM coming up with a custom move on the fly, in response to a particular circumstance arising in play?

 

[Blue]

@Blue

What would you think of an AW GM coming up with a custom move on the fly, in response to a particular circumstance arising in play?

Thanks for asking this, because I gave sort of a half answer for some games.

Go for it. I don't remember if it's in AW, but I know Masks specifically recommends the GM to come up with custom moves for villains and for unusual situations.

What I really should have said was that there are some games where the GM can clearly cheat because what they can do is prescribed in specific ways, so those you want to treat as law. But there are times working within that prescribed area where it is still permissible to treat the rules as guidelines - within the same game.

 

[pemerton]

Thanks for asking this, because I gave sort of a half answer for some games.

Go for it. I don't remember if it's in AW, but I know Masks specifically recommends the GM to come up with custom moves for villains and for unusual situations.

What I really should have said was that there are some games where the GM can clearly cheat because what they can do is prescribed in specific ways, so those you want to treat as law. But there are times working within that prescribed area where it is still permissible to treat the rules as guidelines - within the same game.

I wasn't trying for any sort of "gotcha"!

In my mental image of AW, I've tended to think of custom moves as something done as part of prep (associated with fronts/threats). So when I recently encountered the idea of a spontaneous custom move it caught me by surprise. And I was curious what you (and others) think about it.

 

[Lanefan]

As a DM you're within your right to make any amendment to any rule that you want. My DM uses the "Rule of Cool" when deciding whether to allow something or not, which works great. If it isn't a gross manipulation why not? That's not to say that the spell's function was designed that way.
People became agitated to the idea that they might be wrong because they so firmly believe that they are right, even when contradictions are pointed out to them. Accuracy is important in such debates when the debate becomes about the words themselves and how they're interpreted. But in doing so they completely lost the point as to why the spell was brought up in the first place.

Reasonable amendments to rules. Just because you allowed the rope to be mended doesn't mean that is the way the spell was intended to function, but who is anyone to say that it can't work that way in your campaign?

This is the key thing, the bolded bit at the end - that once it's decided to work that way it consistently keeps on working that way for the rest of the campaign, based on the precedent set here and now.

The phrase "Rule of Cool" always makes me wince, as it gives me the impression (whether intended or not) that a given thing, if repeated, might not work the same if there was a cooler outcome to be had by having it work differently. For example, Mending fixes the rope now because its doing so gives a cool outcome but doesn't fix the rope next time because the cooler outcome arises from the rope remaining broken. More-than-legitimate player-side argument ensues, as that's simply bad DMing.