Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6621017" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!I'm sorry, but yes, it is. More so than ANY board game and ANY card game that I'm aware of. In other games, the rules are the "law". If something isn't' in it, you can't do it. If you and your friends agree on some house-rule for a board game, that's fine, but it's not assumed that you will be doing so on a regular basis as far as the written rules for it are concerned. The common sense referred to by RPG'ers is "game common sense", not "real life common sense" almost every time. Is jumping into lava, resulting in instant death, fun for the players/DM? Probably not. Is jumping into lava, laughing at the absurdity of not having ANY chance of actually dieing due to HP's, fun for the players/DM? Probably not. That's where "game common sense" comes into play.RPG's are not like board games. There are *constant* situations that arise during the course of a game session that require the DM to make a "common sense" ruling. His common sense. Maybe not yours, maybe not the players...but his. It is his/her game, and they are the final arbiter on what does or doesn't "work".I thought you just got through saying D&D isn't a game about common sense? It's the DM's common sense that decides how, or even if, a game rule is applied. Lava = death obviously makes "common sense" to some DM's, but not to others. That's fine. In fact, that's *great*, as an RPG is the only game that I know of that has rules that basically say "When in doubt, make it up using your own judgement and desire" (re: common sense).No, the DM is not a player "just like everyone else". The DM sits "above" the players in terms of him/her being the ultimate decider on pretty much *anything* that goes on in a game. Now, most people are not complete a-holes, DM's included, and so most DM's take their players desires, dislikes, and concerns into consideration with significant weight. Everyone agrees to whatever level of "athor-it-tay" that the DM has and what is expected of the players (e.g., to know the rules...be they in the book or the DM's house rules...to the basic game and their specific character; to be expected to come to a game session more or less on time, or call as soon as they know they can't make it; and all the other general politeness and manners that is expected of any other human attempting to live with other humans). If a player doesn't like the way a DM runs his/her game, or finds the DM's style too strict or too loose, etc., they are free to find another game or find a way to live with it. The player does NOT get to decide how a DM is going to run his game or just how things "are" in that DM's campaign world....and herein lies the problem. You may find the rules for Hiding and Stealth falling into the "needs errata" bin....whilst I (and others) don't. You may find the specifics on a Druid's wildshape ability confusing and in need of expanded specifics or guildlines... whilst I (and others) have no problem with them or have otherwise already decided on how we are going to handle them in our own games.As I said in this (or was it another?) thread... Errata = "1+1 = purple" does need errata ...and "1+1 = some number between 0 and 6", does not need errata.Just to be clear: not being clear doesn't mean it needs errata. It may do well to have some clarification on how some DM's handle it, or how the designers may have intended it.... but that clarification doesn't, and IMHO, shouldn't be written into the core game. Because then EVERYONE who wants to try and use the 5e rules, but doesn't agree with it, now has to directly and purposefully go against RAW. Best to not have that amount of RAW to begin with. At least with less specified RAW I can say "This is how I do it" and you can say "This is how I do it" and we are BOTH RIGHT. This is a *much* better way to have a set of rules for a game about make believe and imagination.PS: Sorry for the total derail there to the OP. IMHO, jumping purposefully into any situation that would 'obviously' result in the death of a common person just because the player knows they can't die due to [whatever; HP's, saves, etc] should actually equal "You die" coming out of the DM's mouth. Jumping over the cliff to avoid certain death, without knowing what is at the bottom of that cliff or how high the cliff is should equate to "You plummet 50' down...[rolls dice]...you take 40 points of blunt damage as you land at the edge of a river of lava! Dex Save, DC 15, to avoid bouncing into it" (or something similar) should come out of the DM's mouth. In other words, the players decision is what should determine the outcome...not the rules. If you, as DM, know the player is doing this because he "knows he can game the system" somehow...you, the DM, should lay'eth thine most ponderous smack down upon thoust noggins! (yeah, maybe my Hackmaster 4e DM'ing kicks in a bit too much during those situations...but I still have the same players after 20 to 30 years of play with all of them...so I guess that's saying something... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ).^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification