D&D 5E When a rule is clear but leads to illogical efffects

[Celebrim]

I refrain from defending or arguing positions I didn't take.


-Brad

If you feel you've been in any way misrepresented, I'm perfectly happy to quote you verbatim.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not going to engage in a lengthy debate over the rest of the post, but simply note that the long provenance of a "Rule Zero" in RPGs is fairly simple- that the rules are guidelines, and that the DM doesn't have to follow the rules.

I agree. But you missed my point.

Different games have different ways of putting forth the "Rule Zero," but to the extent that we are discussing "Rule Zero," it isn't about things not covered in the rules, but about adjusting, changing, modifying, or ignoring the rules as needed to enhance gameplay (aka "fun" for the group).

My point is that when you as the DM exercise your rights under "Rule Zero" to alter the rules on the fly - I may well agree that the rules give you that right - but exercising "Rule Zero" in that context is inherently fraught with risk. Among those risks is that the player may perceive, with cause, that the DM changing the rules at that moment is not being impartial, fair, and consistent.

As such, "Rule Zero" is not a an easy fix to the problems raised by the OP long provenance or not.

Consider what might have happened if, in the middle of the session, right when a PC had been covered by a swarm, and right after the player had proposed an action in response, the DM had decided rather than to just go with the illogic of the scene, that he was going to rule that - in the interests of verisimilitude - that the swarm was immune to weapon attacks.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bawylie]

If you feel you've been in any way misrepresented, I'm perfectly happy to quote you verbatim.

Please start with where I said "Rulings, Not Rules" and "The DM should just make stuff up."


-Brad

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Human Target]

One attack role isn't necessarily one swing of your sword.

Hitting a swarm doesn't mean only hitting one creature in a swarm.

Killing a swarm doesn't mean killing every single component creature.

Non-existent illogical effects solved.

 

[Celebrim]

Technically, the ability to detect invisibility (absent special circumstances or a spell) was a product of both you level/HD cross referenced with your intelligence; this has nothing to do with being human. Then you'd roll on the appropriate Gygaxian table in the DMG. The intelligence part was explained as being able to analyze the disturbances in the air, the smell, etc. The level ... eh, because.

As dogs have less than 7 hit dice, they could not detect an invisible creature.

IIRC this was around page 50-60 in the DMG, near the vision section.

Yes, I was simplifying, but I'm impressed you get the reference. Not many people have ever even referenced that table.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

My point is that when you as the DM exercise your rights under "Rule Zero" to alter the rules on the fly - I may well agree that the rules give you that right - but exercising "Rule Zero" in that context is inherently fraught with risk. Among those risks is that the player may perceive, with cause, that the DM changing the rules at that moment is not being impartial, fair, and consistent.

The bigger point is not that the DM makes a ruling on the fly, but that she makes the same ruling if and when the same situation arises again.

Consider what might have happened if, in the middle of the session, right when a PC had been covered by a swarm, and right after the player had proposed an action in response, the DM had decided rather than to just go with the illogic of the scene, that he was going to rule that - in the interests of verisimilitude - that the swarm was immune to weapon attacks.

As long as the player is given a chance to then propose a different action, this seems fine to me.

Lanefan

 

[Bawylie]

Since I went philosophical on this earlier, I'll pitch a tale this time.

4E, I think. Few years ago. Robot Rules Lawyer (one of my players, RIP) was playing the tankiest Dwarf there ever was. Stalwart by reputation, stubbornly good an honorable, unyielding and unrelenting in all the best ways.

Anyway the party are facing down a nearly complete wipe against a giant (who was a campaign nemesis). And while everyone else is down, this dwarf is still toe to toe with this giant. It's gonna be close. In fact, after the dwarf scores the killing blow and fells the foe, he succumbs to his own death due to ongoing damage.

But, he has dwarven sturdiness (or whatever it was called). So instead of falling over dead, he makes the fort save and dies standing and stays standing.

We all thought it was metal as hell.

So anyway there's mine.


-Brad