Created new thread as this topic has moved beyond the intent of the original thread.
Response to Jiggy
You claim that you would never just call "common sense" and move on, but that's exactly what you did with (for example) why "maximum 20d6" doesn't really mean "maximum 20d6". You literally cited common sense and nothing but common sense as the reason the text doesn't mean what it says.
This is again another case of reading words too literally. I stated that I/my players would never state common sense as a reason for something, then insult anyone that disagrees with them, and try to move on.
This statement is made with the assumption of myself and my players sitting around the gaming table and a disagreement comes up.
If one of my players cites common sense for a disagreement with a ruling, then I as the GM in that game with that player or another player in that game where I am GMing could ask for clarification from the person citing common sense.
The person citing common sense as a disagreement with a ruling would then have the opportunity to explain why they feel common sense is a valid reason why the ruling should be changed.
You claim that if someone disagrees with a ruling, you expect that they can explain why. And yet, in your own contesting of the "maximum 20d6" ruling (and others), you've offered no explanation. Merely "common sense".
Right, because once again I'm referring to myself and my players sitting around the gaming table. The forums environment is completely different. In my experience, attempting to explain these things clearly on the forums requires posting multiple walls of text. In addition, the more text you post, the more likely that there will be confusion or people will not interpret your words as you intended them due to the medium (i.e. written words.)
Do you actually have reasons beyond "common sense" for those rulings you rejected? Because if not, then your above-quoted claim is false, and you cannot consider yourself to be someone who "would never say 'Common sense, moving on.'"
I do - the short version is that I believe that the mechanics are in place to support a certain type of game. I believe the mechanics should be read with that expectation. Where the mechanic proves to be unsuitable for fostering that type of game, then the mechanic should be altered or not used.
As an example, I don't believe that the mechanics were designed with the idea of someone falling from 5000 feet to the ground in mind. As this is something that typically does not come up in your average game, there was no need to expand on the mechanics of falling damage to this extent.
I think reading the mechanics with a mindset of "these are the rules, they explain how the world works in all cases and you can extrapolate other meaning from these rules using how they are literally written as a guide" causes some situations that don't fit into the style of play that the game system as a whole is trying to foster.
Do you think that you need to apply common sense when reading rules/mechanics of a game system? Should you read the rules literally as they're written? Can you extrapolate other meanings or infer how a game world is supposed to work based on the mechanics (i.e. dragons can fly, therefore physics must be different in the game world.)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Loaded title is loaded.
Anyway, your response to me seems to have missed my point.
Look at the things you said in your reply:
I believe that the mechanics are in place to support a certain type of game.
That's just one example, but the entire theme of your post is that you knew before even opening the book what "type of game" it was supposed to end up being, and that everything in the book should be read as supporting that preconceived notion, no matter how hard you have to twist it. It's like if you asked for a picture of a cat but were handed a picture of a dog, you'd say "Oh, it must be an abstract representation of the feline experience" instead of "Hey, this isn't a cat!" But you know what? That's not even the biggest issue.
You then call this "common sense", which means that anybody who takes issue with it is clearly against people using common sense. You've pre-emptively demonized and challenged the intelligence of anyone who doesn't agree with you.
You see, if you simply say "I think the rules should be read in the context of trying to support X type of game" and stop there, then people can challenge your points: they can say that X isn't the type of game it's trying to support, or challenge the notion of it being appropriate to read the rules with a preferred end result in mind. But if you say "common sense says that the rules are trying to support X type of game", then anyone who challenges it is preemptively labeled as being an opponent of using common sense. You're then able to dismiss them without having to judge the merit of their thoughts or face possible flaws (even glaring ones) in your own beliefs.
You're using "common sense" as a shield against contrary opinions, replacing an honest and brave assertion of your beliefs with an "anyone who doesn't think so too is stupid and that's all I need to say".
I guess you are one step ahead of most users of the "common sense" shield: you actually responded to a prod for more (by defining your "common sense" as actually meaning a specific thing: that the game rules were intended to come to X result, and if a rule says not-X then the reader is just being "too literal"). But then you turn right around and dive back into the "common sense" anti-challenge bunker, so I'm not sure how much credit you really get there; I'm having trouble picturing someone critiquing your actual belief without them just getting dismissed as being against "common sense".
TLDR — Own your opinions, people. Calling your ideas "common sense" is almost always just a way to shield yourself from scrutiny by dismissing any dissenters as being stupid and/or malevolent. Adults don't fear having holes poked in their beliefs and possibly having to abandon them.
Wow. Loaded title is loaded.
How so? You seemed to be suggesting previously that "common sense" is not a good thing to use, as its not universal. You seemed to be in favor of reading the "plain text" that is written. This would seem to suggest that we must leave all of our expectations and experiences with whatever material the book represents before opening the cover.
I mean, I played Basic D&D years ago. Then AD&D came out. I didn't think to myself "forget everything you know about Basic D&D, AD&D is a whole new game."
I thought "Okay, AD&D is the next version of D&D and will have a lot in common with Basic D&D but probably a lot of new things as well."
The same thing occurred with 3.0, then 3.5, then Pathfinder, 4e, and now 5e.
That's just one example, but the entire theme of your post is that you knew before even opening the book what "type of game" it was supposed to end up being, and that everything in the book should be read as supporting that preconceived notion, no matter how hard you have to twist it.
I think you're exaggerating a bit at the end there, but yes, I feel I did have an idea of what kind of game Pathfinder was going to be even before I read the book. In my head I thought "This is going to be like 3.5 with some differences."
I'm actually kind of surprised that you're taking exception to the fact that people will bring preconceived expectations with them into a game. Heck, that's the only reason I ever even played Pathfinder.
If you asked me to play some other game that I had no experience with, then I'd probably hue much closer to interpreting the rules literally, as you seem to be in favor of.
It's like if you asked for a picture of a cat but were handed a picture of a dog, you'd say "Oh, it must be an abstract representation of the feline experience" instead of "Hey, this isn't a cat!" But you know what? That's not even the biggest issue.
Sounds like an apples to oranges comparison.
You then call this "common sense", which means that anybody who takes issue with it is clearly against people using common sense. You've pre-emptively demonized and challenged the intelligence of anyone who doesn't agree with you.
No, it doesn't. It means to me it is a given, something that the average person would expect to be the case. I could be wrong in my labeling a specific idea or thought as common sense. Then when it actually comes up, someone else would point it out to me that in fact no, its not common sense.
This would lead to a discussion, and then potentially changing a rule or an expectation based on a new understanding.
Its not as if I say "Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong." If I declare something is common sense, and someone else disagrees, then that is a learning experience. One of us may realize we're wrong, but both of us will potentially have our horizons expanded.
But if you say "common sense says that the rules are trying to support X type of game", then anyone who challenges it is preemptively labeled as being an opponent of using common sense.
Why can't they just be challenging my label that it is common sense? How did my labeling it as common sense cause them to become its opponent? I think you're attributing too much power to me labeling something as common sense.
You're using "common sense" as a shield against contrary opinions, replacing an honest and brave assertion of your beliefs with an "anyone who doesn't think so too is stupid and that's all I need to say".
No, not at all. As many times as you try to tell me what I am doing, that is definitely not the case. I invite anyone to disagree with my labeling of something as common sense. They can then provide an explanation for why they think its not common sense.
Much in the same way if someone else labels something as common sense, I don't consider myself to instantly be the enemy of common sense. I simply state that I disagree with their assertion, and then explain why.
I guess you are one step ahead of most users of the "common sense" shield: you actually responded to a prod for more (by defining your "common sense" as actually meaning a specific thing: that the game rules were intended to come to X result, and if a rule says not-X then the reader is just being "too literal"). But then you turn right around and dive back into the "common sense" anti-challenge bunker, so I'm not sure how much credit you really get there.
Uh, thanks, sorta? Honestly, you seem to be taking things personally, which is not my intent. With the thousands (millions?) of people that play various TTRPGS, I fully expect that there will be many disagreements between individuals.
Half of the reason I visit these forums is to see how other people interpret a ruling or listen to other people's game play stories/situations/problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also keep in mind that the more people you add then the less "common" everyone's "sense" becomes.
As always, just my two coppers...
-Doomn
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You seemed to be suggesting previously that "common sense" is not a good thing to use, as its not universal.
No, I was suggesting previously that "do whatever is necessary to make the text fit my expectations" is not a good thing to use, and also that labeling "do whatever is necessary to make the text fit my expectations" as "common sense" is another things that's not good to do.
Although later in your post you assure me that you're fine with someone challenging your label of something as common sense, which makes me think maybe you don't fit some of my descriptions, the above comment (and others like it) is how I get that impression:
You had a belief about how to read the rules, and called it "common sense". I challenged that belief, and you honestly thought that meant I was against using common sense. If you can think someone is against using common sense but then not dismiss them, you'd be the first person I've met to do so. Usually, once someone gets to the point where they say what I quoted above, the discussion is over, because "you're against using common sense" is taken as a final dismissal of anything they might say.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that maybe you're the guy who can say "you're against common sense but we can still talk". Thus, for now I'll drop the "common sense" topic and discuss your (more interesting) rules interpretation philosophy.
I feel I did have an idea of what kind of game Pathfinder was going to be even before I read the book. In my head I thought "This is going to be like 3.5 with some differences."
I could actually dig up a quote (maybe more than one) from Pathfinder designers trying to get it through to certain Rules forum denizens that no, this is not 3.5, this is Pathfinder, and it is its own game.
You know why? Because a LOT of wrong rules interpretations are based on an assumption that "this is 3.5 except where explicitly contradicted". The most famous example is rogues being able to Sneak Attack undead: someone reading the rules plainly see that Sneak Attack says "any time X conditions are met" and that nothing about being undead provides an exception, but people using your philosophy (or some version of it, at least) would bring in the expectation from 3.5 that you can't Sneak Attack undead, see nothing in PF Sneak Attack saying "this now works against undead", and conclude that it works like 3.5 Sneak Attack. And they were wrong. (And as a point of interest, they also often accused the people who were right of reading the rules too literally and ignoring intent.)
I'm actually kind of surprised that you're taking exception to the fact that people will bring preconceived expectations with them into a game.
I don't take exception to people bringing in previous ideas; I take exception to them treating those preconceived notions as requirements to be enforced rather than possibilities that may or may not turn out to be true.
It's one thing to say "Hey, this sounds like it might turn out to be like 3.5, let's see what it's like". It's another thing to say "This sounds like it's like 3.5, so that's how I'm going to treat it regardless of what the book actually says."
If you asked me to play some other game that I had no experience with, then I'd probably hue much closer to interpreting the rules literally, as you seem to be in favor of.
Or what about the thousands of Pathfinder players who never touched D&D before? Are they unable to interpret the rules correctly because they don't have a prior understanding of where they need to make sure things end up?
Now, if a rule is genuinely ambiguous, then similar systems (like 3.5) could be used as a reference point for making a ruling. But when you read a very plain rule, ask yourself: "Does reaching my conclusion require outside information? Would someone every bit as intelligent as me but who didn't play 3.5 ever possibly reach this conclusion?"
If the only way to ever reach conclusion X is by having decided ahead of time that that's the conclusion you need to reach (because that's how 3.5 was, or because that's what lets my character do what I want, or any other reason), then you're probably wrong.
I use the rules when they apply. I also apply common sense when needed. I do what it takes to make a game exciting and fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get the feeling there's some context I'm missing, but I'm not so sure I'm actually missing much.
Reading the rules strictly and without trying to determine the intent isn't the best idea. In fact, I'm not even certain it's possible. It's easy to see why as well:
Written words have one purpose, and one purpose only: To convey the intent of the designer. The words and rules they encompass did not appear out of a void. The words first appeared when a human being typed them on a computer. And that wasn't the first time the rules came into being either. Previously, they were in the designer's head, jumbling about and sorting themselves out. They were bouncing off myriad other ways to implement the desired behavior. How can I best capture this feeling and action I'm trying to encapsulate? Should it be a bonus applied in a certain situation, or something that gives a new ability in that situation?
And, as surprising as it is, it turns out that the designer does not suddenly become a robot when they are designing new rules and transcribing their thoughts into words that convey their intent. Or if they do transmogrify, it sure as heck doesn't happen to me or any other of the many designers I know. This means that they are still just human. They can still make mistakes when conveying their intended rules.
So yes, applying common sense is necessary. Sometimes it's needed to fill in the gaps when mistakes are made during when transcribing rules from the mind to the document.
Of course, coming at the rule without preconceived notions is also very helpful. Sometimes the designer wants to do something that doesn't actually fit what would be called "common sense". Usually this involves being very specific about something to show how it's different from the norm.
And this isn't even getting into the idea of design blind spots, where you are so deep into a system and you know it so well that you simply do not realize that one of the rules in your head is not actually written down, and your mind just fills-in-the-gaps when you are re-reading everything.
But it all comes down to the designers not being robots. Things will never be perfect, and you need to try to figure out what the intent was in a fair manner in the cases where things are odd. There are often times very strong hints that point one way or the other, with a few principles that can be applied to figure out the intent.
No, I was suggesting previously that "do whatever is necessary to make the text fit my expectations" is not a good thing to use, and also that labeling "do whatever is necessary to make the text fit my expectations" as "common sense" is another things that's not good to do.
Okay, and I would agree with both of those statements. "do whatever is necessary" implies that the person knows that the rule should be interpreted one way, but because of their preferences, is choosing the interpret it another way.
Although later in your post you assure me that you're fine with someone challenging your label of something as common sense, which makes me think maybe you don't fit some of my descriptions, the above comment (and others like it) is how I get that impression:
Nope, I honestly am fine with someone challenging what I consider to be common sense. And I truly thought based on the text that you provided that you were in favor of using the "plain text" of a rule as opposed to applying common sense.
You had a belief about how to read the rules, and called it "common sense". I challenged that belief, and you honestly thought that meant I was against using common sense. If you can think someone is against using common sense but then not dismiss them, you'd be the first person I've met to do so. Usually, once someone gets to the point where they say what I quoted above, the discussion is over, because "you're against using common sense" is taken as a final dismissal of anything they might say.
I think this can be chalked up to, once again, the poor communication medium. You were challenging my assertion that something was common sense, but that wasn't clear to me. In a perfect world, I would have liked to see something like "I disagree that x is common sense, and here is why."
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that maybe you're the guy who can say "you're against common sense but we can still talk". Thus, for now I'll drop the "common sense" topic and discuss your (more interesting) rules interpretation philosophy.
No one has providence over what is common sense. If I say something is common sense, it should be read as "In my opinion, this is common sense."
Just because someone disagrees with me if something is common sense or not, does not mean I invalidate all of their opinions. As I said, I'm more than happy to have the discussion/be proven wrong/have my horizons expanded.
I could actually dig up a quote (maybe more than one) from Pathfinder designers trying to get it through to certain Rules forum denizens that no, this is not 3.5, this is Pathfinder, and it is its own game.
And that's fine, except for the fact that when it was first released, it was explicitly advertised as 3.75. If memory serves, there was some Pathfinder art with the caption "3.5 Survives" with "Survives" crossed out, and "Thrives" written in.
Pathfinder was clearly designed and advertised as 3.5 with various alterations and fixes. And it was a smashing success for them to do so.
However, by doing so, this brings with it certain expectations.
Much in the same way when a movie is rebooted and turns out to not be as good as the original (Total Recall, I'm looking at you,) then people try to make the argument "It doesn't have to be like the original, its just using the name."
If a company wants to reap the benefits of advertising a product as a lot like another product, they also incur the expectations of the customers.
It's one thing to say "Hey, this sounds like it might turn out to be like 3.5, let's see what it's like". It's another thing to say "This sounds like it's like 3.5, so that's how I'm going to treat it regardless of what the book actually says."
Do you ever actually see people say that? Or is it more like "In 3.5 it was treated like x, so until I see some other kind of clarification, I'm going to assume it works like x?"
Or perhaps "I know PF treats x like y, but I don't like that, so I'm going to treat x like z the same way 3.5 did."
What I'm trying to say is you're associating a negative attitude to the person who interprets something in a way in which they're familiar with. You're essentially attributing this to malice rather than ignorance, and you know that old saying?
Or what about the thousands of Pathfinder players who never touched D&D before? Are they unable to interpret the rules correctly because they don't have a prior understanding of where they need to make sure things end up?
No, and why do you seem to want to apply these arbitrarily negative ideas to me? Why do you take the leap from "I interpret it this way due to past experiences" to "If you don't have those past experiences you can't possibly do it right?"
As I've mentioned before (in a different thread), if we all gave each other the benefit of the doubt, these conversations would go much more smoothly. Rather than assuming someone is saying x, ask them if that's what they're actually saying.
And rather than (and no, I'm not saying you do this Jiggy) asking the question in such a way as to make the person look like an idiot, ask them in a neutral manner in which they can explain their meaning.
Written words have one purpose, and one purpose only: To convey the intent of the designer. The words and rules they encompass did not appear out of a void. The words first appeared when a human being typed them on a computer. And that wasn't the first time the rules came into being either. Previously, they were in the designer's head, jumbling about and sorting themselves out. They were bouncing off myriad other ways to implement the desired behavior. How can I best capture this feeling and action I'm trying to encapsulate? Should it be a bonus applied in a certain situation, or something that gives a new ability in that situation?
Right, that's how I view it as well. If the designer's intent does not match how someone interprets the "plain text" of the rule, the designer's intent should take precedence. That's how I prefer to do it. Of course there are entire threads dedicated to a designer's intent for any given rule or ruling.
Of course, coming at the rule without preconceived notions is also very helpful. Sometimes the designer wants to do something that doesn't actually fit what would be called "common sense". Usually this involves being very specific about something to show how it's different from the norm.
Personally I would say coming at a rule with preconceived notions is neutral. Sometimes it really helps. For example, if you know that most rules work like x, and there's some ambiguous text in feat y that uses similar rules, then barring clarification, treating y the same is a good way to go.
And this isn't even getting into the idea of design blind spots, where you are so deep into a system and you know it so well that you simply do not realize that one of the rules in your head is not actually written down, and your mind just fills-in-the-gaps when you are re-reading everything.
I think everyone's fallen into this at one time or another, such as the example Jiggy previously provided about undead being immune to sneak attacks. I definitely know I have.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So yes, applying common sense is necessary.
I have yet to encounter a person who would disagree with this statement.
I have very often encountered people claiming that someone else disagrees with that statement.
Anyone have any guesses why?
At a certain point I believe using common sense can actually hinder the game. Sure when someone says dead characters can still act then yes we need a healthy dose of it, but when it comes to falling damage or other rules that add to the benefit of playing while sometimes breaking the common sense thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"do whatever is necessary" implies that the person knows that the rule should be interpreted one way, but because of their preferences, is choosing the interpret it another way.
Sorry, not quite what I meant. Rather, "do whatever is necessary" is what they're actually doing, even if they don't realize it. I've seen people do some pretty extreme mental gymnastics in order to preserve their beliefs, all while seeming to honestly believe that they're simply applying "common sense" or otherwise being completely reasonable.
And I truly thought based on the text that you provided that you were in favor of using the "plain text" of a rule as opposed to applying common sense.
Here's another issue with "common sense": I clearly disagree with you that certain things count as "common sense", but I bet there are other things you count as "common sense" that I'm in full agreement with. As a result, the statement that I am opposed to applying common sense to game rules becomes simultaneously true and false, and therefore meaningless.
In a perfect world, I would have liked to see something like "I disagree that x is common sense, and here is why."
In my past experiences, most people can't perceive that statement, instead only seeing "I disagree with using common sense at all", and so they reply with a lot of terms like "robot" and "computer" and "hyperliteral" and "1000-page CRB" instead of actually addressing the concern that was raised.
Pathfinder was clearly designed and advertised as 3.5 with various alterations and fixes.
Valid point. But there's a difference between convenient familiarity and required conformity.
Pathfinder is its own game to be learned. Its similarity to 3.5 just means that those who are familiar with 3.5 will gain the convenience of some of the material being things they already know instead of having to learn from scratch. That's very different from many people's mindset that any and all differences from 3.5 had to be explicitly spelled out as such. (That is, if 3.5 had a rule that X was not allowed, and Pathfinder wanted to allow X, many folks thought that Pathfinder would have a rule stating that X is explicitly allowed, rather than simply deleting the prohibition.)
Two very different ways to react to the "3.75" marketing. One is "Oh good, this new game will be easier to learn than most" while the other is "This is a list of updates to 3.5, and everything defaults to 3.5 unless explicitly called out as a change". It may not sound like a big difference, but it's a subtle difference of philosophy that has a HUGE impact on rules interpretations. And it is my belief that the former is appropriate while the latter is erroneous; I base this belief on years of FAQ history and commentary from designers.
It's one thing to say "Hey, this sounds like it might turn out to be like 3.5, let's see what it's like". It's another thing to say "This sounds like it's like 3.5, so that's how I'm going to treat it regardless of what the book actually says."Do you ever actually see people say that? Or is it more like "In 3.5 it was treated like x, so until I see some other kind of clarification, I'm going to assume it works like x?"
I've seen people say the book or FAQ was wrong.
I've seen people say "I don't care what the book says, because this is how it worked in 3.5 and this is just an update to 3.5".I've even seen people talk about Paizo originals by saying "this is basically the [whatever] from [3.5 splatbook], so it works like this, not how it says".
Or perhaps "I know PF treats x like y, but I don't like that, so I'm going to treat x like z the same way 3.5 did."
Occasionally; not what I'm talking about.
What I'm trying to say is you're associating a negative attitude to the person who interprets something in a way in which they're familiar with. You're essentially attributing this to malice rather than ignorance, and you know that old saying?
I'm not attributing it to malice. I'm attributing it to unconscious mindsets that could be identified and dealt with if people practiced a bit more deliberate introspection. :)
Why do you take the leap from "I interpret it this way due to past experiences" to "If you don't have those past experiences you can't possibly do it right?"
If the reason you came to conclusion X is because of Y, then people without Y can't come to conclusion X. And if conclusion X is right, then people unable to come to conclusion X are unable to come to the right conclusion. Therefore, if the reason you came to right conclusion X is because of Y, then people without Y are unable to come to the right conclusion.
If, for a given topic, that last sentence seems objectionable, then it might be time to reexamine whether you should be listening to Y for that topic. That's what I was trying to say there.
Rather than assuming someone is saying x, ask them if that's what they're actually saying.
I've gotten surprisingly little mileage out of doing so, but I'll try to remember to go back to doing it that way with you.
Here's another issue with "common sense": I clearly disagree with you that certain things count as "common sense", but I bet there are other things you count as "common sense" that I'm in full agreement with. As a result, the statement that I am opposed to applying common sense to game rules becomes simultaneously true and false, and therefore meaningless.
I don't think it is meaningless. As Talonhawke above pointed out, to him/her, sometimes using common sense is a bad thing. I would suggest that this means Talonhawke and I might concur on something as common sense, but then disagree as to if it should be applied.
If you and I disagree about something being common sense, it doesn't mean you or I are suddenly no longer using common sense. It just means we have different opinions on what is and is not common sense.
Choosing to apply or not apply common sense is a separate issue, and I think worth making the distinction.
In my past experiences, most people can't perceive that statement, instead only seeing "I disagree with using common sense at all", and so they reply with a lot of terms like "robot" and "computer" and "hyperliteral" and "1000-page CRB" instead of actually addressing the concern that was raised.
Well, all I can say is I don't think I would ever reply in that manner. I don't usually (though I have) see it play out that way. Or at least, I think there are still enough sensible people around here that its worth the effort.
It may not sound like a big difference, but it's a subtle difference of philosophy that has a HUGE impact on rules interpretations. And it is my belief that the former is appropriate while the latter is erroneous; I base this belief on years of FAQ history and commentary from designers.
I would agree both that it is a big difference and that I side with the former as well. I think Pathfinder's rules are the primary source for adjudicating issues, and not simply updates. Where there is ambiguity of the rules, I think other sources may help shed light on the designer's intent.
If the reason you came to conclusion X is because of Y, then people without Y can't come to conclusion X.
I would have to disagree with this part (which sort of undercuts the rest of your paragraph there.)
People can come to conclusion X because of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc, etc. People can agree on a ruling even with completely different reasons why the ruling was the correct one.
My past experience with various iterations of D&D has obviously impacted my views, expectations, etc. But other people who have played the exact iterations that I have may have different expectations.
I've gotten surprisingly little mileage out of doing so, but I'll try to remember to go back to doing it that way with you.
I appreciate that.
Common sense, isn't.
Secondly, the more vague some rules, the better. Things ought to be reasonably interpreted and agreed upon by all playing. Sometimes the most strict rules can allow for greater abuse than vague ones, because you can hope that "common sense" prevails, while those who abuse explicit rules cite the lack of prohibition to be an endorsement or allowance.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In my past experiences, most people can't perceive that statement, instead only seeing "I disagree with using common sense at all", and so they reply with a lot of terms like "robot" and "computer" and "hyperliteral" and "1000-page CRB" instead of actually addressing the concern that was raised.Well, all I can say is I don't think I would ever reply in that manner.
Perhaps the Rules Questions forum and (perhaps moreso?) the PFS GM Discussion forum have left me jaded.
It may not sound like a big difference, but it's a subtle difference of philosophy that has a HUGE impact on rules interpretations. And it is my belief that the former is appropriate while the latter is erroneous; I base this belief on years of FAQ history and commentary from designers.I would agree both that it is a big difference and that I side with the former as well. I think Pathfinder's rules are the primary source for adjudicating issues, and not simply updates.
Then we're in agreement there.
Though your falling damage example seems to deviate from this paradigm of "Pathfinder rules until vague, then reach elsewhere for guidance". I mean, "maximum 20d6" isn't vague. It's not a matter of "I'm not sure what they meant, so I'll look at something else to see if I can make an educated guess at what 'max 20d6' means".
To me, there's a difference between "I started with the Pathfinder rule, but it was insufficient for me to arrive at an answer, so I looked at other things to help me fill in the gap" and "The Pathfinder rule is clear, but since it doesn't match what I want, so I'll do it differently than it says." Now, to be clear, both of those are fine, but a staggering number of people who are doing the latter think they're doing the former, and when this fact is pointed out, they get irate and start in with the "GMs aren't robots" and the "hyperliteral" and the "CRB would be thousands of pages" and so on.
That last bit aside, I think in your falling damage example you're making the same mistake: you seem to see yourself as starting with Pathfinder rules and only reaching out to other sources if something's unclear (and on the whole, you may well be right). But in this example, there's nothing unclear. The only reason to think "max 20d6" might not be the final answer is to not WANT it to be the final answer (which, again, is fine).
Or to put it another way, what is the ambiguity of "max 20d6" that triggers the "if ambigious, look elsewhere for guidance" thing? The only thing I'm seeing that might stop someone from just stopping at "max 20d6 = max 20d6" is simply not liking the idea that that's the cap. Is there something else triggering your drive to reinterpret, or is that it?
If the reason you came to conclusion X is because of Y, then people without Y can't come to conclusion X.I would have to disagree with this part (which sort of undercuts the rest of your paragraph there.)
People can come to conclusion X because of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc, etc. People can agree on a ruling even with completely different reasons why the ruling was the correct one.
I was speaking in context of a previous statement of mine, in which I said that if your past experience is the only way to come to that conclusion then you might need to reevaluate the conclusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also keep in mind that the more people you add then the less "common" everyone's "sense" becomes.
As always, just my two coppers...
-Doomn
can't favorite this enough.
All I know is that I have my rules I use when I run my games. I ask that everybody read them AND give them a try before flipping a table, giving a dissertation on why it can't work, or taking their books and such and going home. I plan to have the gamma version of my eponymous campaign setting up and running by the end of the year.
Beware of common sense in games, especially if someone is using common sense to say dragons couldn't fly therefore they shouldn't be able to fly in a game of fantasy and adventure. I have a problem with common sense in games where it becomes about limiting and blandening characters to be more useless and less effective or capable--whether that involve certain rule or ability changes ("naa, your ability doesn't work here, it isn't realistic, it is against common sense").
This is mainly because I want to play in an entertaining and exciting game, not a pure reality simulator, and because reality isn't actually as limiting as some people claim: people can shoot 3 arrows in six seconds, they can fight multiple people at once, surprisingly some people can take an amazing amount of damage, block or parry large weapons with smaller weapons, break multiple people with martial arts, know a tremendous amount of information, sway whole groups of people and so on and so forth. How we make it work is part of the game, but I do not trust or enjoy people shutting down parts of the game because of their common sense, as I probably won't share their outlook.
Common sense can be just another way of saying it should be this way. Well, should it? Often I find it should not.
On the rules
I run the rules as is, interpret them, consult with my players and remove a rule if we all agree it is ridiculous. That is how you get homebrew games over time.
Makes sense is working through it and then it makes sense, common sense is a person's interpretation of common knowledge, common beliefs. Unfortunately, take real world common sense to a game with a fantasy setting, and it doesn't fit very well.
I'd up it to 30d6, but that's just me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 20d6 falling damage cap makes perfect sense.
Terminal Velocity is a thing.
Problem with this is that when the 20d6 cap was set most characters barely have over 100hp at 10 lv. The 20d6 cap was set back in 1e where a 15 lv fighter/paladin with 18 con and MAX hp had 153hp. 3.x/PF raised hp capabilities but left falling damage capped at 20d6.
Things along this line is why I personally say that the PF, and 3.5 before it, are easy mode.
And I truly thought based on the text that you provided that you were in favor of using the "plain text" of a rule as opposed to applying common sense.Here's another issue with "common sense": I clearly disagree with you that certain things count as "common sense", but I bet there are other things you count as "common sense" that I'm in full agreement with. As a result, the statement that I am opposed to applying common sense to game rules becomes simultaneously true and false, and therefore meaningless.
It's a nitpick, but I don't think this implies the statement is meaningless. I think it's just an example of equivocation - you both avow that "common sense" should be applied, but disagree on what the term actually refers to.
"Common sense" is essentially a whole collection of statements/opinions held to be true and you disagree on which ones should be included - hence you're referring to two different collections of statements with the same term.
I dont think it's a totally valueless nitpick, since I think equivocation comes up a lot in gaming discussions - people discuss concepts like balance, over-powered, munchkin, etcetera and seem to assume everyone is using the word the same as them. It's worth bearing in mind that often someone expressing an opinion which appears contradictory or downright stupid is actually operating from fundamentally different premises than you (albeit using the same words that you do).
Though your falling damage example seems to deviate from this paradigm of "Pathfinder rules until vague, then reach elsewhere for guidance". I mean, "maximum 20d6" isn't vague. It's not a matter of "I'm not sure what they meant, so I'll look at something else to see if I can make an educated guess at what 'max 20d6' means".
You're correct. There is zero ambiguity in 20d6 max falling damage. As I previously stated, I know the RAW on falling. I think the rule in this case is a simplification. I don't say this to suggest that there is some hidden part of the rules that supports my argument, only to point out that I don't think the game designers were anticipating falls of an incredible distance when they set a maximum of 20d6 damage.
This is a situation where while technically I am using a house rule, its an unwritten one, and I've never had anyone complain about it.
Let's look at another example - my common sense tells me that if someone is restrained on a table, and unable to move in anyway, a melee attack by an adjacent foe against them should automatically hit.
Imagine we have a level 1 opponent that is restrained in such a way. The level 1 opponent is wearing banded mail (i.e. no helmet). His armor class is 10 (base) + 7 (banded mail) - 5 (0 Dex from helpless) = 12.
A level one wizard comes up with a dagger and wants to stab the opponent (for the sake of this argument, the wizard does not use the Coup de Grace action because he doesn't want to spend a full-round action.)
The attacker would roll 1d20 + 4 (because target is helpless). The attacking wizard needs to roll a 8 or better on the d20 in order to hit the helpless opponent.
If we want to look beyond the CRB, we could make the example even more extreme by viewing the Called Shot rules. Using the same example, if our wizard wanted to make a called shot and stab the opponent in the eye, using the RAW, the wizard would take a -10 penalty for doing so.
Under that situation, we have a wizard standing over a restrained, immobile opponent, stabbing downward toward's the opponent's unprotected eye, and missing 85% of the time.
Similar to the falling argument, I would suggest that the rules aren't written to handle such a non typical situation as this.
There was a 1e Dragon Magazine article about falling that calculated it like this:
10 ft - 1d6
20 ft - 3d6
30 ft - 6d6
40 ft - 12d6
50 ft and over 20d6
I think this was done to simulate the acceleration in falling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Typical terminal velocity for a human being is reached after about 12 seconds of falling and some 1500 feet. So it should cap at 150d6.
Hopefully you and your table also play Champions.
Got it covered.
*Preps Bucket-O-Dice*
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a situation where while technically I am using a house rule, its an unwritten one, and I've never had anyone complain about it.
Had you originally presented it as "I use this houserule" instead of "this is the correct way to interpret the published rules", this would have been a very different discussion.
Let's look at another example - my common sense tells me that if someone is restrained on a table, and unable to move in anyway, a melee attack by an adjacent foe against them should automatically hit.
Imagine we have a level 1 opponent that is restrained in such a way. The level 1 opponent is wearing banded mail (i.e. no helmet). His armor class is 10 (base) + 7 (banded mail) - 5 (0 Dex from helpless) = 12.
A level one wizard comes up with a dagger and wants to stab the opponent (for the sake of this argument, the wizard does not use the Coup de Grace action because he doesn't want to spend a full-round action.)
The attacker would roll 1d20 + 4 (because target is helpless). The attacking wizard needs to roll a 8 or better on the d20 in order to hit the helpless opponent.
Yep, and your options in response to that are these:
1) Just say "groovy, that's how it works."2) I dislike that result, but oh well.
3) I dislike that result, therefore houserule.
What I don't consider an acceptable response (whether conscious/deliberate or not) is "I dislike that result, therefore I'll not only houserule it, but tell people that my houserule is actually the correct interpretation of the actual rule".
See, I had plenty of houserules of my own (prior to abandoning the system altogether), for precisely the same reason you houserule things like extreme falls: there are certain products of the ruleset that I dislike. I'm all for doing that. The only thing I'm against is if I were to go around telling people that those houserules are the correct interpretations of the published rules.
The inability/unwillingness (depending on the person) of many GMs to make that distinction is also part of why I left organized play (where you're supposed to simply interpret the actual rules, not make houserules to sculpt the results to your taste).
Had you originally presented it as "I use this houserule" instead of "this is the correct way to interpret the published rules", this would have been a very different discussion.
Well, there are published house rules such as "flanked is a condition," and then there are houses rules such as "yes, falling from orbit will kill you regardless of your HP."
I write out the first kind, the second kind are assumed. If a player complains about an assumed house rule, I'll be happy to have the conversation with them.
But to me, they are distinctly different animals. And for the record, I never said "this is the correct way to interpret the published rules."
What I don't consider an acceptable response (whether conscious/deliberate or not) is "I dislike that result, therefore I'll not only houserule it, but tell people that my houserule is actually the correct interpretation of the actual rule".
Nope, I would say "the book says 20d6 max falling damage, but you just fell from orbit, so your character is dead."
I mean, do you actually tell your players "Well, the dead condition doesn't specify that you can't take actions, but my house rule is that the dead condition means you're dead?"
|
|
Showing my age I suppose, but Champions (ie HERO) needs lots of dice at high power levels.Why?
Hopefully you and your table also play Champions.
We played Champions/Hero back in the late 90's early 00's. Was fun. I like throwing lots of dice.
Edit: Age wise your probably on par with some of us here. I was born in 1963.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Had you originally presented it as "I use this houserule" instead of "this is the correct way to interpret the published rules", this would have been a very different discussion.Well, there are published house rules such as "flanked is a condition," and then there are houses rules such as "yes, falling from orbit will kill you regardless of your HP."
I write out the first kind, the second kind are assumed. If a player complains about an assumed house rule, I'll be happy to have the conversation with them.
But to me, they are distinctly different animals. And for the record, I never said "this is the correct way to interpret the published rules."
You really SHOULD write out these 'assumed house rules,' many of us come into games expecting the rules to be exactly as written, modified only by published houserules.
Unwritten rules are a recipe for disaster.
I'm much more in the "They're more like guidelines than actual rules" camp. Nonetheless, I'm curious whether it would bother you if the game was advertised as "I might sometimes over-rule the rules if I think they lead to silly results". I suppose you'd probably choose not to play in such a game - but my question is more if you'd consider that acceptable disclosure or whether someone has to articulate every variation?
This right here? Without being in the published rules? Would seriously seriously piss me off. Not because the decision to have that rule is unfair or illogical, but because it completely defies my expectation coming into the game.
I think it is fair to assume that if your expectation coming to my game was that a character falling from orbit would have a chance to survive, we would have already by that point determined we were not a good match.
As far as adding this to my published house rules, I have two issues with that:
1.) There are at least a few situations similar to this that I can think of that would have to be added to the published house rules. My typical players would read such house rules and wonder if I was trying to be funny. They are fully aware of the type of game they play in.
2.) Having to write down that which, to me, is common sense, serves as an impediment for a GM to apply his/her discretion to various instances. If I were required to do this the house rules document would have to be written by a lawyer.
If I was to GM for brand new people, I would probably conduct a sort of pre-game interview where I would explain my general view of the game and rules. This would help to identify the areas where my expectations and the expectations of the players don't match.
I'm curious whether it would bother you if the game was advertised as "I might sometimes over-rule the rules if I think they lead to silly results". I suppose you'd probably choose not to play in such a game - but my question is more if you'd consider that acceptable disclosure or whether someone has to articulate every variation?I wouldn't necessarily say every little variation needs to be articulated, but if it's something that could potentially cost my character his life?
You'd better believe it.
Cheers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Or you might demonstrate that it does.]
That means you've already made up your mind, but I am a sucker for punishment, so I'd say something along these lines:
- I'm an Old School DM, having played since Basic.
- While I'm not a "meatgrinder" DM, some characters will likely die in the upcoming campaign.
- In my mind, HP represents the ability to deflect/avoid attacks and turn deadly strikes into glancing blows.
- As such, if you're unable to or choose not to try to prevent damage to yourself, you die. As an example, if you decided to jump to your death from a tall building, I'm not going to roll falling damage and tell you you actually survived the fall. If you decide to stab yourself in the chest to kill yourself, I'm not going to have you roll damage, you simply kill yourself.
- This also applies to the usually fatal things such as attempting to swim in lava, guzzle acid, etc.
- If you have any questions about these rules, ask. I'm happy to explain. If you're planing something for your character that linchpins on a specific rule or understanding of a rule, make sure to let me know so that we can be certain we see things eye-to-eye
- If you take some action or make some choice in good faith that in turn my interpretation makes less effective or useless, I'll let you undo that choice/make a different choice.