Literal reading vs common sense - which should take precedence?

[Runestar]

By now, it should come as no small surprise that there are quite a variety of situations in 4e which clearly offend our established standards of "common sense". For example, some DMs have been known to balk at the idea of a small-sized halfling rogue forcibly shifting a gargantuan foe such as the tarrasque via the use of powers, and proceed to rule that such a feat is not possible, citing "common sense" as their rationale.

The issue I am trying to discuss here is not so much of whether they can, but whether they should. If the way a power would work seems contrary to "common sense", which should come first? Should we alter the power to keep it in line with what we feel make sense, or should said "common sense" take a step back and allow for the power in question to work the way it is written?

Take the aforementioned example for instance. When the designers conceptualized said ability, the clear lack of any size limitations (unlike 3e mechanics like grapple or trip) suggests that they may well have designed it with the assumption that size is irrelevant here - the ability should work equally well regardless of who/what the rogue is facing, which ensures that he would be equally effective no matter what the DM pits him against, rather than him suddenly feeling screwed when he faces enemies his powers cannot work effectively against.

Instead of ruling that a small-sized PC cannot shift a tarrasque, might it be better to think up an alternate explanation of how it might be shifted? Perhaps the rogue resorted to feinting and chincanery to provoke the tarrasque and trick it into voluntarily moving into that designated spot (but it would still work the same mechanicswise).

Of course, this is but one example. Many others yet exist, and may not be able to get resolved as cleanly. For instance, slide/push mechanics seem like another headache. As written, you avoid immobilizing conditions and difficult terrain, so in theory, you can use a push power to help a grabbed PC escape being immobilized and move away to safety (since forced movement does not provoke AoOs). Would you see this as a blatant abuse of the rules, or would you allow it (and reword the ability's flavour to help make it seem more believable?)

What are your experiences? Where would you draw the line?

 

[Mengu]

A 30th level halfling rogue is on his way to godhood. I have no problem with him being able to force around a big dumb abomination.

I try to apply the rules as literally as possible, and gladly take on the challenge of how a power actually takes effect.

Of course in anticipation of such difficulties, I've created a slightly more magical world, which should help me when I'm grabbing at straws for a feasible explanation.

 

[Regicide]

Poor halflings, what do people have against you? You're often just as strong as a human, and to a tarrasque you look like pretty much the same size of a snack.

I use common sense for 3.5E. For 4E I find I need to use a strict reading of the rules.

 

[theNater]

Common sense tells me that human beings cannot reliably launch fire from their fingertips. If common sense is to rule the day, I must insist that humans not be allowed to be wizards.

The problem with using common sense is that most of us have lived most of our lives in a world profoundly lacking in melee weapon combat and magic. As such, our ability to judge what is sensible in a world where those things are common is impaired.

On the other hand, most of us have played a lot of games. Common sense rulings based on what makes a fun game, rather than on what is "realistic" within the game world are certainly reasonable.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Common sense should never be used as a crutch for slapping someone with the nerf bat. If a rule says plainly that an ability works then it works. If the DM wants to make house rules then the players ought to know about them before play. If common sense is just another way to try and implement simulationism to a ruleset that it isn't suited for then it is doomed to failure.

 

[Syrsuro]

Both.


Common sense when dealing with corner cases where they just didn't both to cover every possible set of circumstances.

Rules as intended everywhere else.

You look at the power and at similar powers and try to understand what they intended, and if something just doesn't make sense it doesn't make sense. But that doesn't mean that you deny the fantasty nature of the game because its 'not realistic'.

A halfing shifting a tarrasque?? Sure. It's a fantasy game with fantastic characters.

Polearm Gambit hitting characters who teleport next to you? No - its intended to give the characters reach opportunity attacks.

Carl

 

[keterys]

It's amusing how rarely common sense is common or sense.

If something makes the game less fun and is unbalanced, that's a reason to go against the literal reading, but something being less realistic is not a good reason to make the game less fun.

Fun varies from person to person, of course, but it's critical to realize that there's a whole group of people playing so the needs of one (say, the DM or one realism-bound player) do not necessarily outweigh the fun of the many.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Fun varies from person to person, of course, but it's critical to realize that there's a whole group of people playing so the needs of one (say, the DM or one realism-bound player) do not necessarily outweigh the fun of the many.

This is a very true statement but it is important that everyone at the game have fun, not just the majority. One unhappy camper at a game session make the whole experience less fun for all.

On a side note, although fun does vary from person to person, never before 4E has it been so defined by a rulebook.

 

[keterys]

This is a very true statement but it is important that everyone at the game have fun, not just the majority. One unhappy camper at a game session make the whole experience less fun for all.

Sure, but then you've already answered the fun equation (fun of group and all that). I know one guy who grouches about _everything_ in a game and is never satisfied and seemingly never happy... the rest of us just tune it out and keep playing. I once tried to determine what it would take to satisfy all his objections and it would cripple the game. Presumably creating more objections.

But he still plays, cause he does enjoy playing.

On a side note, although fun does vary from person to person, never before 4E has it been so defined by a rulebook.

This statement is silly.

 

[Logos7]

This

Common sense should never be used as a crutch for slapping someone with the nerf bat.

with the addendum that sometimes the rules will offer contridictory ruling or just plain nonsensical rulings FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF RULES in which case i let common sense rule.

that said I find the halfing shifting the tarrasque no worst than the human shifting the tarrasque

Logos