PDA

View Full Version : Handwaving Rules for Dramatic Effect



Person_Man
2009-10-23, 12:03 PM
In OotS 686 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0686.html), a giant bug is running away from the party, ridden by bug men, with hostages tied to it.


Haley: "I don't think so. I might hit the prisoners, and I don't think one round of arrows will stop a bug that big anyway."

Elan: "They're going under the sand!"

This is wrong on both counts, and given the way the OotS world is set up, they should know it. (Or at least Haley should know it. Elan is often more genre blind when the plot demands it).

Haley is wrong about potentially hurting innocents. No matter how often Haley misses with her bow, she will never hit someone other then her intended target. Also, if the bug is using the Run (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsincombat.htm#run) action to move away, it has forfeited it's Dexterity, which means that she should be able to kill it in one round with a full attack and Sneak Attack.

Elan is wrong about the bug "going under the Sand." There is nothing in the rules that forewarns you that something is going to Burrow on it's next turn. Nothing in the rules allows people who are riding or bound to a Burrowing creature to move with it underground. (Unless you happen to be an Ashworm Dragoon riding your special mount). The hostages and bug people would just be left on the surface. If the DM houseruled that they weren't, then they would still start to suffocate. Even if the bug people have some sort of special ability to avoid this, the hostages do not. So why even bother with nets and take them prisoner, instead of just killing them? (Also, nets (www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Net) do not capture people the way it is illustrated. They just entangle them). If the DM further houseruled that they wouldn't suffocate, that means Roy could just mount the giant bug and stay there for multiple rounds, killing all of the bug men and the giant bug. He can't be pushed off the mount unless one of the bug people Bull Rushed him, which requires that they move with him. (Unless they have Knockback or a Tome of Battle maneuver, which seems unlikely given their size and actions in combat).

Also, if Roy could catch up to and Sunder the rope holding the people to the giant bug (FYI, he apparently has Combat Brute - because he also damages the giant bug) in one turn, then Elan and Haley can as well. If all three of them had attacked, then they could have easily killed the giant bug in one round, or at least killed all of the riders. But Elan and Haley just stand there (presumably because they had already acted in the Initiative order. But at the start of the next round, they could have caught up to the giant bug). But there's no reason for them to just "track down their hive later," especially since Belkar is horrible at tracking.

So, the entire comic was a huge departure from D&D rules, which the OotS world is based upon. That's fine. Rich's primary goal is to write a funny and interesting story, not maintain piety to game mechanics. And I hope he continues to do so.

But I've noticed that D&D (especially 4E) tends to have a lot of rules that don't match up to standard action/adventure tropes, and/or what "realistically" should happen. You can't hit bystanders. You can't have stand-offs (because people act sequentially). If you can cast Fireball, you can't use the same spell to just light a campfire. And so on.

So I was wondering if people had other examples of such rules, and how often they hand wave them away when they DM for the purpose of good storytelling and/or roleplaying (the real goal of D&D).

Thoughts?

Tyndmyr
2009-10-23, 12:07 PM
Fireball affects flammable objects, such as loose paper and such. Im pretty sure you could use that to start a fire, if you set it up carefully.

I don't know about bystanders, but I believe there are rules regarding shooting into melee, and possibilities of accidentally hitting the friendly instead. It's not exactly what you were looking for, but it's close.

Edit: Readied actions can certainly result in standoffs, too.

Fluffles
2009-10-23, 12:08 PM
Thoughts?

Besides, "Wrong forum dude."?

Eh. Stop evaluating everything the big man does. His job is to please, not to stick to the rules.

Amador
2009-10-23, 12:14 PM
Rule of Cool.

Anytime something one of my players describes their characters as doing that is just incredibly awesome, regardless of whether they actually can do it, they get to do awesome. My games are built around the players and characters, though they do need work on plot. Handwave rules for dramatic, exciting, or awesomeness. Within (reasonable) limits of course.

Indon
2009-10-23, 12:19 PM
Firstly, Haley. A miss due to cover would, logically, hit the cover, and DM's are encouraged in RAW to follow the laws of physics.

So envision this exchange.

Haley's Player: "Do I have a clear shot?"
DM: "No. The people in the net are providing cover. If you shoot, you might hit them."
Haley's Player: "Dang it!"

And to continue the exchange:

DM: "So, what does Elan do?"
Elan's Player: "Hmm. I study the giant bug's action to see what it's about to do next!"
DM: "...Okay, sure, why not. It looks like it's about to burrow underground."

Simply because Elan's player feels like that sort of player.

technophile
2009-10-23, 12:21 PM
I don't know about bystanders, but I believe there are rules regarding shooting into melee, and possibilities of accidentally hitting the friendly instead. It's not exactly what you were looking for, but it's close.
If you shoot into melee, you take a -4 penalty to hit unless you have Precise Shot. A miss means you miss everyone; there is no chance you will hit anyone other than your intended target.

See for yourself. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#shootingorThrowingintoaMelee)

There used to be such rules in 2E IIRC, but there are none in 3.5.

PinkysBrain
2009-10-23, 12:24 PM
The net is tied to the bug, an argument could be made that they are in a grapple.

Indon
2009-10-23, 12:48 PM
There used to be such rules in 2E IIRC, but there are none in 3.5.

Are they in a melee?

Oslecamo
2009-10-23, 12:58 PM
So, the entire comic was a huge departure from D&D rules, which the OotS world is based upon. That's fine. Rich's primary goal is to write a funny and interesting story, not maintain piety to game mechanics. And I hope he continues to do so.
You only noticed this now? Where were you during the Azure city batle? Slicing off the head of a dragon so it falls and kills one of the enemy mini bosses? Durkon killing two enemies with one blow? The bouncing ball of madness plot?



Thoughts?

Haley is very probably played by a real girl. Wich has gotten away with so much that she's probably using sweet talk at the table to get away with whatever she does in the campaign, like stealing large chuncks of the treasure.

In this situation, she just didn't felt like wasting time trying to save the commoners, prefering to move on with the main campaign.

sofawall
2009-10-23, 01:16 PM
Besides, "Wrong forum dude."?

This is RPG. He's talking about RPG. Right forum, dude.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-23, 01:19 PM
What, you're complaining about "rules violations" in OotS now? :smallconfused:

Where were you for Comic #74 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0074.html) where monsters didn't have Will Saves (or, apparently, MR).

Fluffles
2009-10-23, 01:20 PM
This is RPG. He's talking about RPG. Right forum, dude.

No, he is discussing the comic.

Godskook
2009-10-23, 01:28 PM
The net is tied to the bug, an argument could be made that they are in a grapple.

This.


No, he is discussing the comic.

Actually, what he asks opinions on isn't the comic, but rather a practice that applies outside the comic.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-23, 01:29 PM
No, he is discussing the comic.
"Hey, you got your RPG discussion into my comic!"
"Hey, you got your comic discussion into my RPG!"

Forget definitions, I want to know why the OP is so late to the party :smalltongue:

EDIT: Oh right, substantive discussion.

Dramatic situations, by definition, don't need anything but ad hoc rules. 4E helpfully provides DMG 42 to adjudicate just the sort of situations the OP is talking about.

*invokes Protection from Edition Warz*

Anyhow, if you ever want to depart from the rules, you have to give your players' fair warning. If they want to do something cool, just roll with it (for D&D, figure out a check and a DC). If you want to start including "ranged weapon misfire" rules, let 'em know in advance. Or make it a special monster power (like Garrote Grip and the Bugbear Strangler).

Good times :smallcool:

Frog Dragon
2009-10-23, 01:30 PM
What, you're complaining about "rules violations" in OotS now? :smallconfused:

Where were you for Comic #74 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0074.html) where monsters didn't have Will Saves (or, apparently, MR).
That was an intentional lampshade. This is not.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-23, 01:32 PM
But I've noticed that D&D (especially 4E) tends to have a lot of rules that don't match up to standard action/adventure tropes, and/or what "realistically" should happen. You can't hit bystanders. You can't have stand-offs (because people act sequentially). If you can cast Fireball, you can't use the same spell to just light a campfire. And so on.

So I was wondering if people had other examples of such rules, and how often they hand wave them away when they DM for the purpose of good storytelling and/or roleplaying (the real goal of D&D).


That's the only part that he actually asks a question in. Everything prior is just an anecdote. Also, oughtn't we to assume his basic competency and read the part of his post that actually applies to this forum? Instead of ignoring those two paragraphs to nitpick/defend/discuss OotS in an inappropriate forum?

You can't Fireball a campfire into existence, but that's part of Vancian magic. Ideally you'd have some sort of semi-at will power to create minor effects based on the more powerful spells you can cast. There are a few houserules that can be applied to hit bystanders, but eh.

I'm a bit confused about what you mean when you claim that standoffs are implausible.

oxybe
2009-10-23, 01:32 PM
Amador pretty much has it right, IMO. Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) + Page 42 (the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything (Skills don't cover)). are always on my mind when GMing 4th ed.

D&D is a ridiculous game. i mean, it's a game where the elven princess Starshimmer is throwing rainbows of doom at the poop-covered tentacle monster while riding a unicorn is a very possible scenario.

i mean, come on... my last character was a warforged warden, who looked like a tree for thematic reasons and had his future familiar, an owl, live in his mouth (http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll258/oxybe/SentryAndJhove.jpg). because ghost owls live in robots. who are also trees.

or something.

as a gm, i have no qualms letting the players do cinematic stunts if it adds to the game, and it usually does.

Jergmo
2009-10-23, 01:36 PM
What, you're complaining about "rules violations" in OotS now? :smallconfused:

Where were you for Comic #74 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0074.html) where monsters didn't have Will Saves (or, apparently, MR).

That's because they're 2nd edition monsters.


That's the only part that he actually asks a question in. Everything prior is just an anecdote. Also, oughtn't we to assume his basic competency and read the part of his post that actually applies to this forum? Instead of ignoring those two paragraphs to nitpick/defend/discuss OotS in an inappropriate forum?

You can't Fireball a campfire into existence, but that's part of Vancian magic. Ideally you'd have some sort of semi-at will power to create minor effects based on the more powerful spells you can cast. There are a few houserules that can be applied to hit bystanders, but eh.

I'm a bit confused about what you mean when you claim that standoffs are implausible.

Prestidigitation can be used to ignite flammable materials, but it's not something that can be used in combat. Fireball is a big brother spell.


Amador pretty much has it right, IMO. Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) + Page 42 (the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything (Skills don't cover)). are always on my mind when GMing 4th ed.

D&D is a ridiculous game. i mean, it's a game where the elven princess Starshimmer is throwing rainbows of doom at the poop-covered tentacle monster while riding a unicorn is a very possible scenario.

i mean, come on... my last character was a warforged warden, who looked like a tree for thematic reasons and had his future familiar, an owl, live in his mouth (http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll258/oxybe/SentryAndJhove.jpg). because ghost owls live in robots. who are also trees.

or something.

as a gm, i have no qualms letting the players do cinematic stunts if it adds to the game, and it usually does.

She wasted a Prismatic Spray spell on an Otyugh?! Pfft.

Morty
2009-10-23, 01:40 PM
I'd never, ever bend or ignore the rules for "dramatic effect" and those are my only thoughts on the subject. "Rule of cool" is so very much out of the question.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-23, 01:44 PM
She wasted a Prismatic Spray spell on an Otyugh?! Pfft.

Or a reflavored Eldritch Blast. Rainbows/lasers/light-based effects are a favorite reflavoring of mine.

@Morty: But what if the rules are poorly designed? The hostage one, for example. Do you fully agree that PCs should be able to shoot with no chance of damaging bystanders? Would an adjustment to that rule necessarily fall under "dramatic effect"?

Morty
2009-10-23, 01:46 PM
@Morty: But what if the rules are poorly designed? The hostage one, for example. Do you fully agree that PCs should be able to shoot with no chance of damaging bystanders? Would an adjustment to that rule necessarily fall under "dramatic effect"?

No. It would fall under "bending rules because they're poorly designed and unrealistic". I can't see what does it have to do with dramatic effects.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-23, 01:48 PM
But the same change may be made for two different reasons - realism and drama, in this case. Should a person make a change for "dramatic effect" that results in increased realism, is it wrong to reject the change due to its motivations?

Morty
2009-10-23, 01:51 PM
I can't really recall saying anything along the lines of "if it results in an increased dramatism, I won't do it". Maybe it's because I've never said it. What I did say, is that I won't make any changes for drama's sake. If a change I make results in it, I don't really care.

t_catt11
2009-10-23, 01:52 PM
See, I always (try to) houserule my games as necessary to make them make sense. If you fire into melee and miss, darned right you have a chance to hit friendlies. this is how it worked in 2e and prior - and is how it should still work.

WOTC has systematically worked to remove all of the "bad things" from their games - note that penalties are pretty much nonexistent in 4e, all you have now are differing bonuses. Joy and sunshine!

I don't care what system we're using, I apply rules of common sense, and IMHO, you should, too. Go ahead, shoot at the bug if you want. Don't cry if you make some prisoner skewers in the process.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-23, 01:56 PM
Maybe it's because I've never said it.

Eh, I must have misread context somewhere. Sorry about all that.

@t_catt11: How is this chance to hit friendlies measured? How can it be reduced, metagame or in-game? How do you find a common ground of "common sense"?

Tyndmyr
2009-10-23, 01:59 PM
Strictly speaking, a fireball is magical fire, and thus, wouldnt start a campfire directly. However, to start a regular fire, all you need is fuel, oxygen, and heat. If you have the other two, fireball definitely provides heat, as shown by the spell text describing how it burns mundane items in it's range. The biggest problem it'll pose with regards to fire starting is it's blast nature. That can actually put a fire out as easily as it starts it.

So, yes, you can indirectly start a fire with a fireball(those molten bits of soft metal can certainly light off other fuel), but the spell is not a replacement for a flint and steel, and it's not really a reasonable expectation that it should be.

With regards to melee/grappling and shooting into same, I agree...it's not a perfect match. However, being tied to a monster is reasonably close to grappling, so it's a decent justification for using those rules. When you have a situation that doesn't fall directly under any rules, glancing over the rules for similar situations is an excellent starting point.

Yes, this may be harder in some editions, like 4E, but it's often possible.

It seems like we're confusing two things...handwaving for realism, and handwaving for drama. These two are pretty different.

Random832
2009-10-23, 02:02 PM
That's because they're 2nd edition monsters.

Who apparently don't have a saving throw vs spell, either.


Eh, I must have misread context somewhere. Sorry about all that.

@t_catt11: How is this chance to hit friendlies measured? How can it be reduced, metagame or in-game? How do you find a common ground of "common sense"?

The real annoying thing is that WOTC actually _had_ rules for this, but never published them. Because calculating it slowed down the game too much. (why not publish it as an optional rule, then?)

lesser_minion
2009-10-23, 02:10 PM
I tend to change rules if I think they are getting in the way of drama, immersion, verisimilitude or fun.

At least one of my players is used to making ad-lib rulings on absolutely everything when he DMs, and we have a tendency to use homebrewed game systems a lot, so my group doesn't really expect that much adherence to the rules as written.

With another group, I would probably make sure that everyone understands and is at least reasonably happy with any changes I make though.

I think Haley is actually out of SA range in the comic (Roy's charge range is either 80 or 120ft. Sneak Attack cutoff is 30).

The 2nd edition monsters didn't have a mechanic that was applicable to the spell being used (3.5 sanctuary), which is why it was irresistible. Presumably the 4e-based OOTS fan comic has made a similar joke about 3e monsters being vulnerable to powers that target defences.

Optional rules were published in the 3.0 DMG for determining where a missed arrow landed after being fired, although it was made very clear that the designers really didn't think it was a good idea.

It got even worse, as the attack roll for a stray missile used only the missile's enhancement bonus if it had one (but it did ignore concealment).

Random832
2009-10-23, 02:11 PM
Firstly, Haley. A miss due to cover would, logically, hit the cover, and DM's are encouraged in RAW to follow the laws of physics.

That is also explicitly the rule in 3.0 and in Modern. (which leads some to believe that it explicitly does not apply in 3.5 due to having been present and then removed.

Delwugor
2009-10-23, 02:13 PM
Rule of Cool.

Anytime something one of my players describes their characters as doing that is just incredibly awesome, regardless of whether they actually can do it, they get to do awesome. My games are built around the players and characters, though they do need work on plot. Handwave rules for dramatic, exciting, or awesomeness. Within (reasonable) limits of course.

First and foremost this.
Second the players expectations and wants.
Third my house rules and campaign plot.
Forth system and rules.

oxybe
2009-10-23, 02:17 PM
It seems like we're confusing two things...handwaving for realism, and handwaving for drama. These two are pretty different.

i see no difference. either are handwavings of rules for personal preference, whether for some personal sense of "realism" or "drama". neither are better or worse, just different styles.

as for the removing of penalties... keeping track of a bunch of little +'s AND -'s?! Joy and sunshine! :smalltongue:

Dragonmuncher
2009-10-23, 02:18 PM
No. It would fall under "bending rules because they're poorly designed and unrealistic". I can't see what does it have to do with dramatic effects.


Hm, how about a giant punching someone, or even better, a dragon smashing someone in midair for huge damage with their tail? By RAW, the victim wouldn't move, but it's "cooler" to have someone be knocked back a bit.

Or, a warlock shooting through a wall made of paper to hit someone on the other side? Warlocks need line of sight to hit someone (and line of effect, I guess). A piece of paper blocks both of those, technically, but I can certainly imagine an eldritch blast punching through a rice-paper screen to attack someone on the other side.


I'm sure there are other, better examples- I just wanted to show you what people mean when they say "dramatic effects."

Dervag
2009-10-23, 02:19 PM
You can't Fireball a campfire into existence, but that's part of Vancian magic.Wait, what? Can't you ignite tinder?

DSCrankshaw
2009-10-23, 02:30 PM
In some d20 rules version, you can hit the cover. d20 Modern, p. 145, for example. I don't see anything about it in the 3.5 srd, I admit. So, let's call this an example where Rich mixed up his rules versions, which he warned us he would do (http://www.giantitp.com/index.html) (5/20/2008 entry), for dramatic/humorous effect.

deuxhero
2009-10-23, 02:31 PM
Not sure I agree with you on the subject of pushing Roy off the bug. I can easily say he failed a balance check thanks to the modifer of taking an actual blow.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-23, 02:45 PM
Rather than just handwaving the rules away ad hoc, I favor thinking through such situations ahead of time and instituting house rules. That way all parties know about the rules-vs.-dramatic realism dichotomies and how they're addressed in your game.

An example: characters can split an actual move around a non-moving move action. So you can go to a door, open it, and use the rest of your move to continue through in one 6 second round. I figure this falls under the "walk and chew gum at the same time" minimum requirement for heroic characters. :smallwink:

technophile
2009-10-23, 02:56 PM
Are they in a melee?

Yes. "Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other."

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-23, 03:12 PM
That's because they're 2nd edition monsters.
They still have Magic Resistance (MR) - which means they could walk through the spell effect.

But yeah, turns out that was just an awkward way for the OP to introduce a question about Rule of Cool :smallsigh:

lesser_minion
2009-10-23, 03:31 PM
They still have Magic Resistance (MR) - which means they could walk through the spell effect.

But yeah, turns out that was just an awkward way for the OP to introduce a question about Rule of Cool :smallsigh:

I'm assuming that the idea was that, percentile magic resistance being removed in 3rd edition, the monsters weren't allowed to use it.

Quietus
2009-10-23, 03:41 PM
I will gladly take any situation and apply the Rule of Cool to it... but since my knowledge of the rules is pretty thorough, I'd usually just apply a similar rule in place. Like in this case, cover/grapple rules involving the bug, the slavers, and the net. But I would make it clear, when "Haley" said that she wanted to shoot the bug, that A) IT'S A GIANT FREAKING BUG, and B) If she wants to take the shots, that's fine, but I'm going to apply <x> rule in this case - in this situation, probably cover, and if she missed due to cover it'd hit the captured commoners. If she does it, it'll be epic win; If not, then she's either wasting arrows or potentially going epic fail. Haley doesn't seem to be the type of character to take that risk.

sleepy
2009-10-23, 03:44 PM
But I've noticed that D&D (especially 4E) tends to have a lot of rules that don't match up to standard action/adventure tropes, and/or what "realistically" should happen. You can't hit bystanders. You can't have stand-offs (because people act sequentially). If you can cast Fireball, you can't use the same spell to just light a campfire. And so on.

I ready an action to attack you if you attack me. You ready an action to attack me if I attack you. Sounds about right, no?

Raum
2009-10-23, 03:48 PM
So, the entire comic was a huge departure from D&D rules, which the OotS world is based upon. That's fine. Rich's primary goal is to write a funny and interesting story, not maintain piety to game mechanics. And I hope he continues to do so.Does it need to be pointed out that Order of the Stick is story and not a game? The only 'rules' are drama and humor. Rich uses the rules to create either humor or drama when it suits him but said rules are not necessarily the physics of the world. They only become 'physics' when they can be used to further drama or humor.


So I was wondering if people had other examples of such rules, and how often they hand wave them away when they DM for the purpose of good storytelling and/or roleplaying (the real goal of D&D). There is a significant difference between a story and a game. That said, it's not all that difficult to transform a game into a story...whether intentionally or not.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-23, 03:50 PM
I ready an action to attack you if you attack me. You ready an action to attack me if I attack you. Sounds about right, no?
Yes, but it can be more fun than that:
A to B if Attack(A)
C to A if Attack (B)
D to A/B if Attack (B/A)
E (hidden) to Everyone in 5 rounds :smallbiggrin: