[OOC] Heart of Darkness (Part II)

[secretID]

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I'm sorry if I reacted too sensitively.

Nope. I'm blunt - in part because you've expressed comfort with that - and I understand your concern about my thoughts about you.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

You will understand then, that when my adjudication and interpretations are framed or likened to the nightmare GMs from the horror forums who try to find legal loopholes to F with their players, go on power trips while making up rules, and then force their players to quit their table because they don't care about anybody's fun but theirs, well now that doesn't work for me.

I was only comparing the rulings, not the reasons. FYI, I’m not assuming anything about that DM’s motivations; he might just be very particular about realism in this area – and I do consider it one of the few least realistic aspects of the rules. I do think the impact on fun in that case is incomparably larger.

 

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

the GM is meant to decide if "circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage". This is what the GM should always consider, I reckon.

You said this in your RAW section, but once you’re saying “meant to” you’re out of RAW and into RAI. As you know, the full quote is, “The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.” They didn’t even say “should sometimes decide,” just “can decide.” There’s no obligation RAW.

As I've said, I agree that RAW allows you to put ADV/disad on anything for any reason; I think to put it on Shove because of CC violates clear RAI. I currently understand you to be saying that RAW requires that CC limits shove. The Shove rules say nothing about CC and vice versa; that answers the question completely for me.

As a side point, I’ll note that by your reasoning RAW requires DMs to consider center of gravity and pivot points for every Shove. I continue to be confused that you continue to imply that just because “the character has insufficient strength to lift or push the creature normally,” that suggests that the character can’t shove the target. That’s obviously wrong IRL, as I’ve repeatedly noted.

I would also think that, given your reading of the rules, you would find it strange that they mentioned size at all in the Shove rules. If RAW requires the DM to consider mass, etc. in every case, why does size matter at all?

I don’t favor this kind of “argument,” but I challenge you to find a single person who agrees that RAW requires a consideration of CC for every shove, that every DM who does not consider mass is violating RAW. I think you’ll have some trouble finding others who know the rules who agree that RAW even allows the DM to consider mass. That’s not really an argument, but if one finds oneself in the position of being the only person alive who can correctly read a text, one might be concerned.

Seriously: I understand the experience of having great confidence in one's judgment, but do you really think you'll find anyone who agrees that RAW requires this? - and doesn't it give you pause to think that you won't?

 

Since you say RAW requires a consideration of mass, I don’t think this is an important question, but that won't stop us.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

If you want to go by popular opinion, you'll be reassured that Jeremy Crawford agrees with you and tweeted in the past that a creature's weight needn't give disadvantage because that's settled by the creature's size. Unfortunately, while I will let Jeremy Crawford influence my decisions, I don't really follow the maxim of putting his decisions and interpretations above mine. I'm not too reluctant to trust my judgment over his.

About RAI? “Popular opinion” is a funny phrase to use in this context. Crawford isn’t one common person or one thousand; he’s one of the few designers. His statement has particular weight on the question of RAI, literally what he and the other designers intended. He’s only one of the designers, but if all of the designers were to agree on a RAI issue, that literally completely resolves it.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

What is the best approach? Is it what Jeremy Crawford said or how other GMs are playing it, or is it what creates the best game experience?

It’s RAW, unless there’s a compelling reason to change RAW and you’ve announced it well ahead of time.

You say RAW requires the adjustments, so the rest of the analysis doesn’t add anything for me. I believe that RAW allows for the Shove disad, but I would go to RAI for whether it should be done. RAI is separate from the three things that you listed; it's what the designers as a whole intended. Crawford gives very good evidence of that; the rest is irrelevant to the question. Your analysis seems to bypass the actual "I" in "RAI" and to put the DM in the position of the game designers. I don't have a big problem with that, but that's not my taste. As I said, I think we differ in our tastes about the ideal amount of DM judgment.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I don't think we have anything at hand (besides Crawford's opinion) that can really help us decide that being tied to a wall is more of an influencing circumstance than a character moving a creature that they lack the STR requirements to move.

It has nothing to do with what’s most impactful. A sensible game designer will write rules covering the most common situations first. In a game with infinite possibilities, at some point the designer will stop writing rules, when the situations seem to be uncommon enough; different designers will pick different points at which to stop. Mass is almost universal; being tied to a wall is very uncommon. Because mass is almost universal, it’s absence in the Shove rules tells me that it's not a factor. I don’t find the other absence meaningful because it’s an unusual situation.

 

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

[Betraying expectations] doesn't have anything to do with fairness, because the players shouldn't…hold the expectation that their understanding of the rules is met by the GM.

This is circular, and justifies any rules change. Every DM judgment is fair because players can't expect DMs to agree with them? Players reasonably expect correct rules readings. As I said last post, I think we have significantly different definitions of “fair.”

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

unfortunately there is no mention of how I'm supposed to resolve that the knight is in fact very ill-equipped to do what he is attempting, due to his puny human arms.

Along with a gazillion other issues. You’re just grabbing this one and giving it special treatment.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I'm now facing the decision to handwave creature weight during a shove or not.

Because the rules don’t require you (or allow you, IMO) to factor weight, it’s not handwaving anything.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

On principle though, I'd argue that not handwaving a creature's weight is the better call because it makes certain challenges more interesting while still retaining that they are solvable.

It will make it more realistic, but I don’t see how it makes it more or less interesting. Shoving is never guaranteed; this just changes the odds. Actually, sometimes you’ll rule that Shove is impossible, and fewer options generally makes things less interesting. We’re talking about the difference between two different rules: 1) you may always attempt to Shove a creature no more than one size larger than you, with your success chances turning on relative STR; and 2) the DM will let you know whether you may attempt to Shove a creature no more than one size larger than you, with success chances turning on relative STR plus other factors of which the DM may inform you. I don’t see any difference here other than the second one is more complicated for the DM and requires a little conversation between the DM and the player.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

What would you enjoy more if you had to face the exact same situation as before? For Kosev to have disadvantage while shoving the ogre or not?

I’d prefer no disad.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I'm thinking about the example of 100 humans in a row who pass a baton from one end to the other in 6 seconds via readied actions. RAW, to my knowledge it's impossible to disallow that scenario, and I wonder whether Crawford would have any comments about disallowing it RAI. Objects don't have a limit on how fast they can move RAW or RAI, but once the players try to break the game like this, I think it's the GM's responsibility to make judgments that disallow it. I would be very curious to hear your take.

Well, first, I’ll note the one time someone did something within the rules that was so unrealistic that it annoyed me. I’ve probably mentioned it before: in PvP, an archer 140’ from a target in a Fog Cloud, which target had been moving around in melee with other characters, hit the target (my PC) without even disad. That’s RAW, and obviously ridiculous. That’s also similar to the situation I mentioned in the beginning of this conversation, in which I made a DM ruling on the spot, then reversed it because I think it unfair to change RAW on the fly. The archer situation was the only time I’ve found something outrageous, so I don’t expect it to be an issue for me. (The more recent situation, when I was DMing, was similar but much less ridiculous.)

I vaguely remember this example of passing the baton; I don’t remember if there was some practical impact. If players want to do something like that just to amuse themselves, I certainly don’t care. If they do something like that to impact the game, I still probably won’t care – I might laugh – but I guess I may ask them to refrain in the future. I guess if they did something like a baton pass and it completely destroyed a scene, killed the BBEG or something, I might ask them not to do it. And if they insisted? – I’d likely allow it, and consider whether I wanted to game with them in the future.

As I hope you can tell, I like a fair amount of humor. I’m obviously serious about playing well, but I generally see my characters more in Shrek than in Lord of the Rings. A bit of LotR can be nice, but I definitely wouldn’t want all of my games to be like that. From my perspective, the baton trick is like a character in a movie like Shrek making a joke about the tropes of the genre; it’s almost breaking the fourth wall. That’s fine with me occasionally. I don’t know if you listen to any actual play podcasts, but I loved the early years of The Adventure Zone – exactly my style. Acquisitions Incorporated is pretty similar.

[Mindsiege]

The situation from Deep Thoughts helped me understand a bit more where the crux for me lies. Hopefully my explanation is comprehensive.

 

Originally Posted by secretID

every DM who does not consider mass is violating RAW

That's not quite what I was getting at. I think RAW, Shove doesn't settle the influence of creature mass. I think RAW, every circumstance is under evaluation by the GM in regards to deciding whether it influences rolls.

So my conclusion was that RAW, a creature's mass comes down to GM judgment. How I would make that judgment isn't RAW. But I think that I'm required to make a judgment, no matter how I want to inform my decision eventually.

For the sake of informing my decision, I'm a lot less influenced here by reality than by the CC rules. I know that I've been casually referring to realism a lot because the effect of applying the CC rules is so tangible, but truthfully the (in my eyes) apparent violation of the intent behind the CC rules is much more impactful in my decision to weigh the dice in the scenario of shoving heavy creatures. Your argument about gravity and pivot points has put me at ease with the RAW that the creature can be shoved at all. It doesn't impact my judgment to weigh the dice, however.

Hopefully this explains where my confidence comes from. I only think the rules require a judgment to be made. I also don't think there is much sense in guessing how popular my personal judgment for this case is. I will agree it probably doesn't see much replication around too many tables. But I've outlined the process of how I came to my judgment. If we just take the question "Does the weight of a creature influence a character's ability to shove it?" out of any other context, then I'm afraid you'll not be able to convince me that there will be too many people answering 'no'. So it appears that the only question that would make anybody decide not to weigh the dice would be: "Do the RAI conclusively settle that the weight should be ignored because only size is mentioned?" But that's a RAI question.

 

As you can tell, I very much believe that the actual settlement of our divergence lies in the RAI, rather than the RAW. The reason that I've been harping on about the RAW and requirements is that I was trying to assert that weighing the dice in this situation is in no way or form the spontaneous creation of rules on the spot. Which has been an irksome spot of your argumentation for me, but doesn't actually pertain to the outcome of my ruling. I don't think any clear resolution for this matter is found in the RAW.

So let's look at the RAI again. In my understanding, WotC disavowed Crawford to be the voice of the RAI. Nonetheless, in practice I think many GMs treat him as such. That's why I called it popular opinion. That's beside the point though, IMO. I don't want to discredit that Crawford does have unique insight into the RAI. I only think he is fallible and so I will at least give the judgments he suggests my own scrutiny. Which I have, and it led me to a converse decision than the one he suggested once in a tweet. My decision is still an informed decision though. Let's get to what I consider the core of the matter.

Since the beginning I've been making mention of the CC rules. I think now I've finally found the words to explain what's bothering me here. Especially after Crawford's comment, I'll gladly agree that the RAI of Shove is that weight doesn't matter. However, I am of the vehement opinion that the RAI of the CC rules explains that weight does matter generally. Now you may argue that one of those is meant to rule over objects while the other rules about creatures. The problem that I have is that the border between creatures and objects at least on the narrative layer is very thin. On the abstraction layer they are treated uniquely distinct, but narratively the only differences are the ability of thought and intent animation.

Closing the circle, we're not discussing the RAI of Shove singularly. I'm looking at the RAI of a knight shoving a creature which he couldn't move if it was an object. This is where the clash has always been for me. I think you're perfectly right to conclude that RAI, objects aren't creatures or vice versa. But I think to properly portray the game world this is a line that needs to be blurred. And personally, I think this can be done without upsetting game balance or the game experience. Now, I'll also agree that neither of those two factors changes anything about the RAI, but they are what I'm looking to achieve by using the 5e system.

So yes. If you decide that the game balance and game experience become upset when the lines between creatures and objects are blurred, I can totally respect that you categorically reject the way I am considering judging here. I agree that the RAW generally formulate the best approach to deliver the player a 100% expected scenario in the game. I've already explained how for this particular instance, I consider the RAW to be demanding for a GM judgment though. Following the RAI of Shove, most GMs will (correctly) look at the RAI of Shove allowing unweighted rolls and stop to make their decision there. I (possibly incorrectly, depending on how you want to look at it) am veering to look at the RAI of CC and getting the distinct impression that we have a greatly influential circumstance on our hands. The RAW allow me to enforce this circumstance by weighing the dice. I don't agree that this would be considered a change of the rules and I would have had trouble communicating it beforehand since it is a judgment I am invited to make, yet I might not be aware that it is a judgment that needs to be made before the situation arises. However, these are the kind of judgments the player should trust the GM to make. Again, I believe it's entirely justified to make the decision to not weigh the dice, since that's the unbiased interpretation of Shove and players will just be happy to receive what they've bargained for, but I've disclosed that there are other good reasons to opt into making a different decision. Reasons that are all intended and valued by the core principles of the rule books, as far as my interpretation of those is concerned.

Just for me to summarize, I think the RAW leave this particular interaction up to a judgment. The RAI of Shove would be able to settle the decision exactly how you are meaning to do with them, but personally I'm inclined after making my considerations to decide weighing the dice at least is preferable because the existence of the CC rules suggests to me that there is an intent of mass being an influential circumstance in the game world. That's why I had previously concluded that the RAI is equally ambiguous as the RAW about resolving this particular interaction, specifically on my understanding that "the weight of things is intended to matter" generally. If you want to strictly enforce the difference between creatures and objects it becomes very easy to judge, but maybe this is where I let myself be influenced too much by the narrative. Again, I'm comfortable putting the rules above realism, but the rules do mean for the GM to consider influential circumstances and I am unable to formulate to myself "creatures and objects are mechanically distinct" as good enough of a reason to discount weight as a veritable influence.

Originally Posted by secretID

Because the rules don’t require you (or allow you, IMO) to factor weight, it’s not handwaving anything.

I think this is the crux. You've decided via interpretative measures that the weight is not allowed to be factored. I interpret that it should generally be factored, but differently for creatures than for objects. The decision to ignore creature weight entirely because it's not mentioned in the shove rules may be argued as a design intent, but then what was the design intent of including the CC rules? Is the game better if we ignore limitations that are introduced by the CC rules because a creature is technically not an object? I'm assuming a design intent behind the limitations set by the CC rules, so I want to at least respect them as an influence. And the rules of respecting influences suggest weighing the dice with advantage/disadvantage. I feel like that's the least handwavy way of shaking all of that out.

 

Originally Posted by secretID

As I said, I think we differ in our tastes about the ideal amount of DM judgment.

Yeah. I definitely believe that GMs are intended to fill the holes that the rules leave with making their own judgments. Currently, I'm inclined to believe that making judgments is preferable compared to labouring over the rules for hours or having to research opinions about fringe situations on the net. I think the game world comes alive whenever a GM Not necessarily with the rules, but you get the gist. A judgment call is basically a situational ruling which in the moment necessarily may need to be arrived at improvisationally.improvises and I've come to believe that the biggest reason to avoid making judgments is to enable the players their optimized play.

Please don't mistake what I'm saying now. I'm putting the rules as fundamentally important and don't want to detract from the experience of anybody who wants to play optimally. But in my eyes, the story told through gameplay is more important to creating a good experience than optimized play. I'm sure you've noticed this with how I play my characters as well. I think that any judgment which doesn't blatantly trample over the rules and happens in good faith is ultimately fine and needn't be shied away from. The tighter a player's fun and their optimized play are related though, the more careful a GM probably has to be with making any judgments. I think that is a lesson that's good for me to internalize more. I might have approached that point too naively in the past and might allow it to govern my decisions more in the future. Another aspect of "know your players" if you will.

Originally Posted by secretID

This is circular, and justifies any rules change.

I don't think that our definitions of 'fair' are the point here. I don't believe that I am even disagreeing with the points that you are arguing. I clearly explained that I think the GM is fair as long as they keep using the rules as they have in the past. This prohibits those uncommunicated rule changes that you're so worried about and which I don't think belong in this discussion because that's not what I'm doing.

My previous post was meant to explain that I think the players shouldn't have expectations on the GM to use the rules exactly how the players see fit. Because the GM is the arbiter of the rules, they are the ones that need to interpret the rules for their game, not the players. Fairness is ensured when the GM sticks to their own interpretation of the rules and then proactively communicates if they decide to handle something differently than they have in the past.

Again, this is not an issue for the ogre example because I'm of the opinion that that particular scenario always had to be a judgment call for anybody that treats the CC rules as applicable to creatures. Which you're probably arguing I shouldn't, but that's something that I'll have to sleep on a lot before I'll be able to go along with you. Ignoring perfectly reasonable rules based on a technicality feels wrong to me, especially when there are various good gameplay reasons to occasionally ignore said technicality of "creatures aren't objects".

But to get back on point, clearly the players may have come with the expectations that they want Shove to be absolute and that this scenario shouldn't be a judgment call. The way I see it, as soon as they demand that, at that point they're setting the rules for the GM and that's not how it should work. Obviously players should expect correct rules readings. But who is the one that decides what the correct rules reading is? In the end that will have to be the GM. I'll always propagate that a GM should listen to their players making points about the rules, but even then I think the GM needs to remain the arbiter and the players should expect to have their interpretation overruled. It certainly can be a dialogue, but only the one actually overseeing the handling of the game can make a final decision.

I think finally we should probably settle whether I should communicate to players at the start of the game that I might apply disadvantage to a shove against a creature that's outside of their character's CC range. I think that's such a fringe situation that disclosing it up front is menial. In the same way that I wouldn't disclose that shoving a fixated creature comes with disadvantage (if I would even allow that). I don't know, I think there are infinite judgment calls that could be made in DnD. I think providing the players with just-in-time communication is the more reasonable approach. I'm curious if you disagree.

Originally Posted by secretID

but I don’t see how it makes it more or less interesting. Shoving is never guaranteed; this just changes the odds. Actually, sometimes you’ll rule that Shove is impossible, and fewer options generally makes things less interesting.

The reason we give creatures strengths and weaknesses or any other characteristics is that it creates a demand for adaptation and strategy on the player side. I think the need for strategy makes things naturally more interesting. If a particular tool works on everything equally, that's more boring than it is interesting. I wonder, going by the logic that I quoted, do you think resistances and immunities in the game make it worse? What about the Magic Resistance trait?

@edit:
To be clear, while I said it wouldn't upset the game balance, I also clearly said that it's impossible to disallow Shove based on weight because that's settled by creature size. Weighing the dice is the only rules conform option of respecting weight during Shove.

Originally Posted by secretID

I don’t know if you listen to any actual play podcasts

Thanks for sharing your take about the baton express. No, I never got into any podcasts.

You're probably right that I favour maturer stories, partially because I don't think that I am a good comedic writer, but also because that's more my taste while consuming stories. There are plenty of comedic or kids' stories that I think are great, but that's probably not a style I'm really familiar with replicating though. My style is probably leaning more closely to a bit grittier Sword and Sorcery type of play. I'm probably also more the type that rolls their eyes when the fourth wall is broken. It can be funny and I certainly enjoy it on occasion, but I think I'd probably draw a hard line during important story moments. And if it's something as extreme as express transporting a baton via glitching the action economy, I'd probably laugh but tell my players to stop messing about. I don't want the fourth wall broken canonically.

About the archer, you'd probably find me drawing a line there too. I also like being beneficial and I hope it's understood by now that I don't think rules should be changed abruptly, but I think the ability to perceive a character must be mandated before it can be targeted, even if I haven't looked it up in the rules yet. That's the way it works for spells, if there is nothing in the rules about archers or general targetting, I definitely feel like I have enough argumentation to make a judgment call that I am willing to enforce.

@edit:
One idea I just had would be treating the smoke screen as total cover once the ability to perceive the target is lost both visually and audibly. But there might be more elegant ways to rule this.

Originally Posted by secretID

I’d prefer no disad.

Ye asked, and ye shall receive!

[secretID]

 

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I think you're perfectly right to conclude that RAI, objects aren't creatures or vice versa. But I think to properly portray the game world this is a line that needs to be blurred. And personally, I think this can be done without upsetting game balance or the game experience. Now, I'll also agree that neither of those two factors changes anything about the RAI, but they are what I'm looking to achieve by using the 5e system.

You acknowledge that you’re deciding what’s “proper[]” based on those factors, that you’re consciously choosing to blur the rules’ lines, in conflict with 5e RAW and RAI. You’re therefore not using the 5e system, but a modified version. Broadly speaking there’s nothing wrong with modifying the system, but that’s a different discussion. I happen to be neutral about this particular modification, and I don’t think the very minor modification warrants much discussion.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I'll gladly agree that the RAI of Shove is that weight doesn't matter.

This closes it for me. There’s a maneuver called Shove. If we know/agree on the RAW and RAI of Shove, we’re done.

A Shove is not a shove, just like an Attack is not an attack, so every contrary RL and 5e idea about shoving, as opposed to Shoving, is irrelevant. They gave Shove an intuitive relatable name, but it’s a defined maneuver. So, going forward, for me there is no longer a maneuver Shove; there is, however, a maneuver Glorp, with the exact same rules text. We’ve established that we know what the RAW and RAI of Glorp are, we know what 5e Sizes (distinct from RL sizes) are, we know what Prone is, and we know what a STR contest is, so we don’t have any more questions about the rules of Glorp.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

However, I am of the vehement opinion that the RAI of the CC rules explains that weight does matter generally.

Obviously it matters to some things, by RAW. But we agree that “weight doesn’t matter” for Glorp. Whether weight matters to some other things in the world is left open in the rules, and is irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Now you may argue that one of those is meant to rule over objects while the other rules about creatures.

No; I simply point out that there is a maneuver called Glorp, for which we agree weight is not a factor.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

we're not discussing the RAI of [Glorp] singularly

I am.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I'm looking at the RAI of a knight shoving a creature which he couldn't move if it was an object.

I’m not; I’m looking at whether the knight can Glorp a creature. If I’m purplerook, I don’t ask the DM how I would go about shoving a creature, what mechanics the DM would use. I see this Glorp maneuver in the rules that looks like a good idea, see that it’s possible by RAW and RAI, and tell the DM that I am Glorping the ogre.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

what was the design intent of including the CC rules?

Well, I’m pretty sure it was to provide a means for determining each individual’s capacity to carry stuff. They also provide rules for dragging and pushing things. I don’t think you are arguing (anymore?) that the CC push rules are meant to apply to the Glorp maneuver, but if you are arguing that, you’re therefore arguing that the designers either forgot to mention that interaction in either rules or thought that mentioning it was unnecessary, which ideas I’m not interested in discussing. I’ll also remind you again that shoving is not the same as pushing, and very different than carrying, so even if they had called Glorp “Shove,” there wouldn’t even be the appearance of interaction between the different rules.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Is the game better if we ignore limitations that are introduced by the CC rules because a creature is technically not an object?

You have already agreed

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

that the RAI of [Glorp] is that weight doesn't matter.

…so we’re not ignoring any weight limitations on Glorp.

I don’t think that you contend that the two rules were likely written by people with contrary intentions, but if so I’m not interested in discussing that; that seems extremely unlikely as compared to the much simpler explanation that they wrote simple rules that are less realistic than you would like.[

 

This leaves ADV/disad still out there. As I’ve said, RAW allows you to use them anytime you like. As I’ve said, I have no doubt that RAI is not to consider applying disad to circumstances that are almost universal; I’m not interested in discussing that further.

Moreover, we already agree that the RAI of Glorp is that weight does not matter; even if I agreed with your ideas about RAI of ADV/disad, the specific Glorp rule trumps the general ADV/disad rule. And I reiterate that to regularly consider applying them to Glorp because of weight, when RAW and RAI for Glorp exclude consideration of weight, is no different than regularly considering ADV/disad for gnomes in STR contests or regularly considering it for wooden weapons used against metal armor. The only reason it’s different than applying disad to female’s STR checks is that the latter would hurt people’s feelings.

 

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

[A statement that every DM who declines to consider mass is violating RAW is] not quite what I was getting at.

but

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I think that I'm required to make a judgment, no matter how I want to inform my decision eventually.

and

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I only think the rules require a judgment to be made.

You have repeatedly said that RAW requires you as DM to consider mass and make a judgment. Therefore, any DM who declines to Again, CONSIDER. I know you aren't saying that the DM must choose to limit a Shove. But you have said that RAW requires you to consider it.consider it is violating RAW. You object to that phrasing, but that's the necessary implication. The fact that it hits the ear so badly should tell us something.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I also don't think there is much sense in guessing how popular my personal judgment for this case is.

If you are so confident in you reading that it wouldn't concern you if literally no other knowledgeable person agreed with you (about RAW requiring consideration of mass), then OK.

 

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Yeah. I definitely believe that GMs are intended to fill the holes that the rules leave with making their own judgments.

And I disagree? This last post contained an irritating number of straw men arguments.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Currently, I'm inclined to believe that making judgments is preferable compared to labouring over the rules for hours or having to research opinions about fringe situations on the net.

Another straw man. My judgment about the Glorp rules didn’t even require me to consult the rules, which I already know. To confirm my understanding, I had to read about 5 sentences. I make judgments about legitimately gray areas all the time, after about 10-15 minutes of research.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I think finally we should probably settle whether I should communicate to players at the start of the game that I might apply disadvantage to a shove against a creature that's outside of their character's CC range.

I would be quite annoyed if this happened at an important point because I think it violates RAW and RAI of Glorp and RAI of ADV/disad. I would then be jumpy about you applying ADV/disad at any point based on your opinions about the rules.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I wonder, going by the logic that I quoted, do you think resistances and immunities in the game make it worse? What about the Magic Resistance trait?

Fair point. The counter would be that there should be no consistently applicable rules, for maximum interest. I guess there’s a sweet spot for each of us. Glorp isn’t so common that I need variation within it. Fireballs, in contrast…Resistances force players to prepare and execute tactics for special cases. But you already know that you can’t Glorp everyone; adding a vaguely defined weight limit just causes you to ask the DM instead of simply looking at the creature.

Probably more importantly, Glorp, as opposed to Fireball, is rarely the best move. It’s a situational option to be used by a clever player. There’s no need for an incentive away from Glorp, as compared to Fireball. In fact, fights would probably be marginally more interesting if there were no size limits on glorp, though of course at an increased cost to realism.

[Mindsiege]

 

I think that I've understood where the inconsolable point of contention is. Due to the fact that creatures aren't objects, you are arguing that it is inherently wrong to apply the CC rules while interacting with them. My entire position is based on the idea that the CC rules are intended to be applied to creatures when applicable.

This leads to everything that follows and why from your POV I'm playing a different version of the system. I wouldn't agree with that because my assumption is that applying CC to creatures is intended, but if we can't agree on that then every following consideration we make will be divergent about this point.

Originally Posted by secretID

And I reiterate that to regularly consider applying them to Glorp because of weight, when RAW and RAI for Glorp exclude consideration of weight, is no different than regularly considering ADV/disad for gnomes in STR contests or regularly considering it for wooden weapons used against metal armor.

The distinct difference is that in these three situations, only one of them presents itself to me as a conflict of rules. For me, there is no conflict in the rules about gnomes or wooden weapons, that's why you won't find me concerning myself with them. But following my understanding that CC rules are intended to apply to creatures as well as to objects, this creates conflict in the rules.

As an aside, I was never confused about Shove versus shove. To illustrate that I understood your point, by arguing singularly about Glorp you are avoiding addressing my concerns about the rules conflicts which arise from allowing the CC rules to apply to creatures. The CC rules are the whole reason why I'm even considering relying on the ad/disad rules though.

Moving forward I'll sleep a few nights on whether applying the CC rules to creatures is too much of a hassle for players to adapt to. It would be a fairly easy thing to communicate to the players though. And now that I understood the bones that lie buried, I agree that it deserves prior notice for anybody that firmly expects CC not to apply to creatures, which is a fair expectation for anybody who read the RAW.

At the end of the day, I'll still insist that this isn't about me trying to enforce more realism than the game provides. I'm assuming an intent of CC applying to creatures because otherwise we experience game glitches like the Grapple action changing the ability of a character to pull a creature to the surface of a pool. Glitches like this both influence the game balance and the game experience. I don't believe that these glitches are intended by the system, and as mentioned before I'd like to draw lines that avoid them. Not because of realism but because I think game maneuvres that are glitchy can ruin important story moments. But maybe that leads us back to my expectations about what makes for a good game experience, and that part at least is subjective.

 

Originally Posted by secretID

You have repeatedly said that RAW requires you as DM to consider mass and make a judgment.

I'll admit that I was playing it too loose there with my vocabulary. Word for word the rules are "The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result." Of course I understand that applying such adv/disad happens optionally, and every GM can decide how handwavy they want to be or how many influences they want to consciously or unconsciously ignore. The reason that I've mentioned this as a "requirement" for myself, is because as I've already explained I believe that being too handwavy deletes challenges from the game unnecessarily. So I view this optional rule as something required to consider for the sake of delivering a better game experience. But if you want to determine what I think is generally applicable due to the RAW, then these judgments about influences are optional, not required by the rules.

Originally Posted by secretID

If you are so confident in you reading that it wouldn't concern you if literally no other knowledgeable person agreed with you (about RAW requiring consideration of mass), then OK.

I don't know how you figured that from what I wrote. I can see how my elaborations led you to arrive that I could think that the "RAW require consideration of mass" (which I refuted above, they only allow it), but I'm not sure from where you took any hints about my desire to ignore how the rest of the community plays this. I'm just saying it's mute to assume how many other GMs casually apply CC to creatures. I'm rather confident that there is a distinct population of GMs that does so. Aside from myself, I recall that without Grapple you indeed did apply CC to Storm and you also considered it at first to determine Storm's abduction. So I'm not alone in making judgments similar to mine, though maybe there are fewer people that go as far as to throw disadvantages on shoves. But I imagine reversely there are also some who entirely forbid it, if maybe incorrectly. Either way, guessing the popularity is mute. I'm just saying the consideration isn't as far-fetched as you're making it out to be.

 

Originally Posted by secretID

And I disagree? This last post contained an irritating number of straw men arguments.

You misunderstand that sometimes I'm just conversing, not debating or making arguments. I have no background in debating, neither professional nor through anything but my general education and life experience. In illustrating my general sentiments about making judgments I was only trying to inform you of my position more accurately after you mentioned "I think we differ in our tastes about the ideal amount of DM judgment" with a degree of uncertainty. I agreed with the general sentiment of that quote because I haven't made it a personal goal for myself to minimize judgments. I'm pretty sure that my assertions didn't include anything that was placing value on either position. I even went as far as to explain that I realized a new factor between judgments and optimized play which I could consult as a reason to cut down on making judgments myself. If anything, I argued your position. I do that regularly because my goal isn't debating, but discoursing (not sure if that's a proper verb).

 

Originally Posted by secretID

Fair point. The counter would be that there should be no consistently applicable rules, for maximum interest. I guess there’s a sweet spot for each of us. Glorp isn’t so common that I need variation within it. Fireballs, in contrast…Resistances force players to prepare and execute tactics for special cases. But you already know that you can’t Glorp everyone; adding a vaguely defined weight limit just causes you to ask the DM instead of simply looking at the creature.

Probably more importantly, Glorp, as opposed to Fireball, is rarely the best move. It’s a situational option to be used by a clever player. There’s no need for an incentive away from Glorp, as compared to Fireball. In fact, fights would probably be marginally more interesting if there were no size limits on glorp, though of course at an increased cost to realism.

I agree with your position. Limiting Shove specifically doesn't make things too much more interesting because it's fairly niche. In particular, in HoD it would have only made things more interesting if Kosev had lacked the spellslots to cast Thunderwave. In that case it would have been meaningful because it would have punished a lack of resource management.

[Mindsiege]

Time to use this OOC thread for it's intended purpose!

Yes, please give me a marching order.

I don't predict great odds for a random encounter, so we might move through the transition quickly. Would you like one more opportunity to engage your party or do you want me to take you straight to the goal if possible?

[secretID]

I happy to head to the goal ASAP. I'll think about a marching order and post it soon.

[secretID]

Such an awkward group. Jimmy's the toughest by far, but he's a ranged fighter. They druids are good with Shillelagh, but terribly squishy. Does Loch have a weapon? Jimmy could loan him a rapier.

Tinkerbell
80'
Boanagh & Ilala
Jimmy & Sashaya
Loch

[Mindsiege]

Originally Posted by secretID

Such an awkward group. Jimmy's the toughest by far, but he's a ranged fighter. They druids are good with Shillelagh, but terribly squishy. Does Loch have a weapon? Jimmy could loan him a rapier.

1) The dryads are pretty limited in combat. Both Barkskin and Shillelagh are single usage. They certainly prefer avoiding combat.

2) If asked, Loch would explain about everything on his statblock that I built for you (linked in the table under GM instructions). His equipment is actually complete there, he only brought his fife, nothing further. He is assuming that Jimmy and Boanagh can share food with him and for sleeping, he'll take Boanagh's tarp. For the sake of weapon proficiencies, Loch is no good with rapiers. But he can use a shortsword or shortbow.

[secretID]

Two things I forgot to mention:
1) Tink and Boanagh (if willing) will each carry a little stone or trinket again, as a Darkness target.
2) I think I have full control of the NPCs' casting...? I'd like Ilala and Sashaya to each use a Goodberry casting and distribute 4 to each party member (Tink not included).

And this prompts a series of questions: Assuming an individual has a Goodberry reasonably accessible, what will Tink need to do to feed it to them if they get KOed? Can he do it in raven form? Can he do it as just one item interaction, e.g. move to the individual, change back to imp form, then access and feed the berry?

[Mindsiege]

The dryads will gladly cast Goodberry for you and there are plenty of pebbles around that can be taken into possession. Same trouble with choosing them as targets for Darkness as before though.

About applying the Goodberries, as long as you can outfit your three unprepared party members with some pockets, they'll reasonably have their Goodberries accessible on their person. Then it's a free item interaction to recover and an action to feed them a Goodberry, no matter if Tink is a raven or an imp.

@edit:
By the way, I'm not kidding about the pockets. They'll be reluctant to keep Goodberries in their hands for hours and navigating the caves requires free hands from time to time. And all the newcomers currently have no pockets. Loch can tie stuff beneath his loincloth where he has kept hidden items in the past, but no container to carry the Goodberries.

[secretID]

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

Same trouble with choosing them as targets for Darkness as before though.

I don't remember everywhere discussions went last time. Checking Darkness, it looks like it's a problem for Tink to hold the target during casting, so I guess I'll rely on Boanagh's object. Tink will carry a pouch to put it in to remove it - I know we resolved that. If that won't work for a raven, I'll keep him in imp form.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I'm not kidding about the pockets. They'll be reluctant to keep Goodberries in their hands for hours and navigating the caves requires free hands from time to time. And all the newcomers currently have no pockets. Loch can tie stuff beneath his loincloth where he has kept hidden items in the past, but no container to carry the Goodberries.

Oh, funny - hadn't considered that. I had a running joke with a barbarian character of mine of him pulling out piles of coins, etc. from underneath what was functionally a loincloth of holding.

You know my PCs have gear! Jimmy has 2 pouches, 4 sacks, and a "custom pouch for covering Darkness object." I can't remember what that's about, though I paid quadruple price for it. Was that something you and I worked out? Will the other containers work for the dryads and Loch? (From the Manual pick, it looks like Boanagh probably has pockets.)

[Mindsiege]

Originally Posted by secretID

I don't remember everywhere discussions went last time. Checking Darkness, it looks like it's a problem for Tink to hold the target during casting, so I guess I'll rely on Boanagh's object. Tink will carry a pouch to put it in to remove it - I know we resolved that. If that won't work for a raven, I'll keep him in imp form.

Correct, you'll have to cast Darkness on items before Tink picks them up. And yes, we fashioned Tink a for the future note on your sheet that it's darkling craftsmanship and easily sealed hermeticallycustom pouch item that was perfectly suited to disable a pebble with Darkness or a Lightsource. That's the pouch you mentioned below.

To use the pouch Tink needs his hands, so I'll keep him noted as an imp.

Originally Posted by secretID

Oh, funny - hadn't considered that. I had a running joke with a barbarian character of mine of him pulling out piles of coins, etc. from underneath what was functionally a loincloth of holding.

You know my PCs have gear! Jimmy has 2 pouches, 4 sacks, and a "custom pouch for covering Darkness object." I can't remember what that's about, though I paid quadruple price for it. Was that something you and I worked out? Will the other containers work for the dryads and Loch? (From the Manual pick, it looks like Boanagh probably has pockets.)

Preparedness has its uses! Jimmy can comfortably outfit his party with pockets.

Boanagh has his own stuff and needs no support. Only the dryads and Loch were underprepared.

[secretID]

I think most or all of my questions are for Tink, and of course there may be follow-ups, but I know you like to have substantial IC posts, and of course we don’t want this to take weeks. What would you like?

[secretID]

 

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

my assumption is that applying CC to creatures is intended…following my understanding that CC rules are intended to apply to creatures as well as to objects

I really don’t need to discuss this more, but you just said in your prior post:

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I think you're perfectly right to conclude that RAI, objects aren't creatures or vice versa.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I think that I've understood where the inconsolable point of contention is. Due to the fact that creatures aren't objects, you are arguing that it is inherently wrong to apply the CC rules while interacting with them.

No, I don’t need to say that creatures aren’t objects. I’m saying that we now agree on the RAW and RAI of Glorp, that weight is not a factor in Glorp. Glorp rules trump anything seemingly contradictory when you’re Glorping. If the rules included a maneuver Bave, for toppling objects, and the Bave RAW and RAI were clear, I would use those even if they seemed strange next to the CC rules.

I’ve also repeatedly noted that the CC rules don’t say anything about shoving even with a lower-case “s,” and shoving is in fact different than carrying or even pushing. Ignoring the principle that specific trumps general, neither Glorp nor even Bave actually conflicts with CC, which doesn’t address toppling at all, much less objects with unclear weights, centers of gravity, and pivot points.

It’s unlikely when we’re this deep in, but maybe this will help. If there were no Glorp rules, at some point a player would tell a DM that they want to forcefully move a creature and/or knock it prone, and the DM would have to make up or borrow a mechanic. The DM might look to STR challenges, but might equally reasonably look to CC rules – after all, the CC rules address moving heavy things. Instead, we have Glorp, which gives RAW and RAI that we agree are clear. The DM’s work was already done for them; the question of how the player executes that action is completely resolved.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I recall that without Grapple you indeed did apply CC to Storm and you also considered it at first to determine Storm's abduction.

Right. I thought I was in the hypothetical situation I just described. Before closely reading the Grapple rules, I thought that an unconscious creature was in a gray area not covered by the rules. For reasons you would probably agree with, I considered an unconscious creature to be far closer to an object than a Grapple target.

When I read the Grapple rules better, I saw that they discuss Grappling an unconscious target. That told me that unconscious bodies are properly Grapple targets, subject to Grapple rules, which are independent of CC. The gray area I thought existed does not.

I still think that incapacitated creatures are more sensibly treated as objects, but we have a clear rule, and I don’t care nearly enough to house rule it – and never in a fight anyway. BTW, I resist that mostly for simplicity and consistency, but there’s also a humility issue – perhaps there’s some problem that might arise from treating them as objects, which the designers saw but I’ve missed.

Originally Posted by Mindsiege

I'm assuming an intent of CC applying to creatures because otherwise we experience game glitches like the Grapple action changing the ability of a character to pull a creature to the surface of a pool.

Since you mention it, Crawford also said that weight is not intended to affect the Grapple rule. According to him, they Of course they did; they seem quite intelligent.understood that sometimes the Grapple result would seem strange in light of CC, and accepted that “glitch.”

He also happened to note something I mentioned earlier: “The rule doesn't rely on weight largely because we don't specify weight for most monsters.”

[Mindsiege]

 

So, about whether applying CC to creatures is RAI, my vocabulary leaves me. I think the designers knew that they didn't want creatures and objects treated the same way, which is why they differentiated them and wrote rules that treat them as distinct. However, I don't think that the rules "intend" to make creatures weightless, just because weight is never mentioned anywhere in rules that concern creatures. Hence, I think it's fully in the spirit of the rules to apply CC to creatures in general. That's what I meant, so what I meant with these two quotes you've mentioned doesn't disagree with each other.

Originally Posted by secretID

The DM’s work was already done for them; the question of how the player executes that action is completely resolved.

This is the moment where you'll find me disagreeing. The rules do not settle that adv./disad. should never be applied, and the optional rules to account for situational influences are always in effect. You're saying that the maneuver Glorp settles that targets should be treated as weightless for the sake of resolving the maneuvre. I look closely at the rules of Glorp and then don't see this explicitly written into the maneuvre. Hence in order to resolve the action, I consider if weight is an influence and then I might treat it as such, depending on the situation.

This fully goes back to my conclusion about our point of divergence. The RAI of the designers may have been to delete weight from many game situations, but if it does make sense to consider it, I think DnD is intended to treat weight as an intended variable in the game which also matters for creatures. No maneuvre in DnD is immune against situational influences making it easier or harder to perform the maneuvre. Hence the way that I'm considering resolving the situational application of Glorp. If I agreed with you that weight should be ignored for creatures just like Crawford suggests it should, then we would be in agreement. I really think this is where the point of contention is.

Moving over to the more extreme situation, we have a maneuvre that creates an obvious glitch when applied to an unconscious creature that's drowning. The designers accepted that these glitches are created, but I think even after the decision to leave these glitches unchecked in the game, it's still entirely the GM's call whether they want to do things RAW or make a judgment that makes sense and deletes the glitch (which I think is within the spirit of the rules and why we have rule 0).

I fully respect the design decision to leave glitches in a system when this simplifies the system tremendously. I don't think it's intended for us to respect these glitches as game features. Coming from an IT background, I particularly enjoy laughing about the distinction when it comes up in software: is the flaw we implemented a bug or is it a feature? It's just that I believe the GMs have all the power granted to them to eliminate glitches instead of having to treat them as features. I don't mind that you want to treat glitches as features, especially when it's funny and to the players' benefit. I just don't think this is intended or fully mandated.

PS: I fully get your argument about topple vs. shove vs. push. I just can't see how it affects anything within our adjudication process. Again, this isn't actually about realism for me. I still think that I'm intended to respect weight as an influential force in the DnD universe, and letting maneuvres override weight limitations is a glitch to me, not a feature which I'm supposed to enforce. Once we get into a situation where an actual toppling action is concerned you'll also not find me applying CC strictly. It's all situational.

@edit:
To illustrate what I mean, once my PCs go and touch the 5-ton inverse pyramid which is balancing on its tip where I have put it in the dungeon, you'll be sure that rather than me ruling that it's too heavy to push, they will be rolling a very important DEX save instead.