The Hacker News discussion revolves around the "Peasant Railgun" Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) concept, sparking conversations about rules interpretation, game philosophy, and player engagement. Here's a summary of the key themes:
The Peasant Railgun: Rules Interpretation and Exploitation
A central theme is the debate over whether the Peasant Railgun, a theoretical D&D combat maneuver where a line of peasants pass a projectile to one another to achieve incredible velocity, is a valid or desirable application of the rules. Many users discuss the specific mechanics and edge cases, highlighting the tension between Rules As Written (RAW) and Rules As Intended (RAI).
- "The problem with this interpretation is that it relies on hyper-literal RAW when it's convenient and physics when it's convenient. If you apply the rules of physics to the wooden rod, then the answer is simple: the peasant railgun cannot make the rod travel several miles in 6 seconds. If you apply D&D RAW, the rod can travel infinitely far, but does not have momentum and doesn't do anything when it reaches its destination. You only get the silly result when you apply RAW to one part of it and ignore it for another part." -
plorkyeran
- "I think of a spectrum of RPG participants. At one end you have the mini-maxers, who want to squeeze every advantage possible out of the rules, and at the other end you have the story tellers, for whom the rules are a just framework to hang a story on." -
noelwelsh
- "Technically yes. Is it in the spirit of the rules? Not really, no! And that grey area is where negotiations can happen, and erode one side in favor of the other." -
stego-tech
- "Is it possible under the letter of the rules? Technically yes. Actually no, because there are no rules for accurately simulating real physics. Strictly by the rules, the last person in the chain of the peasant railgun simply throws it at the enemy for exactly the damage number that it would do under any other circumstances" -
bluefirebrand
- "My ruling on this would be that there is no acceleration. Last peasant just drops it on ground. Thus making it pointless setup. That seems most consistent way to me." -
Ekaros
- "The article cites the falling object rules, which I think do mention velocity. This is from the 2nd edition DM guide: When a character falls, he suffers 1d6 points of damage for every 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6 (which for game purposes can be considered terminal velocity). This method is simple and it provides all the realism necessary in the game, It is not a scientific calculation of the rate of acceleration, exact terminal velocity, mass, impact energy, etc., of the falling body. So accelerating the object (increasing its damage) up to some arbitrary cap sounds reasonable. Perhaps limited to twenty times." -
card_zero
- "I think the more simple and complete solution is to limit multiple characters interactions with one object similar to the way the rules limit one character interacting with multiple objects. Note that even without readied actions, an infinite number of characters could still pass an object in the space of a round, each passing it on their turn, so long as they were arranged in space in initiative order, so limiting readied actions both doesn't solve this (and allowing readied actions to be a bypass to others readied actions opens up as much space for exploitation as it closes.)" -
dragonwriter
The Philosophical Divide: Roleplaying vs. Rules Puzzles
A significant portion of the discussion highlights differing preferences in how people play D&D. Some see it as a puzzle to be solved through an optimal understanding of rules, while others prioritize narrative, roleplaying, and the social aspect of the game. The Peasant Railgun is seen by some as an example of the former, to the dismay of the latter.
- "I think games this are most fun when you play within the bounds of the rules (as written) and not consider them reality simulators (...magic...). Then you can approach the rules as merely constraints in which to optimize solutions to problems." -
nkrisc
- "I never could get into DnD because of the roleplaying. To me games are a set of rules which I view as a puzzle." -
nkrisc
- "I personally haven't found much luck with finding tables that focus less on plot and roleplaying. Ever since Critical Role became very popular, the hobby has skewed heavily towards Roleplay and it's really disappointing" -
bluefirebrand
- "I don't know why people bother to play a game with rules when they don't actually want to engage with the rules ever" -
bluefirebrand
- "I'd argue in some ways it's a triangle, with RAW vs RAI being the third point. Someone can minmax either under RAW/taken to the extreme, or under RAI or they can do silly things under RAI or RAW/home brewed." -
foota
- "I think of a spectrum of RPG participants. At one end you have the mini-maxers, who want to squeeze every advantage possible out of the rules, and at the other end you have the story tellers, for whom the rules are a just framework to hang a story on." -
noelwelsh
- "Like you, I'm very much in the role playing is story telling camp. I think the difference is people who, like you and I, want to play in the world, and people who want to play with the world. I.e. they are playing a meta game where they play with the rules to "win". This makes no sense to me, because there is no winning when you play in the world. It's the story you tell that is the point." -
noelwelsh
- "Why the number 2,280? What keeps you from adding peasants until your projectile travels at 0.99c?" -
jks
- "There's also the rule of cool. If it makes the story better/ more enjoyable: have at it." -
altruios
The Nature of D&D and Tabletop RPGs
The discussion also delves into the fundamental nature of D&D and tabletop role-playing games. Participants explore whether D&D should attempt to simulate reality, the role of imagination, DM fiat, and the diversity of play styles that exist within the hobby.
- "I personally adore the Peasant Railgun and other such silly tropes generated by player creativity! Lateral problem solving can be one of the most fun parts of the DnD experience." -
disillusionist
- "DnD 5e seems like it’s already on the generic rules side of things and gives DMs a lot of room for interpretation. That’s why the railgun seems silly. “I guess that’d be a persuasion or performance check, your pick”, etc." -
spacemadness
- "I've definitely had to raise the fact that D&D is not Real Life Simulator at games, both as a DM and a player, when people have argued either that "the rules technically allow this", and "well, in real life, it would work like this." (Sometimes as part of the same argument!)" -
pavel_lishin
- "A number of the responses here say things like this, and I'm picking this one somewhat arbitrarily to call out that "people" isn't the only dividing line - some people very much favor different sides of it at different times, in different moods, in different contexts, to varying degrees." -
dllthomas
- "The 'peasant railgun,' unfortunately, fails all three tests. It isn't really part of the intended combat rules. It doesn't make sense when simulating the world. And it probably doesn't fit into the campaign's narrative because it's too weird." -
ekidd
- "The underlying issue with TFA is that it's a player describing a thing they want to attempt - and then also describing whether the attempt succeeds, and what the precise result is. And that's... not D&D? I mean players could certainly attempt to have several people pass an object quickly with the Ready action, under RAW. But what happens next isn't "the rod speeds up to such and such a speed", it's "the DM decides whether the peasants need to roll a dexterity check" and so forth." -
fenomas
- "It's a microcosm of society that is simultaneously everything to anyone and yet no one thing to everyone. It’s a way to directly engage with the Other via metaphor and indirection. This is D&D." -
aspenmayer
- "It's actually a well-known (at least in my blog circles) problem with D&D. Everyone house-rules things to such an extent that the only thing that most tables have in common is how leveling up works, and exactly which spells they use." -
pavel_lishin
- "At heart a role playing game happens in the imagination of the players. You can play RPGs entirely in those terms, with no real rules and very few numbers, just storytelling and imagination. On the other hand there are of course many tabletop games that do rely on structure, rules, and numbers, but these tend to limit the scope of what may happen in the game by virtue of having limited elements and rules." -
putzdown
- "If we're already breaking biology and meta-physics, why assume basic physics works exactly the same way either?" -
disillusionist
The "LLM-Generated Content" Concern
A brief but notable tangent discusses the increasing tendency for users to suspect that well-structured or particular styles of writing might be generated by AI models like ChatGPT. This reflects a broader societal discussion about AI's impact on online discourse and the erosion of trust.
- "Did you use ChatGPT/an LLM for this comment or do you just write Like That?" -
hooverd
- "LLMs had to learn from somewhere, a lot of internet comments write Like That" -
bluefirebrand
- "It's very jarring when you see it nowadays, and rather unfortunate for people who have that style of writing." -
hooverd
- "I've often written lists of bullet points with bolded headings and nowadays every time I do I feel I have to say that it's not written by chatgpt" -
Macha
- "Welcome to the erosion of trust we are seeing live. Soon we won't trust anything outside of a speaker we can touch physically." -
y-curious
The "Rule of Cool" and DM Fiat
The concept of the "Rule of Cool" and the significant role of the Dungeon Master (DM) in adjudicating unusual situations is frequently mentioned. Many users suggest that whether the Peasant Railgun is allowed or how it's implemented ultimately rests on the DM's discretion and the table's agreed-upon style of play.
- "Of course as games like DnD are also a social affair, it's worth making sure everyone is having fun with something like this, otherwise what's the point?" -
nkrisc
- "Any DM who carefully scrutinizes these claims can usually find the seams where the joke unravels. The DnD authors also support DMs here when they say that DnD rules should not be interpreted as purely from a simulationist standpoint (whether physics, economy, or other) but exist to help the DM orchestrate and arbitrate combat and interactions." -
disillusionist
- "Of course, if a DM does want to encourage and enable zany shenanigans then all the power to them!" -
disillusionist
- "My approach is that there is a tension between three things: 1. The "combat simulator" built into the rules. 2. The simulation of the world. 3. The story. The "peasant railgun," unfortunately, fails all three tests. ... But different tables like different things, so this isn't one-size-fits-all advice!" -
ekidd
- "A note to my DM's: if your players badger you into allowing this, remember that their enemies - typically BBEGs like Kings, Dukes, Wizards, Liches & the like - are much more likely to have two thousand peasants at their disposal than the party is." -
pavel_lishin
- "If I were the DM, I'd allow it.....but the players have to roll for each commoner sequentially to see if they can do their part. And the rolls get harder." -
generalizations
- "If I was a GM encountering this from players, I would absolutely allow it, and then the players would discover the consequences." -
bovermyer